Several townships express concern about ADUs in Residential-1 zoning districts
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
Editor’s Note: LeAnn R. Ralph serves as chair of the Town of Otter Creek.
MENOMONIE — Several townships in Dunn County have expressed concern about Accessory Dwelling Units in Residential-1 zoning districts.
The Dunn County Planning, Resources and Development Committee held a public hearing March 20 on the proposed zoning ordinance amendment to allow Accessory Dwelling Units in R-1, R-2, R-3 and General Agriculture zoning districts.
The PR&D Committee agreed to keep the public hearing open and to continue the public hearing at the April 17 meeting.
According to the proposed zoning ordinance amendment, a Junior ADU of no more than 600 square feet would be an accessory use in R-1 districts, and an Attached ADU of no more than 1,200 square feet would be allowed as a principal use in R-1 districts.
The ADUs cannot be larger than the primary dwelling and would have a maximum size of 600 square feet for Junior ADUs and 1,200 square feet for Attached ADUs or separate ADUs.
ADUs would be allowed as an accessory use in R-2, R-3, GA, and an attached ADU would be allowed as a principal use in GA.
Only one accessory dwelling unit would be allowed per parcel
R-1
The Town of Tainter e-mailed written comments to the PR&D Committee signed by the Tainter Town Board indicating that the town board was unanimously opposed to the proposed zoning ordinance amendment.
The communication from the Tainter Town Board noted that Dunn County zoning already allows more than one dwelling per parcel in R-2 and R-3, and that the proposed amendment would turn an R-1 district into an R-2 district.
If the desired use is not permitted under the current zoning, then the property owner can apply for a rezone, the memorandum states.
The Town of Tainter communication goes on to say that attached ADUs are already allowed in in R-1 that serve the purpose of the amendment “to allow more efficient use of existing housing stock and infrastructure; providing a broader range of housing opportunities that responds to changing family needs; and offering a means for residents to remain in their homes and neighborhoods and obtain security, services, and companionship.”
Groundwater
The Tainter Town Board also expressed concern about the effect of doubling the number of dwellings in an R-1 district and the possible effect on groundwater contamination.
Sampling reports show that there are areas in Dunn County where water wells already exceed the standard for nitrates, and while the state of Wisconsin provides regulations for septic systems, there are wells contaminated with septic wastewater in spite of conforming to state regulations.
The Tainter Town Board is concerned that the proposed zoning amendment also does not stipulate the type of construction for a detached ADU, and that since a detached Junior ADU could be no more than 600 square feet, a 10-foot by 60-foot mobile home could be placed on the R1 parcel and then rented out, which could have a detrimental effect on surrounding home values.
The Tainter Town Board is concerned as well about problems securing certain types of federal home loans if there is more than one dwelling on a parcel. Another concern is that in the future, property owners would want to separate the ADU and primary dwelling to sell as separate parcels, but that the shared well, septic and driveway could complicate separating the parcels.
If an R-1 parcel can be subdivided legally, then it should be subdivided now and create a separate dwelling unit on the new parcel, according to the communication from the Town of Tainter.
Parcels
The Otter Creek Town Board held a special meeting on March 19 to consider the response from the Town of Tainter to the proposed zoning amendment and also sent a written communication to the PR&D Committee for the public hearing.
The Otter Creek Town Board considered several aspects of the proposed zoning amendment, such as the PR&D Committee’s previous discussion of setting a minimum lot size of one acre in R-1 zoning districts in order to have an ADU since the county’s land division ordinance specifies a minimum one-acre lot size.
A one-acre minimum lot size, however, still would not allow the ADU and primary dwelling to legally be separated into two parcels. The ADU must be subordinate in size to the primary dwelling, so the ADU could be 1,190 square feet, and the primary dwelling could be 1,200 square feet, and the property owner would never be allowed to sell the two dwellings as separate properties, unless the county’s land division ordinance is changed.
The initially proposed zoning amendment also included the requirement that either the primary dwelling or the ADU must be occupied by the property owner, but that stipulation was removed because it was believed Dunn County could not enforce the stipulation.
The intent of the proposed ordinance amendment is for families to construct ADUs in response to changing family needs, but it is not a requirement of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment.
The proposed zoning amendment for ADUs would create a situation in the Town of Otter Creek, for example, where the minimum lot size of five acres set by the Town of Otter Creek would be circumvented, so that essentially, the town’s minimum lot size would be cut in half.
As with the one-acre parcels in R-1, there also would be no way in the future for property owners to separate the five-acre parcel into two parcels and sell the primary dwelling with one parcel and the ADU with the second parcel.
The Town of Otter Creek shares the Town of Tainter’s concern about groundwater contamination as well, since Dunn County’s recent well sampling project showed that nitrate contamination of well water is already a concern in certain areas of the county.
Construction
Regarding the issue of the proposed zoning amendment not stipulating the type of construction for a Detached ADU, the Otter Creek Town Board wonders if it is possible to specify mobile homes no older than a certain year.
Since the proposed ADU ordinance does not stipulate any materials or design standards, it would appear that any mobile home — or perhaps more properly called a manufactured home — no matter what the age or condition, as long as it met the size parameter, could be hauled in and used as an ADU for family members or rented out to non-family members.
Dunn County’s zoning ordinance, under Chapter 13.2.3.03 Permitted Principal Structures, allows a single family dwelling, excluding mobile homes constructed before June 15, 1976.
In 1976, the definition of mobile home included those units built before June 15, 1976, and after that date, the units are officially called manufactured homes for those structures manufactured on a wheel base, according to various on-line sources.
Granary
Abraham Smith, a Town of Menomonie resident who lives near Irvington, said during the public hearing that he was in favor of the ADU zoning amendment.
The Victorian farmhouse on his property was built in 1905, and the granary on the property is 120 years old. The farmhouse cannot easily have an attachment built onto it, which would change the outline of the structure, he said.
Smith said he would like to renovate the granary as a cottage for his parents, which would help preserve the granary and would give it a new use.
Duplexes
Kent Jackson, chair of the Town of Menomonie, said the Menomonie Town Board had discussed the proposed zoning amendment for ADUs and that the town board was not in favor of allowing ADUs in R-1 districts.
R-1 is intended to allow only one residence per parcel, while R-2 and R-3 allow multi-family dwellings, he said.
The proposed ADU amendment would essentially allow duplexes in R-1 zoning, Jackson said.
Crises
Louisa Gerasimo of Menomonie said she works with several housing groups, and people are struggling to find homes.
The dairy farming crisis in the 1980s affected small towns and small farms, so that small towns are lacking services they had at one time, such as healthcare, and there are virtually no small family farms left, she said.
The housing crisis is a similar crisis to the crisis faced by dairy farms in the 1980s, and Dunn County will need 3,400 additional housing units, Gerasimo said.
The ADU zoning amendment would begin to address the housing crisis, she said.
Subdividing
Jerry Mrdutt, a resident of the Town of Tainter who also is a member of the Tainter Town Board, said he was not speaking for the town board.
R-1 is intended for single family dwellings, and many of the lots around Tainter Lake are one acre or less, he said.
Town of Tainter ordinances stipulate that there must be one acre per dwelling, and a duplex requires two acres, Mrdutt said.
Will the zoning ordinance amendment still allow the Town of Tainter’s requirement of two acres for a duplex? he asked.
In addition, smaller lots would have two homes, and if it is possible to subdivide the property, then there will likely be issues with shared wells, shared septics and shared driveways, and the ADU ordinance amendment would be creating a long-term problem, Mrdutt said.
Significant changes
Significant changes to the zoning ordinance often do not receive the attention they deserve, said Tom Quinn, county board supervisor from Downing and chair of the PR&D Committee.
Gary Bjork, county board supervisor from Colfax and a member of the PR&D Committee, said he was not in favor of ADUs in R-1 districts or in General Agriculture.
The PR&D Committee usually does not receive public input from the towns, and if the towns are not on board, then there is no zoning for Dunn County, he said.
Increased density does not help for protecting the groundwater, Bjork said.
In view of the housing study that shows more housing is needed in Dunn County, the effort should be put into developing housing in Elk Mound, Colfax, Boyceville, Wheeler and Menomonie, he said.
The GA zoning is meant to preserve natural resources and open spaces, and there is a density requirement of 8:1 in General Ag, Bjork said.
If people want an ADU in a GA district , then they could ask for a special exception or a rezone, and there would be a good chance that they would receive approval, he said.
Postponed
Quinn suggested postponing the closing of the public hearing.
Mike Kneer, county board from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D Committee, said he did not believe the committee was ready to make a final decision on the proposed zoning amendment and that committee members should be able to consider a final draft of the proposed amendment.
The PR&D Committee should consider some kind of compromise after receiving testimony from two of the most populated townships in Dunn County, especially concerning the detached ADUs in R-1, he said.
In considering the balance of conflicting needs — the need for more housing or the concerns of property owners in R-1 — the need for housing indicates ADUs should be kept in R-1, said Monica Berrier, county board supervisor from the City of Menomonie and a member of the PR&D Committee.
While the concerns expressed by the town boards did include some concerns about property owners in R-1 and their expectation of living in a single-family zoning district, the town boards also were concerned about long-term effects, such as the potential to divide the property into two parcels and circumventing the town’s intent to have a minimum lot size as well as the concern that increased density would increase the potential for groundwater contamination.
Five-alarm fire
Diane Morehouse, county board supervisor from the City of Menomonie, noted that she has been an advocate for years to address the housing situation.
The housing shortage has been described as a five-alarm fire from an economic perspective, she said.
Some employers in Dunn County are experiencing difficulty hiring the people they need because, in part, there is a shortage of workforce housing.
By 2025, the housing study indicates that an additional 1,500 housing units will be needed in Dunn County, Morehouse said.
By 2040, Dunn County will need an additional 3,400 housing units, she said.
There has not been very much discussion during the ADU discussion when the housing study is mentioned of what kind of housing units are needed.
The Settlers Ridge development in Elk Mound, for example, is expected to triple the population of the village, which is currently about 1,000 people, when all the phases of the development are finished.
The Village of Elk Mound’s water system, however, requires a $2.6 million upgrade to support the additional housing units, and the village board has been experiencing difficulty finding a way to fund that expense.
The ADUs will not solve the housing crisis, but they will help with housing for older people and younger families, Morehouse said, adding that she did not have a problem with ADUs in R-1 zoning districts.
Attached ADUs
The comments from the Town of Tainter indicated that attached ADUs are already allowed in R-1, so Quinn asked if Anne Wodarczyk, Dunn County zoning administrator, could clarify the situation with attached ADUs.
The Dunn County ordinance on creating additions to expand a dwelling does not differentiate whether an addition is part of the main house or a separate living area, Wodarczyk said.
Permitting is achieved through the interpretation of the zoning administrator, she said, adding that she would like language in the ordinance to help regulate additions.
Even when people are told they cannot build the additions, they are building them anyway, and then they are not being inspected for suitability as a dwelling, so there is a concern for the health, safety and welfare of Dunn County residents, Wodarczyk said.
The additions should be regulated. Additions can be built in R-1 now, but it “comes down to” the interpretation by staff, she said.
Increasing access to housing is a necessity, and ADUs and land use are a consideration. The regulatory burden should be removed from expansion for additional housing, Quinn said.
There are concerns about zoning, but people also want more options. R-1 is a concern, he said, adding that he is not concerned ADUs would be a problem in General Ag.
Support
The towns are not fully supportive of the ADU ordinance amendment, and the support of the towns is necessary for moving forward as a county, Quinn said.
The upcoming rewrite of the county’s comprehensive land use plan will involve local discussions about agriculture and communities, he said.
Dunn County has a different landscape than it did in the 1970s and 1980s, and the changes are not all good and are not all bad, he said.
The updated comprehensive land use plan must be talked about as a community, as neighbors and at town halls, Quinn said.
The PR&D Committee is not ready to make a decision on the ADU ordinance amendment, but it is worth continuing the process, he said.
The Dunn County Planning, Resources and Development Committee will continue the public hearing on the ADU zoning ordinance amendment at the April 17 meeting.
The PR&D Committee will consider comments and questions to address the concerns raised so far about ADUs at the April 3 meeting and will address those concerns before opening the public hearing again, Quinn said.
According to Chapter SPS 320 of Wisconsin state statutes, the design and construction of mobile homes is regulated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and mobile homes are not subject to Uniform Dwelling Code requirements. Prior to regulation by HUD in 1976, the design and construction of mobile homes were not uniformly regulated.
