Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Accessory Dwelling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brandon planners debate whether large garage-like additions should be treated as dwellings
Summary
The Brandon planning panel discussed whether a proposed large attached accessory structure should be treated as a principal dwelling under local code, weighing aesthetics, code interpretation and enforcement; staff said current definitions of habitable space likely exclude a gym-only addition but cautioned that adding a kitchenette or loft could change the classification.
Brandon planners debated on Tuesday whether a property owner’s proposed large garage-like addition should count as a separate dwelling or remain an accessory structure, a distinction that would affect whether the project is allowed under local zoning rules.
Staff told the panel that other South Dakota municipalities (Sioux Falls, Pierre and Deadwood) treat any structure that contains dwelling space as a principal dwelling, even if the accessory portion is larger; Brandon staff said they have generally interpreted the city code so that the principal dwelling’s use must exceed any accessory use. "We have an apples to oranges kind of zoning code comparison," a staff member said, arguing that Brandon’s conservative reading would likely disallow the owner’s current proposal.
The procedural distinction matters because, as staff explained, a space with only non-habitable functions — for example a home gym, workshop or unheated recreation room — would not meet their narrow definition of "habitable space," which centers on eating, sleeping, cooking and sanitation. "That's where we would draw the line as staff, which would conceptually not allow it under that definition," the staff member said.
Builders and a council member pushed back on the practical consequences. Rob, who was identified in the discussion as working in residential construction, warned that allowing oversized accessory structures could lead to metal shop buildings and other uses that change neighborhood character. "A lot of people when we build ... that's the first question: How big can I make my garage?" he said. He also suggested the city could face difficulties protecting neighborhood appearance if attachments become common.
Several members suggested aesthetic rules rather than use reclassification. One council member proposed determining acceptability from a visual perspective — for example, whether the addition appears as part of the house when viewed from the street — rather than strictly by interior use. Staff noted an existing provision (15168) that governs site-built single-family and multifamily appearance standards and said the panel could investigate material requirements (for instance, limiting sheet-metal siding) to make accessory structures "look like a house." "Is that too far?" a member asked; a staff speaker replied that other municipalities do impose material requirements.
The panel also discussed a practical enforcement gap: covenants and developer restrictions sometimes provide additional limits, but staff said the city will not enforce private covenants and that developers may be gone by the time neighbors complain. The group noted that if the owner installs a kitchenette and loft with sleeping facilities, the structure could qualify as dwelling space under footprint-based calculations, changing the regulatory outcome.
On numbers, staff said they had reviewed permit history and run calculations: they cited a figure of about 1,795 for the dwelling portion (as summarized from an internal email) and reported the attached garage as 1,359 square feet, indicating that adding the proposed space could push the property past accessory-size thresholds. The panel agreed further research was needed; staff offered to review the code language in detail and report back.
No formal motion, vote or decision was recorded; the panel concluded the item would need more study before any policy change. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
