Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Adu Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission begins review of subdivision and ADU ordinance updates; directs staff to research small-town templates and tighten ADU definitions
Summary
Trenton Planning and Zoning Commission opened a review of proposed updates to local subdivision and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules, directing staff to gather model language from other small towns and to draft specific edits including clearer ADU definitions and revised review procedures.
Trenton Planning and Zoning Commission members discussed proposed updates to the town's subdivision ordinance and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules, focusing on state-driven engineering standards, local review procedures and clearer ADU definitions.
Commissioners reviewed how recent state requirements — including references to roadway and engineering standards in House Bill 406 — affect local subdivision review. Staff noted municipalities must adopt clear engineering standards (water, road, curb and gutter specifications) by public hearing and legislative adoption; the commission discussed whether to adopt town-specific engineering standards or reference a state standard. Commissioners asked staff to pull examples from other small towns so the commission can compare language and decide whether to engage a consultant (staff noted a feasibility estimate of about $3,000 was possible).
On ADUs, the commission examined language drawn from Utah code definitions and model ordinances. Commissioners favored clarifying that an internal or detached ADU must have separate eating, sleeping and sanitation facilities — language intended to distinguish true accessory units from shared-rooming arrangements or simple roommate situations. Other changes commissioners supported include: requiring floor plans scaled to 1/4 inch = 1 foot showing proposed or existing layout; using the planning and zoning commission's regular meeting for application review instead of a separate public hearing; renaming the review from a conditional‑use permit to a distinct ADU permit/application; removing an expedited-approval provision intended to protect renters in the event of a sale; and including illustrative photos or an FAQ in the application packet so applicants know what qualifies as an ADU.
Commissioners also discussed parking-surface options (packed gravel versus asphalt/concrete) and whether the ordinance should require full paving or allow a concrete pad with gravel remainder. Staff was asked to draft revised language reflecting the commission's preferences and to compile sample ordinances from comparable towns (Newton, North Salt Lake, Cornish and others were mentioned). The commission directed staff to return a redline version that incorporates the agreed clarifications, plus an options memo on whether to pursue consultant assistance for engineering standards.
No formal vote was taken on ordinance changes at this meeting; commissioners settled several drafting choices and set follow-up work for staff.
