Dunn County PR&D makes preliminary determination to take ADUs out of R-1
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 — Several members of the Dunn County Planning, Resources and Development Committee are suggesting that Accessory Dwelling Units be removed from Residential-1 in the proposed zoning ordinance amendment.
Representatives for the townships in Dunn County with the most R-1 zoning have said they do not want ADUs in R-1 and are not likely to change their minds, said Diane Morehouse, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee, at the May 1 PR&D meeting.
“While it pains me to say it, ADUs should be taken out of R-1,” she said.
At issue is that representatives for the Town of Tainter and the Town of Menomonie, which have the majority of the R-1 zoning in Dunn County, have said that allowing ADUs in R-1 would change the zoning from single family residential to multi-family residential.
The representatives also were concerned about increased housing and population density that could contribute to contamination of the groundwater.
If the ADUs are taken out of R-1, they would still remain in Residential-2, Residential-3 and General Agriculture, Morehouse said.
“I can’t see a way forward without more endless conversation (about ADUs),” she said.
Attached in R-1
Monica Berrier, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee, said she agreed with Morehouse but wanted to know if that would also include attached ADUs in R-1.
Berrier said she had not heard any objections about attached ADUs in R-1, only objections to the detached Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
Morehouse agreed that the PR&D committee had not heard specific objections to attached ADUs in R-1.
The current zoning ordinance says nothing about allowing or not allowing attached ADUs, said Anne Wodarczyk, Dunn County zoning administrator.
Specific provisions in the zoning
DC
PR&D
Please
see
page
3
Continued
from
page
1
ordinance for attached ADUs would provide guidance to the zoning office for issuing permits for attached ADUs, she said.
At a previous meeting, Wodarczyk said even if people are told they cannot have an attached ADU, that in some cases, the homeowner is still building an addition onto the house that is used as an ADU.
Michael Kneer, county board supervisor from the Town of Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee, said that there had been some opposition to attached ADUs in R-1 from the Town of Menomonie although he did not know about the Town of Tainter.
Just one or both?
For the zoning ordinance amendment, the PR&D committee would like to remove the Junior ADUs as a permitted accessory use but allow attached ADUs as a permitted principal use? asked Christian Farina, Dunn County assistant corporation counsel.
There are additions currently being built in R-1 that function as ADUs, he noted.
Does the current zoning ordinance already allow attached ADUs? Kneer asked.
The towns most directly affected, that have the highest number of R-1 parcels, do not want either attached or JADUs, said Tom Quinn, county board supervisor from Downing and chair of the PR&D committee.
It would best to take all mention of ADUs out of the zoning ordinance amendment for R-1, but then if both the attached and junior ADUs are taken out of R-1, that is going to put more pressure on the zoning staff for each individual consideration, he said.
Allowing the ADUs by right in R-1 would remain for future discussion, Quinn said.
The PR&D committee can talk about it at the next meeting, he said.
The Dunn County Planning, Resources and Development Committee’s next meeting was scheduled for May 15.
Veto power
At previous PR&D committee meetings, the possibility of veto power for the town boards regarding ADUs has been discussed.
The issue of veto power for the town boards also was discussed at the April 17 meeting of the PR&D committee.
Granting permits for ADUs would be under the control of the county zoning office, Farina said at the April 17 meeting.
If the towns were allowed veto power, that could bind the county zoning office to the town’s decision, but it would not be Dunn County’s zoning decision, he said.
Landowners must meet a certain set of standards and have a reasonable opportunity to meet those standards, Farina said.
There would have to be extremely explicit standards and timelines for town power, and the town boards would have to be very careful in meeting the standards so that the decision could not be determined by a court to arbitrary, he said.
If a court of law said the town was being arbitrary, then by extension, the county could be viewed as being arbitrary by not issuing a zoning permit for an ADU based on the town board’s decision, Farina said.
It would not be impossible to write it into the zoning ordinance amendment for towns to have veto power over the ADUs, but it would be very complicated and very difficult to do, he said.
Smart Growth
Fifteen years ago, the towns were working on their Smart Growth comprehensive land use plans and putting together plan commissions and then gathering public input about the comprehensive land use plans, said Gary Bjork, county board supervisor from Colfax.
After the comprehensive land use plans were written, the maps were completed, and then the plans were approved by the state, then the towns could regulate development, and Dunn County would be an administrator for the comprehensive land use plans, he said.
The goal, Bjork said, was to give local control to local town boards to direct development in their townships.
“This seems like the county is telling the towns how to develop their land, in my opinion,” he said.
The relationship between the towns and the county was supposed to be administrative for the towns’ comprehensive land use plans, Bjork said.
The town comprehensive land use plans were developed by local control and through local input, and then those plans were incorporated into the Dunn County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Farina said.
If the towns opted into county zoning, then county zoning issues the zoning permits, he said.
Following the standards and the timelines would be a concern for allowing towns veto power, he said.
But the zoning ordinance amendment allowing ADUs would change the meaning for R-1 from single family to multi-family, Bjork said.
When Dunn County writes a new zoning ordinance, then the towns can withdraw from county zoning if they choose to withdraw, Farina said.
“You are the county,” Wodarczyk told the PR&D committee, putting an emphasis on the word “you.”
The public hearings allow for opinions to be expressed and for people to be heard, she said.
Allowing the towns veto power over the ADUs would not be good zoning and would be difficult to enforce, she said.
Circumstances change, and government must respond to changing circumstances. Overwhelming support for the ADU ordinance amendment is needed from the towns for the amendment to be successful, Quinn said.
Village powers
Most, if not all, of the townships in Dunn County likely have village powers, which gives the town boards the authority to adopt ordinances.
At the April 17 meeting, Farina talked about some of the ordinances in the townships, such as the Town of Tainter with a minimum lot size of one acre, but that two acres would be required for building a duplex, along with conservation development bonuses and reducing the minimum lot size if the development has fewer environmental impacts and requiring 20 percent green space on all parcels.
The Town of Menomonie has a minimum lot size of one acre, but the lot can be a half acre if there are modifications made for wastewater treatment. The Town of Otter Creek has a minimum five-acre lot size and allows only one dwelling per lot, he said.
The townships have village powers to adopt ordinances, but if those townships have opted into county zoning, then the townships would have to get approval from the Dunn County Board for those ordinances that address zoning, Farina said.
It was not clear from the discussion which parts of the town ordinances pertaining to lot sizes and the other provisions, such as wastewater treatment, would be considered zoning ordinances.
If the county allows ADUs, then the towns could not say “no” to an ADU, Quinn said.
Farina said that in his opinion, he did not believe the towns could ban ADUs if the town is part of county zoning, and the county’s zoning ordinance allows ADUs.
One for all
There are many aspects of ADUs to think about, and the county is trying to make one ordinance that will work for all the townships, Kneer said.
Differences among the towns, such as the Town of Tainter and the Town of Menomonie having 95 percent of the R-1 zoning in Dunn County and other towns not having any R-1 zoning, contribute to the difficulty in writing a zoning amendment, he said.
Kneer said he believed members of the PR&D committee could agree that there is a housing shortage, but the PR&D committee also must try to take into account the different townships.
The Town of Colfax is about 95 percent General Agriculture and single family, so adding ADUs would be a major change, Bjork said.
Would the zoning ordinance amendment allowing ADUs respect the minimum lot sizes for the different townships? he asked.
Most of the towns in Dunn County have a minimum lot size of one acre, and the township minimums would still be in effect, Farina said.
The zoning office will issue permits for the ADUs and will tell the applicants to check with their townships, he said.
If a town says that four acres is the minimum lot size per residence, then can that town require eight acres for an ADU? Kneer asked.
This is a “blurry line” for towns that have village powers to regulate the activity in their townships, Farina said.
The county has zoning power, and the townships cannot say something is not permissible if county zoning allows it, he said.
It is difficult to find a line between zoning ordinances and town ordinances, and if the town’s ordinance is not determined in a court of law to be a zoning ordinance, then the town’s ordinance would stand, Farina said.
Housing study
Morehouse, who also serves on the Dunn County housing work group, said she would like everyone to recognize that Dunn County, like many areas of the country, is in a housing crisis.
The county needs more rental units, more starter homes, more executive homes and more workforce homes, she said, noting that the housing must also be affordable so that homeowners are not “cost burdened” when buying a house.
An April 2 segment on Wisconsin Public Radio talked about a recent Zillow study that found people would need to earn about $106,000 per year to afford the typical home.
In 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic, prospective homeowners needed an annual income of about $60,000 to afford the typical home, according to the study.
From 2016 to 2022, there were 371 houses built in Dunn County, for an average of 61 houses per year, Morehouse said.
By 2040, Dunn County will need an additional 3,300 houses, which would amount to 187 houses being built per year to meet the demand, she said.
