he Woodside Town Council got a "lesson in humility," as Councilman John Blake put it, at a joint study session with the Planning Commission on March 7. A capacity crowd wedged into Independence Hall to give town officials a dressing down over a proposal to limit the size and number of accessory living quarters.
Although they took no action, Town Council members, in their comments, backed away from their support for some rather sweeping restrictions on accessory units, making it unlikely that the revisions to town zoning ordinances will be voted into law in their current form.
While a broad range of residential building and development regulations were on the evening's agenda, town regulation of accessory living units -- a term that includes anything from a guest house, mother-in-law cottage or basement apartment -- dominated the discussion.
In particular, the Town Council's proposal to require an accessory living unit to be attached to the main residence on parcels smaller than 1.5 acres, a reduction from the previous one-acre minimum, drew a great deal of ire.
"I'm not sure who thought of this silly idea, but I'd like them to forget it," said Rich Bontempi.
Mr. Bontempi was one of a large and at times boisterous contingent of residents from the Woodside Hills neighborhood east of Interstate 280 who felt that their property rights would be eroded under the Town Council's plan.
The architect of the proposal in question, Councilman Pete Sinclair, was absent from the meeting.
Councilman Joe Putnam, who is fiercely opposed to the council's additional restrictions on accessory units, apologized to the crowd for having brought up the accessory living unit rules at all.
"I wanted accessory living units in barns," he said. "Maybe I was stupid to have brought it up. I'm willing to back off on that at this time."
Councilman Paul Goeld, who represents Woodside Hills, said that if he didn't support keeping the regulations as they are, he would get lynched on his way home.
"They know where I live," he joked.
Fully understanding Woodside's building codes is hardly an easy task. Then, there are two proposed sets of revisions to the accessory living quarters rules under discussion:
**The Planning Commission's proposal, which would loosen restrictions on renting out accessory living units and allow them to be built inside barns, but would otherwise leave the existing ordinance mostly intact.
**The Town Council's proposal, which would have reduced the maximum allowable size of accessory living units on all but the largest parcels of property, and would have banned detached units on lots smaller than 1.5 acres.
"It's been eight or nine years since last major change (to zoning codes), and it's taken me at least that long to understand them," said Woodside resident Bill Butler. "If you change them now, it will take another 10 years for me understand them -- and I build for a living."
Many people, several planning commissioners among them, asked the council to forget about revising the ordinance at all and leave things the way they were.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it," was a common refrain that was picked up by several planning commissioners and Town Council members.
The Town Council and the Planning Commission took no action on the matter, and it was pointed out several times that the point of a study session is to foster discussion, not to make a decision and vote.
Planning commissioners were quick to remind the audience that they had nothing to do with the controversial proposal and that the recommendation they sent to the Town Council would do little more than allow accessory living units to be built in barns and would remove virtually unenforceable distinctions the town made between rental and nonrental accessory living units.
Councilman Goeld agreed.
"I think the planning commission did an excellent job, and the Town Council screwed it up," he said. "I think we should listen to the people who live here."
Mayor Carroll Ann Hodges argued in favor of the need to preserve the town's rural atmosphere and prevent its overdevelopment. She said that many of the people opposed to the plan could be accommodated if the restriction against detached accessory living units was triggered by lots of smaller than one acre rather than those smaller than 1.5 acres.
"There's certainly room for discussion," she concluded, and then encouraged Woodsiders to send written commentary to town hall.
