Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission reviews draft ADU ordinance to align with state law; raises questions on size, utilities and enforcement
Summary
Commissioners and staff discussed a proposed single‑section accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance to implement Maryland's HB1466. Key unresolved issues include how to calculate the state's 75% size limit, sprinkler and septic requirements for new ADUs, and whether utilities or separate addresses should be required; staff will return with visual examples and additional text.
Carroll County planning staff brought an extensive draft ADU ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission for discussion on May 19 as the county works to conform local rules to state law (HB1466).
Staff said Tiffany led an interdepartmental team (legal, development review, zoning, health) to consolidate existing ADU language and highlight sections that must change to meet the state requirement. Key proposals and points of debate included:
- Owner occupancy: staff proposed retaining a local owner‑occupancy requirement (property owner must occupy either the primary dwelling or the ADU), noting the state law does not mandate owner occupancy and that the county can decide whether to keep the requirement.
- Size calculation (state 75% cap): commissioners asked how to apply the statutory limit that an ADU be no greater than 75% of the primary dwelling. Staff presented options — finished living area above grade, gross building footprint, or heated livable floor area — and recommended calculating the maximum on livable floor area (heated living space) while excluding garages and unfinished basements. Commissioners requested visual examples of common house types so they can see how alternate calculations operate in practice.
- Utilities, septic and wells: staff reported the health department will require a separate septic replacement area for detached ADUs in many cases and that new construction may trigger sprinkler requirements under fire codes. Questions remained about whether public water/sewer taps must be separate and whether an ADU should have a separate mailing address; staff said they would return with recommendations and noted some items involve other agencies (fire/EMS for addressing, health for septic).
- HOA interaction and conveyance/subdivision: proposed text would state an ADU approval does not override private covenants; HOAs must ensure their covenants comply with state law. Staff proposed explicit language that an ADU shall remain subordinate and not create additional subdivision or development rights unless lawful subdivision rights already exist, and discussed permit language and disclosure to protect future buyers.
- Bedrooms, setbacks and district specifics: commissioners agreed to retain a two‑bedroom cap and to keep existing bulk/setback requirements unless specific exceptions are required. Staff will revisit AG/Conservation district specifics (previous 50‑foot proximity and 3‑acre lot size for detached ADUs) because such rules could conflict with the state law.
The commission provided direction but took no final vote. Staff will produce visual examples showing different 75% calculation methods, clarify utility/addressing approaches with fire/health/DPW, and return with a cleaned‑up proposed ADU section for further review.
