Mills County planning commission recommends ADU definition, moves two-family uses from conditional to permitted

The Mills County Planning Commission voted to recommend a draft ordinance to the Board of Supervisors that would add a formal definition for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to the county code and amend the residential use matrix so two-family residential uses shift from a conditional use to a permitted use.

Speaker 3, who presented the ordinance (referred to in the meeting as Mills County ordinance No. 25-02), read the proposed ADU definition: "a secondary living unit on a single-family lot" with its own kitchen, sleeping area and bathroom that is "subordinate in size, location, and appearance to the primary dwelling unit." The draft lists common examples including "mother-in-law apartments, guest cottages, caretaker cottages, or carriage houses." Speaker 3 said the change follows an Iowa state law that took effect July 1 and that the county cannot require conditional use permits for ADUs where state law preempts such requirements.

Commission discussion centered on practical limits, not changes to the draft definition. Speaker 3 described prior county experience in which strict size limits discouraged ADU construction, saying that in Pike County tight square-footage caps had effectively prevented applicants. The draft presented to the commission places no explicit minimum or maximum square footage; instead it requires the ADU to be subordinate in size to the primary dwelling. Speaker 3 noted a state guideline that allows up to 1,000 square feet as a reference point but explained the county draft avoids strict numeric limits to prevent frequent, technical disputes over what counts as living area.

Commissioners raised infrastructure concerns. Speaker 3 and others warned that septic capacity will often determine whether an ADU is feasible, because additional dwellings may require room for a second septic system. They also discussed financing challenges—lenders sometimes decline financing for ADUs on a single-owner parcel—and clarified rental use: under the draft and applicable law, counties may not prohibit rental or short-term rental of ADUs.

Several commissioners asked about private covenants and homeowners associations. Speaker 3 said the county can issue building permits consistent with the zoning ordinance even if covenants may restrict construction; enforcement of restrictive covenants remains a private HOA matter, not a function of county permitting.

Procedural details provided in the presentation: Speaker 3 said the Board of Supervisors would take two readings (the transcript records a first reading scheduled for Nov. 25 and a second reading in December) and that the ordinance would become effective after publication and recorder filing; the planning commission was asked to forward an official recommendation that evening.

Speaker 1 moved to approve the planning commission's recommendation; the motion was seconded and put to a voice vote. Speaker 3 called for ayes and multiple commissioners answered "Aye." The meeting transcript records the affirmative vote but does not provide a full roll-call tally in the text. The commission therefore forwarded the draft ordinance to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration.

Next steps: the planning commission asked members to review the ordinance language and indicated it will appear before the Board of Supervisors for two readings, after which the county code would be updated and posted.