Norwalk council advances ADU ordinance on amended first reading after debate over setbacks

Norwalk City Council approved an amended first reading of an ordinance to bring the city’s zoning code into conformance with state law on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Councilmembers voted to set ADU placement to the same placement restrictions as a single-family residence but left a path for variances or special permits, after a lengthy discussion about setbacks and local flexibility.

The move follows Senate File 592, which staff said restricts local regulation of ADUs and required changes to Norwalk’s definitions and certain code sections. Luke (city staff) told the council the amendment updates the city code to match the state definition and rewrites the local provision listed in the packet to conform with state requirements. “Senate File 592 … restricts our ability to regulate accessory dwelling units,” staff said while describing the proposed code changes.

The core debate centered on two setback approaches. One option—recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission and used in the packet language—would let ADUs follow accessory-structure setbacks, giving property owners more flexibility. The alternative would require ADUs to follow principal building setbacks, a more restrictive standard. Councilmember Meineke moved to adopt the second option as the ordinance’s amended language, with a variance or special-permit process available for exceptions; the motion passed on roll call: Livingston Yes, Meineke Yes, Baker No, Cool Yes.

Several members of the public expressed opposition to the state-driven changes. One commenter said the state was “taking control of our zoning” and worried ADUs could be rented to unrelated occupants. Staff responded that building permits and building-code requirements would still apply and that local enforcement would focus on ensuring the city’s ordinance language reads consistently with state law.

City staff noted practical limits on what can be sited as an ADU—foundations, utility connections and building-code compliance prevent temporary structures such as motor homes from being treated as permanent ADUs. Councilmembers also discussed whether to write area-specific rules or rely on a variance process; the adopted approach sets the stricter standard as the default while allowing a route for exceptions.

The ordinance was approved on its amended first reading; council members indicated the second reading could be scheduled and the council discussed the possibility of waiving additional readings if appropriate. The item will return for subsequent readings and final adoption in a future meeting.