Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff recommends revising Hooper accessory-structure thresholds; commission asks staff to draft ordinance changes
Summary
City planning staff presented data on oversized accessory structures and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), suggested using a percentage-of-rear-yard threshold (25%) like comparable cities, and proposed drafting an ordinance change for commission and council consideration.
At a Hooper City Planning Commission work session preceding the regular meeting, staff summarized recent accessory-structure and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) activity and urged commissioners to consider updating size thresholds.
Staff (Amanda) presented compiled data showing that in 2023 the city processed 14 oversized accessory-structure applications averaging about 3,021 square feet; in 2024 there were 12 oversize applications with a smaller average (about 2,500 square feet); and in 2025 to date there were three oversized structures trending back toward the earlier larger average. Staff said R zones in the city currently reference fixed square-foot maxima (examples cited in discussion: R1 = 2,000 sq ft, R2 = 1,600 sq ft, R7.5 = 1,800 sq ft) and proposed consideration of a percentage-based approach (25% of rear yard) used by nearby cities (Plain City, Far West, West Haven).
Staff argued a 25% rear-yard limit would align Hooper with several neighboring jurisdictions, reduce routine applications for modest projects, and reserve planning-commission review for the most significant accessory structures. Commissioners discussed the merits of percentage versus fixed square footage, the interaction with ADU rules, impervious-surface limits and setbacks, and whether ADUs should still require some form of application or whether building permits alone provide sufficient oversight for ADUs if the structures meet zoning and building-code requirements.
No ordinance changes were adopted at the meeting. Staff said they will prepare draft ordinance language for commission review; options may include a percentage-of-rear-yard standard, raising fixed maximums, or a hybrid approach that uses lot size to set thresholds. Staff also flagged related checks—impervious-surface and sewer lateral clearances—that will remain part of building-permit review regardless of the threshold approach.
Commissioners asked staff to return with a draft amendment that explains how a change would affect application volume, enforcement, and the city’s general plan objectives, and to prepare recommended regulatory language that could be forwarded to the city council if the commission chooses to recommend an amendment.
