Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Livingston adopts zoning changes to allow accessory dwelling units in single‑family residences; commission approves ordinance
Summary
On second reading Dec. 17 the Livingston City Commission adopted Ordinance 3056 to amend Chapter 30 (zoning) to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) where single‑family residences exist, with clarifying edits requested at an earlier hearing; commissioners adopted the ordinance unanimously.
The Livingston City Commission voted Dec. 17 to adopt Ordinance 3056, which amends Chapter 30 of the Livingston Municipal Code to reflect state changes and to clarify how accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are permitted in the city.
Under the ordinance, ADUs are permitted where a single‑family dwelling already exists in the zoning districts included in the amendment. The planning director told the commission staff added an asterisk to table language to make clear ADUs apply only where a single‑family residential use exists — a change intended to limit unanticipated increases in density while the city completes a broader code update.
Why it matters: The state legislature’s recent actions changed how municipalities must treat ADUs and related zoning matters; this ordinance aligns local code with state requirements while narrowing application to avoid immediate density increases beyond zones where single‑family homes exist. City staff said the language is intended as an interim clarification pending a full code update.
Discussion and vote
Planning Director Jen Severson presented the ordinance as a state‑mandated update with a staff‑proposed clarification (limiting ADUs to existing single‑family residences). Commissioners asked for clarification on where ADUs will be permitted and confirmed that ADUs remain subject to local building, setback and zoning standards. The ordinance passed on second reading after a roll‑call vote; the motion to approve was seconded and carried unanimously.
Public comment
Members of the public raised concerns that recent approvals and variances in residential neighborhoods felt inequitable compared with the new ordinance changes. A resident said a previous setback variance that had been denied seemed inconsistent with new allowances for ADUs; city staff and commissioners explained that variances remain fact‑specific and that the ADU rule does not override required setbacks.
Ending note
City staff said the ordinance is intended to be an interim, state‑compliant change before a more comprehensive municipal code update. The commission voted to adopt Ordinance 3056 on second reading and directed staff to continue the code revision process.
