Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board continues ADU hearing after wide public comment and questions about scope
Summary
The board continued its hearing on accessory dwelling unit (ADU) zoning amendments after extensive public comment and requests for clarification about where ADUs will be allowed and what local regulations remain permissible under state law.
The Norwood Planning Board continued a public hearing March 24 on proposed zoning changes to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs), prompting extensive public comment and board discussion about state mandates and local limits.
Staff said the draft adds the state definition of ADU to the town’s zoning bylaw and adds ADUs to the use table so the town’s regulations match the state law that went into effect Feb. 2. Sarah (community development staff) summarized the state definition for the board: “The ADU definition is described as a self contained housing unit inclusive of sleeping, cooking, and sanitary facilities on the same lot as a principal dwelling,” she said. She also told members that state guidance makes clear municipalities cannot impose some restrictions, such as limiting occupants to family members or banning detached ADUs.
Public commenters and several board members pressed for clarity on two main points: (1) whether the draft allows ADUs “in all districts” or only in districts where single-family dwellings are permitted, and (2) whether the town can impose design standards or other limits consistent with state rules. Attorney David Hearn, a resident, urged limiting ADUs to the districts that currently permit single-family dwellings and said the draft’s current phrase “in all districts” will confuse residents. Multiple commenters raised concerns about potential parking, density and use impacts, including the possibility of detached structures, shipping containers or converted garages.
Staff and several board members said the proposed language follows the state’s protected-use approach and is intended to allow ADUs only on existing dwelling units; staff explained that preexisting residential units in nonresidential districts could still be eligible as preexisting nonconformities. Several board members asked staff to get additional written guidance from the state and to circulate a clean draft showing any recommended clarifying language and why it is necessary.
A motion to continue the hearing to April 14 carried. The board agreed to include the ADU definition in a clean draft to present to town meeting while staff and counsel pursue clearer written guidance on district scope and permissible local regulations.
