Post World War II, many Americans headed for the suburbs. This midcentury pivot from traditionally denser city living to more expansive single family parcels marked the inception of a zoning code–Euclidean code–that not only favored the compartmentalization of municipal zones (residential, commercial, etc.) but actively abolished a long-standing tradition of city parcels: the accessory dwelling unit.
In modern terms, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) can most simply be defined as living quarters, independent of a primary dwelling, on the same single family lot. And they’re making a comeback. At the turn of the century, ADUs–although no one called them that then–were commonplace: carriage houses housed horses buggies and, often above, stable hands or other staff; alley flats and secondary cottages housed extended family, boarders, or other laborers; and in rural areas, small secondary homes housed extended family or aging parents. Such structures defined an era rooted in efficacy–you built what you needed where you needed. Municipal zoning code rewrites, however, effectively ended the country’s attachment to secondary structures; but now, after decades of administrative regulation and outright prohibition, municipalities across the country are rethinking the potential of the ADU–and rewriting antiquated zoning code to invite the development of ADUs.
ADUs, which some may know as “mother-in-law apartments,” gained some traction starting in the 80s, an era defined by rising home prices and aging populations and have now, amid housing shortages and high development costs, gained traction among affordable housing advocates and city planners alike. Rather than relying upon developers to solve the affordable housing crises across the nation– one central to the Chequamegon Bay region as well–municipalities, including the cities of Bayfield and Washburn, have rewritten altered their own zoning codes to if not incentivize, at least allow the construction of ADUs.
And with good reason. ADUs’ offer myriad benefits: they utilize existing infrastructure, provide lower-cost housing construction options; expand the rental housing supply; generate supplemental income for homeowners; foster workforce housing opportunities; support aging in place opportunities; and add neighborhood density without drastic alteration to neighborhood character, which ultimately promotes diverse communities and bolsters the economic vitality of the community.
So what do local codes say about ADUs?
Local municipalities still, for the most part–look to the city of Washburn for some aberrations (e.g. C1 Cottage Commercial, C3 Downtown Commercial–) rooted in encouraging infill and development–to the Euclidean code. Thus, if you’re looking to build an ADU, you’ll need to do so in prescribed zones. In Washburn (§ 17.01), they’ll need to be built in a residential district, and they must be built–after a conditional use permit’s approved–under fairly strict parameters. Washburn only allows a homeowner, who must occupy either the primary unit or the ADU, to construct an ADU on the upper floor of a detached garage in the rear yard. That unit may not exceed 700 sq ft or 65% of the floor area of the principal dwelling, and a walkway must connect the public street and the ADU. Washburn’s code does not include language limiting or precluding transient occupancy or short-term rentals.
The City of Bayfield’s code (§ 500-75), however, does. And where Washburn limits construction to the upper level of garages, Bayfield’s code allows for the construction of fully independent structures; like Washburn, though, Bayfield’s code mandates construction within its residential zoning districts. Bayfield’s code, however, delineates its own limitations and requirements: an ADU must comply with accessory unit setback requirements, must front an adequate sewer and water main, and must blend with existing neighborhood aesthetics. Finally, the city of Bayfield does require that property owners provide a parking space for each bedroom in an ADU. Bayfield also requires homeowners, who also must occupy one of the units, to adopt a series of deed restrictions.
On a county level, there is no strict language related to Accessory Dwelling Units, but a property owner can definitely construct a secondary structure on their property. As long as the unit meets county zoning for residential structures, and the location of the dwelling unit allows for a clean land division–stipulations vary by zoning district, lot size, and other factors–one may apply to construct a secondary structure through the county’s general land use permitting process.
Such local zoning adoptions mark a reversal of last century’s pervasive adoption of Euclidean code and correlative preclusions of accessory dwelling units. Municipalities (like those within Bayfield County) now faced with housing, particularly affordable housing, shortages and a dearth of feasible development options, have sought to incentivize smaller-scale development through language expressly devoted to Accessory Dwelling Units; and while most municipalities still operate under the umbrella of the Euclidean code, the mounting housing crisis in its myriad forms underscores a need for some flexibility and innovation around housing development, and the construction of ADUs in Bayfield County would prove a critical element in addressing some of the county’s housing needs.