Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Adus Waivers topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Staff clarifies ADU rules, waiver limits and deed-recordation for SB 9 lot splits

Piedmont Planning Commission · July 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Staff proposed code edits to clarify ADU/JADU eligibility on lots created under ministerial subdivisions, waiver rules for minimum lot sizes and unit sizes under SB 9, and a new requirement to record SB 9 lot splits on deeds to make ministerial rights clear to future applicants and staff.

During the presentation of the SB 9–related package, senior planner Pierce McDonnell explained several targeted code clarifications intended to reduce ambiguity when applicants and staff process ministerial subdivisions and urban-lot splits. Among the substantive edits, staff proposes that ADUs and junior ADUs not be permitted on lots created pursuant to the state subdivision provisions referenced in the staff report, and to clarify that existing development must comply with underlying zoning when a SB 9 development is proposed.

McDonnell also described a proposed new section (17.54.090 in the draft) that would require a recorded notice on the deed when a property is subdivided and developed under SB 9 so future applicants and staff can readily identify that ministerial rights were exercised. "So it provides good record keeping for the city," McDonnell said. Staff explained waiver rules that set a practical minimum lot size (1,200 square feet) and unit-size thresholds (units of roughly 800 square feet or less) for purposes of applying objective-standard waivers; staff emphasized that waivers cannot allow construction within required four-foot side or rear setbacks.

Commissioners discussed whether the waiver thresholds are flexible under state law and asked staff to clarify the mechanics of ministerial waivers versus code variance processes. Staff reiterated that state law requires certain waivers in specified circumstances and that the proposed language is intended to comply with, and clarify, those obligations.