Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears required ADU code rewrite, flags septic, subdivision and HOA concerns
Summary
Staff outlined the state-mandated ADU law (House Bill 1466) that requires ADUs be allowed where single-family homes are permitted; commissioners asked detailed questions about septic, sprinklers, APFO, substitution, subdivision risk and protections for community character, and asked staff to return with technical guidance.
Tiffany Fazas, staff leading drafting for the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) text amendment, told the Planning and Zoning Commission that the General Assembly’s bill requires local law allowing ADUs anywhere a single-family detached dwelling is permitted and that jurisdictions must adopt the statutory definition and certain limits by Oct. 1.
"The top requirements are that we must allow for the creation of the accessory dwelling unit anywhere that there is a single family dwelling," Fazas said, summarizing the bill and its key definition (an ADU is a secondary unit on the same lot, not to exceed 75% of the primary dwelling’s size).
Fazas reviewed statutory constraints and local flexibilities: ADUs must be permitted and meet public-health and safety standards, must be excluded from density calculations, and jurisdictions cannot impose additional parking requirements on ADUs without first completing a parking study; side and rear setback limits for ADUs may not exceed those applied to accessory structures. The staff presentation recommended a focused drafting program between May and July, returning recommendations to the County Commissioners in July to request a public hearing in August and (if scheduled) a commissioners’ vote by mid-September to meet the Oct. 1 effective date.
Commissioners pressed staff on practical constraints. Several members raised septic and water-capacity concerns and asked whether the county can require sprinklers or other safety measures. Fazas said state fire-marshal rules and county permitting requirements will inform specific safety standards and that staff will seek guidance from emergency services and the State Fire Marshal. On APFO (adequate public facilities ordinance) impacts, staff flagged potential interactions (schools, roads, water/sewer, fire/EMS) and said more technical review is required.
A recurring concern was subdivision potential and neighborhood impacts: commissioners warned that large detached ADUs or permissive rules could encourage later subdivision of lots, change community character, and interfere with homeowner association covenants. Staff noted the statute limits what jurisdictions can prohibit but said historic districts may be exempt and that the county can explore measures (deed restrictions, liens or code language) that limit future subdivision or otherwise protect community character.
Fazas and other staff committed to assembling technical clarifications (state FAQs, fire-marshal guidance, APFO intersection, subdivision controls, and options to limit subdivision or require deed restrictions) before the next meeting. Commissioners asked whether the county should draft a dedicated ADU chapter for clarity; staff said they would consider a standalone section to centralize ADU rules.
Staff will return with the requested technical details and draft language for commissioners’ direction ahead of the county-commissioners’ review and possible public hearing.
