Goldendale council holds public hearing, advances ADU code after debate on owner‑occupancy

Goldendale — The Goldendale City Council opened a public hearing on proposed zoning text changes to add an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) chapter and advanced two related ordinances on first reading after heated debate among council members about owner‑occupancy and whether the packet reflected committee‑approved language. Council members voted to proceed with the advertised hearing and later voted to adopt both ordinances for their first readings.

The ordinance committee has drafted a three‑part package: Ordinance 1557 adds defined terms for ADU living area and short‑term rentals to chapter 17.04, and Ordinance 1558 (chapter 17.68) establishes the ADU regulations. Staff and the ordinance committee presented the drafts and fielded detailed line‑by‑line questions from the council and public.

Why it matters: Supporters said ADUs can expand housing options and increase supply, while opponents warned poorly regulated ADUs can change the character of single‑family neighborhoods or be used by absentee institutional owners. That tension shaped the council’s discussion and the specific policy choices under consideration.

What council debated: A councilmember argued the packet language did not match what was agreed in committee and urged postponing the hearing until committee changes were restored or called out; other members said the packet had been available and preferred to proceed so residents could comment. After discussion, the council voted to proceed with the public hearing as advertised.

On substance, council members focused on several key items in the draft: - Owner‑occupancy: The draft contains a provision (line item “S” in the ordinance text) that would require either the primary residence or the ADU to be owner‑occupied for a minimum of 183 days per calendar year. Several councilmembers called that provision an overreach that could reduce rental housing stock; others said it was needed to prevent institutional or absentee owners from bulk‑converting housing and avoid maintenance problems. Alternatives discussed included requiring local managers or drafting language to restrict institutional owners while allowing locally managed LLCs. - Unit types: Building staff said prefabricated “tiny homes” that are titled as recreational vehicles would be excluded under the draft, while modular or manufactured homes placed on foundations and meeting energy‑code requirements could be allowed. - Size and code compliance: Council and public commenters discussed proposed ADU size limits (the draft includes a minimum of 400 sq ft and a maximum of 1,000 sq ft for ADUs) and clarified that ADUs must meet applicable building and energy codes. - Addressing and emergency response: Law enforcement and staff raised concerns about dispatching responders to ADUs; staff said ADUs would use the same street number with an “A” suffix (for example, 622 and 622A) and agreed to tighten required addressing language to ensure rapid emergency response.

Public input: Residents who spoke during the hearing urged a balance between increasing supply and preserving neighborhood character. Blair Hawker of the east end urged the council to avoid low‑quality conversions, saying, “quality versus quantity” should guide decisions. Other commenters supported smaller homes as an affordable option but sought clarity on size limits and standards.

Votes and next steps: The council voted to move forward with the advertised public hearing (vote recorded in the transcript as 5–2). Later, the council adopted Ordinance 1557 (definitions) and Ordinance 1558 (ADU regulations) on their first readings; the transcript records the vote on Ordinance 1558’s first reading as 5–2. Both ordinances will return for second readings and formal adoption after further committee and staff review and any amendments the council requests.

What remains unresolved: The owner‑occupancy requirement and specific language addressing institutional ownership, enforcement and addressing requirements were left for further refinement before final adoption. Councilmembers directed staff to bring clarified language back for subsequent readings.

The council scheduled second readings and further consideration at a future meeting; the ordinances are not yet final.

Quote highlights: “Quality versus quantity,” said public commenter Blair Hawker, urging the council to avoid conversions that reduce neighborhood quality. “We advertised for a public hearing. I’d hate to cancel the public hearing,” a councilmember said during a procedural debate about whether to proceed.

The ADU discussion dominated the meeting; the council indicated it would continue refining the draft language before final adoption.