Planning and Public Safety Committee - Special Meeting

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Special Planning and Public Safety Committee convened on September 14, 2021, at 5:12 PM in the 2nd Floor Council Chambers of the LFUCG Government Center Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, with J. Brown presiding as the meeting officer. The committee held an informational session focused entirely on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), examining this housing policy topic through multiple perspectives and stakeholder input.

The meeting featured three agenda items, all centered on ADUs: an overview presentation on Accessory Dwelling Units, a public input session, and council discussion on the topic. All agenda items were informational in nature, indicating the committee was in a fact-gathering and deliberative phase rather than taking formal legislative action. The committee heard from 5 members of the public during the public comment period, allowing community members to share their perspectives on ADU policy considerations.

During the course of the meeting, the committee took 2 votes on procedural or administrative matters. The focused agenda structure suggests this was a dedicated work session designed to thoroughly examine ADU policy implications, gather community feedback, and facilitate discussion among committee members before potential future action on this housing issue.

Attendance

All members were present for the September 14, 2021 meeting.

Present: • J. Brown • P. Worley • W. Baxter • C. Ellinger • J. McCurn • S. Lamb • D. Kloiber • A. Bledsoe • J. Reynolds • K. Plomin

Absent: None

Late: None

Votes and Decisions

The committee took two key votes during the September 14, 2021 meeting regarding the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance.

Amendment to Remove New Detached ADUs 3:45:00

Vice Mayor Kay motioned to amend the ordinance by removing new detached ADUs from the proposal, with Fred Brown providing the second. The amendment passed by roll call vote with 8 ayes and 2 nays.

Members voting in favor: • J. Brown • P. Worley • W. Baxter • C. Ellinger • S. Lamb • D. Kloiber • A. Bledsoe • K. Plomin

Members voting against: • J. McCurn • J. Reynolds

The amendment includes a condition requiring review within one year.

Motion to Report ADU Ordinance to Full Council 4:00:00

Following the amendment, Fred Brown motioned to report the modified ADU ordinance to the full council, with Vice Mayor Kay seconding the motion. This motion passed unanimously by voice vote with all 10 members voting in favor:

• J. Brown
• P. Worley
• W. Baxter
• C. Ellinger
• J. McCurn
• S. Lamb
• D. Kloiber
• A. Bledsoe
• J. Reynolds
• K. Plomin

The ordinance will be reported out at the October 12 work session as specified in the motion's conditions.

Public Comment

Five residents spoke during the public comment period, all addressing the topic of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Mary Schmidt 1:00:00 spoke on behalf of the Coalition for a Livable Lexington, expressing support for ADUs as an important tool for both affordable housing and aging in place. She advocated for the proposed ordinance as a way to address housing needs in the community.

Gale Reese 1:05:00 also voiced support for ADUs, particularly emphasizing their importance for seniors. Reese suggested that potential funding could come from the affordable trust fund to help facilitate ADU development.

Jenny Daily 1:10:00 supported the ADU proposal from a personal financial perspective, noting that ADUs could provide financial stability for homeowners. Daily also advocated for implementing a rental registration system as part of the ADU framework.

Marie Allison 1:20:00 shared her personal experience with an ADU, explaining how she had created one for her son with disabilities. She expressed strong support for the ordinance, emphasizing how it could benefit other families in similar situations who need housing solutions for family members with special needs.

Patty Logston 3:00:00 echoed similar sentiments, supporting ADUs as a way to provide housing options for her son with autism. She highlighted the importance of having flexible housing arrangements for families with disabled adult children.

All five speakers expressed unanimous support for the ADU ordinance, with common themes including affordable housing, aging in place, financial stability, and providing housing solutions for family members with disabilities. No opposition to the ADU proposal was voiced during the public comment period.

Contested Items

The primary contested item during this meeting was a proposal regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), which generated significant community opposition and debate.

Accessory Dwelling Units Proposal

The ADU proposal faced pushback from community members who raised several concerns about the potential implementation and impact of allowing accessory dwelling units in the area. The opposition centered around three main issues:

• Enforcement concerns - Community members questioned how the municipality would effectively monitor and enforce ADU regulations once implemented

• Neighborhood impact - Residents expressed worries about how ADUs might affect the character and infrastructure of existing neighborhoods

• Short-term rental issues - There were specific concerns that ADUs could be used as short-term rentals, potentially disrupting residential areas and creating ongoing management challenges

The debate involved community members voicing their opposition to the proposal, though the specific outcome of this contested item is not detailed in the available meeting records. The concerns raised reflect common issues that arise when municipalities consider ADU policies, as communities often grapple with balancing housing needs against neighborhood preservation and regulatory enforcement capabilities.

This opposition demonstrates the typical challenges local governments face when implementing housing policy changes, particularly when residents have concerns about how new regulations might be enforced and what long-term effects they might have on established neighborhoods.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Overview

10:00

Chris Woodall presented an informational overview of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) during this agenda item. The presentation focused on the various benefits that ADUs can provide to communities and property owners.

Woodall highlighted three primary advantages of ADUs:

• Housing flexibility - ADUs provide additional housing options that can adapt to changing household needs and circumstances
• Aging in place - These units allow elderly residents to remain in their communities while having family members nearby or generating rental income to support their housing costs
• Addressing housing scarcity - ADUs can help increase the overall housing supply without requiring new infrastructure or large-scale development

The presentation was informational in nature, providing background knowledge about ADUs and their potential applications. No specific policy proposals or regulatory changes were discussed during this agenda item.

This overview served as an educational foundation for the council and public regarding ADU concepts and benefits, without requiring any formal action or decision from the governing body.

Public Input on Accessory Dwelling Units

1:00:00

The committee received public comments from multiple stakeholders regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) during this discussion item. Five key speakers addressed the committee with varying perspectives on ADU implementation and regulation.

The speakers included: - Mary Schmidt - Gale Reese - Jenny Daily - Marie Allison - Patty Logston

According to the meeting summary, the public input reflected a range of viewpoints, with some residents and organizational representatives expressing support for ADUs while others raised concerns about their implementation. The comments represented diverse stakeholder perspectives on how ADU policies might affect the community.

This was an informational agenda item designed to gather public feedback rather than make decisions. The committee used this session to hear directly from community members about their experiences, concerns, and suggestions regarding accessory dwelling unit policies and regulations.

The public input session provided the committee with community perspectives that could inform future policy discussions and decision-making processes related to ADU development and oversight in the jurisdiction.

*Note: Specific details of individual comments and concerns raised by each speaker were not available in the provided meeting materials.*

Council Discussion on Accessory Dwelling Units

2:00:00

Council members engaged in extensive discussion regarding the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance during agenda item III. The discussion involved multiple council members examining various aspects of the proposed regulations and their potential community impact.

Key participants in the discussion included Council members J. Brown, P. Worley, W. Baxter, C. Ellinger, J. McCurn, S. Lamb, D. Kloiber, A. Bledsoe, J. Reynolds, and K. Plomin, representing broad council engagement on this housing policy issue.

The council addressed several primary concerns regarding the ADU ordinance implementation:

• Enforcement mechanisms - Council members discussed how the city would monitor and enforce ADU regulations once implemented
• Short-term rental restrictions - Debate centered on whether ADUs should be permitted for short-term rental use and how to regulate such activities
• Neighborhood impact - Discussion included potential effects on existing residential areas, including parking, density, and character concerns

The conversation was characterized as informational, with council members seeking clarification on various aspects of the proposed ordinance rather than taking formal action. The discussion allowed council members to voice concerns and explore different perspectives on ADU implementation.

No formal vote or decision was made during this agenda item, as it was structured as a discussion session to inform future deliberations on the ADU ordinance. The extensive participation from council members indicates significant interest in carefully considering all aspects of the proposed housing policy before moving forward with formal adoption procedures.