Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council holds public hearing on ADU ordinance proposing 50% size cap, owner-occupancy and HOA check
Summary
City staff presented proposed development-code changes to allow one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) per lot, cap ADU habitable area at 50% of the principal dwelling, require at least one off-street parking space and an HOA confirmation where applicable; a resident warned the 50% and owner-occupancy rules will limit investor-built workforce units. Council closed the hearing and will consider action at the next meeting.
City planning staff presented proposed text amendments to the development code and land-use table to regulate accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, during a public hearing at the Canton City Council meeting on Aug. 7, 2025.
"We propose listing the zoning districts where ADUs are permitted and limiting them to one ADU per lot," staff member Mary Baker told the council, and described other key provisions: an ADU should not exceed 50% of the habitable floor area of the principal dwelling; an additional off-street parking space shall be provided (staff said the language can be clarified to read "at least one"); an owner-occupancy requirement for either the principal dwelling or the ADU; and the community development director would be allowed to increase the maximum allowed ADU square footage by up to 20% through an administrative variance.
One resident, Mark Crosby, who identified himself as a local rental-property owner, spoke during the public comment period and said the 50% cap and the owner-occupancy requirement would make small-lot ADUs financially impractical. "The 50% rule really hinders investors such as me trying to do something like that," Crosby said, arguing the math for affordable workforce rentals would not work on many older, smaller houses.
Council members asked staff several clarifying questions about parking, HOA sign-off and hardship options. Staff said the HOA confirmation requirement was adopted as a "best practice" based on other cities' codes; variances and appeals would remain available for hardship cases; and the interior-access requirement for ADUs might relate to building-code classifications, which staff said they would research and return with an answer.
The council closed the public hearing and opened the floor for discussion. No final ordinance vote was taken at the Aug. 7 meeting; councilmembers directed staff to bring refined language and responses to the outstanding clarification questions at the next meeting.
