Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates Act 313 (HB1503) and whether to align county ADU rules with state law
Summary
Benton County planners discussed Arkansas Act 313 (HB1503), which limits municipal restrictions on accessory dwelling units (ADUs); the board debated raising the county's ADU allowance from 50% to 75% of the primary dwelling and weighed concerns about short-term rentals and owner-occupancy.
Benton County planning board members spent a major portion of their Feb. 4 meeting discussing Arkansas Act 313 (HB1503) and its implications for county accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules.
A board member summarized provisions of Act 313, noting it prevents municipalities from imposing certain restrictions on ADUs — including additional parking requirements, requirements that an ADU match the primary dwelling's exterior materials or roof pitch, owner-occupancy mandates, and development fees above a specified cap. The act also sets a state-level threshold allowing ADUs up to 75% of the primary dwelling or 1,000 square feet, whichever is smaller, language that the board discussed at length.
Board members debated whether Benton County should raise its local ADU cap (currently 50% of the primary dwelling). One member favored moving to the state percentage (75%) to avoid being more restrictive than the state for municipalities; another urged caution and expressed concern that the state language could prevent counties from imposing reasonable local lot or design requirements in rural contexts.
Members discussed several implementation points: whether to keep a 1,000-square-foot cap (some favored removing it), whether the county could require ADUs to meet health and septic inspections when public utilities are not available, and how to treat short-term rentals. "We're being more restrictive than cities are currently legally held to," one member said of the county's 50% cap; another suggested the board could recommend the change to the quorum court for code updates.
Members also discussed practical concerns for rural areas — including whether mandating design matching or other architectural standards is appropriate in large-lot or agricultural settings — and whether owner-occupancy requirements should remain in place to discourage conversion of ADUs to de facto rentals.
No formal vote or ordinance change was taken at the meeting; board members asked staff to prepare code-change options to bring back for consideration and to coordinate with the quorum court where appropriate.
