Medford committee outlines ADU ordinance updates to align with new state ADU law; committee discusses scope, special permits and enforcement
Loading...
Summary
City planning staff and consultant Paola Ramos Martinez briefed the Planning and Permitting Committee on mandatory changes under the new state ADU law and options Medford must still decide, including where ADUs will be allowed beyond single‑family districts, whether second ADUs require special permits, and short‑term rental rules.
Medford City Council Planning and Permitting Committee members reviewed mandatory and optional changes to the city’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) zoning on March 12, 2025, after the state adopted new ADU regulations and a model zoning template. Paola Ramos Martinez of Innis Associates summarized the statutory protections now attached to ADUs and outlined choices the city must make when updating its ordinance.
Nut graf: The new state rules make ADUs a protected use in single‑family residential districts and narrow the scope of local regulation, but cities retain choices on whether to allow ADUs in other residential districts, how to treat multiple ADUs on a lot, maximum ADU size above the state minimum, which municipal body grants special permits for additional ADUs, and whether ADUs can be used as short‑term rentals.
Ramos Martinez described the state limitations she reviewed for the committee: municipalities cannot require owner occupancy for a protected ADU; cannot impose discretionary zoning approvals (special permits, waivers, variances) as a condition for a protected ADU in a single‑family district; ADUs generally are not counted toward density limits; and municipalities may not limit an ADU’s relationship to the principal dwelling (attached versus detached) beyond what zoning already allows. She said the statute sets a size cap for the protected ADU at 900 square feet or half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling—whichever is more restrictive—and that municipalities may choose to allow larger ADUs or additional ADUs by special permit.
Council discussion focused on three decisions the city must make. First, should ADUs be allowed by right in residential subdistricts that do not otherwise permit single‑family dwellings? Councilor Lemming and Councilor Singh expressed support for allowing ADUs broadly across residential subdistricts; Councilor Lemming said he would “personally favor” allowing ADUs by right in those districts. Staff clarified that where a district permits single‑family housing by right, the state law requires ADUs be allowed by right for any principal dwelling type in that district (for example, a historic conversion or a multi‑unit dwelling). If the city wants to allow ADUs in districts that do not currently permit single‑family housing, it must explicitly adopt that by ordinance and decide whether to make them by right or subject to a special permit.
Second, councilors discussed allowing more than one ADU on a lot. Ramos Martinez said municipalities may allow additional ADUs, but those extra units typically require special permits. Several councilors favored allowing a second ADU only in limited circumstances (for example, one attached and one detached unit) and suggested the Community Development Board (CDB) as the appropriate special-permit granting authority rather than the City Council.
Third, the committee discussed maximum ADU size and short‑term rental regulation. President Behrs said she would support increasing the size cap to 1,000–1,100 square feet; others urged caution and suggested reviewing the state’s analysis of the 900‑square‑foot standard before changing it. Several councilors and multiple public commenters urged that the city not permit ADUs to be used for short‑term rentals if the goal is to expand year‑round housing supply; President Behrs explicitly said she would not support allowing short‑term rental of ADUs.
On enforcement, staff and councilors acknowledged existing challenges with enforcing Medford’s short‑term rental rules and asked staff to investigate enforcement models used by other municipalities and to consult the building commissioner and the city’s legal counsel.
Next steps: staff and the consultant will draft ADU ordinance language that (1) implements the mandatory state changes for protected ADUs; (2) proposes where ADUs will be allowed by right beyond single‑family districts and where additional ADUs require special permits; (3) recommends a special‑permit granting authority (the committee favored the Community Development Board); and (4) includes options on maximum ADU size and short‑term rental treatment for further committee review.
Ending: Committee members agreed to return to the ADU text in a future meeting after staff and consultants circulate draft ordinance language and enforcement analyses.
