Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Yarmouth planners raise concerns about state ADU draft, authorize staff to finalize comments
Summary
Planning Board members flagged multiple drafting problems in the state's proposed accessory dwelling unit regulations, and by consensus asked the town planner and chair to finalize and submit comments before the Jan. 10 deadline.
The Yarmouth Planning Board unanimously agreed Jan. 8 to prepare formal comments on the state's draft accessory dwelling unit regulations, citing unclear definitions and unintended consequences for local bylaws.
Planning Board member Susan Britta asked bluntly, "Why are we doing it?" during an earlier LCP item, but the ADU discussion focused on how the draft regulations would be interpreted and implemented locally. Town planner Kathy and board members reviewed multiple definitions in the draft and identified items they said would expand the state rules beyond their apparent intent.
Board members raised specific concerns: the draft's definition of a "bus station" could be read so broadly that a half-mile parking exemption would apply along Route 28; "protected" by-right ADU language could permit multiple units on a single property when towns intended to allow only one small ADU; and the gross floor area definition did not clearly state whether attached garages count toward ADU size limits. Board members also highlighted short-term rental issues and the potential for ADUs to be used as seasonal or investor-held rentals rather than year-round housing.
Kathy described an "epiphany" about how the draft's cross-references could allow multiple ADUs on a lot through a mix of preexisting units and new by-right units. She recommended clarifying the protected-ADU wording so that "no other accessory dwelling unit of any size is located on said lot," language the board supported in principle.
Members asked for stronger, specific edits rather than general objections. Peter Slovak suggested the board present concrete replacement text for items the town finds problematic. Board members also discussed short timelines: the comment period closes Jan. 10, and the board asked Kathy to draft an attachment based on the board's concerns for final review. By consensus, the chair and the town planner will finalize and submit the board's comments; staff said the online comment portal accepts attachments and discrete comment items.
The board also flagged the wider timeline problem — members said changes would be difficult to implement at the town level before the upcoming town meeting cycle and urged follow-up with town counsel once the regulations are final.
No formal vote was required; the submission will be processed as a staff-filed comment on behalf of the planning board and town planner.
