Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Canton holds public hearing on proposed accessory-dwelling-unit rules as council asks for clarifications
Summary
City staff presented revisions to the development code that would limit ADUs to one per lot, cap size at 50% of the principal dwelling, require at least one off‑street parking space, and add an owner‑occupancy requirement; councilmembers and a property owner raised concerns about feasibility for smaller homes and HOA limits.
City of Canton staff presented a proposed text amendment to the Unified Development Code on Aug. 7 that would change how accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are allowed across multiple residential zoning districts.
The proposed ordinance would list the zoning districts where ADUs are permitted, limit ADUs to one per lot, cap an ADU at no more than 50% of the habitable floor area of the principal dwelling, and require “one additional off‑street parking space” to serve the ADU. The draft also would require that either the principal dwelling or the ADU be owner‑occupied and would add the planned development (PD) district to the list of districts eligible for one ADU where a block contains only single‑family homes. Staff also proposed adding a 20% administrative variance to allow the community development director to increase maximum ADU square footage and height limits.
The measure was presented by staff member Mary Baker, who told the council that several repetitive provisions were moved to a general section for clarity, floor‑area limits were adjusted, and administrative‑variance language was added so the community development director could grant limited exceptions.
During the public hearing, property owner Mark Crosby, who said he owns multiple rental properties in Canton, urged caution. “The 50% rule really hinders investors such as me trying to do something like that,” Crosby said, arguing that on smaller, older houses the cost of building even a modest detached ADU would make development infeasible. He said owner‑occupancy requirements would “preclude most investors” and likely limit ADUs to family uses rather than adding workforce housing.
Councilmembers asked staff to clarify several items in the draft. Councilmember McGrew asked whether the “one additional off‑street parking space” was a strict limit; Baker said the language could be clarified to read “at least one,” which would allow owners to provide two spaces. McGrew also questioned the HOA confirmation requirement; staff said they included a written HOA statement as a “best practice” to avoid conflicts between municipal permits and private covenants and noted a similar approach is used for short‑term rentals.
Councilmember Waterman pressed how the 50% cap would interact with the city’s preapproved ADU plans. Staff said the largest approved ADU plan on file is in the 800‑square‑foot range and that the proposed 20% administrative variance effectively allows up to 60% in some cases (50% plus 20% admin variance), which staff suggested could accommodate larger principal dwellings. Baker said variance and appeals processes would remain available for homeowners with demonstrated hardship.
Councilmembers also questioned an interior‑access requirement in the draft that would require ADUs within the principal dwelling to be accessible from the interior rather than only by an exterior entrance. Staff said they would research whether that provision stems from building‑code or land‑use definitions and return with a recommendation.
The council closed the public hearing and did not take final action on the ordinance at the Aug. 7 meeting; staff said the ordinance could be considered for action at the council’s next regular meeting. Staff also noted that a separate public hearing on a proposed change to the zoning land‑use table (to clarify how the PD district is treated) will be held the following week.
