Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates clearer rules for accessory structures, detached decks and ‘shouse’ scenarios
Summary
The commission wrestled with ambiguous code language about when an outbuilding, deck or pool is ‘accessory’ versus part of the primary structure and directed staff to draft clarified ordinance language, possibly using building-code separation as a technical test.
The Brandon Planning and Zoning Commission spent the bulk of its meeting discussing how the city’s zoning code treats detached accessory decks, pools and large outbuildings and whether current language creates inconsistent interpretations.
Staff reopened a prior discussion and pointed to two relevant code sections: the accessory-building proximity rule (15-16-2-A-4), which says no accessory building or structure shall be located within 10 feet of a principal structure, and the pool definition (15-16-17), which treats swimming pools as accessory structures. Commissioners and staff noted that those provisions can produce confusing results when a deck or other feature is attached to an accessory pool or sits close to the principal dwelling.
Commissioners debated whether decks should be treated differently from other accessory structures because people sit on decks and they can affect neighbor privacy and sightlines. One member summarized the concern: decks can function differently from garden sheds, and allowing them close to property lines can give neighbors an undesirable view into private yards.
The group discussed several possible fixes: keep a fixed 10-foot separation and clarify definitions of "attached," adopt a different numeric threshold, or apply a technical rule based on building-code separations (for example, the fire-rated separation between a garage and living space) so that areas on the accessory side of a rated wall are treated as accessory for zoning purposes. Staff noted a prior June 15, 2023 precedent in which a deck attached to a pool created a cascade that complicated setback calculations, and that case illustrated why clearer language is needed.
The commission also examined the "shouse" (shop-house) concern — whether allowing expansive accessory buildings or treating the principal structure only by footprint could inadvertently permit garages or outbuildings far larger than the residence. Commissioners generally favored an approach that preserves the distinction between living areas (contiguous, under one roof and of the same quality/finish) as part of the principal structure and accessory buildings as detached, separately finished spaces.
Outcome: Commissioners directed staff to consult building-code definitions and draft ordinance language to clarify "attached" versus "detached" features, the effect of a 10-foot rule and how to treat decks, pools and accessory dwelling units. Staff was also asked to review driveway exceptions for multi-frontage lots to determine whether R2 or twin-home situations should be added to current R1 language or handled by conditional use.
