Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Adu topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Accessory dwelling unit bylaw prompts split among Select Board and Advisory after lengthy debate
Summary
Planning Board told the Select Board and Advisory it had drafted two warrant articles to align local code with the state’s 2024 Affordable Homes Act, allowing ADUs up to 900 sq ft by right; board members expressed deep concerns about design rules, short‑term rentals and who should have permitting authority.
The Planning Board presented two proposed warrant articles to revise Southborough’s accessory dwelling provisions and bring local code into alignment with the 2024 Affordable Homes Act. The state law allows accessory dwelling units (ADUs) up to 900 square feet to be built “by right” under Chapter 40A, and the town is updating local wording from “accessory apartment” to “accessory dwelling unit” and creating a process for larger units.
Mimi Littrell (Planning Board chair) described the proposal: ADUs 900 square feet and smaller would be allowed with an abbreviated site-plan review by the Planning Board and through the Building Department; ADUs over 900 square feet would require a Planning Board special permit. She said the state law limits what local boards can examine on by‑right ADUs and that the proposed local rules aim to provide transparency and an opportunity for abutters to comment.
Select Board and Advisory members debated several sticking points: whether the town should impose an architectural‑compatibility criterion that some members called subjective; whether short‑term rentals (Airbnb) built as ADUs should be prohibited; whether the Planning Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) should be the deciding body for larger units; and whether site-plan review for by‑right ADUs creates discretionary authority contrary to the intent of the state law. Board members also raised implementation questions about parking minimums, tree and vegetation protections, and how to handle accessory garages and trailers.
After extended discussion the Select Board voted not to support the two ADU warrant articles as presented (recorded vote showed Select Board opposition and at least one abstention). Advisory likewise registered opposition on the record: its roll-call indicated no support (0–4) with one abstention for the language as printed.
What happens next: Planning Board members said they worked with Town Counsel and other municipal stakeholders while drafting the articles and will continue to refine language; the Planning Board indicated it could return with clarified language but acknowledged the state law has already superseded parts of the earlier local rules if no local change is adopted. The Select Board and Advisory both urged narrower, clearer warrant language and suggested removing subjective design tests, clarifying the appeal route for larger units, and ensuring any local rules do not conflict with the state statute.
Why it matters: The state law was passed to expand the supply of smaller rental units across Massachusetts. How a municipality implements (or declines to implement) local rules affects homeowners who want rental income, abutters who may comment on design and impacts, and the distribution of housing types in the community.
