Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel debates ADUs: septic, deed restrictions and whether state mandate will reach Portage County
Summary
Committee reviewed a proposed state bill (AB 365) to require at least one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) by right on eligible parcels and discussed local limits — septic capacity, minimum sizes, parking and deed restrictions — while an online assembly coauthor said the bill likely won’t advance this session.
Raymond, the committee’s presenter, framed accessory dwelling units as both an emerging local land‑use item and part of a national housing conversation. “The statute potential language would require all political subdivision, cities, towns, and counties with zoning ordinances to allow at least 1 accessory dwelling unit or ADU by rights on any parcel where single family or multifamily residential use is already permitted,” Raymond said, summarizing proposed Assembly Bill 365.
An online participant who identified themself as the district’s assembly member and a coauthor on the bill (speaker 8) told the committee the measure faces partisan barriers in the current legislature and is unlikely to advance this session. “We have no real hope that that bill will actually go anywhere… The Republican controlled legislature won't actually allow it to go through and have a public hearing,” the assembly member said.
Local concerns and technical issues: committee members focused on septic and water implications, size and occupancy standards, parking, and deed-restriction mechanisms to ensure ADUs remain accessory rather than a de facto duplex. Staff noted that septic systems are typically sized per bedroom and that ADUs — especially detached units — could trigger re-evaluation of sanitary permits or require new laterals and drain-field work. Raymond pointed to examples where municipalities have used deed restrictions recorded at the register of deeds to limit occupancy and require familial relationship or owner-occupancy.
Policy choices for counties and towns: the committee discussed several levers local governments could use if ADUs were mandated or encouraged: set minimum or maximum ADU sizes based on lot size (example sliding scales mentioned), require deed restrictions or owner-occupancy, specify parking standards (typical two spaces for single-family neighborhoods), or limit ADU frequency in certain districts. A staff member highlighted AARP’s advocacy for broader ADU allowances to support aging-in-place options.
Legislative timeline and committee response: Raymond said AB 365 was introduced on 06/17/2025 and referred to the Committee on Housing and Real Estate; at the time of the meeting it had not passed either chamber and had no floor or committee votes. Committee members were advised to monitor the bill, consult local attorneys, and consider how draft ordinance language might be written to accommodate either a state mandate or local preferences.
