By Brian Gilliland

GEORGETOWN — Finding that a draft ordinance that had already been through several layers of county evaluation had neglected to consider certain lot sizes, Sussex County Council decided to stall a decision about accessory dwelling units Tuesday.

Members said that not addressing lot sizes smaller than 20,000 square feet may limit the effectiveness of adding such units to most of the eastern portion of the county, so they will revisit the issue once a process for smaller lot sizes could be implemented.

Georgetown lawyer David Hutt made the persuasive argument during council’s meeting.

“I do agree with the ordinance, and obviously, it is well intentioned and needed in Sussex County,” he said. “My concern is the ordinance could have the unintended consequence of not helping as many people as you hoped to be helping with this.”

And that’s because of the 20,000-square-foot minimum lot size required to host an accessory dwelling unit on a property, Mr. Hutt said.

“While affordable housing is an important concern in Sussex County, ... we know, on the eastern side of the county, it is a particularly dire need because of the cost of real property in those areas,” he explained.

But the lots in that region reach 20,000 square feet less often than other portions of Sussex.

“The area where there is the most acute need may not be served by this, and where I think the unintended consequence comes in is there’s not even a process for a person who has a 15,000-square-foot lot, or you’re in a ... subdivision and have a 10,000-square-foot lot — there’s not even a process anymore,” Mr. Hutt said.

He suggested developing a process for smaller parcels. Asked by the council if there was a minimum size he would favor, he said no.

“I wouldn’t put a minimum lot size, and the reason I say that is because I think if a person’s not going to have any exposure to a public hearing, where the smaller the lot, the closer you are to your neighbors,” the neighbors are going to be attentive to the process and participate, he said.

Agreeing that there are places in the county where an ADU wouldn’t work, Mr. Hutt said he would like the process to be available to the greatest number of people at the start.

Meanwhile, Vince Robertson, one of the county’s attorneys, saw two approaches to the issue. One would be to adjust the number of square feet to a number decided by the council, while another would be to keep the lot size at 20,000 but allow for exceptions before the Board of Adjustments.

“A point to consider is not so much whether it fits on the lot (but) whether it’s attached, detached or reconfiguring inside space on a home,” as well as parking requirements, especially in zones that allow narrower streets, Mr. Robertson said.

Regardless, he said, it’s important that the decision is not taken lightly.

Council President Michael Vincent agreed, and once the members deferred the decision, he said, “We’ll refer it to whoever wants to talk to you guys about what size they think.”