Brighton planning commission debates ADU, caretaker unit and STR rules amid water-capacity concerns

The Town of Brighton Planning Commission spent its Feb. 19 workshop debating changes to internal accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules and a proposed separate “caretaker” unit that would allow a long-term occupant alongside a short-term rental (STR) in one structure.

Commission staff presented a side-by-side comparison of current code and proposed language and said the draft reflects the themes raised at the January meeting. Staff said the caretaker idea originated as an option to allow homes where the owner is not a primary resident to nonetheless have a permanent occupant while permitting a STR on the other portion of the dwelling.

Why it matters: Commissioners said allowing ADUs or caretaker units without guardrails could increase water use in Brighton’s canyon neighborhoods, which are served by multiple small water companies with varying capacity. Several commissioners and members of the public urged tying ADU/STR allowances to water-availability determinations rather than adopting a single town-wide rule.

What was proposed: A commissioner raised a concise set of limits he believed would address many concerns: “No more than two separate dwelling areas per structure per watershed,” and “only one STR allowed at any time,” with STRs and long-term rentals governed through existing permits and licenses. Staff and several commissioners favored keeping STR-specific limits in the STR-permit code and keeping ADU definitions focused in land-use sections.

Building-code and legal constraints: Staff warned that removing the owner-occupancy requirement for internal ADUs could trigger duplex requirements under the International Residential Code — including fire-separation and separate mechanical systems — a change that could make conversions difficult or costly. That risk shaped commissioners’ caution about creating a broad new class of secondary dwelling without consulting building officials.

Enforcement concerns: Commissioners and commenters noted enforcement uncertainty for occupancy and water use. Solutions discussed included requiring water meters with remote control for STRs, using water-company metering/penalties to curb overuse, and replacing recorded affidavits (used previously to limit rentals) with permit-based conditions.

Public input: Residents who spoke praised the staff comparison chart and urged simplicity and flexibility. Chad Smith said the side-by-side made the issues clear and argued for narrowly prohibiting the few problematic uses rather than overengineering the code. Amy Kelly asked for flexible owner/caretaker definitions so property owners can adapt to household needs while keeping a single STR per dwelling.

Next steps: Commissioners directed staff to draft ordinance language that clarifies ADU/caretaker definitions, coordinates ADU rules with STR permit language, and identifies enforcement tools. Staff said they will gather examples from other Utah towns and consult building officials before returning a proposed ordinance for vote at the March meeting.

The commission adjourned after directing staff to return with drafted code language and more precise options for how water capacity and building-code compliance would be enforced.