Dozens speak out against proposal to allow granny flats and tiny houses in Lexington

A proposal that would allow granny flats, detached tiny houses and other accessory dwelling units in Fayette County neighborhoods drew criticism from neighborhood groups but praise from aging and disability advocates during a Thursday hearing.

More than 45 people weighed in on the controversial proposal at a Urban County Planning Commission meeting Thursday. The commission could take its first vote on the proposal at a meeting on Oct. 21, said Frank Penn, acting chairman of the Urban County Planning Commission.

If the planning commission approves the ordinance changes that would allow accessory dwelling units without special permission from city planning bodies, it will then go to the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council for final approval.

The proposal has been in the works for more than 18 months. Planning staff received a grant from AARP to develop a homeowner’s guide to building accessory dwelling units in addition to hosting several public meetings to discuss the proposal.

The proposal would allow one accessory dwelling unit per lot. The maximum allowed size for an attached unit would be 800 square feet, but the unit could not be bigger than the original house. In some cases, depending on the size of the house, the maximum could be 625 square feet. An additional parking space for the unit would not be required unless the home is in the infill and redevelopment area, which includes much of downtown. Infill and redevelopment areas have minimum parking requirements.

If an owner wants to build an accessory dwelling unit for a short-term rental — such as an Airbnb — the owner would have to live on the property. An owner would not be required to live on the property for a long-term rental.

City officials said there is no other zoning designation — such as townhouses and apartments — that requires owner-occupancy.

Other cities that required owner-occupancy later changed that requirement because it was too prohibitive and too few accessory dwelling units were built, city planners said.

In Durham, North Carolina, the city was forced to delete its owner-occupancy requirement after a court said the city could not regulate ownership, only land use.

“We have looked at all the challenges and failures and success of ADUs across the country,” said Chris Taylor, a long-term planner who has helped draft and research the accessory dwelling unit proposal. “We expect to have another 80,000 people by the year 2035. An estimated 30,000 of those will be senior citizens.”

This is a way to keep to seniors in their homes, Taylor said.

Taylor said the vast majority of cities that allow accessory dwelling units have largely seen attached accessory dwelling units. Detached units are costly, he said.

“The most common is an attached ADU,” Taylor said. “It’s much more affordable to build a basement or attic (ADU).”

Taylor also said fears that accessory dwelling units will be built for student housing are unfounded. There is an ordinance that limits the number of unrelated people who can live together in one residence to four.

The proposal has no design restrictions.

Opponents of the proposal said current zoning regulations allow for attached accessory dwelling units if the owner gets the required permits. For detached units, homeowners have to appear before the Board of Adjustment.

The current process allows for much-needed review and oversight, some opponents argued.

“This draft ordinances not only does not protect and preserve existing neighborhoods, it is, as worded, destructive,” said Mark Streety, president of the Ashland Park Neighborhood Association, in a letter to the commission.

Walter Gaffield, president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, said the city’s enforcement of regulations for rental housing and short-term rental units is non existent. Accessory dwelling units will only exasperate this problem, he said. At neighborhood council meetings, only one person supported allowing accessory dwelling units, he said.

“Licensing and inspection (of rental units) does not exist in Lexington,” said Gaffield. “It was requested by a task force ten years ago and it still hasn’t happened.”

The Stonewall Neighborhood Association board also recently passed a resolution opposing accessory dwelling units.

“Eight unrelated persons living on the property is a concern,” said Janet Cabannis of the Stonewall neighborhood. “There is also no efforts to hire additional staff” to inspect the units and determine if it is a long-term or short-term rental.

Sara Smith, vice president of the Ashland Park Neighborhood Association, said the neighborhood isn’t opposed to all accessory dwelling units.

“We just don’t think this is the right path,” she said.

Smith said in Portland, Oregon, approximately 25 percent of the city’s accessory dwelling units are short-term rentals. That’s too many short-term rental units, she said. Ashland Park and other neighborhoods are already struggling with unregulated short-term rental units, she said.

“Ownership keeps neighborhoods healthy,” Smith said.

Mary Campbell of the Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association asked the planning commission to postpone a decision on the ordinance indefinitely. Campbell said the ordinance was too broad. She was concerned accessory dwelling units would be concentrated in older, downtown neighborhoods such as South Hill because it no longer has deed restrictions.

“Most of the newer neighborhoods built in the past 35 years have deed restrictions,” Campbell said.

Jennifer Braddock, of the Northside Neighborhood Association, said the proposal would turn many single-family homes into multi-family units with up to eight unrelated people in downtown neighborhoods.

“We don’t see why it can’t be added as a conditional use,” Braddock said. A conditional use requires approval by the Board of Adjustment.

Braddock said the lack of parking requirements will also create headaches, particularly for downtown neighborhoods.

The majority of those who spoke during the four-hour public hearing spoke against the proposal, but several supported it.

Some said the proposal would allow the city to slowly add density and housing. It also would help seniors and people with disabilities remain in their homes.

Blake Hall said the fear that allowing accessory dwelling units will result in more student housing doesn’t make sense. They are too expensive to build, he said.

“An investor can right now buy a house and make it student housing,” Hall said. “It allows housing in our existing neighborhoods.”

Susan Bachner, a member of the city’s senior services commission and a retired therapist, said her former clients include the elderly and the disabled. Bachner said she had several former clients who would have benefited from staying in their home or having a caregiver or family live in an accessory dwelling unit.

One former client had advanced Parkinson’s Disease in his 50s. He had to go into a nursing home because there were no other options, she said.

“Think of the personal dignities allowed by an ADU,” Bachner said.

Gale Reece, a long-time advocate of seniors, said many senior living communities cost upwards of $35,000 a year. But many seniors can’t afford that, studies show. Reece said accessory dwelling units will give seniors who may have a family member who wants to live with them another, more affordable option.

Vicky Roark has a granddaughter with autism and a mother who needs care. Roark said an accessory dwelling unit would help her granddaughter, now in her 20s, stay at home and give her independence.

“I believe we should be able to keep our family together,” Roark said.

Ginger Watkins, an architect, said she, too, supported the proposal.

“Many people are renting later into life,” Watkins said, noting she rented until she was in her mid-40s. “I hope we can see renters as neighbors.”

This story was originally published September 26, 2019 at 5:08 PM.