Does a kitchen define a house, or is it bedrooms? This was just part of the confusion that prompted the Town Council to delay any decision on Zoning Ordinance amendments related to accessory buildings on a residential lot.

Actually, the council was looking at a change related to detached accessory buildings larger than 120 square feet, and how they might share a lot in a single family zoning district.

Any of the proposed changes would likely be applied more often to corner lots due to some awkward definitions of front and side yards. The common definition for the front yard on conventional lots is the narrow side of the lot, usually facing the street. Place a lot on a corner and the house can easily be turned on its side.

When there are two street faces it becomes easy for a property owner, architect or builder to look at the longer side as the prime location for the front of the house. This is fine, except when you start digging into zoning regulations that talk about setbacks for side yards, rear yards and front yards. The setback is the distance that must be maintained between a structure and the property line, and that will usually vary between the front, side and rear.

If a homeowner wants to add an accessory building to their lot for a garage or a casita, they might find themselves running up against a setback regulation that won’t accommodate their plans.

Town Senior Planner Marissa Moore said she is receiving more requests for the detached large accessory structures and is proposing changes to definitions and how accessory buildings are placed on lots. The intent is to require detached structures to be located in an area of the property that would be “incidental” to the main house, Moore said in her report.

“These requests are becoming more frequent as more residents [want] to have family – primarily aging relatives – nearby while still providing private personal space,” Moore said.

Councilman Dennis Brown complimented Moore on the effort she had put into the amendments, saying she has done a great job. He then asked why the town still restricts allowing a kitchen in an accessory structure that might be used as a casita, where a person is likely to want one.

“This is archaic and I would like to strike that regulation from the ordinance,” Brown said.

Moore explained her position by saying that if you add a kitchen you, by definition, have two houses on a single family lot.

Brown, a general contractor, added that he believes that a “house” is defined by the number of beds it can accommodate, and just one would not be considered a house, and the kitchen would not be considered.

Councilman David Spelich said he would be concerned that people would use the accessory buildings as rental units.

Moore said the Zoning Ordinance addresses the rental question as best it can, but state statute does not allow the town to restrict rental opportunities.

If all this sounds confusing, a couple council members would likely agree. Councilman Alan Magazine asked for a continuance, or postponement, of the decision until he had time to sit down with Moore and talk to her one-on-one to get some questions answered.

Spelich, who is new to the council and unfamiliar with zoning regulations, also said he would appreciate additional time to sort out the questions being considered.

“I want to know what I am voting on,” Spelich said.

The council voted 7-0 to continue the discussion until its next session on Tuesday, Jan. 15.