Council debates two approaches to external accessory dwelling units; members favor further study and workshops

Sandy — Two council members presented competing but overlapping proposals Feb. 4 to amend Sandy’s accessory dwelling unit rules to allow external ADUs (separate small dwellings on single‑family lots). Council discussion ranged from broad policy goals to technical details and concluded with an agreement to pause final action and pursue additional study and workshops.

Council Member Aaron DeKeyser introduced a proposal he described as a "controlled, well‑considered expansion" to permit external ADUs while preserving single‑family character and requiring owner occupancy of either the primary or accessory dwelling. He said the changes could expand multigenerational housing and supplemental income opportunities for homeowners, and asked staff to draft ordinance language for a future second reading.

Council Member Brooke D’Souza presented a related proposal that emphasized treating external ADUs as independent dwelling units in planning counts and infrastructure planning, rather than merely "accessory" units. D’Souza argued that labeling EADUs only as accessory could create "hidden density increases" if the units are not counted in zoning and infrastructure planning and recommended transparency about how additional units would affect neighborhoods and city services.

Council members raised a series of technical questions: whether ADU design could be limited by lot size; whether the city should impose per‑bedroom or square‑footage occupancy limits; whether separate utility meters would be permitted; and how the state legislature’s pending housing bills might affect local rules. Several members suggested a phased or pilot approach; others urged caution to avoid creating unintended density in areas the council had limited in the general plan.

Council members generally supported further study before adoption. Marcy Hausman proposed a series of workshops to develop a shared vision for ADUs — focusing on outcomes and mitigation rather than starting with a long list of restrictions. Other council members recommended gathering data on existing ADU stock, clarifying how the state would count ADUs toward any state housing goals, and waiting for legislative developments before finalizing code language.

Why it matters: External ADUs are a frequently used local tool to increase housing options and enable aging‑in‑place solutions; changes to how the city treats and counts ADUs could affect neighborhood density, traffic, school enrollment projections and utility planning.

Next steps: Council members asked staff to pause formal adoption, pursue workshops and additional analysis, monitor the state legislative session and return with refined draft code language and impact data.