Planning Board asks legal counsel to clarify ADU law and directs town to audit affordable‑housing inventory

The Town of Blackstone Planning Board voted to ask the town’s legal counsel to review state accessory dwelling‑unit (ADU) law and to advise whether the statute permits ADUs on multifamily properties or is limited to single‑family houses; the board also asked the town administrator to audit and update the municipal affordable‑housing inventory submitted to state records.

Chair Paul raised concerns after seeing an ADU application come in through the town’s OpenGov intake system that appeared to the chair to involve a multiunit property. The chair told the meeting he had put the OpenGov submission on hold pending board review and said his interpretation of the state guidance had been that ADUs were intended for single‑family homes and “in‑law” apartments rather than increases in unit counts on multifamily buildings.

Board members discussed the policy and enforcement implications: under the state law the board noted that a second ADU on a property would generally require a special permit, and some board members said that allowing ADUs to multiply on multifamily properties could effectively increase total unit counts in ways the board did not intend. One member said a second ADU on a property would require a special permit under the state law, so multiple ADUs for multiunit buildings would raise separate permitting issues.

The board voted to have staff draft a letter from the Planning Board and coordinate with Gino and Sarah to request a formal written opinion from the town’s legal counsel clarifying the statute’s scope as it applies to single‑family versus multifamily properties. The board also voted to ask Town Administrator Chad to review the state’s subsidized‑housing inventory submitted for Blackstone and return findings on units that may be missing from the town’s list and whether the appropriate documentation and deed restrictions are in place.

The Planning Board further discussed OpenGov intake practice: the chair said he will no longer issue individual answers on intake submissions that raise legal or interpretive questions and that such items should be routed to the full board at a meeting for official discussion and direction.

The motions to seek legal counsel review and to request an audit of the affordable‑housing inventory were approved by voice vote.