Annetta: Council approves accessory dwelling unit

An item on the June Annetta Town Council required scrutiny of city ordinances by the council and understanding between neighbors. In the end, some came away disappointed with the outcome, but all understood the subject was carefully studied and all parties were allowed to thoroughly express their feelings.

A resident on Redbud Lane wanted to build a smaller additional home on their approximately one-and-one-half acre property. Such a building is technically called an accessory dwelling unit, or ADU. The item was brought to the council previously, giving the city and neighbors time to work through the proposed subject.

Annetta has a one home per minimum of two-acre ordinance. The resident intends to allow his parents to live in the separate home, agreeing the home could not be rented out in the future.

The city ordinances allow the variant, but with strict adherence to codes and satisfying the council and neighbors such rules will be adhered to. The council took into consideration the neighborhood is secluded, and the lane does not have through traffic.

Five neighbors spoke in disagreement with the idea, explaining concerns of visual impact, how the home could be used or changed if the property were to be sold in the future, and the fact that everyone in the area knew the one home/two acre ordinance when they built.

One neighbor expressed they did not want to “create the precedent” and that the rule could be bypassed simply when someone wants to build a second home on their property.

The homeowner answered the neighbor’s questions and played a video of the property and existing home to show foliage and trees along Redbud Lane almost obscure view from passing motorists.

Mayor Sandy Roberts noted how well the subject was handed by the neighbors, no matter which side of the subject they adhered to.

“Everyone can voice their opinion, that is why we are here and that is how things get done,” Roberts said.

Details of the zoning codes were read aloud and discussed by members of the council. Councilman Jim Causey noted the provision was in accordance with the rules.

“I appreciate everyone’s interest and the paperwork that has been submitted. I want everyone to know the city is doing their diligence and we are listening to the citizens,” Causey stated.

After 40 minutes of citizen’s input and a lengthy discussion among council members, the item was passed and the plans for the second home were allowed.

Councilman Kent Stasey expressed that a resident wanting a variance with any ordinance will have to go through due process and approval.

“We are not setting a precedent here,” Kent said. “We are working with each person, and if someone were to consider such a thing as this they would have to come to the council and go through the same procedure.”