Planning staff proposes 5-acre owner-occupancy ADU rule to limit subdivision of farmland
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Planning staff presented a draft accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulation that would allow one ADU per parcel of at least five acres, require owner occupancy, limit size to 50% of the primary dwelling (max 1,250 sq ft), and exclude travel trailers or RVs; staff asked for comment before planning commission review.
Planning and zoning staff presented a draft accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulation to the Scott County Fiscal Court on Aug. 1 that would allow a single ADU by right on parcels of five acres or more, include an owner-occupancy requirement and limit ADU size to 50% of the primary dwelling (not to exceed 1,250 square feet).
Holden Fleming, planning and zoning staff member, told the court the draft is intended to add incidental housing options without creating de facto subdivisions or converting prime farmland into multiple independent parcels. "We don't want to create a situation where essentially we're creating subdivisions without creating subdivisions," Fleming said.
The draft would allow either the owner to live in the primary dwelling or the ADU, and it would permit long-term rentals but prohibit short-term rentals. ADUs would share the primary driveway and deed; separate utility meters are optional but would require coordination with the local water service provider. Fleming said the draft requires coordination with water providers for additional service and recommended applicants contact their water service prior to building.
Why it matters: Staff framed ADUs as a tool to provide long-term housing options while protecting agricultural land and avoiding an influx of new short-term vacation rentals. The draft also aims to keep ADUs close to the primary dwelling (within 300 feet) and to disallow tiny homes on trailers or other structures "not originally intended" as permanent residences.
Court members raised questions about enforcement of the owner-occupancy requirement and neighborhood compatibility. One court member asked how the county would know if an ADU was being used as a rental rather than by a family member; Fleming said enforcement typically begins with a friendly letter, followed by visits and fines if necessary, and eventual planning-and-zoning enforcement if the issue persists. He noted the county currently requires registration for vacation rentals, which can help flag noncompliant uses.
A court member suggested design standards to encourage ADUs that blend with the character of existing properties; Fleming noted that planning typically does not enforce siding or roof-pitch details and that deed restrictions or homeowners associations often govern styling. He also cited recent state legislative changes affecting mobile-home enforcement and expressed caution about adding strict aesthetic rules in county code.
No formal action was taken. Fleming said the ADU draft has not yet gone to the planning commission; it remains a preliminary document for court feedback before formal planning commission review.
Ending: Staff asked the court to review the draft and provide feedback and said the department will continue work on cluster-development and transfer-of-development-rights drafts.