Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Interestingly, the statute provides for a single six-month period of installation, and the option <br />for one additional six-month period. The statute also provides for an extensive process of <br />permitting and locational regulations that would supersede a community’s normal review <br />process. It is not clear how the statute might apply to somebody who wishes to apply for a <br />third six-month period – it would appear that the statute prohibits that extension. <br /> <br /> <br />Summary and Alternatives. <br /> <br />1. The municipality may choose to do nothing, and allow the statute to go into effect. In <br />this case, all of the details of the law, including size, location, construction, delivery, <br />timing, and process would be regulated by the statute. <br /> <br />2. The municipality may decide that it wishes to allow Temporary Family Health Care <br />Dwellings, but prefer ordinance details more tuned to its specific requirements and <br />zoning objectives. Examples of alternatives preferred by the municipality might be <br />providing for site-built facilities, differences in size or materials, differences in location <br />or screening requirements, the use of interim use permits or conditional use permits, or <br />alternative notice requirements, just to name a few. In such a case, the municipality <br />should take action to adopt an ordinance opting-out of the statute, and proceed to <br />adopt its own regulations. It will be important that the municipality opt-out of the state <br />law, or the statute may have the effect of pre-empting the preferred alternative. <br /> <br />3. The municipality may decide that only attached accessory units are suitable in their <br />community. Again, the municipality will need to take specific action to adopt an opt-out <br />ordinance to avoid the effect of MN Stat 462.3953 prior to September 1, 2016. <br /> <br />4. The municipality may decide that it does not favor accessory units. Instead, families <br />which are considering providing health care to their family members can do so within <br />the confines of a single family home. It may be necessary to add some definition to <br />what constitutes a separate residential use (especially cooking and sanitation/plumbing <br />facilities) to ensure that single family homes are not accidentally modified to create <br />additional dwelling units on the property. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />Planning staff recommends that the City follows one of the Alternatives above to adopt the <br />“Opt-out” ordinance as an amendment to its zoning ordinance. The statute addresses an <br />issue that is worthy of discussion – the housing of aging relatives needing family care – but <br />does so in a very narrow manner. The City may wish to discuss the issue more broadly, as <br />suggested in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, and consider other regulations to address this issue. <br /> <br />Currently, Little Canada does not provide for accessory dwellings, and instead generally <br />follows Alternative 4. Options can be discussed at the meeting for future consideration if <br />desired.