Commission weighs moderate‑income housing options and water‑efficiency code; staff to report by July deadline

Rochelle (county manager’s office) told the Tooele County Commission on June 3 that the county must submit or update a moderate‑income housing plan per state law and report on at least three implementation elements by July 30.

She said county staff and attorneys had identified several possible elements that could be added to the county’s plan: create a commercial zoning district allowing higher‑density mixed‑use housing (in areas that have or can connect to water/sewer), reduce/waive certain impact fees for qualifying moderate‑income housing, and eliminate impact fees for accessory dwelling units (ADUs). “It is very difficult for us to accomplish where we do not provide water or sewer services in the unincorporated area,” she said, citing lot‑size and infrastructure constraints.

Rationale and constraints: Staff told commissioners that entering elements in the plan does not guarantee results; the county must both adopt policies and produce measurable outcomes. Rochelle noted that the state changes the program rules frequently and that meeting benchmarks can affect grant priority. The county’s legal staff noted possible implementation details: waivers tied to deed restrictions (5–20 year affordability terms), and that transportation/public‑safety/parks impact fees are allocated differently and may be less flexible.

On ADUs, commissioners raised concerns about definitions and potential abuse (e.g., large second dwellings on five‑acre lots being labeled as ADUs). Staff said health‑department septic capacity and building‑code definitions would constrain ADU size and feasibility; staff suggested targeting detached ADUs that connect to an existing dwelling’s utilities.

Commissioners also reviewed a proposed “water‑efficient landscaping” code the legislature and EPA have recommended. Highlights of the draft: residential limits on turf (35% maximum on a lot, minimum 8‑foot park‑strip grasses allowed in some cases), prohibition of grass in park strips to qualify for a $25 state rebate, and stricter standards for commercial/industrial properties and major remodels. Some commissioners expressed concern about inspection, cost and complexity for residents; one commissioner said, “If they’re only getting $25 rebates to tear out their park strips, why would we make people get a landscape architect and have that inspected?” and asked staff to pursue a more lenient local version.

Direction and deadlines: Commissioners instructed staff to proceed with the three elements already identified and to file the required report by July 30. Staff will research statutory language on impact‑fee waivers and ADU definitions and return with proposed model language and implementation mechanics. They will also continue work on a less‑restrictive water‑efficiency code to bring back for further discussion.

Ending: Staff will prepare ordinance/draft plan language, research statutory requirements for impact‑fee waivers, and return to the commission ahead of the July 30 reporting deadline.