PR&D working on comprises for ADU concerns in R-1 and GA
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 working on comprises to address concerns for a zoning ordinance amendment that would include Accessory Dwelling Units in Residential-1 and General Agriculture zoning districts.
The impression is that allowing ADUs in R-1 will result in R-1 zoning districts being inundated with mobile homes and container dwellings, said Diane Morehouse, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D Committee, at the April 3 meeting.
The housing issue will not go away, and ADUs will help for the housing issue, she said.
The design standards included in the proposed ordinance should ease people’s concerns. Dunn County will not suddenly have thousands of ADUs popping up in R-1 districts, Morehouse said.
At issue are concerns expressed by the Town of Tainter and the Town of Menomonie that Junior ADUs, which are separate from the primary dwelling, will change R-1 districts into multi-family districts.
There are also concerns from the Town of Tainter and the Town of Menomonie about doubling residential density and the possible impact on groundwater contamination.
Additional concerns focus on requests to split the property into two parcels when the ADU is no longer needed or wanted but that now there are shared driveways, shared septics and shared wells.
Another concern is that when splitting off the ADU, the resulting parcels would be smaller than the minimum allowed by the town’s minimum lot size and would require a variance to split the property into two parcels. The variances would circumvent the town’s minimum lot size.
Michael Kneer, county board supervisor from the Town of Menomonie and a member of the PR&D Committee, said he recognizes that Morehouse does not see a problem with ADUs in R-1.
Three town boards voted against ADUs in R-1, he said.
The Town of Tainter has more R-1 parcels than the rest of the county combined. The Town of Menomonie has more R-1 parcels than the rest of the county combined, Kneer noted.
The people who live in those townships disagree that ADUs in R-1 will not be a problem. The Towns of Tainter and Menomonie have 95 percent of the R-1 in Dunn County, he said.
Zoning and zoning amendments are a cooperative process, and is not a situation of “not in my backyard,” Kneer said, noting that all of the towns, by either submitting public comments or not saying anything, have agreed that ADUs are fine in GA and in R-2 and R-3.
The detached ADUs should be removed from R-1, he said.
Board of Adjustment
Gary Bjork, county board supervisor from Colfax and a member of the PR&D Committee, asked whether there was a role for the Dunn County Zoning Board of Adjustment concerning ADUs.
Right now, people can build an addition onto a house, and there are no standards as to whether it is an attached ADU or merely an addition onto the house, said Anne Wodarczyk, Dunn County zoning administrator.
Would a detached ADU go to the Board of Adjustment? Bjork asked.
Detached ADUs are not allowed by the current zoning ordinance, Wodarczyk said.
Under the current zoning code, in order to have a detached ADU, the property owner would have to split the parcel according to the regulations that allow splitting into two parcels. There is not a zoning district where a primary dwelling and an ADU are allowed. A new lot would have to be created to allow an ADU right now, she said.
To maintain zoning, there must be cooperation between the towns and the county, and the county should respect the opinions of the towns, Bjork said.
Wodarczyk noted that there is no “agenda” from the zoning office concerning ADUs, and that the PR&D Committee and the Dunn County Board can make the decisions about ADUs, and the zoning office will administer any decisions made by the county.
Bjork said that it appeared, from his point of view, that the ADUs are appropriate in some circumstances where family members want to help family members, but that to open ADUs to all areas of the county is a cause for concern.
Minimum lot size
Monica Berrier, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D Committee, said there were specific concerns about ADUs in R1 that focus on small lot sizes and setbacks, especially around Tainter Lake.
Is there a way to more directly address the concern, such as not allowing ADUs if the parcel does not meet the minimum lot size? she asked.
After the testimony at the public hearing, there are several principal concerns that were highlighted, and the committee and staff agree that this must be a collaborative effort, said Tom Quinn, county board supervisor from Downing and chair of the PR&D Committee.
ADUs in R-1 raise concern about septics and groundwater contamination, and R-1 might be where there is the most pressure for ADUs, he said.
Town of Elk Mound
Tony Christopherson, chair of the Town of Elk Mound, which is an unzoned township, attended the April 3 PR&D Committee.
The Town of Elk Mound Plan Commission has discussed ADUs and has noted that if a mother-in-law ADU is built, and then after a while there is no mother-in-law to live in the ADU, what happens if the property owner does not want to be a landlord and does not want to rent the ADU? he asked.
If the ADU is built on a parcel that is already at the minimum lot size, and the landowner says he or she does not want to be a landlord, then the property owner will be asking for an exemption to split the lot into two parcels, Christopherson said.
The Town of Elk Mound had a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres but has now reduced the minimum lot size to 1.2 acres, he said.
A minimum lot size of .6 acres is enough in shoreland areas for a septic, according to state standards, so at 1.2 acres, there would be enough room for two septics, Christopherson said.
The ADU could have a shared driveway, a shared well and a shared septic, and if it is on a 1.2 acre lot with a primary dwelling, then it could not be split off, he said.
Is there a way to write it into the zoning code as a special use so that the ADU could be approved by the town board on a case-by case basis? Christopherson asked.
Towns could decide to take the ADUs on a case-by case basis or could decide to allow Dunn County to approve all ADUs in the township, he said.
If there is a shared well, septic and driveway, there might be a problem with maintenance costs, Bjork said.
If it were spelled out how the shared well, septic and driveway would be handled to try to prevent problems in the future, then the rules, such as a driveway easement, could be attached to the deed. Buyers would know when they purchased the property that there is an agreement to maintain the driveway, Christopherson said.
To say there would never be any conflicts in those kinds of situations is not consistent with the history of what can happen with properties, Quinn noted.
Special exceptions
Quinn asked about the process for special exceptions.
Concerning detached ADUs, the property owner could apply for a special exception or a conditional use, which are the same thing, and then the application would go to the Board of Adjustment, which can add conditions, Wodarczyk said.
The town board would be able to review the application and address it at a meeting, make suggestions to the BOA for conditions, if there are some kind of conditions that might be needed, but the conditions could only be for protecting health, safety and welfare and must be justified, measurable and possible, she said.
If the town did not agree with the conditions imposed by the BOA, then the application could end up in circuit court, Wodarczyk said.
Could the special exception be approved by the town board? Could it be in the ordinance that the application would not go to the Board of Adjustment? Christopherson asked.
Could a town review standard be added to the zoning ordinance for ADUs? Quinn asked.
Christian Farina, Dunn County assistant corporation counsel, said he would have to dig into the state statutes.
Explicit town approval is not included in the state statutes, so it would creating an end-around, he said, adding that he was not certain that it would be legal for the town board to be the sole authority on approval of ADUs.
The town boards would have to make decisions on justifiable standards and not just “we don’t want it,” Quinn said.
Twice the lot size
Monica Berrier, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D Committee, asked if it would be possible to double the minimum lot size required for ADUs so it would not be possible to circumvent the minimum lot size if the property owner wanted to split the property later on.
That would stop someone from asking for a variance on a smaller lot size, Christopherson said.
Berrier said she agreed with Quinn in that the development of the ADU zoning ordinance amendment needed to be a collaborative process that would allow finding a way to meet concerns.
Full disclosure
Wodarczyk said there was an issue on which she wanted to make full disclosure to the PR&D Committee.
There is a possibility that the authority for approving special exceptions and conditions for those special exceptions could be moved to the PR&D Committee. Other counties have done it, she said.
The Board of Adjustment could still review and take actions on applications for variances, Wodarczyk said.
The PR&D Committee could become the authority for approving ADUs rather than the BOA. It is a process, but it could be done, she said.
Several ideas have been floated that could resolve some the issues, and if Wodarczyk and Farina could research the suggestions and compromises, the information could be used to continue the discussion, Morehouse said.
There are some good ideas that may or may not work, but the information might provide a path forward on the ADU ordinance amendment, Quinn said.
There are a number of people who have indicated to the PR&D Committee during public comments that they want the ADUs in General Agriculture for their families, Quinn said, adding that he would like to find a way to help those families.
The public hearing is scheduled to reconvene at the next PR&D Committee meeting, he said.
The public hearing could be convened as scheduled and then the public hearing could be closed, Farina said.
The PR&D Committee could accept more testimony and then reconvene the public hearing again, Quinn said.
Farina reviewed the issues to be researched: junior and attached ADUs in R-1 as a special exception; double the minimum lot size in General Ag and R-1 so that if the property is split later on, it would still meet the minimum lot size; the possibility of the town boards being able to make recommendations for approval and conditions.
The Dunn County Planning, Resources and Development Committee was scheduled to meet at 8:30 a.m. April 17.
