Huntington planning commission advances Title 9 zoning revisions and schedules July public hearing

The Huntington city planning and zoning commission on June 13 agreed to send a package of proposed Title 9 zoning amendments to a public hearing on July 9, directing staff to draft ordinance language that would add a formal definition and review process for "flag lots," insert a simplified accessory-dwelling-unit (ADU) table and correct several codebook drafting errors.

The move followed detailed staff presentations and commission discussion about safety and consistency. Staff recommended defining a flag lot as "a lot having access to a public street by means of a narrow strip of land where the main body of the lot is located behind another lot," and proposed technical standards including a minimum 24-foot access width and minimum lot area equal to the zone's standard. Commissioners agreed the access must connect to a city road and be sold as part of the building site to avoid separate easement complications.

Commission debate centered on maximum access length and fire response standards. Commissioners noted an existing code limit that "no dwelling shall be located a distance of more than 200 feet from a public street," and discussed how a 250-foot access allowance could conflict with that safety standard. "No dwelling shall be located a distance of more than 200 feet from a public street," one committee member said during debate. To keep dwelling locations consistent with the 200-foot requirement once front setbacks are included, the commission agreed to a 175-foot maximum access length for flag-lot access and to subject flag lots to conditional-use review.

On accessory dwelling units, staff presented a development-standards table intended to make ADU rules easier to apply. The draft table would keep one lot intact rather than splitting properties, require separate water and sewer connections, and generally require one off-street parking space per bedroom. Commissioners supported placing the table adjacent to the development-standards section of the codebook and adding clarifying summary language; staff noted that where table language conflicts with full code text, the code language would prevail.

The commission also reviewed several housekeeping items the codifiers flagged: inserting missing adoption dates into transitional-provisions language, clarifying definitions for "structure preexisting" and "use preexisting" (members discussed a HUD-related hard date for structures and a rolling 25-year standard for preexisting uses), removing an erroneous internal reference in the sign-permit section, and restoring restrictive fence-height wording so the code reads that certain fence heights "may not" be constructed where the intent is to prohibit taller fences. Staff recommended deleting a duplicate, incomplete manufactured-home-park line in the industrial (I-1) zone language.

Planning staff said they will prepare ordinance text incorporating the agreed edits and bring the package back for a public hearing next month; the commission will then make a recommendation to the city council. "I'll go write the ordinance," a staff member said when the commission agreed on the amendments. The commission set a public hearing for its July meeting and adjourned.

The record contains inconsistent transcription of a property owner's surname referenced several times (appearing as "Larry Davis," "Larry Daley" and "Larry Bailey" in different segments); the commission discussed that individual's prior variance but the transcript does not provide a definitive spelling. No formal roll-call vote was recorded in the transcript for the Title 9 forwarding action; the transcript records consensus agreement and staff direction to prepare ordinance language.

Next procedural steps: planning staff will finalize ordinance language and the commission will consider the amendments at a public hearing on July 9; if the commission recommends adoption, the packet will move to the city council for consideration.