Elizabeth commission recommends 150% accessory-building limit

The Elizabeth Planning Commission recommended Aug. 4 that the Board of Trustees reject Ordinance 26-11, which would remove the proportionality cap for accessory buildings, and approve Ordinance 26-12, which would allow one accessory building to reach 150% of the principal home’s footprint. The motion passed with one opposing vote, but the record does not identify that commissioner or provide a full roll-call breakdown.

The Board has scheduled a public hearing and possible consideration of the ordinances for Aug. 11. The agenda does not establish that the meeting has occurred or that the Board has voted.

Both proposals would retain the existing rule limiting all accessory buildings combined to 25% of a lot’s area. They also would continue to exempt detached structures of 200 square feet or less from building-permit requirements if they contain no utilities. That is a permit exemption, not an exemption from other town regulations, according to the town’s ordinance attachment.

Under Ordinance 26-11, a single accessory building could exceed the home’s footprint, subject to the lot-coverage, height and setback rules. Town staff said a typical 9,000-square-foot R-1 lot would allow no more than 2,250 square feet of total accessory-building coverage under the 25% cap. Ordinance 26-12 would allow a 1,600-square-foot home to have one 2,400-square-foot accessory building — a 40-by-60-foot structure — if it met those other requirements. The examples do not describe a specific property or application.

Town staff opposed removing the proportionality cap, citing concerns that very large garages, shops or pole barns could alter neighborhood character and complicate enforcement against commercial activity in residential districts. Staff supported raising the single-building limit from 100% to 150% instead. Owners seeking larger buildings could request an exception from the Board of Adjustment.

Neither proposal would change setbacks. In an R-1 district, an accessory building may be 2 feet from an interior side lot line and 10 feet from a rear lot line, compared with 7 feet and 25 feet for a home. Staff noted that a structure potentially as large as 2,400 square feet and 20 feet high could be placed closer to a neighboring property and identified a possible future setback-code amendment, but the record does not show that the commission or Board directed staff to pursue one.

The recorded commission hearing shows no public speakers or separate applicant presentation. The records reviewed do not identify a pending accessory-building application, named applicant or specific affected property. If adopted, either ordinance would take effect 30 days after publication, according to the town staff memo. The Board’s action, vote tally and any direction on setbacks remain to be confirmed.