Smithville holds public hearing on proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance; commissioners discuss scope and standards

The Smithville Planning and Zoning Commission opened a public hearing on a proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance and heard support from residents Bill and Jamie Talley.

Bill and Jamie Talley, who stated their address as 801 Northeast 948 Terrace, told the commission they support ADUs because the Talleys plan to live in an ADU on their 40-acre property and build the primary dwelling. "We're basically here because we're in favor of the ADU," Jamie Talley said during public comment.

Staff told the commission Will drafted an ordinance that consolidates discussion items from prior informational meetings. Jack, a city staff member, explained the draft is meant to capture every option and that much of the final text will be placed into other code sections (definitions, use categories, conditional-use rules) rather than leaving the ADU language as a single standalone ordinance. Jack said the draft will be revised to match existing code organization and returned for a final public hearing.

Commission discussion focused on several technical points: who should have authority to waive appearance standards, which zoning districts should allow ADUs, and whether certain agricultural and manufactured-housing districts should be retained. Commissioners asked that language giving sole waiver authority to the planning commission chairman be changed to a provision that references the planning commission as a body. The commission also discussed removing the R1M (manufactured housing) district from the ADU list because it could cause future issues; a member noted manufactured-housing districts typically require larger minimum acreage (10 acres) and are not the ordinance's focus.

Staff also noted a state-level development affecting building codes: "the 2021 energy-efficiency code has been made illegal in Missouri now, and now everything reverts back to 2009," Jack said, explaining the city's building-code references will have to reflect the state action. (Staff described the state action during discussion; the ordinance draft itself does not change building-code text but will be coordinated with the building-code office.)

Commissioners asked staff to clarify floodplain and downtown B-4 implications, noting that some houses in the B-4 district sit near the floodplain and may face constraints. Staff said the draft left appearance standards open to allow future specificity; commissioners favored substituting "planning commission" for references to the chairman when discussing waivers. Jack also described steps to fix a public-notice error for this hearing: future notices will go through Brandy for review and direct submission to the newspaper.

No formal vote was taken on the ordinance at this hearing. Staff will incorporate the commission's direction, split the provisions into the appropriate code sections, and present a final version for a subsequent public hearing and vote.