Woburn planning board backs state ADU rules but urges council to clarify 'principal dwelling' language

The Woburn City Planning Board on March 11 voted 5‑1 to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council on a zoning amendment to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) consistent with state law, while urging the council to clarify language the board said could unintentionally limit ADU rights.

City Solicitor Mark Salvaty and planning staff described the draft amendment as the city’s implementation of the state’s Affordable Homes Act and associated guidance (referenced in the hearing as 760 CMR), which allows by‑right ADUs in areas that permit single‑family residences and generally limits detached ADUs to about 900 square feet unless the municipality adopts different standards that remain consistent with the state rules.

The board’s recommendation asks the City Council to consider substituting the phrase “principal dwelling” for “single family home” in section 36.3(2) of the draft zoning text and to review whether height and setback restrictions in the draft would create unnecessary litigation risk or unlawfully restrict ADU rights under the state rules. The recommendation passed on a 5‑1 vote.

Board discussion focused on areas where local draft language might be more restrictive than state guidance. Solicitor Salvaty told the board the draft seeks to provide reasonable local regulations (setbacks, lot coverage, a single extra parking space requirement for an ADU) while complying with the state CMRs; he also noted the state guidance has evolved and local counsel had participated in recent state webinars. Several board members and the city planner asked staff to flag language that could be read as more restrictive than the state standard, particularly the use of “single family home” rather than the state’s broader “principal dwelling” concept.

Members of the public expressed both support and concern. Resident Ken Parley said the draft could be interpreted to deny ADU rights in some circumstances and urged clearer language; during the hearing he said, “If I'm denied the right, I will be litigating with the city of Woburn.” Another speaker, Eric Roderick, said he supported the policy and urged the city to implement ADU rules responsibly to avoid negative impacts while legalizing some existing informal units.

The amendment as presented would allow one protected ADU by right in qualifying dwellings and set dimensional and safety standards for detached ADUs (the draft referenced a 10‑foot separation minimum and a 20‑foot maximum height at peak for detached ADUs). Board members raised technical questions about fire‑safety clearances, the interaction between carriage houses/garages and setbacks, and whether the city’s existing accessory structure rules (for example a 4‑foot rear setback for detached garages in some cases) were compatible with the new ADU language.

The board voted to close the public hearing on the zoning amendment and forward a favorable recommendation with the suggested language clarifications and a request that the City Council and city counsel review the flagged height and setback provisions before council adoption. The motion passed 5‑1.

Next steps: the amendment will go to the City Council for committee review and a council vote; planning staff and the solicitor advised that council counsel should confirm consistency with the state’s CMRs and that the city may adjust local technical standards through the council process if it can do so without running afoul of state law. If the council adopts the ordinance, property owners in qualifying zones may seek building permits for ADUs subject to applicable design, safety and permitting requirements.