Mantorville residents talk ordinances

A public hearing covering four different ordinances drew comments from several residents at the Mantorville city council meeting Monday night. For months, council members have discussed the wording of different ordinances governing land use in the town and they were ready to make a decision about the ordinances after the public hearing.

David Dripps, Daniel Trapp, Julie and Tom Johnson, and Sharon Davern all gave their opinions about the ordinances.

Most of the speakers felt the suggested changes to the ordinance governing accessory structures were too broad and would allow accessory structures that would be too large on a large lot.

Mayor Chuck Bradford explained that an accessory structure could not be measured just by this particular ordinance; the structure was also limited by the percentage of all buildings’ footprints on the lot. For example, the ordinance states that the footprint of the accessory structure could be twice as big as the footprint of the residence. However, the two structures together could not cover more than one fourth of the lot. 

Mantorville has large lots and small lots, Bradford explained, so the group has struggled with making the ordinance fit all lots by using percentages.

Some people suggested the increase be only twice as big as the structures are now allowed to be. For example, now the ordinance says the structures shall not exceed 900 square feet in total area. Perhaps the ordinance could state that the structures shall not exceed 1,800 square feet in total area. 

The next ordinance addressed bed and breakfast establishments, also called in this particular ordinance, guesthouses or tourism homes. Discussion went on for some time about using the three terms interchangeably.

Audience members insisted that since the state did not use the terms interchangeably, the city should not either.

If a person had an accessory structure on their property with plumbing and electricity, could someone stay there, one person asked.

Next, the group discussed the ordinance governing transitional districts. A transitional district would include property situated between a residential and a commercial district and the ordinance sought to protect residents from the encroachment of a commercial enterprise right next door. However, the ordinance called for a 30-foot setback and if the commercial lot were only 60 feet wide, half the lot would be taken up by the setback.

The last ordinance called for the city to ‘opt out’ of the so-called ‘granny pod’ state legislation signed into law in May.

The legislation allows a resident to set up a temporary family health care dwelling on their property for use by a relative needing assistance without any input from the city or county where the dwelling is located. The nickname ‘granny pods’ came into use when the legislation was passed. The dwellings are 300 square feet in size, are not permanently attached to any foundation, hook up to the home’s electricity and water and have to have their septic systems pumped regularly. The dwellings are only to stay in place for one year. 

Governing bodies have until Sept 1 to opt out of the legislation.

There were no comments from the audience on this ordinance.

The council members decided to table the first three of the ordinances discussed and talk about them again Sept 12.

They did approve the last ordinance opting out of the legislation and council member Will Lambert explained that the council members are not trying to restrict families supporting their families. These particular dwellings have issues with the