Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustee Van Roe urges exploration of smaller residential lots; motion to refer effort to plan commission fails
Summary
At the March 19 Fredonia Village Board meeting Trustee Van Roe proposed studying a new smaller-lot residential zoning district to support tiny homes and accessory units. Staff warned the work would require plan commission review and comprehensive-plan alignment; a motion to refer the concept failed for lack of a second.
Trustee Van Roe urged the Fredonia Village Board to explore creating a new residential zoning district with smaller minimum lot sizes to increase housing affordability and allow tiny homes or accessory dwelling units.
"The affordability aspect is the main thing," Trustee Van Roe said, arguing smaller lots and prebuilt tiny homes could provide lower-cost options for young families and new residents.
Board members and staff questioned the proposal’s feasibility and long-term effects. Clerk Kirk Johnson summarized the village’s existing code, saying the smallest permitted district currently is RS‑3 with an 8,000-square-foot minimum lot size and a minimum dwelling size noted in the packet. He warned that reinstating or changing zoning language, drafting a new ordinance and aligning the comprehensive plan would be substantial work: "If the comprehensive plan was rolled into it, that's in the tens of thousands," he said.
Trustees raised concerns about whether very small lots or mobile/trailer homes would suit families, how such housing would affect resale value, and whether the village’s infrastructure and tax base could support denser, lower‑value parcels. One trustee noted potential burdens on sewer and water services if multiple small units occupied a single block.
Supporters said regulation could set quality standards and that a careful review might expand housing options without harming the village character. Staff and trustees repeatedly said that any zoning change should include legal review and public hearings at the plan commission level.
Clerk Johnson moved to refer the concept to the plan commission for a formal review; the motion did not receive a second and therefore failed, leaving no formal referral or next step recorded in the meeting minutes.
The board agreed there was value in studying the topic as part of a broader comprehensive plan update but took no binding action at the March 19 meeting.
