Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the ADU Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carroll County debates how to implement state ADU law before Oct. 1 deadline
Summary
Staff presented draft local ADU text implementing state law (75% size cap, owner‑occupancy, one ADU per lot); commissioners debated how to measure the 75% cap, parking and stormwater triggers, and whether ADUs should count against concurrency/APFO assessments.
Carroll County staff told the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 3 they are drafting text to comply with the state’s accessory‑dwelling‑unit (ADU) legislation and asked for direction on how to interpret several specifics of the law.
Tiffany Faucet, planning staff, summarized the county’s proposed approach: add a purpose and intent statement, adopt owner‑occupancy and one‑ADU‑per‑lot limits, require building and health‑code compliance, and offer definitions for detached, attached and interior ADUs. The drafts follow the state statute’s sizing rule that an ADU may not exceed 75% of the primary dwelling’s size, but staff proposed technical options for measuring that limit—either 75% of above‑grade livable area (using State Department of Assessments and Taxation data) or 75% of the house footprint for attached/detached ADUs while treating interior (basement/attic) units consistently.
Commissioners queried whether large houses could therefore host very large ADUs, and asked how to prevent perverse outcomes (for example, building a very large primary dwelling and then adding a 75%‑sized ADU). Staff replied that bulk requirements, maximum heights and lot‑coverage rules in the underlying zoning district will further constrain ADU scale.
Parking was a major subject. State law restricts local governments from imposing ADU parking minimums unless the county first adopts a parking study; staff said Carroll County does not plan an immediate blanket parking requirement. Instead, the county would require compliance with existing site and zoning rules; any new off‑street parking standards could follow a county‑level parking study. Stormwater was also raised: county staff noted that cumulative land disturbance exceeding 5,000 square feet triggers stormwater controls, so adding driveways or other hardscape for an ADU could create permit obligations.
On APFO/concurrency, staff proposed not automatically counting ADUs against concurrency caps in real time but to track ADUs and include them in the county’s annual concurrency report; if a system (schools, roads, EMS, water/sewer) is later found inadequate, the county could pause ADU approvals until capacity is addressed.
Why it matters: the state law requires local action by Oct. 1. The commission’s choices about technical definitions, parking policy and whether ADUs are included in concurrency calculations will affect rental availability, neighborhood parking and county infrastructure loads.
Next steps: staff will consolidate language and return with draft text for the June 16 meeting; the county intends to forward final recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners so public hearings and formal adoption can be timed to meet statutory deadlines.
