Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission reviews ADU draft: internal ADUs allowed, externals discouraged amid septic concerns
Summary
The commission reviewed a draft accessory dwelling unit ordinance that would permit internal ADUs (basement/builder-integrated units) consistent with state guidance while prohibiting external detached units; owner-occupancy, affidavits and county health-septic approvals were prominent concerns.
Spencer Foster presented a draft accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance that mirrors recent state guidance and municipal templates, saying the purpose “is to allow, internal accessory dwelling units and prohibit external accessory dwelling units.”
Foster and commissioners discussed the difference between an internal ADU (inside the main dwelling) and an external ADU (detached unit). Foster explained the principal practical distinction is utilities and health-department requirements: “there's different, utilities Okay. Different water rights, different kind of thing, different health department requirements as well for creating them.” Commissioners noted that Wasatch County health rules and septic-system approvals commonly become the limiting factor for adding living units.
The draft would require owner-occupancy of either the primary dwelling or the internal ADU and would ask property owners to record an affidavit notifying the town if they intend to use an internal accessory dwelling unit. Foster summarized the approach: “the owner of the property has to live in the main dwelling.” The ordinance also contains exceptions to owner-occupancy for temporary circumstances such as sabbatical, military service, hospitalization or temporary job assignments.
Commissioners discussed whether to require permits and inspections or to keep the process simple. Foster said the draft only requires an affidavit rather than a permitting/inspection regime; that approach reduces town administrative burden but yields no direct town revenue and makes enforcement and verification reliant on voluntary reporting.
Participants discussed the policy trade-offs: internal ADUs can provide housing for local residents and youth who grew up in town, while external ADUs (detached units, locked-down RVs or steel outbuildings converted to housing) may produce unwanted density or visual impacts. The commission signaled a preference for permitting internal ADUs consistent with state law while treating externals as disfavored or prohibited pending further discussion of utilities and septic requirements.
No formal vote occurred; commissioners asked staff to revise the ordinance to change county references from “Utah County” to “Wasatch County,” to add owner-occupancy affidavit language, and to return proposed language for additional review and a future public hearing.
