Brentwood planning board hires consultants to begin ADU and workforce-housing work under HOP grant

Consultants from Resilience Planning and Design met with the Brentwood Planning Board on a hybrid call to begin work funded by a HOP (Housing Opportunity Program) grant and to scope next steps on accessory dwelling units (ADUs), the town’s workforce-housing obligations, and revisions to the multifamily district.

The consultants — identified in the meeting as Steve (Resilience Planning and Design), Mark (Resilience Planning and Design) and Nathan (Resilience Planning and Design) — told the board they intend to meet monthly from January through April to develop regulatory options and public‑engagement materials. “We’re not expecting by April to have regulation completely drafted, but we want to start working toward what would be a good match for Brentwood,” Steve said, outlining a timeline of review, options and outreach materials.

Why it matters: Brentwood’s existing workforce‑housing rules no longer match local housing costs, and the town’s multifamily district has seen little use since its creation. The board and consultants said early public engagement will be essential before any zoning changes go to a town vote.

Town planner Glenn Greenwood summarized the challenge: the town has limited multifamily capacity and a multifamily district that, as written, applies only to a small area and effectively requires at least a 20‑acre minimum. “We have to do something about apartments,” Greenwood said, noting past court involvement led to the current multifamily ordinance but produced little development. He told consultants the town needs regulations that “provide apartments” if it expects to retain workers and younger households.

Consultants and board members flagged specific regulatory and financial constraints that will shape recommendations. They cited the state workforce‑housing statutory framework (as discussed in the meeting) that requires a multifamily area, and noted current workforce‑housing income limits discussed in the meeting: the workforce definition previously used an upper household income near $131,000 (100% of area median, as discussed), while lower benchmarks for rental affordability were cited at roughly $70,000; consultants said a workforce‑housing sale price that meets the state calculation would be roughly $392,000, which typically requires townhouse or multifamily construction, not detached single‑family homes.

Board members described past local experience: a recent 72‑house 55+ development drew heavy public turnout, and a prior workforce‑housing requirement had been removed by town vote after contentious development. Planning board representative Letty Bedard and others emphasized the need to preserve neighborhood character while creating smaller, more affordable options — for example, detached ADUs, tiny‑home clusters, or townhomes — that would allow longtime residents to stay in town without increasing taxes or changing the areas where people expect single‑family lots.

On ADUs, consultants said Brentwood already has an ADU ordinance for attached units but that the principal question for this grant is whether to allow detached ADUs (garage conversions, small cottages). Nathan said detached ADUs are common in comparable towns and often not controversial when design rules and siting standards “tuck” units out of view; several board members said design standards and limits on size and placement could reduce neighborhood resistance.

On inclusionary/workforce requirements, the consultants explained the financing reality: high construction and land prices make large set‑aside percentages unworkable for many developers. The consultants recommended exploring lower set‑aside percentages (for example, 5–10% versus higher figures used elsewhere) and mixed incentives (density bonuses, cluster provisions, or allowing multifamily in commercial corridors such as Route 125) so projects can pencil for lenders.

Public engagement and timing were central themes. Several board members — including Doug Marino and Kristen (last name not specified in the record) — emphasized early and broad outreach that reaches residents who do not typically attend planning meetings. The consultants proposed an initial public forum to present choices, show examples from nearby towns and solicit preferences; they recommended avoiding a late‑summer outreach window when many residents are away and suggested targeting June or early September for larger events.

The consultants also recommended a GIS review of municipally owned parcels to identify any town land suitable for housing partnerships or developer requests for proposals. They said some town parcels may be deed‑restricted or otherwise unsuitable but that a short inventory could identify candidate sites for affordable or workforce units.

The board asked the consultants to return with focused materials on ADUs and the multifamily district for the next meeting, and to coordinate a follow‑up with town staff. Members agreed to meet with consultants and staff prior to the next published planning‑board meeting to keep the process moving.

Other business and formal actions: early in the meeting the board approved a procedural motion to allow staff to participate virtually (motion and second recorded; unanimous “aye” vote recorded), later the board moved to temporarily recognize Brian West as a voting member for the remainder of the meeting (roll‑call votes recorded as aye by Doug, Bruce, Seth and others), it approved the December 19 minutes by motion and roll call, and it adjourned by motion and second. Those procedural votes were recorded on the transcript but did not alter the substantive planning direction discussed above.

Next steps: consultants will refine ADU and multifamily options, prepare engagement materials, and return to the board with questions and choices intended to support a public forum ahead of formal warrant‑article drafting. The board scheduled follow‑up coordination meetings with the town planner and staff and plans to place master‑plan and commission items on upcoming agendas, with a stated date to notice the housing/master‑plan item for a February 6 meeting during the session.

The meeting record includes substantive references to pending state legislation (House Bill 457 and House Bill 604‑FN were cited during the discussion) and to New Hampshire Housing guidance. The consultants warned the board that state bills may change requirements and that the town should move to craft local regulations rather than leave compliance decisions to judicial or administrative processes.

The board did not take a final legislative vote on any zoning change at this meeting; consultants will return with proposals and public‑engagement plans consistent with the HOP grant timeline and with statutory constraints discussed during the session.