Council proposal on ADUs would bring more development woes to Lexington
The Urban County Council is now considering allowing Accessory Dwelling Units —second fully independent residences — on nearly every residential property inside the Urban Services Boundary in Fayette County. ADUs would be allowed even on lots zoned for single family detached houses only and in multifamily zoned lots which already allow more than one residence.
The Fayette County Neighborhood Council has found a number of problems with the proposed zoning amendment and voted to oppose it in July. Where, you might ask, is this going? Portland, Ore. started to allow ADUs a few years ago and recently changed its zoning ordinance to allow two ADUs per lot. The State of California now allows three ADUs per lot and allows you to do so without requiring additional parking if your property is less than 1/2 mile from public transportation. A sister zoning amendment for Lexington soon will be in Council that largely removes minimum or maximum parking limits. Good luck if you have parking problems in your neighborhood or if you have flooding or sanitary sewer issues and someone decides to put a parking lot in their backyard. You might think that multiple ADUs would never happen here. Consider, however, that the recently completed Nicholasville Road Study concluded that 40’ to 60’ high buildings would be desirable within 1/4 mile of a transit station. Buildings between 1/4 and 1/2 mile of a transit station would have no minimum height but could be 40’ high. This is where “smart” growth is headed.
The proposal creating ADUs, if passed, would permit a neighbor to build an ADU with no neighbor or pubic notice, no hearing, and no public input. ADU requirements are very limited. Planning staff would meet privately with each applicant, and staff would provide an ADU manual on best practices. The applicant would not have to follow best practices or even tell neighbors.
Some of the people who support the addition of ADUs in Lexington in order to help seniors or people with disabilities do not realize that Lexington has allowed second residences on single family lots since 2012. The principal differences are that the number of renters possible for an ADU lot is greater, and an ADU, whether attached or detached, would have to be physically separate from the principal residence. For those of you who may think that requiring an owner to live on an ADU lot might make them acceptable, you need to know that the trend in California and Oregon is to eliminate the owner occupancy requirement.
Lexington’s 2018 Comprehensive Plan, the final report of the Neighborhoods in Transition Task Force, and a study of university neighborhoods from a decade ago, all recommended rental property licensing and inspection in Lexington. Without licensing and inspection in place, we should not expect any reasonable enforcement of zoning and building requirements. Council should request a presentation from Zoning Enforcement and Building Inspection to learn how the LFUCG learns about and deals with occupancy and safety violations. Council should approve rental licensing and inspection before considering an ADU amendment to the zoning ordinance.
If the Council decides to approve the addition of second fully independent living units in nearly all residential lots in Fayette County, it would be more significant than any individual zone change. All zone changes and amendments to the zoning ordinance set precedent and nearly all neighborhoods find this one undesirable. The public needs to engage in the decision. Council will be meeting to discuss ADUs on Sept. 14 and is requesting public comment. The ADU proposal is not a zone change, so contacting a Council Member does not have to wait for a public hearing. The choice to make ADUs “accessory” makes it necessary to allow ADUs everywhere rather than neighborhood-by-neighborhood or lot-by-lot. Neighborhood-by-neighborhood would be preferable to protect an element of public choice and engagement.
Walt Gaffield is President of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, Inc.