Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board plans ordinance updates after state ADU law change
Summary
Board members discussed required updates to Brentwood’s accessory dwelling unit rules following recent state legislation (HB 577), agreed the town must adopt ordinance language consistent with state law, and asked staff to prepare edits and an FAQ for the Sept. 4 meeting.
The Brentwood Planning Board discussed changes to local ADU (accessory dwelling unit) definitions and standards after recent state legislation and directed staff to prepare ordinance edits and guidance for the board’s Sept. 4 meeting.
A board member summarized the state guidance and said, referencing the new state law and New Hampshire Municipal Association materials, that the state now treats an ADU built within an existing structure as an attached ADU and that provisions in local ordinances that conflict with state law are superseded. The speaker said the state law took effect July 1 and that multifamily provisions affecting commercial zones do not take effect until 2027.
Nut graf: To comply with state requirements the board asked staff to draft short, clear amendments and an FAQ so residents understand what the town must permit and what the town may still regulate, including parking and driveway limitations.
Discussion points included how to calculate ADU size under the state law, parking requirements, and driveway frontage rules. One participant summarized a parking constraint in the state law: towns may only require one parking space for an ADU in many cases. On driveway access, a board member noted that the RSA governing driveway permits restricts additional driveways unless a parcel has sufficient frontage (the speaker stated a commonly applied threshold of 500 feet for more than one driveway), which could prevent detached ADUs from having a separate driveway in many parcels.
Board members agreed the town should prepare two things for public dissemination: proposed ordinance language that complies with state law and a concise FAQ addressing common questions residents are asking. One speaker volunteered to prepare the first draft of ordinance edits, and staff (Mark) will coordinate public questions to ensure the FAQ addresses frequent queries. The board set no formal vote but set an expectation to review the materials at the Sept. 4 meeting.
Ending: The board directed staff and a volunteer to bring specific proposed ordinance language and explanatory material to the next meeting so the board can review and, if ready, move toward a public process.
