Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board continues public hearing on state‑mandated accessory dwelling unit bylaw; clarifies ‘protected’ vs. ‘unprotected’ language
Summary
The Planning Board continued the public hearing on a revised ADU bylaw after town counsel and staff rewrote the warrant to separate state‑mandated by‑right 'protected' ADUs from larger 'unprotected' ADUs that would still require special permits.
The Planning Board continued its public hearing on an updated accessory dwelling unit (ADU) bylaw on Feb. 24 after reviewing revisions drafted by town counsel to reflect the state ADU mandate.
Planner Mimi (presenting staff) and the zoning amendment working group described two linked warrant articles: one to implement the state‑protected ADU by right (the statutory definition under Mass. Gen. Laws c.40A §1A) — typically ADUs up to 900 square feet or 50 percent of the primary unit, whichever is smaller — and a separate warrant article to preserve a special‑permit process for larger, “unprotected” ADUs. Town counsel advised the board that combining the special‑permit language in the same warrant article as the by‑right language could inadvertently trigger a two‑thirds vote requirement at Town Meeting, so the draft separates the two for clarity and vote requirements.
Board members debated language choices and administrative steps. Several members supported retaining a short, public abbreviated site‑plan review (rather than entirely relying on building‑permit review) to preserve transparency and neighbor notification. Planning Board members also agreed to remove a historic 5 percent cumulative cap on accessory apartments previously in the code; staff reported that the town has not tracked that cap and that current totals were far below it.
Several board members recommended explicitly labeling the statutory category as “protected (by right)” and defining the complementary category as “unprotected (special permit)” to reduce confusion at Town Meeting and in the warrant. The board also suggested keeping a brief statement that ADUs must comply with building and health codes to help non‑expert applicants understand obligations.
Public commenters, including Paul Carter (consulting engineer/resident), supported maintaining a meaningful abbreviated site‑plan review and asked for clarity on septic and building‑permit interactions. Board members asked staff to clarify who will collect ADU data (building commissioner/staff) and how the town will track permitted and by‑right ADUs moving forward.
Action: the board voted to continue the public hearing to 6:30 p.m. on March 10 so final language can be refined and town counsel can review phrasing for Town Meeting. The board recorded its continuing vote (Luttrell, Stein, Umaira, Rascher and one additional yes vote recorded) and indicated support for keeping abbreviated site‑plan review and removing the 5% cap.
