Florence City planning panel approves rules allowing detached accessory dwelling units

At its July meeting the Florence City Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance that allows detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in Florence City, planning staff said.

The amendment permits detached ADUs in any zoning district where accessory units are allowed, but only if they meet 21 enumerated conditions, Elaine Lawrence, planning department staff, told the commission. "This would open it up... and it could be a detached building," Lawrence said while summarizing the draft language.

The ordinance change is intended to bring informal or existing secondary units into compliance and expand long-term, owner-occupied rental options, staff said. Under the draft text, a detached ADU may be either up to 50% of the size of the principal house or 800 square feet, whichever is smaller; a property may have only one ADU; ADUs must meet the same setbacks as the principal house and be at least 10 feet from the main structure. ADUs must use the same utilities and street address as the principal dwelling, cannot be subdivided into a separate parcel, and may not be used as short-term rentals (defined in staff discussion as 30 days or less). Construction of a new detached ADU would require building permits and compliance with the full building code. Staff also said owners must obtain a business license and rental permit before leasing an ADU.

Lawrence said the draft also includes design controls where applicable: existing detached living units in historic Timrod Park would require a certificate of appropriateness through the design review board for exterior changes. Staff said existing, legally nonconforming structures would be "grandfathered" as they stand; major renovations would trigger applicable standards.

Members of the public asked questions about enforcement, short-term rental limits and the ordinance's experience elsewhere. Peter Ratcliffe, a resident who spoke in favor, asked which cities the staff used as examples; Lawrence listed Mount Pleasant, Charleston, Columbia and Raleigh. Concerns raised during the hearing and discussion included potential overcrowding on small lots, tracking compliance after a property changes ownership, and how the city would respond to nuisance complaints; staff said enforcement of noise or nuisance complaints would follow normal codes-enforcement processes.

Commissioners pressed staff on practical limits and how the provisions would apply in older neighborhoods where accessory units already exist. Commissioners and staff discussed mechanisms to detect changes in ownership or misuse, with staff noting change-of-ownership records and tax notices as potential triggers for follow-up.

After the public hearing and discussion, a motion to adopt the UDO amendment passed. The record shows the motion carried with no nays.