Brighton planning commission advances work session on ADU/caretaker rules, defers final vote

The Town of Brighton Planning Commission on Jan. 15 continued a public hearing and directed staff to prepare revised ordinance language and a staff report for a Feb. 19 workshop on rules for internal accessory dwelling units, so-called IADUs, and proposed “caretaker’s living quarters” that would allow one portion of a dwelling to be used for short-term rentals while the other is occupied by an owner, caretaker or property manager.

The issue matters because state law defines an internal accessory dwelling unit as one that is within the primary dwelling and available for long-term rental of 30 consecutive days or longer, and that definition carries limits the town cannot override. Planning staff and commissioners said Brighton needs a distinct local definition to permit the combination of short-term rental activity and an on-site caretaker without conflicting with the state IADU statute.

Curtis Woodward, planning staff with the MSD, told the commission the state definition is explicit: “internal accessory dwelling unit means an accessory dwelling unit created within a primary dwelling ... for the purpose of offering a long term rental of 30 consecutive days or longer.” He said the proposed approach is to create a separate term — the caretaker’s living quarters — so the town is not forced to apply the state IADU owner-occupancy requirement to every scenario the commission wants to allow.

The commission and staff discussed several use cases: (1) an owner who lives in one portion and short-term rents the other; (2) a long-term caretaker or property manager who lives on site while the remainder of the house is used as a short-term rental; and (3) an owner who uses the second unit intermittently (not as a full-time primary residence). Staff said the draft standards (section 19.42.100.d in the proposed redline) already state that the caretaker’s living quarters “may not be rented as a separate short term rental unit” and “must be occupied by either the caretaker, property manager of the licensed short term rental, or the property owner.” Staff proposed clarifying that “occupied” may include intermittent personal use by the owner.

Public commenters and commissioners repeatedly raised water capacity, enforceability and building-code concerns. Commissioner Tom and others emphasized Brighton’s absolute limits on water supply and asked for a clear process that involves local water providers. Commissioner Tom suggested a practical requirement: a signed water-company review of floor plans so providers can flag projects that would exceed supply or require unusual allocation. Resident Brian Reynolds noted that “the water companies really only provide an availability letter, which is really a condition, rather than any sort of a restriction on the ... allotment,” and urged the town to consider whether the short-term rental permitting process should include water allotment review.

Resident Wendy Smith, who filed written comments, told the commission she agreed the town can allow ADU scenarios broader than the state minimum: “by the very fact that they're saying we can prohibit these things means we can also allow them,” she said, urging staff to consider removing the local provision that currently bans short-term rentals in ADUs rather than inventing a parallel process. Resident Mark Callahan warned against shifting final approval authority for bedrooms or similar limits to water companies: “putting that into the hands of the water company ... might create more problems down the line.”

Commissioners and staff also reviewed building-code implications. Staff recalled that the state IADU statute was negotiated in part to avoid requiring duplex-level fire separations and separate utilities; the proposed caretaker definition is intended to preserve single-family building-code treatment while allowing flexibility that fits Brighton’s mountain-resort context. Commissioners asked staff to confirm with building officials and water providers that the proposed wording will not trigger unintended additional building-code requirements.

After discussion, the commission voted to continue the item to the Feb. 19 meeting as a work session so staff can consolidate edits, address water-provider coordination and clarify language about occupancy and enforcement. Staff said it would prepare a staff report, suggested flowcharts or a one-page “term sheet” to explain options for council and the public, and asked commissioners to forward specific edits over the next week or two.

The decision to continue was procedural: no ordinance was adopted and no change to the code is final. Commissioners and staff repeatedly emphasized they want to avoid conflict with state statute, keep the local process as simple and enforceable as possible, and provide clearer guidance for water companies and building officials before sending a final ordinance to the town council.

Votes at a glance - Motion to accept the 2025 Planning Commission meeting schedule as written: motion made and approved (no recorded roll-call names in the transcript). - Motion to approve minutes of the Nov. 20 planning commission meeting: motion, second and approval (aye vote recorded). - Motion to continue the ADU/caretaker item to the Feb. 19 meeting for additional discussion/workshop language: motion made, seconded and approved (vote recorded as "Aye").

What’s next Staff will prepare a revised staff report and draft language reflecting edits discussed Jan. 15, circulate that material to the commission in advance, and start outreach to water providers and building officials. The commission scheduled a work session for Feb. 19 to continue drafting before a possible public hearing or recommendation to the town council.