Dunn County PR&D public hearing for ADU ordinance scheduled for March 20
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
By LeAnn R. Ralph
MENOMONIE — The Dunn County Planning, Resources and Development Committee is expecting to hold a public hearing on the Accessory Dwelling Unit zoning ordinance amendment on March 20.
PR&D committee members spent much of a two-hour meeting on February 21 discussing the details of the ADU ordinance, such as setting a maximum size for an attached or detached ADU at 1,200 square feet and a junior ADU at 600 square feet.
The way the proposed zoning ordinance amendment currently reads is that an attached ADU would be considered a principal use because it is attached to a principal dwelling and would have the same standards as a principal dwelling, said Anne Wodarczyk, Dunn County zoning administrator.
A junior ADU would be an accessory use, she said
Gary Bjork, county board supervisor from Colfax and a member of the PR&D committee, asked if an attached ADU could become a twin home.
Twin homes are also known as “zero lot line” homes. They are similar to a duplex, except that separate people own each side, and the owners have an agreement about building maintenance, such as siding and roof replacement.
Twin homes can be built in any zoning district, but for a twin home to be an ADU, it would have to be on lot that can be legally subdivided, Wodarczyk said, noting that ADUs cannot be condominiums.
Dunn County’s minimum lot size is one acre. Although it was not entirely clear from the discussion, presumably a twin home would have to be built on two acres so that the lot for each side is one acre. Some townships in Dunn County have minimum lot sizes that are larger than one acre.
Four acres
In the Town of Colfax, there is a four-acre minimum lot size, and almost the entire township is General Agriculture, Bjork said.
In order to have a second house, a landowner would have to have an additional four acres, he said.
The county’s land division ordinance regulates the placement of a house, so under county zoning, if an ADU is approved, it could be built on that four-acre lot, Wodarczyk said.
If the Town of Colfax has more restrictions than the county’s land division ordinance, then the ADU could not be built on the four-acre lot, she said.
It was not clear from the discussion whether Bjork was referring to the concept of a twin home or a detached ADU.
If the reference was regarding a twin home, then it would appear the twin home would need four acres for each side.
Accessory and principal uses
The draft ADU ordinance allows a junior ADU as an accessory use in Residential 1 and an attached ADU as a principal use in R-1; allows attached or detached ADUs as a principal use in Residential-2; allows ADUs as an accessory use in R-3; and allows a detached ADU as an accessory use and an attached ADU as a principal use in General Agriculture.
Michael Kneer, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee, asked about the differences between accessory and principal use.
Principal uses and accessory uses both require a zoning permit, but as an accessory use, there must first be a principal use on the property, which in this case, would be a dwelling, Wodarczyk said.
So if someone already has a dwelling on their property as a principal use, and if it is a permitted accessory use, that person can get a zoning permit for the accessory use, Kneer said.
“Yes,” Wodarczyk said.
Septic
Tom Quinn, county board supervisor from Downing and chair of the PR&D committee, asked about septic and sanitary regulations.
The septic system must be sized for the number of bedrooms, Wodarczyk said.
If the septic system serving the primary dwelling is large enough that another bedroom or two bedrooms could be added to the system, then an attached or detached ADU would not need a separate septic system, she said.
It would be up to the property owner to meet the septic regulations. If the existing system can handle another bedroom or two more, then that is acceptable. If not, then the landowner must install a separate septic system for the ADU, Wodarczyk said.
Installing a second septic system assumes there is room on the lot for a second septic that follows state regulations on septics, such as room for a drain field or a mound system and the requirements for setbacks.
Setbacks
The ADU can be a maximum of 300 feet away from the primary dwelling, but an ADU could be located 50 feet away from the primary dwelling, for example, Wodarczyk said.
The setbacks from the lot lines also would apply so it would be difficult to locate an ADU on a small lot, said Monica Barrier, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee.
There probably would not be enough space on the tiny lots around Tainter Lake for an ADU, she said.
Kneer noted that the proposed ordinance amendment had restricted an ADU to two bedrooms, so that the proposed ordinance was more restrictive than it was previously.
Wodarczyk said she had forgotten to take out the section on two bedrooms and that she was not proposing a limit to two bedrooms.
There also had been no real consensus from the PR&D committee on square footages, so the proposed ordinance currently reads 1,200 square feet, she said.
Kneer noted that the committee had previously talked about a 1,000 square foot maximum lot size and a minimum of one acre.
One acre
The proposed ordinance amendment does not address the concern for a minimum of one acre, Kneer said.
At past meetings, Kneer has expressed concern for the groundwater by placing additional homes on smaller lots in a concentrated area.
Minimum lot sizes are not going to be the key to preventing contamination, Wodarczyk said.
When Michelle Hrdlicka (Dunn County zoning enforcement officer), reviews a site for a septic system, if there is sufficient area for the septic, she cannot say “no,” Kneer said.
If the state regulations say that a septic can be put on a certain site, “it does not mean that we should,” he said.
For a long time, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources was not allowed to consider the cumulative impact of high capacity wells when considering a permit for another high capacity well. There could be 50 high capacity wells in a small area, and the DNR was previously unable to consider that, Kneer said.
Dunn County has a one-acre minimum for new lots being created, so the proposed zoning ordinance amendment for ADUs should stay with one acre, he said.
Diane Morehouse, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee, said she and Kneer had talked about the proposed ADU ordinance and that they had agreed to disagree.
Kneer is putting more weight on the groundwater, Morehouse said, and she is putting more weight on ADUs being able to help with the housing crisis.
Housing density might be a better way to think about the groundwater, and density is already in the ordinance, Wodarczyk said.
“I remain opposed to unduly limiting the ability of homeowners to build. These are good standards. I am opposed to more restrictions,” Morehouse said, adding that she could consider some compromise on square footage.
Septic standards would address the groundwater directly rather than through a one-acre minimum lot size, Barrier said.
The PR&D committee did not discuss whether state standards for septics limit the number of septic systems per acre or in a certain area. Presumably if there are 50 houses with 50 septics in a certain area, and all the lots could accommodate an ADU and needed to add a septic, that there could be 100 septic systems in an area that previously had 50 septic systems.
Owner occupied?
When the ADU is first built, must the occupant be a relative of the occupant(s) of the principal dwelling? Bjork asked.
There is no requirement for relatives to occupy the ADU, Wodarczyk said.
Could a duplex add an ADU? Bjork asked.
An ADU only applies to a single family dwelling, so an ADU cannot be built with a multi-family dwelling, Wodarczyk said.
“We started off with owner occupied. Where did it go?” Kneer asked.
In the first discussions, owner occupied was considered as an option, but it is thought to not be enforceable or against property rights, Wodarczyk said.
The PR&D committee has looked at the proposed ADU ordinance four times, but committee members did not have a discussion on owner-occupied or make a decision about whether owner-occupied should be required, Kneer said.
The proposed ordinance amendment should include owner-occupied. It is enforceable, and it reinforces the subordinate nature of ADUs, he said.
One of the first versions of the draft ordinance amendment required either the primary dwelling or the ADU to be occupied by the landowner.
When grandma passes away, there is nothing to allow a neighbor to move in. If the goal is additional housing, then owner-occupancy is a problem, Morehouse said.
It should be under the homeowner’s control. It is not practical to follow up on, she said.
Additional barriers will not help for the housing crisis, Morehouse said.
The proposal for ADUs is a big change to the zoning ordinance, Kneer said, adding that it is the biggest change to zoning since he has been serving on the PR&D committee.
Investors
Quinn said he was concerned about investors coming in and buying a tract of land and then building primary dwellings and ADUs on each lot so there would be double the potential for rental units.
The PR&D committee did not discuss the implications of investors buying land and immediately building primary dwellings and ADUs and then renting out both units.
One question is if there is no owner-occupancy requirement, does that mean an investor could buy a 20-acre tract of land in a general agriculture area, for example, subdivide the land into lots, build primary dwellings and ADUs, and not have to seek a rezone for residential?
The potential for an investor to buy up a tract of land would be limited by an owner-occupancy requirement, Quinn noted.
“We are trying to get people to invest in the community,” Morehouse said.
Bjork asked if there was a minimum size for detached junior ADUs, currently listed as a maximum size of 600 square feet.
The Uniform Dwelling Code regulates what meets the requirements for a habitable size, Wodarczyk said.
Next step
The PR&D committee was expected to discuss the proposed zoning amendment for ADUs again at the March 6 meeting.
A public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment is expected to be held March 20.
