The Putnam County Board of Commissioners met April 16 for a meeting filled with public comment and discourse as several citizens raised concerns over the board’s proposal to change several lines in the County Code of Ordinances.
One of the more contested revisions dealt with redefining the term “dwelling unit” to include the phrase “with only one internal kitchen.” The intention behind this re-designation is to keep people from constructing a house with separate, but connected, living spaces where one could be rented out to a second party.
Due to the connectedness of the two spaces, the structure could not be designated a duplex, and the inclusion of the single-kitchen requirement was aimed at keeping this kind of rental situation at bay.
However, several public commentators raised concerns about the local government’s authority to restrict the contents of a home. They wondered, if a family has the means and desire to have more than one kitchen in their home, could the board deny them this privilege?
One speaker named several reasons that some people might want a second kitchen, such as when housing elderly parents or family members who are struggling financially.
She even suggested that those with disabled loved ones might want to install a second kitchen that has been altered to accommodate wheelchairs and that certain religious and cultural specifications (such as Jewish food restrictions) are made easier by having a secondary kitchen in the home.
It also was pointed out that a notable portion of Putnam County residences are on the lake, and lakeside houses often enjoy the ease of a secondary kitchen on the bottom floor, as it simplifies hosting parties or cooking outdoors.
This speaker even went so far as to reference case law, pointing to Moore v. City of East Cleveland as an example of legal precedent that allows individuals freedom when structuring their homes to reflect the needs of their own lives.
This dialogue, along with that of five other public speakers, eventually led to District 2 Commissioner Daniel Brown moving for the board to have two more work sessions to review and revise the proposed changes. However, Dist. 3 Commissioner Stephen Hersey opposed this motion, stating he did not want to delay changes any further, while also referring to the previously held work session as “a joke.”
Dist. 4 Commissioner Jeff Wooten also was in support of additional work sessions, saying he found the extensive nature of the documents to be a lot to comprehend and also noted that he wants the work sessions moved by Brown to be public so people can come and listen and better understand any revisions made.
The motion passed with Brown, Wooten, and Board Chair Bill Sharp in favor (Sharp voted in the absence of District 1 Commissioner Gary McElhenney), with Hersey opposed.
“The people deserve to be heard,” Sharp said after the motion passed. “I want to represent the people.”
Hersey then moved that the board adopt the code with a change to 66-20 where “dwelling unit” is defined to instead say “with at least one internally contained kitchen.”
After posing several questions about the entirety of the code and the potential to redefine several lines, namely what constitutes a family, the motion died.
Other topics on the agenda included a request to waive late fees that was denied, the chairman being authorized to sign the Transit Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy without issue, and approval of minutes with a slight change of wording: the terminology is corrected to allow the chairman not to “issue” General Obligation Bonds, but to “sign a resolution” regarding them.