Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Second Dwelling Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies proposed expansion of secondary cottage after debate over ADU and density
Summary
The planning board unanimously denied a request to expand a 750-square-foot secondary dwelling by 247 square feet and to waive a 20% ground-cover rule, after lengthy debate about tertiary dwellings, ADU law and neighborhood density; the applicant volunteered a year-round deed restriction but the board voted to deny the addition.
The Planning Board voted unanimously Sept. 8 to deny an applicant’s request to add 247 square feet to a 750-square-foot secondary dwelling and to waive the bylaw’s 20% differential rule on ground cover for 2 Nobadier Way (Nobac LLC). The application drew an extended public and board discussion about how previously approved tertiary/ADU arrangements on the parcel interact with current state ADU law and neighborhood density.
The applicant’s attorney described the existing configuration: a demolished original main house replaced by a primary dwelling with an attached tertiary, and a separate 750-square-foot cottage that the owner proposed to expand to permit an additional bedroom. Counsel asked the board to recognize the combined ground cover for the large attached building as the primary building’s ground cover and to allow the 247-square-foot addition to the cottage through a waiver of the 20% rule.
Board members and public commenters raised concerns about cumulative density on the parcel. Several board members said they were troubled that the lot already contains multiple dwelling units — a primary, a tertiary/studio that will be recorded with a year-round restriction and a proposed additional dwelling — and that approving the addition would increase bedroom count on a lot where an ADU may also be feasible under state law.
The applicant offered to record a deed restriction making the added space subject to year-round occupancy and to place year-round restrictions on the property. Counsel said the applicant would record any required deed restriction; staff later confirmed a deed restriction related to the tertiary had been recorded on April 7, 2025 and the applicant volunteered to record the secondary-dwelling deed restriction as well.
Despite the offer, the board concluded the right outcome was to deny the requested ground-cover waiver and expanded bedroom because the overall site layout and potential for additional living units created too much density for the neighborhood in the board’s view. Planning Board member Hillary (surname not provided in the record) moved to deny; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
The denial is a planning decision about a discretionary waiver and does not affect the applicant’s right to seek other lawful relief; the applicant and neighboring property owners may still pursue alternates such as a differently sized addition, an internal modification, or building an ADU elsewhere subject to state and local rules.
