Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff propose clarifying accessory dwelling unit rules, including size and height limits
Summary
Mary Baker, a community development intern, presented proposed text amendments July 17 to clarify Canton’s accessory dwelling unit rules, proposing limits on size, parking and occupancy and a height restriction tied to the principal dwelling.
Mary Baker, a community development intern, presented proposed text amendments to Canton’s Unified Development Code July 17 that would clarify rules for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and add explicit size, parking and occupancy requirements.
Baker told the council the draft reorganizes Section 1040202 to move repeated items into a general ADU section and to list the residential zoning districts where ADUs are permitted. Key staff proposals include requiring an additional off‑street parking space to serve an ADU, limiting one ADU per lot, allowing RA‑6 lots to have ADUs only where a single‑family dwelling exists, and adding a 50% size cap for detached ADUs measured against the heated floor area of the principal dwelling (matching the existing inside‑unit standard of either 50% or 1,200 square feet).
Baker and staff also proposed that homeowners provide a written statement from their homeowners association confirming ADUs are not prohibited when applying for a building permit, and that either the ADU or principal dwelling must be owner‑occupied. For detached ADUs staff proposed allowing placement in a side yard for irregular lots (not the front yard) and adding a height limit; staff recommended the accessory unit’s height “should not exceed that of the principal dwelling.”
Staff added a proposed administrative‑variance provision allowing the community development director to grant increases up to 20% of the maximum allowed square footage for ADUs.
Councilmembers discussed whether to set a numeric height cap (councilmembers suggested 24 or 35 feet during the discussion) rather than the “match principal dwelling” approach; staff said a numeric cap such as 24 feet is a common standard and they would review that input. Baker said the next step would include a public hearing on the code changes. No formal vote was taken July 17.
All direct quotes used in this article come from staff presentations in the July 17 meeting transcript.
