Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwellings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mayfield council reviews accessory dwelling rules, septic limits and draft ADU ordinance
Summary
Council members reviewed state limits on internal ADUs, concerns about septic capacity for external accessory dwellings, and asked staff to draft ordinance language that would allow some ADUs subject to septic/perk-test and leach-field requirements.
At a recent Mayfield Town Council meeting members discussed accessory dwellings (ADUs), how state policy limits local control of internal ADUs, and whether the town should permit certain external accessory dwellings subject to septic-system and health-department requirements.
Council members said the town’s existing ordinance currently prohibits living or sleeping quarters in accessory buildings but noted a state change that restricts municipal ability to ban internal ADUs (for example, basement apartments) intended to expand housing options. Members raised the town’s constraint as a community with septic systems rather than sewer service: adding separate living units can increase septic pumping frequency and may require separate septic systems and replacement leach fields.
The discussion covered specific local examples: several property owners have converted barns or metal accessory buildings into living quarters without permits; one recent approval for an accessory building with an office included a condition to install a separate septic tank. Council members and staff agreed that an ordinance could allow certain accessory dwellings but tie eligibility to health-department approvals (perc/perk tests), required septic design (initial plus replacement leach fields), and lot-size thresholds.
Staff noted a draft ADU ordinance sample was in the council packet and offered to refine it for Mayfield’s context. Council members directed staff to review the sample, consider septic and leach-field requirements that would make external ADUs feasible only on lots that meet health-department criteria, and return with proposed ordinance language.
No ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Council members asked staff to prepare a draft that would permit ADUs in defined circumstances (internal ADUs under state law; external ADUs only where septic and lot-size constraints are met) and outline how existing nonconforming structures should be handled.
