Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mayfield commission discusses accessory dwellings, building codes and annexation policy; staff to review ordinances
Summary
The Planning Commission reviewed existing accessory‑building rules, including the town's prohibition on living quarters in accessory buildings, and discussed whether to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Commissioners asked staff to compile ordinance language, impacts on water meters, fire separation requirements and a public‑hearing process.
The Mayfield Planning Commission reviewed accessory building rules and the town’s annexation policy during its March 18 meeting, discussing whether to allow living quarters in accessory buildings, commonly called accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
A commissioner summarized current practice: the town’s ordinance generally allows accessory buildings set to the rear of lots but prohibits living quarters in those structures, which prevents two distinct houses on a single lot. Commissioners noted past exceptions where garage apartments were allowed during construction and referenced a denial from a development (referred to as "The Estates") where the development authority later prohibited further approvals.
Why it matters: Commissioners framed the discussion as a possible tool for increasing affordable housing options for local families while also raising concerns about water supply, fire protection, parking and the visual character of neighborhoods.
Commissioners and staff raised technical issues that would accompany any change: fire separation and setback standards for accessory units (for example, 5 feet from property lines with rated walls where units sit closer), whether accessory units require separate water meters and connection fees, and how additional bedrooms would affect septic or water‑storage requirements. A staff member said that county building inspectors would enforce building‑code details if the town required enhanced fire‑rated walls.
The commission discussed practical meter and service questions: separate water meters are commonly required for duplexes or separately billed rental units, and connection fees typically apply. Commissioners noted the town’s current practice of not allowing multiple water supplies to one lot unless separate connections and associated impact fees are arranged.
Commissioners and a member of the public suggested that the question of allowing ADUs could be taken to a town meeting to gauge community sentiment about potential increased density or “satellite” homes. The commission discussed the formal legal process for changing ordinances and acknowledged public hearings would be required before any ordinance change.
Outcome: The commission directed staff to review existing ordinances and prepare a list of specific code items and implications to inform future action. Members said they would assemble a candidate ordinance list and return to the commission for more detailed discussion; no ordinance change or vote took place at the March 18 meeting.
Next steps: Staff will compile existing language on accessory structures, document building‑code implications (fire separation and inspection), describe water‑meter and connection fee options, and outline the public‑hearing and adoption process should the commission decide to pursue ordinance changes.
