Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Detached Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Roy City planners weigh setbacks, sewer and safety in D‑ADU discussion under SB 284
Summary
Commissioners continued a detailed conversation about detached accessory dwelling units permitted under Senate Bill 284, with the building official warning conversions often require permits and upgrades (insulation, HVAC, smoke alarms), and members raising concerns about shallow sewers, owner‑occupancy and fire‑safety when multiple units occupy one lot. Staff will draft code language for review with an Oct. 1 target.
Roy City Planning and Zoning members spent the bulk of their meeting continuing a technical discussion about detached accessory dwelling units (D‑ADUs) adopted under Senate Bill 284, focusing on how building codes, sewer depth and lot size limits will shape who can convert accessory buildings into habitable units.
Staff introduced building official Gail Sup to answer technical questions. Sup told commissioners that when accessory structures are closer than three feet to a property line they generally must be treated as a solid firewall — “anything below three feet, we can't have any…windows. We can't have doors. We can't have anything on that side. It has to be a solid wall,” she said — which can make conversion to habitable space difficult or require significant mitigation.
Sup noted many older accessory buildings were built before current setbacks and lack insulation, plumbing and mechanical systems. “Most of the buildings are not insulated and that's going to be one thing that these buildings will be required to do because all habitable space is required to maintain a minimum of 68 degrees,” she said. Conversions therefore typically trigger permits and change‑of‑use upgrades for structural, mechanical and fire‑safety systems.
Commissioners and the building official also discussed practical constraints that will limit how many D‑ADUs are feasible. Roie Bailey expressed a common concern: “I would definitely prefer not having detached accessory dwelling units on the property line, but it sounds like that's something that we cannot control unless it's a new build, right?” Bailey asked. Sup and staff also flagged that many Roy properties have shallow sewer mains, meaning new backyard units may need ejector pumps and other costly plumbing solutions.
Other technical points raised in the discussion included: separating utilities is generally discouraged in single‑family zones because separate services can make a property function like a duplex; accessory buildings under 200 square feet do not require permits but habitable ADUs do; and prior construction eras sometimes allowed two‑foot setbacks that complicate converting existing buildings to D‑ADUs.
Members referenced potential size limits under consideration, citing a cap of 1,250 square feet or 25% of a rear yard as examples from prior conversations. Commissioners debated visual and safety impacts — several favored limiting D‑ADUs to one story — and one commissioner raised fire‑spread concerns if three households occupy a lot that previously housed one family.
On ownership and enforcement, commissioners discussed an owner‑occupancy requirement: the original owner must live in the property, and the condition would be recorded with the county to limit speculative transfers that convert the property to a full multi‑rental without owner residency.
Staff said attorneys are reviewing draft code language and that staff would circulate proposed language for member review; a target date of Oct. 1 was mentioned for related compliance or implementation steps. No formal votes were taken; the discussion will continue as staff returns with draft ordinance language.
