Council approves changes to accessory dwelling unit rules over planning board objection; debate centers on owner-occupancy and parking
Loading...
Summary
Council adopted an ordinance revising ADU rules to comply with recent state law; the Planning Board removed an owner-occupancy requirement during its review, prompting public testimony for and against the change and council debate about short-term rentals and parking impacts. The ordinance passed on a 10-4 vote.
The City Council voted to adopt an ordinance amending zoning and related code sections to implement changes to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules required by recent state law. The ordinance updates the zoning code's accessory-use table, ADU supplemental standards and the planning/architectural review procedures.
City staff said the Planning Board reviewed the draft and voted unanimously to remove a provision that would have required either the principal dwelling or the accessory unit to be owner-occupied. At the council meeting, several residents testified against that change, arguing it could encourage investor purchases and remove an owner-occupancy safeguard. Roy Schweikher said the removal "means the principal dwelling and ADU may be used as rental units simultaneously," and he urged the council to require owner occupancy to prevent investor-driven rentals and parking pressure on neighborhood streets. Schweikher also suggested allowing manufactured or tiny houses as ADUs to increase affordable options, and he urged impact fees or wider streets where on-street parking will be expected.
Council discussion touched on short-term rental (Airbnb-type) risks, the state law's definitions around manufactured and pre-fabricated housing, and whether parking impact fees could be imposed. Staff advised that some impact fees (recreation and transportation) already exist and that a re-referral to the Planning Board would be appropriate if council wanted to craft a new parking-impact fee. Several councilors urged caution about adding new barriers that would slow ADU production; others worried about possible investor-driven conversions and neighborhood impacts.
After debate, councilors rejected an amendment to refer the ordinance back to the Planning Board and proceeded to a roll-call vote; the ordinance passed 10 to 4. Councilors recorded concerns about short-term rental use and owner-occupancy, and several suggested the city consider a comprehensive approach to possible Airbnb impacts rather than address them within the ADU ordinance.
The ordinance modifies sections of Chapter 28 (zoning) including 28-2-4(k), 28-5-52, and 28-9 (administration) and updates the glossary and architectural design review references. Officials noted the change aligns city rules with the recently amended state RSA and with the Economic Development Advisory Committee and Planning Board recommendations.
