An extended public comment and board discussion at the Jan. 16 Wilson County Planning Commission meeting focused on a proposed change to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) size and the county's draft land‑use plan.

Sheriff Ash opened the public comment segment by relaying constituent questions about whether homeowners could now build 1,000‑square‑foot secondary dwellings and warned the panel not to "open Pandora's box." He said some long-time residents worried larger ADUs could become rental units and alter neighborhood character. "I just hope we hadn't created something or about to create something that may cause more problems," he said.

Christopher, planning staff, said the county commission had received a request to increase the ADU size to 1,000 square feet and that planning and zoning had forwarded that request; he noted ADA‑accessibility concerns as a motivating factor: "I know a lot of this is stemming from you can't make an ADA compliant structure 600 square feet," he said. Staff explained that the county commission retains authority to amend the recommendation and that property owners may still seek variances before the board of zoning appeals (BOZA) for special circumstances.

Commissioners and BOZA members debated enforcement and design options. Speakers warned that allowing larger ADUs could invite conversions to rentals and stressed difficulties verifying medical necessity for ADA‑based variances (citing HIPAA limits), while others urged compassion for households needing accessible units. Suggestions to limit potential misuse included requiring minimum lot size, capping ADU size as a percentage of the primary dwelling or retaining the 600‑sq‑ft baseline with variance pathways for ADA needs. One BOZA member suggested lot‑size minimums (for example, permitting duplex‑scale ADUs only on larger acreage) and another recommended capping ADUs at 50% of the primary dwelling in some cases.

The commission discussed process options including sending the county‑commission recommendation back to planning and zoning for further vetting before the county commission hearing. Staff noted timing constraints: the county commission meeting would occur before the planning commission's next meeting in February, limiting the planning commission’s ability to take immediate action; several board members said they would raise concerns directly with their county commissioners on the county‑commission floor.

Public speakers and steering‑committee members also addressed the draft 20‑year land‑use plan, with residents from rural areas asking how the map's "rural living" and R‑1 definitions could translate into future rezonings. Speakers emphasized the plan is a guidance document, not zoning, but warned that changes could generate rezoning requests and lawsuits. One public commenter said the steering committee received roughly 1,800 online survey responses and urged commissioners to weigh preservation of agricultural land alongside growth.

No formal county decision on the ADU size was recorded at the meeting; the item is slated to proceed through the county commission process, and commissioners suggested possible rehearing or additional vetting by planning and zoning if the body chooses to recommend reconsideration.