Dunn County Board declines to send ADU ordinance back to PR&D for special exception
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 Board has declined to send the zoning ordinance amendment back to the Planning, Resources and Development Committee to consider making the approval of Accessory Dwelling Units as a special exception.
Gary Bjork, county board supervisor from Colfax and a member of the PR&D committee, introduced a motion to send the zoning ordinance amendment that allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) back to the Planning, Resources and Development Committee at the June 19 meeting of the Dunn County Board.
Including ADUs as a special exception means each individual ADU would have to be approved by the Dunn County Zoning Board of Adjustment rather than obtaining a permit through the Dunn County zoning office.
The amended zoning ordinance would include ADUs in General Agriculture (as attached or detached ADUs) and Residential-2 zoning districts (as attached ADUs).
As it is written, the zoning amendment allowing ADUs gives the townships little to no input. A survey of the town boards indicated that six to one were in favor of making ADUs a special exception, Bjork said.
There are 22 townships in Dunn County.
If the ADUs are automatically approved by the zoning office, there could be situations at a specific site where the ADU would not work very well, Bjork said, adding that dangerous driveways that have been grandfathered in, for example, could create more of a danger with more traffic from a second dwelling.
The towns should have a little control of where ADUs are located, but the towns have been left out of the decision making process, and that “isn’t quite right,” Bjork said.
Opposed
Diane Morehouse, county board supervisor from Menomonie, a member of the PR&D committee, and chair of the Health and Human Services Board, said she was opposed to sending the ordinance amendment back to the PR&D committee.
The committee has been working on the zoning ordinance amendment for months. Many county residents have been at every meeting to make comments. The standards for ADUs are appropriate, and there is no reason to remand to the PR&D committee, she said.
Tom Quinn, county board supervisor from Downing and chair of the PR&D committee, agreed.
Quinn said he understood the motivation for asking the committee to reconsider the amendment, but the elements of the amendment have already been changed from what was originally proposed.
“We think it represents the best interests of the county as is,” he said, adding that if the county board voted to send it back to the committee, that the PR&D committee would discuss the ordinance again.
This is a first reading of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment, and the county board should proceed with it as it is written, Quinn said.
Monica Berrier, county board supervisor from Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee, said she agreed with Quinn and Morehouse.
Donald Gjestson, county board supervisor from Knapp, said the local township in his supervisory district had asked for parallel authority as a special exception.
Permitting process
Ann Vogl, county board supervisor from Menomonie, asked about the permitting process for ADUs and how that applies to a special exception.
The way the ordinance amendment is written now, a zoning permit for the ADU would be issued by the zoning office, said Anne Wodarczyk, county zoning administrator.
An ADU permit would require the same steps as a zoning permit for a new house, as long as it is allowed in the zoning district, and would require that the ADU follow the setbacks and have a septic permit, she said.
Special exceptions, which are the same as conditional uses, are listed in the zoning ordinance, but they are not allowed through the regular zoning permit process, but rather, are allowed with special conditions that are approved by the Board of Adjustment, Wodarczyk said.
Wedding barns or agricultural entertainment would be one example of a special exception in an agricultural district that would come before the BOA, she said.
The BOA has certain standards that must be approved, and the BOA can add additional standards. As the ordinance amendment for ADUs is written now, the zoning office has a list of standards that must be met in order to approve a zoning permit, Wodarczyk said.
Permitted use
Mike Kneer, county board supervisor from the Town of Menomonie and a member of the PR&D committee, asked Wodarczyk to explain the difference between a permitted use and a special exception.
A permitted use is included in the zoning ordinance “by right.” The ordinance for the zoning districts also includes accessory uses and special exceptions, Wodarczyk said.
Crop farming, for example, is a permitted use by right in agricultural districts as are single family homes, she said.
Accessory uses would be something that makes sense in an agricultural district, but it is not the main use of the property, Wodarczyk said.
Special exceptions/conditional uses do not always make sense for every property in a particular district. The town would consider the special exception use and look at, for example, any conflict with traffic, and then would make a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment, she said,
The BOA would hold a public hearing on the request for a special exception, take the town’s opinion into consideration, apply additional conditions for that property, and then if the special exception follows the conditions, approve the special exception, Wodarczyk said.
Quinn asked about the cost of a special exception.
A zoning permit costs between $140 and $200, depending on the situation. The application for a special exception costs $800 and is not refundable because the money pays for the public hearing and the notification requirements, Wodarczyk said.
Clear opportunity
One reason the PR&D committee did not make ADUs by special exception was because the goal was to provide a “clear opportunity” for property owners to “do something to improve their lives,” Quinn said.
People who have commented on ADUs during the public comments portions of the PR&D committee meetings have said they wanted ADUs as an option for grandchildren, disabled grandchildren, parents or adult children to be able to live near them on the same property.
A special exception can end up being a long and complicated process that would not be an effective process for ADUs and “would defeat the purpose” of ADUs, Quinn said.
In General Ag, some properties already have the right to build an ADU (as a second farm home) if the property owner makes more than $6,000 per year in income from agricultural activity, he noted.
The zoning ordinance amendment would provide the same ability for ADUs to other property owners who do not have agricultural income, Quinn said.
Long process
Developing the ordinance amendment has not been an easy process, and that is why the PR&D committee has spent five months discussing and refining the ordinance amendment, Quinn said, adding that he does not think ADUs will create problems for townships.
During the process of developing the ADU ordinance amendment, the PR&D committee made efforts to incorporate the concerns of the towns, Quinn said.
One way that the concerns of the towns were incorporated was by removing ADUs from Residential-1 zoning.
Town boards indicated there were concerns about groundwater contamination from additional dwelling units on one-acre parcels.
Other concerns were that, later on in General Ag zoning, future property owners might want to split off the property and sell the two dwellings as separate properties.
The PR&D committee also added the provision to the ordinance amendment that a deed restriction be included to inform all property owners the property cannot be split if it does not meet the legal requirements for separating the property, such as minimum lot size.
Late addition
The request for permitting authority through a special exception came after the PR&D committee had decided that ADUs would not be done by special exception, Quinn said.
“We think it is a good ordinance the way it is written,” he said.
The PR&D committee knows the town boards have concerns, and if the Dunn County Board decides to send the zoning ordinance amendment back to the PR&D committee, “we will do our job,” Quinn said.
Morehouse said she wanted to remind the county board that ADUs will be a partial solution to a significant housing shortage crisis.
Dunn County will need 3,000 additional dwelling units by 2040, and a significant number will be necessary to house older people, she said.
The ADUs will solve part of the problem, and “the harder we make it, the less likely it will be to help solve the problem,” Morehouse said.
Bjork noted that the county had been in total support of local control over large farming operations, which are already regulated by the state.
The ADUs should be done by special exception to make sure they “are done right” in circumstances that will vary from township to township, he said.
Gary Stene, county board supervisor from Colfax and vice-chair of the county board, called the question.
On a vote of 17 “no” to nine “yes,” the Dunn County Board denied the motion to send the zoning ordinance amendment back to the PR&D committee to consider adding ADUs as a special exception.
County board supervisors Vaughn Hedlund, Barbara Lyon and Sheila Stori were absent from the meeting.
The Dunn County Board will consider approval of the zoning ordinance amendment to include ADUs on a second reading at the July 31 meeting.
