Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the IADU topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trenton officials debate what 'connectivity' means as state law limits local IADU rules
Summary
Town officials spent much of the meeting discussing an internal accessory dwelling unit (IADU) statute that restricts municipal limits on internal connectivity, debating whether 'connectivity' refers to a physical door/common wall or to internet/data connections and agreeing to seek county and sponsor clarification.
Trenton Town officials spent an extended portion of their meeting parsing state code language on internal accessory dwelling units and debating how local ordinance language should define 'connectivity.'
Speaker 5 introduced the issue, noting uncertainty about whether the state wording referred to Internet connections or to a physical linkage between living spaces. "If you have a second kitchen ... that's an internal accessory dwelling unit. Rent does not matter," Speaker 5 said, summarizing one consequence officials had found when researching the statute.
Speaker 3 cited state code language that, as read to the group, says a municipality "may not establish any restrictions or requirements for construction or use of 1 internal accessory dwelling unit" including restrictions on "internal connectivity," lot size or street frontage. The council debated practical scenarios — a butler's pantry or wet bar, a habitable garage with windows, or a separate kitchen with a door — and whether those would meet the statutory definition of an IADU.
Officials expressed concern about enforcement and timing. Speaker 5 said the county had warned that if certain elements (for example a garage conversion) were not completed, the municipality could face a situation with two residences rather than one. Speaker 5 recommended holding final concurrency or occupancy approvals until a home was finished to avoid unintended approvals.
To resolve uncertainty the group agreed to contact county staff and 'Laurie' for the underlying code excerpts and to identify the bill sponsor; Speaker 1 later identified the sponsor as "Steve Lisonbee." The town said it would request an interpretive read from county staff and examine legislative intent before finalizing local ordinance language.
Officials said they may add clearer local definitions (for example specifying whether a door, common wall or ceiling is required to consider a space internally connected) but would not finalize wording until after county and legislative clarifications.
Next procedural steps: staff will request county guidance and the legislative history of the bill; the council will revisit ordinance language after receiving those clarifications.
