Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hanksville workshop narrows ADU rules, debates short‑term rental limits
Summary
At a town workshop, Hanksville officials debated limits on accessory dwelling units, a 200‑sq‑ft permit exemption and whether to allow short‑term rentals on ADUs; council agreed to vote the code 'title‑by‑title' and to add a notification step when permits are approved.
Hanksville council and planning‑and‑zoning members spent a lengthy workshop on proposed updates to the town’s building and land‑use code, focusing on accessory dwelling units (ADUs), permit thresholds and short‑term rental limits.
The session centered on how to define and limit ADUs. One participant read the draft definition aloud and identified an ADU as “an independent habitable living unit with a kitchen, bathroom and its own entryway,” a formulation the group kept as the working definition. The draft currently caps ADUs at two per property and allows ADUs to be rented; the council debated whether that cap and use would permit multi‑unit short‑term rental setups in residential neighborhoods.
Why it matters: ADU rules affect housing supply and neighborhood character. Council members said they want to balance options for homeowners (for example seniors who rely on rental income) while avoiding conversions that resemble small motels in single‑family areas.
Council discussion and compromise: Several members said a 2‑ADU cap risks turning residential lots into de‑facto rental compounds, particularly on small lots. Others argued property owners with larger acreage should be able to place additional units if setbacks and subdivision rules allow. A compromise gained support in the workshop: allow up to two ADUs per property but limit short‑term rentals to one ADU while the other remains for long‑term rental or family use. Supporters framed this as a middle ground that preserves homeowner income options while limiting short‑term rental proliferation in neighborhoods.
Speakers repeatedly cited setback, zoning and subdivision rules as the primary tools to constrain density. The group noted that once an ADU is built and used, later changes can be difficult to reverse, so they urged careful placement of short‑term rental restrictions. Planning staff noted a state‑level definition for long‑term rental (30 or more consecutive days) and recommended the council align local language with that standard.
Public input: Members recalled a prior public meeting where roughly 31 residents attended and 14 spoke; most of those who spoke favored ADU allowances, including some with short‑term rental intent. Councillors said the turnout showed community interest but also demonstrated divisions about allowable ADU uses.
Next steps: Staff said the draft could be placed on the council agenda for a final vote at the next regular meeting. Councilors agreed to vote title‑by‑title (grouping related chapters into 'titles') rather than take up the entire code at once; they also asked staff to circulate the current draft and to identify any remaining provisions councilors considered "iffy." The council asked that planning and zoning send an email notification within two days whenever it approves a building permit so members can review approvals promptly.
The workshop ended without final adoption of ADU provisions; the council set the title‑by‑title vote plan for the next meeting.
