Kingston Planning Board refers detached ADU proposal at 18 Church Street to town counsel after lengthy debate over whether it would appear as a second dwelling

David and Karen Flanders asked the Kingston Planning Board for conditional use permits for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and a driveway extension on their five-acre property at 18 Church Street. The board held a first public hearing and then voted to refer legal interpretation of the ADU appearance standard to town counsel and continue the hearing.

The dispute centered on whether the proposed detached ADU—designed as a single-story building with a four-car garage—“has the appearance of an accessory use, for example a garage or a barn,” as required by the town’s ADU rules. Town planner Glenn Greenwood told the board the ADU’s living area meets ordinance size limits but that the addition of a four-bay garage makes the building read, from many elevations, like a second dwelling rather than an accessory structure. Greenwood highlighted that the ordinance language requires the detached ADU to maintain the single-family appearance of the property and said the board had to determine whether the current design complied.

Applicant David Flanders said the ADU is intended to be an accessible, single-story living space for aging occupants and described prior coordination with town staff, the historical commission (which granted unanimous approval) and state permitting for wetlands and shoreland protection. The applicants reported they had test pits completed and town septic approval in hand, and that a pending NHDES shoreland permit was expected imminently. They described the ADU footprint as sited about 1,000 feet behind the existing house and noted the lot’s five-acre size and site constraints related to wetlands.

Board members raised precedent concerns. Multiple planning board members said approving the proposal as drawn could open the door to many similar large detached ADUs across town and pointed to an existing example that board members see as an undesirable model. Members debated remedies that would make the structure read as accessory: detaching the garage physically, altering roof lines, using barn-style gambrel roofs and larger barn doors facing the road, changing the garage size, or shifting architectural treatments so the primary visual focus reads as a single accessory structure.

Board members also noted specifics from the application: a wetlands delineation that requires a 75-foot setback for the proposed building, a historical commission approval of appearance features, and that the ADU’s interior living area (reported by the applicant) complied with the town’s gross living area rules. The town planner emphasized that gross living area comparisons exclude garages under the ordinance, leaving scale and appearance as the controlling concern.

After extended discussion, the board made and adopted a motion to refer the application to the town’s legal counsel for interpretation of the ordinance phrase that states a detached ADU “shall have the appearance of an accessory use… In no case shall it look like a second dwelling unit.” The board also continued the hearing to its next meeting (June 17) and asked counsel to advise whether the current design complies or whether the board should require design changes or seek a ZBA path. The applicant was advised to consider architectural options that would make the building read more explicitly as an accessory structure, such as barn-style features facing the public way or reconfiguring the garage massing.

The board recorded that the matter will be revisited after counsel’s written opinion and that the continued schedule will allow the applicant to submit revised elevations if they choose to modify the design.