Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Burleson staff proposes 900‑sq‑ft cap on ADUs; council debates exceptions, enforcement and parking
Summary
Planning staff proposed defining accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as self‑contained units limited to 900 square feet or half the area of the primary dwelling, with options for SUP/PD exceptions; councilors pressed on parking, utilities, enforcement and whether large estate lots should be treated differently.
Planning staff presented a draft zoning update that would allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) but limit their size to the smaller of 900 square feet or half the primary dwelling, and require one additional off‑street parking space.
"The proposed staff definition was a self contained housing unit ... the proposal was it would be no larger than a gross floor area of 900 square feet or 1 half of the primary dwelling unit, whichever was smaller," Planning staff said during the meeting. Staff also recommended that ADUs in nonresidential zoning districts be allowed only through a Specific Use Permit (SUP) or Planned Development (PD), giving the council discretion on location and character.
Councilors questioned whether the size cap would unfairly restrict homeowners on large estate lots. "So could we possibly put it at 900 square feet?" one councilor asked, urging a fixed baseline for family needs. Planning staff said exceptions are available through SUP/PD processes and noted the goal is to keep the code simple while allowing avenues for larger units when justified.
Debate also covered utilities and enforcement. Members raised concerns that multiple meters and increased load on water, sewer and electrical systems could follow wider ADU adoption. Planning staff responded that ADUs would still be required to meet adopted building codes and that the intent is to avoid multiple residential meters where possible; code enforcement would address informal or noncompliant rentals.
Short‑term rentals would be prohibited by this proposal, the staff said, though long‑term rental of ADUs would remain permissible. The meeting record stressed a desire to balance housing options—helping families age in place or house young adults—with neighborhood character. One councilor emphasized pedestrian access and neighborhood livability: "We need those sidewalks to be clean," noting parking behavior and driveway design affect accessibility.
Staff said it will refine the ADU language after stakeholder meetings with builders and neighborhood representatives and return with supplemental regulations in the June–July timeframe. The council did not take a formal vote on the draft; staff sought direction and public engagement before bringing final ordinance language forward.
