Council not sure about allowing an accessory building on vacant lot
Managing editor
Marion City Council will review and make a decision at a future meeting regarding a building permit that would allow an accessory building on a lot without a primary structure.
The council heard from Nick Nickelson at Monday’s meeting that Marion Planning Commission did not see a problem with Roy Reynolds, whose residence is at 312 N. First, Marion, to build a 700 square foot garage and storage building across the alley from his primary residence on a vacant lot.
The city’s zoning regulations can be interpreted different ways, city attorney Dan Baldwin said.
A city resolution allows larger accessory buildings by way of a variance, which should be reviewed and approved or denied by the city’s board of zoning appeals.
“The question being asked is whether this proposed building is subordinate to a residence,” Baldwin said.
He continued that the definition of “subordinate” can be broad but subordinate to a residence means there should be a residence on the lot or the lot should adjoin a lot with a residence. Since this property is across an alley, the properties are not adjoining.
Nickelson said with the information the planning commission had at its recent meeting, the commission believed it should be allowed.
“I’m not against that but it raises the question of precedence. If you allow this, you’ll be hard-pressed to deny future (similar) requests,” Baldwin said.
Councilman Gene Winkler said if this is allowed with the properties divided by an alley, what is going to keep someone from wanting to do the same thing across a street.
Baldwin said it is a broad definition and the council can deny the request.
The city’s zoning regulations were reviewed, which clearly stated the accessory building must be on same lot as the house or on the same tract.
City building inspector and zoning administrator Marty Fredrickson said a previous request was denied when an individual wanted to build an accessory building on a property without a primary residence.
The council asked if Reynolds owned property east of his house, which is an open lot. The response was no, Reynolds only owns his house property and a lot across the alley, north of his residence.
“If you allow this, you’re opening the door to other requests liked this one,” Baldwin said.
“An exception to the rule allows another exception to the rule,” Smith said. “I think we need to stick by the rule as it stands.”
Olson agreed and said she would stand by the ordinance.
Baldwin said the city could make an agreement with Reynolds that would require the property with the 24x30-foot garage be attached to the property with the residence, so when the property is sold, both properties would be sold together.
Winkler said he would deny it because the properties are not connected.
Councilman Bill Holdeman asked if the alley was closed. Mayfield said the alley could be vacated and the property would revert to the property owners but the city has utilities in the alley and there is a resident who uses the alley to access her property.