Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves UDO change to allow larger accessory structures on large lots, 4–1
Summary
Council adopted a text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance to allow a single accessory structure up to twice the heated floor area of the principal structure on lots larger than 40,000 sq ft, with setbacks and separation requirements; the measure passed 4–1 after debate about enforcement and future use.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After a public hearing, the Mebane City Council voted 4–1 to amend the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) section on residential accessory structures.
Planning staff explained that the 2024 rule barring any single residential accessory structure from exceeding the principal structure's heated floor area could disproportionately constrain owners of large lots, especially in the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). The ordinance amendment allows, for lots larger than 40,000 square feet (just under one acre), a single detached accessory structure up to twice the heated floor area of the principal structure provided it meets principal setbacks, is at least 50 feet from the principal structure and is not used as a dwelling or for nonresidential purposes.
Residents and council members raised enforcement and long-term concerns. Blake Dickerson (resident) described a personal example: his 1,259-square-foot home would not permit him to build the storage structure he needs without the change. Some council members urged case-by-case review through variances, expressing worries that a blanket rule change could enable future owners to convert large accessory buildings to commercial uses. Planning staff said existing enforcement tools and setback/density rules would remain in effect and that many properties would still be infeasible due to other constraints (floodplain, watershed rules, covenants).
The council's majority supported the amendment to address reasonable agricultural- or hobby-related buildings such as barns, greenhouses or larger personal garages on very large parcels while preserving standards intended to prevent conversion to residences or businesses.
The ordinance passed 4–1.

