03-09-26-WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

B. Clear and Objective Versus Discretionary Standards Vaguely worded standards contribute to the difficulty of securing ADU permits and may even inhibit homeowners from applying for a permit. Particularly problematic are standards that leave a great deal of discretion to the zoning administrator or require extensive interpretation. Even an apparently objective standard such as a 25-foot height limit requires the exercise of considerable discretion if the ADU roof has different elevations and the ground slopes in different directions. AARP recommends using only clear and objective standards to govern ADUs.49 A best practice is to use expert advice to prepare and test language to ensure that it is clear enough to be administered fairly and easily. C. Review Procedures The two basic options available to a community are to allow ADUs "by right" or to allow ADUs through conditional use permits (sometimes called special exception, special permit, or special land use). "By right" means that the process involves filling out an application and presenting it to a local building official or zoning administrator, then checks to see that it meets the requirements of the ordinance. If the standards are clear and objective, no discretionary decision -making is involved and thus no hearing is necessary. This is also called a "ministerial" review. This is the way building or remodeling a home or building an accessory structure is typically treated. By contrast a conditional use permit process typically involves the application of discretionary standards, public notice of the application and a public hearing. Discretionary standards combined with a public hearing process create opportunities for obstruction by neighbors or organizations opposed to new housing in an established neighborhood. The cost of hiring attorneys or other experts and the delays associated with hearings and appeals can easily exhaust the budget and patience of even an affluent ADU applicant. These obstacles have led many local and state governments to decide thatADUs should be a use allowed by right and subject only to ministerial review. Some have also imposed time limits for decisions on ADUs. (Some governments apply these requirements to other types of housing.) The Model Local ADU Ordinance takes the position that building an ADU should be treated the some way as building or remodeling a home or building any accessory structure — it is a ministerial matter decided by a zoning administrator without notice or opportunity for a hearing. D. Appeals of ADU Decisions Many local zoning ordinances allow for initial decisions on ADU applications by a zoning administrator to be subject to internal appeals — to a hearing officer, the planning commission or a local governing body. Some local governments allow up to two internal appeals. The final local government decision on an ADU, or other land use matter, may be followed by an appeal to the judicial system. There are many variations on internal appeal procedures, for example whether the scope of review is limited and who qualifies as a party to such an appeal. 45 1 HARP - Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance