Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Adus Accessory topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Willard planning staff to re‑notice zoning clean‑up on ADU heights, setbacks and coverage
Summary
Staff proposed consolidating inconsistent accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and accessory‑building rules across multiple code sections, recommending uniform height and coverage measures and clarifying Old Towne setback language; commissioners asked staff to re‑notice a public hearing listing all affected ordinances.
Willard City Planning Commission members continued discussion Dec. 4 on proposed amendments to multiple sections of the city zoning code intended to resolve discrepancies in ADU and accessory‑building regulations.
Staff member Maddie said the city found inconsistent language in several places that left ADU height, accessory‑building height and area‑coverage figures in conflict. "The ADU ordinance said that ADUs could be 25 feet high, and 2 stories," Maddie said, and staff proposed setting a single coverage standard "at 25" percent to simplify administration. Maddie told commissioners the item was continued from Nov. 20 and that a new public hearing listing all three ordinances will be required.
Commission discussion centered on whether ADUs should remain allowed up to 25 feet (or two stories) while accessory buildings would stay at 20 feet, or whether both types should share the same height standard. One commissioner asked why a building that includes living space above a shop would be treated differently from an ADU; another said matching both at 25 feet would "save some headache" for property owners and staff. Commissioners also debated whether coverage should be measured as a share of remaining open space (the ADU measure) or of total lot area (the general coverage table), and whether Old Towne's special table should be added as its own column so comparisons are clear.
On setbacks, commissioners discussed side‑yard minimums (3 vs. 5 feet in Old Towne) and rear‑yard setbacks that currently differ across zones; several members raised concerns about public utility easements and fire separation requirements. Staff acknowledged the code is "redundant and messy" in places and said they would consolidate language (including replacing several references to "garage" with the term "accessory building") and prepare corrected tables and draft ordinance language for re‑notice.
Next steps: staff will clean up redundant provisions, add Old Towne metrics to the main table for side‑by‑side comparison, and re‑notice the public hearing to reflect all code sections needing amendment.
