Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Dane County committee to allow detached ADUs without conditional use permits
Summary
Joshua Cooper, a Rutland resident, urged the Dane County Zoning and Land Regulation Committee on Oct. 12 to allow detached accessory dwelling units without a conditional use permit.
Joshua Cooper, a resident of the Town of Rutland, told the Dane County Zoning and Land Regulation Committee on Oct. 12 that the county should allow detached accessory dwelling units without requiring a conditional use permit.
Cooper said detached ADUs would provide flexible housing for family members and others and urged the committee to remove the CUP requirement for detached units. “I have yet to hear any good rationale for why that is other than additional regulation,” Cooper said, adding that restrictions to prevent short-term rentals could be crafted if needed.
County staff and committee members described why detached ADUs are currently limited. Staff said the zoning ordinance includes requirements intended to protect farmland-preservation density limits and prevent the creation of secondary houses that could be split off, and that many town officials are cautious about increasing housing density in agricultural areas.
A committee member noted that some towns, including Rutland, have signaled support for ADUs in their comprehensive plans; a Rutland representative said the town’s comprehensive plan includes notes supporting ADUs. Staff also pointed to the county ordinance’s existing dimensional and program limits and said the committee has been “progressively getting to the point” of expanding allowances.
Committee members and staff asked for more study. One committee member suggested planning staff prepare a presentation on ADU options and draft ordinance language to address town concerns and possible abuses, and the committee agreed to consider such a presentation and a possible amendment.
The meeting record shows no formal action to change the ordinance on Oct. 12; the committee directed staff to research options and report back. No vote was taken to alter the county zoning rules at this meeting.
Ending: The committee did not adopt code changes at the Oct. 12 meeting. Staff agreed to prepare more information and possible amendment language for future consideration; a date for that presentation was not specified in the record.
