Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Ogden council asks staff to study allowing ADU occupancy before primary home is finished
Summary
A resident presenter proposed changing the city's ADU rules so an accessory unit could be occupied before the main house is complete; council asked staff and the planning commission to examine draft language and protections, with no formal vote taken.
Lynn Satterthwaite told the North Ogden City Council she wants the city to allow an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be occupied before the primary residence is finished in certain situations, and asked the council to direct the planning commission to draft ordinance language.
Satterthwaite reviewed the history of ADU rules and said the city’s code was written for cases where a primary dwelling already existed. She proposed a narrowly tailored exception and spelled out protections she said should remain in place: a cap on ADU size (she cited 40% of the primary dwelling’s square footage under existing rules, with a 50% allowance if under the primary roof), limits on placement so the ADU is not “an eyesore,” parking restrictions, and setback standards. On timing she proposed that “the certificate of occupancy for the primary residence must be obtained within 24 months of the ADU’s occupancy permit issuance,” a time-limited safeguard intended to prevent permanent occupation of ADUs where the primary home is never completed.
Councilors asked technical questions about permitting and inspections. A resident asked whether separate permits would be required and what would happen if one unit failed inspection; staff said building permits are usually separate and inspections would follow current building guidelines. The council also discussed taxes and whether the county would allow the approach under its rules.
After questions and brief debate, the mayor asked whether anyone opposed directing staff to look into the package of changes. Without a formal roll-call vote, the council agreed to have staff and the planning commission examine Satterthwaite’s draft language and return with recommended ordinance wording or alternatives. The council did not adopt any ordinance at the meeting; the item was recorded as direction to staff for further work.
The city referenced the existing code section in the presentation as “11-9 m-m,” and staff said any substantive change would come back through the planning process for public notice and formal hearings.
