Joseph, the town planning director, told the Planning Board that the planning department has been monitoring a package of state law changes signed this month that will require Plymouth to change its zoning and some planning regulations.

The new laws include a requirement that multifamily housing be permitted in commercial zones that allow retail or office uses, a change that the town will need to address in the Highway Commercial district and possibly the Civic/Institutional district. Another law requires accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to be permitted “by right” in any zone that allows residential uses, and it allows conversions of existing nonconforming accessory structures into ADUs. A separate statute removes local authority to limit occupancy based on familial relationship and generally requires occupancy limits to be expressed as a per‑bedroom metric rather than by whether occupants are related.

Why it matters: the changes affect common local controls — whether multifamily requires special exception or is permitted, how Plymouth treats ADUs and conversions of commercial buildings to housing, how the town counts occupants in a unit and how many parking spaces the town may require for a new dwelling.

At the meeting, Joseph walked the board through high‑level implications and timing: some provisions take effect immediately or within 60 days of the governor’s signature; others (notably the multifamily change identified in House Bill 631) take effect after town meeting, giving the town a chance to prepare warrant language. He said the department will prepare draft amendments for the town’s warrant but recommended packaging required updates together to keep the ballot concise.

Key provisions discussed by the board:
- Multifamily in commercial zones: The statute requires multifamily residential to be allowed where zoning permits retail and office uses. Planning staff advised that Highway Commercial (HC) is the district most clearly affected; Village Commercial (VC) already allows multifamily under town rules; Civic/Institutional (CI) may or may not fall under the statute’s definition, and staff recommended further legal review before drafting changes.
- ADUs: House Bill 577 requires ADUs to be permitted by right in any zone that permits residential uses, including detached ADUs; it also allows conversion of existing nonconforming accessory buildings to ADUs. The board flagged local ADU rules that reference aesthetic or special requirements (for example, a current requirement that exterior ADU stairways be covered) and discussed whether those specific local requirements would need to be applied equally to the primary dwelling or removed.
- Occupancy and family definitions: A state change removes the distinction between “related” and “unrelated” family for zoning‑based occupancy restrictions; Joseph noted the town’s ADU rule limiting ADU occupancy by number of adults will require updating to comply with the new state standard (the state law uses a per‑bedroom occupancy metric).
- Parking limits: Senate Bill 284 restricts municipal authority to require more than one parking space per residential unit. Board members noted that Plymouth’s existing zoning also caps how many extra spaces a project may supply (a 125% cap in some commercial zones) and that the interaction of the new state limit and the town’s 125% policy will require targeted edits to the off‑street parking table so houses and small multifamily projects remain workable.
- Vesting and timelines: House Bill 413 extends the “active and substantial development” window used to vest site plan approvals from 2 years/5 years to 3 years/7 years for qualifying projects; the planning board’s site plan regulations will need parallel edits.
- Appeals and inspections: The board heard that some building code appeals will now go to the state building‑code review board rather than the local zoning board of adjustment; Senate Bill 188 also permits licensed third parties to perform certain inspections/certifications, which may affect small towns’ inspection options.

Board members asked about immediate enforcement in the interim period — where town code still says one thing but state law has changed — and Joseph said staff will seek guidance and draft conforming warrant language so local ordinances align with state law promptly. Multiple members recommended packaging the technical, state‑required updates into a single omnibus warrant article for the upcoming town meeting, while doing separate public outreach on larger policy choices (for example, whether the town should mandate first‑floor commercial in some districts).

The board directed staff to draft amendment language for review at an upcoming work session and to coordinate public engagement as part of the housing master‑plan outreach already underway.

Ending: Planning staff will return with model warrant language and a redline of affected zoning sections; the board set a goal of preparing proposed changes for public review before the fall warrant deadline.