Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables ADU ordinance after confusion over 11,000‑sq‑ft rule
Summary
The Dike County Commission voted to table a proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance after commissioners and staff identified ambiguous language about an 11,000‑square‑foot lot threshold and whether the rule applies only to detached/external ADUs. Legal staff will review public‑notice requirements before the item returns.
The Dike County Commission on Wednesday tabled consideration of a proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance after members said a draft contained unclear language about which types of ADUs the 11,000‑square‑foot lot threshold applies to.
Chair (S1) introduced the item and invited Planning and Zoning chair Chad Reed to summarize the commission’s draft and recommendation. Reed (S5) said the planning board had spent extensive time on the draft and submitted a recommendation; commissioners then raised several points of clarification about definitions and application.
Commissioner (S7) flagged the specific line that says “ADUs shall not be permitted on 11,000 square feet or less,” asking whether that restriction was intended to apply to detached or external ADUs only. “When I see ADU, it means all of them because it didn’t define anything else,” the commissioner said during the discussion (S7). Reed responded that the county needs to distinguish internal, attached and detached ADUs so the draft aligns with existing state code language.
Legal staff (S2) told the commission he would research statutory public‑notice and hearing requirements for adopting an ordinance and recommended rewording the relevant subsection so it explicitly limits the 11,000‑sq‑ft rule to detached/external ADUs if that was the intent. “We do need to clarify that… external ADU shall not be permitted on lots of 11,000 square feet or less,” S2 said, describing the edits he planned to propose.
Given the uncertainty, the chair entertained a motion to table the item so legal staff could provide an opinion and help redraft the subsection. The commission agreed to table the ordinance and attempt to return the item later that week or in the next meeting if an additional public hearing is required. No formal vote tally was recorded in the transcript.
Next steps: staff (S2 and S3) will work with planning and zoning to clarify internal vs. attached vs. detached ADU definitions in the draft and to confirm whether the commission must hold its own public hearing and notice period before final adoption.
