Hudson legal committee forwards draft ADU law for council review to allow residents to access Repco funding

The Hudson Legal Committee on Wednesday reviewed a draft accessory dwelling unit (ADU) local law designed to allow Hudson homeowners to participate in Repco funding and to codify zoning rules for ADUs in single-family districts. The committee directed staff to make a few edits and bring the draft to an informal meeting before it goes to the full City Council.

Crystal, a staff member, told the committee she combined prior committee comments and legal review into "a somewhat basic ADU law" and said the primary aim was to update the city code so Hudson residents could apply for Repco funding. "What I did with this draft is I took the comments, from the last couple meetings of the legal committee where this was discussed along with conversations that I've had with, Margaret and Craig. And what we have here is essentially a a somewhat basic ADU law," she said.

The draft, as discussed, would limit ADUs to accessory units for single-family dwellings only; allow one ADU per residential dwelling on a lot; require common ownership and owner occupancy such that the property owner must reside on the property either in the principal dwelling or in the ADU; and require a certificate of occupancy (C of O). Crystal said the intent was to distinguish ADUs from conventional two-family or multifamily rental properties by the owner-occupancy and common-ownership requirement.

Committee members debated how to handle temporary absences by owner-occupiers. Jennifer, a committee member, described a scenario in which an owner who builds an ADU might have to relocate temporarily to care for a family member and asked whether the ADU would be forced out of compliance. "I build an ADU, and I have to go take care of my ailing father for 2 years in Florida... I should be able to do that," she said. The committee discussed a range of options, including a residency requirement tied to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy and a time-limited owner-occupancy requirement.

The committee coalesced around a residency safeguard tied to the C of O: several members favored a one-year owner-occupancy requirement measured from issuance of the certificate of occupancy, while others raised a possible two-year absentee-period as an alternative. Tom, a committee member, said he supported allowing owners to rent both the principal unit and the ADU if they chose, but also noted that Repco program rules may impose separate requirements. "I agree that there should be no penalty for someone who wants to rent out both sections," he said, while adding that program-specific funding rules could differ.

Key technical provisions discussed included: requiring ADUs to remain on the same tax lot as the principal dwelling and to have common ownership; prohibiting subdivision of the ADU from the principal dwelling; requiring ADUs to be placed on a permanent foundation; prohibiting a new separate driveway or curb cut for the ADU; requiring water, sewer and any applicable health-department approvals; and applying single-family setback and bulk standards (with Zoning Board of Appeals [ZBA] waivers available where appropriate). The draft also allows conversion of preexisting nonconforming accessory structures (for example, carriage houses) into ADUs so long as the structure is not enlarged and height limits for the zoning district are met.

Committee members flagged parking and enforcement as unresolved issues. Crystal said additional parking demand is hard to avoid when adding housing units and that the draft does not yet provide a citywide parking solution. Craig (legal counsel, referenced during the discussion) had raised concerns about staff capacity to track owner-occupancy changes and whether the assessor's office would need to be involved if ownership or occupancy changed.

The committee explicitly kept short-term rental (STR) rules and financing requirements out of the ADU draft: Crystal said the draft would not change the city's STR code, and anyone seeking Repco funding would have to follow Repco's own rules. The committee also discussed that other municipalities (Kingston was cited) have adopted tax incentives under state law for ADUs, but Crystal said she had not yet reviewed state provisions in detail.

Discussion ended with a procedural direction rather than a final ordinance vote. The committee asked Crystal and staff to incorporate the agreed edits (including the one-year owner-occupancy timeframe tied to the C of O as the committee's preferred approach), then forward the revised draft to an informal meeting and subsequently to the full City Council for consideration. No formal ordinance adoption vote occurred in the meeting.

Next steps: staff will update the draft consistent with committee input and present it to the informal meeting and then to the full Council; Repco program applicants will still need to comply with Repco rules if they pursue funding.