Jefferson County holds ADU work session; staff to draft ordinance for July 30

Jefferson County commissioners spent a work session reviewing state changes that open county rural residential areas to accessory dwelling units (ADUs), heard multiple public commenters about hardship and housing needs, and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance for follow-up at the board's July 30 meeting.

The session focused on how to translate a series of Oregon legislative changes (since 2017, and with key follow-ups in 2021 and 2023) into local code. Planning staff summarized the state's baseline conditions most counties have adopted: ADUs in qualifying rural residential areas typically must be on parcels of at least 2 acres, limited to roughly 900 square feet of habitable area and generally located within about 100 feet of the primary dwelling, and not allowed on exclusive farm-use land. Staff noted the 2023 changes decoupled earlier wildfire-mapping restrictions and tied ADU construction to wildfire-hardening standards where those apply.

Why it matters: ADU rules affect housing availability and local infrastructure. Several speakers told the board they built ADUs for family or medical reasons and now face uncertainty over resale or long-term occupancy; others urged using ADUs to expand housing for workers while protecting neighborhoods and limiting short-term-rental conversion.

Staff summary and options

Planning staff (presentation led by David Allen and other department staff) recommended starting with a draft ordinance closely aligned to the state statute and offering options for local adjustments. Those options include: - adopt the statute's baseline (2-acre minimum / 900 sq. ft. / 100-foot proximity) and let building/sanitarian sign-offs handle water/septic and structural safety; - allow a limited process to retroactively legalize existing nonconforming secondary dwellings if they meet building and life-safety standards; and - consider area-specific exceptions or restrictions (for example, different treatment inside Madras's urbanizable area versus the county's rural residential communities such as Crooked River Ranch and 3 Rivers).

Staff flagged common implementation issues: verifying construction when no permits exist, tying allowable ADUs to available water/septic capacity, and the local transportation and emergency-response implications if take-up is large. Staff recommended deferring final choices about short-term rentals and RV/park model rules until the board reviews the ADU draft so the public can respond to concrete language.

Public comment and local concerns

Several residents described personal hardship and housing needs. Sherry Towery said she built a completed, permitted ADU for medical reasons but her mother died before occupying it; Towery said the house now presents resale and utility-cost difficulties and asked commissioners for a path to legalize and use the ADU for family or caretakers. Another speaker, identified as Linda, urged the county to allow ADUs so families can provide onsite care and to help people who experience short-term financial hardship.

Commission discussion and next steps

Commissioners and staff discussed technical and policy choices: whether to require evidence that sewer/water service exists before permitting an ADU in some areas; whether to require additional wildfire-mitigation measures tied to new construction; how homeowner associations (HOAs) or other covenants could limit ADUs even if county code allows them; and whether transportation system development charges (SDCs) or impact-triggered traffic studies should apply if ADU growth substantially increases trips on narrow rural roads. Several commissioners urged drafting an ordinance that follows state minimums while allowing targeted local adjustments after public review.

The board directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance mirroring the state requirements and to return with a public-noticed draft and supporting analysis; the board scheduled the next review for July 30. Staff said they will consult with fire, sanitation (sanitarian), public works (for road/SDC questions), and affected community groups before bringing the draft back.

Ending note

No land-use regulations were adopted at the session; commissioners framed the meeting as a work session to gather information and public input and to produce a concrete draft for formal review and public hearing.