Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the ADU Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs ADU rules, wastewater capacity and a parking waiver framework
Summary
Staff briefed council on state-mandated ADU rule changes, utilities staff warned untracked ADUs could push the town's wastewater system toward an expensive upgrade, and planning staff presented a parking study that recommends keeping parking requirements with narrow waivers for transit-adjacent or sufficiently wide-street properties.
Staff presented the draft ADU ordinance and explained which portions are mandatory under state law and which remain adjustable for local code.
Staff member Sarah (speaker 6) said the state-set ADU definition determines allowable size and that the town must allow accessory dwellings on lots with single-family homes without treating them as part of density. Portions of the draft are mandatory (red text) while recommended clarifications from the planning commission appear as discretionary (blue text).
Council questions centered on lot coverage, setbacks and whether features such as sheds could be converted into ADUs. Sarah and the town attorney (Karen, speaker 8) explained that state legislation constrains some local controls and that the town's ability to require owner-occupancy may be limited; the attorney said Maryland Department of Planning guidance suggests owner-occupancy is a possible route but flagged enforcement and "unreasonable limitation" concerns under the statute.
Josh (utilities staff, speaker 9) told the council that wastewater flow tracking and EDU accounting must be addressed before broad ADU uptake. He presented three options for EDU assignment: (1) treat each ADU as a full EDU (likely an overestimate), (2) allocate fractional EDUs based on ADU square footage relative to the principal residence, or (3) assign EDUs by size bands (e.g., up to 500 sq ft = 0.25 EDU; 501–1,000 sq ft = 0.5 EDU; 1,001–1,500 sq ft = 0.75 EDU). He warned that if untracked ADUs cause the collective partners to reach 80% plant utilization, the system would require an E&R upgrade, a costly capital project that has not been budgeted.
Planning staff then presented a quick parking study required by state law. The study analyzed off-street construction costs versus the town cost to widen roads for curb parking, fire-apparatus clearance (20 feet) and impervious-surface impacts. Staff found limited street segments that can safely support on-street parking (seven roads allowing single-side parking; three allowing two-side parking) and recommended retaining a parking requirement with narrowly tailored waivers: for properties within a half-mile of transit or a quarter-mile of municipal parking that permits overnight use, and for lots on streets wide enough to permit on-street parking. Staff also proposed waiving one of two required parking spaces for small ADUs (650 sq ft or less) and suggested attorney review of waiver language.
Council members asked staff to explore tying parking waivers to bedroom count rather than square footage and to return clarified language; several members also suggested administrative options to deter misuse, such as stronger rental-license enforcement or capital-connection triggers for larger ADUs.
Next steps: staff will refine ADU/EDU administrative mechanisms (EDU allocation options, capital-connection triggers), revisit waiver criteria with the attorney, and return revised code language for council consideration.
