Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee reviews draft ADU standards; staff will send refined text to planning commission

5905994 · October 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Business & Development Services presented a draft that would expand accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to R-20, R-15 and R-12 zones and add standards on height, setbacks, parking, architecture and prohibited forms; council members asked for clarifications on height, placement and whether shipping-container conversions could meet design standards.

City staff presented a draft Oct. 6 that would expand Mauldin’s allowance for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) into additional residential zones and add detailed standards covering height, placement, parking, architectural compatibility and prohibited building types.

Under current code ADUs are allowed only in smaller-lot residential districts (R-10, R-8, R-6, RM-1, RM and RO). The draft would also permit ADUs in R-20, R-15 and R-12 districts. New standards in the draft include a maximum of two bedrooms for ADUs, a maximum height set at two stories or the principal residence height (whichever is less), minimum setback and placement rules intended to keep detached ADUs at the rear of the principal dwelling and at least 10 feet from the main house, driveway/parking requirements and design guidance so new or converted units match the primary residence. The draft also lists prohibited forms — mobile homes, manufactured homes, RVs, travel trailers, shipping containers and prefabricated metal boxes — though council members asked whether a shipping-container conversion that meets facade and architectural standards might be acceptable.

Council members raised several implementation questions: whether the two‑story maximum should be tied to the principal structure (an example of a one-story house with a two-story ADU was discussed), how to interpret the rear-placement requirement for lots where an accessory structure sits to the side, and how parking will be required and enforced. Staff said some items were redundant and that the draft could be adjusted (for example, clarifying that entryway rules applied primarily to attached ADUs). No vote was taken; staff will refine the draft and send it to the planning commission for formal review.