Grantsville planning commission debates limits, fees and enforcement for proposed detached ADU rules

The Grantsville Planning Commission spent its Dec. 19 work meeting advancing draft zoning language for detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs) intended to help the city meet state moderate-income housing requirements, but commissioners disagreed over occupancy limits, fees, size and enforcement procedures and asked staff for another draft before January.

Speaker 3 (Unidentified Speaker) introduced the revisions and said she had "sent this language out to staff, planning commission, and city council for any comments" and wanted commissioners' edits before presentation to council. She and other commissioners noted a state-related deadline and debated the city's exposure if it did not comply: Speaker 2 stated, "But if we don't get this passed by the eighth, they will find the city $350 a day."

A central point of debate was an occupancy restriction that would limit detached ADUs to family members related within "three degrees of consanguinity." Speaker 2 asked how three generations is defined; Speaker 5 referenced Utah law and listed relatives covered by that test ("great grandparents, grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts, siblings, children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, nephews, and nieces"). Proponents said the family-only rule was intended to prevent lot owners from effectively doubling density for rental income; opponents and other members raised enforceability concerns. "How are we going to monitor and make sure that this is within three generations?" Speaker 1 asked, and other speakers warned that enforcement could require eviction actions the city may not want to administer.

Commissioners also debated fees and utilities. Several speakers said the city can charge meter/set fees or inspection costs tied to installing separate utility meters. Speaker 4 summarized the distinction: while "impact fees" are used for public-infrastructure costs and may be restricted by state law, charging a fee to set a water meter or for inspections is generally allowable. Commissioners noted that state law explicitly prohibits charging impact fees for internal ADUs, and that policy for detached ADUs required clarification.

On construction standards and size, Speaker 3 relayed a building-department comment recommending a permanent concrete foundation. Speaker 4 advocated limiting DADUs to a single story with a maximum building footprint (one commissioner suggested roughly 1,000 square feet) to avoid creating a second full house on one lot, while Speaker 3 said three bedrooms may be needed in some family situations.

Setbacks and minimum lot sizes attracted concern. The draft included a minimum lot size figure mentioned in the discussion as 12,000 square feet; several commissioners said combined front/side/rear setback requirements and a proposed 25-foot separation between primary and detached buildings could make many existing lots ineligible. Commissioners proposed easing the rear-yard setback to 7.5–10 feet in order to accommodate utility easements and realistic lot configurations.

Parking and habitability standards were also discussed. The code currently requires one additional on-site parking stall per ADU; Speaker 4 suggested two spaces per dwelling unit to avoid spillover onto streets, while others preferred to leave the current code unchanged. Commissioners emphasized that any DADU conversion must meet building and fire codes and be built to code, not be a makeshift shed.

On temporary absentee ownership, the draft would allow a primary owner to temporarily absent themselves for up to 12 months with the possibility of a 12-month extension for reasons such as military deployment or employment. Commissioners voiced mixed reactions about whether to allow unrelated third parties to occupy a DADU during such absences.

Enforcement options were a persistent concern. Commissioners discussed using a notice-first approach and graduated fines before pursuing eviction, acknowledging that eviction through the courts can take months. One proposal was a notice/compliance period followed by fines (examples discussed included a $500 fine after a correction period); another member suggested a paid noncompliance option but others warned it could simply become an additional rent cost, undermining the policy objective.

Next steps: Speaker 3 said she would try to draft updated language before the commission's January meeting and asked whether the family-only provision should remain while alternatives are developed. With that, Speaker 1 moved to close the work meeting, Speaker 2 seconded, and commissioners adjourned by voice vote.

The planning commission did not adopt a final ordinance at the Dec. 19 work meeting; staff were asked to produce refined language and clarifications on enforcement, fees and setbacks for future consideration.