Planning Board begins review of zoning bylaw amendments, focuses first on accessory dwelling units and use-table clarifications

Planning staff presented a substantial draft of zoning bylaw amendments on Feb. 19 that would align Charlton’s regulations with the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Act and related regulations, revise dimensional footnotes, and adjust permitted uses in several business and residential districts.

Staff (Kurt) told the board the Affordable Housing Act and implementing regulation require allowance of accessory dwelling units up to 900 square feet in some forms, and he recommended editing local definitions and rules to reflect state law and streamline the local bylaw. Key discussion points included whether to retain the town’s current larger maximum for attached ADUs (1,250 square feet), whether detached ADUs should have different size caps, and whether to permit more than one ADU on a single lot (the state regulation allows additional units only by special permit). Staff proposed a new section to gather ADU allowances and to spell out that ADUs must comply with building, health and utility requirements.

The board and the building official discussed code and enforcement questions. The building official noted the building code does not use the ADU term and that building-code implications (for example, when a conversion creates a two-family or duplex under building-code definitions) must be resolved during building-review, including potential fire-separation or sprinkler requirements for some conversions. The board also discussed septic, water, parking and setback implications, and whether to keep accessory residential uses out of industrial-general zones.

Other topics reviewed included reduced-frontage lot rules (setbacks and maximum access-drive lengths), consolidation of supplemental dimensional footnotes into a single section, and the village-district special-permit authority to vary setbacks and frontage where appropriate. The board reviewed proposed edits to the land-use table (business, village and residential zones) — including whether restaurants or eating/drinking establishments should require special permits in some residential zones — and whether “flea markets,” lumberyards, funeral homes, veterinary hospitals and other uses should be permitted with site-plan review or require special permits. Board members stressed they wanted clear, measurable special-permit criteria and a streamlined pathway for small, low-impact site-plan reviews.

No formal votes on zoning text amendments were taken at the Feb. 19 meeting. Staff requested board members submit written input and edits for consolidation; the planner said he would compile the board’s written comments and circulate a revised draft at least a week before the next meeting. The planner indicated some amendments would be parsed into separate warrant articles for town meeting, for example, accessory-dwelling-unit provisions could be one article.

Board chair and members emphasized the need to maintain consistency across the zoning table (for example, treating similar uses the same way across zones) and to add objective criteria for special permits and site-plan waivers for low-impact projects. Staff also noted state law (cited in the presentation) and 760 CMR material as guiding documents; the presentation packet included draft language and highlighted proposed changes.

Because the discussion is at the drafting stage, staff will collect member edits and return a consolidated draft for additional public discussion and eventual referral to Town Meeting for any zoning-article changes.