The Town of Southborough Planning Board on Monday, Jan. 6, 2025 reviewed a draft accessory-dwelling-unit bylaw and accompanying regulations prepared by town counsel and discussed state regulations and local implementation steps, including a public hearing the board opened for Jan. 27.

The session focused on five practical issues: whether ADUs may be located closer to the street than the primary dwelling, parking requirements including whether tandem spaces are allowed, limits on additional curb cuts, how preexisting nonconforming structures will be treated, and Title 5 septic constraints for added living space. Planning staff said the draft bylaw and supporting documents were distributed to board members and the Zoning Board of Appeals for review and that the Commonwealth’s draft regulations (760 CMR) have an open comment period that closes Jan. 10.

Why it matters: state law broadly enables ADUs and restricts certain municipal barriers; towns that adopt local rules must conform to state regulations while balancing neighborhood character, on‑site wastewater capacity and public‑works impacts such as curb openings and driveway changes.

Setbacks and the “front yard” restriction

A central dispute concerned a provision in the town-counsel draft that would bar any portion of an ADU from being closer to the front lot line than the primary dwelling. Mike Robbins, a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals who provided written comments, said detached ADUs are likely to be rare and that a blanket front-yard ban could prevent practical accommodations, for example for an aging parent who needs street-level access.

"If you had a large piece of property ... why couldn't [a detached ADU] be in front of the house per se?" Robbins said. "If it's that homeowner's property, why should we be telling them they can't build something on their own land to that degree?"

Other planning-board members pushed back, saying the state’s intent is that ADUs remain accessory to the primary use and that towns must take care not to create regulations that would be deemed an unreasonable restriction under state rules. The board asked town counsel Jay Tolerman to explain why that language was added to the draft bylaw so the board could evaluate potential unintended consequences.

Parking, tandem spaces and curb cuts

The draft requires at least one off‑street parking space for ADUs outside areas near the commuter rail. Board members debated whether a required space should be allowed to be tandem (one car parked behind another). Multiple members said a strict ban on tandem parking would force unnecessary expense and more impervious surface, and several said allowing tandem parking is reasonable while still limiting additional curb openings.

Bill Condiff, Southborough’s director of public works, submitted written comments urging that any change in driveway openings or a new curb cut would require a curb‑opening permit and restoration bond under town code (section 152‑5). Condiff’s submission also noted separate water‑meter rules and that Southborough does not have municipal sewer: wastewater will be handled under Board of Health and Title 5 rules.

"If the ADU requires change of the driveway at the road or a new driveway opening, the applicant will need to file a curb opening permit pursuant to section town code section 152‑5 curb and cut permit required restoration bond," Condiff wrote to the board.

Preexisting nonconforming structures and site-plan review

Board members raised multiple examples of existing detached structures — barns, garages or sheds —that already sit in ways that do not meet current setback requirements and asked whether converting such structures to an ADU would be allowed by right or require zoning relief. The draft references existing local code sections governing nonconformities but several board members said the language is unclear and asked the planning staff and town counsel for written clarification and concrete examples.

The board also discussed whether ADUs should undergo abbreviated site‑plan review by the planning board. State guidance allows towns to require site plan review only if the same standard applies to single‑family homes; several participants recalled a recent state call that emphasized towns should not apply two different rule sets. The board agreed to clarify whether only detached ADUs or all ADUs would require abbreviated site-plan review and to flag that question in comments to the Commonwealth.

Septic and Board of Health coordination

Several participants said Title 5 (onsite wastewater) and Board of Health requirements will shape how many ADUs can be created; Board of Health input will be requested during the public‑hearing process. The board stressed that septic upgrades can be the most expensive hurdle for homeowners and recommended coordinated guidance from the planning department and Board of Health before Town Meeting.

Process next steps

Planning staff said a legal notice will run in the local paper and the board will open a public hearing on the proposed bylaw and regulations on Jan. 27. Board members agreed to send written questions to town counsel about the front‑yard restriction and to submit consolidated comments to the state on 760 CMR before the Jan. 10 comment deadline.

Quotes that capture the meeting

"I think the majority ... are going to be adding a living space to the existing property, and it's gonna be less likely to have detached ADUs," Mike Robbins, Zoning Board of Appeals member, told the board.

"If the ADU requires change of the driveway at the road or a new driveway opening, the applicant will need to file a curb opening permit pursuant to section town code section 152‑5 curb and cut permit required restoration bond," DPW Director Bill Condiff wrote in his submitted comments.

"This is kinda like allowing duplexes," Paul Carter, a resident of Hillside Avenue, said during public comment, urging caution about unintended changes to neighborhood character.

Votes at a glance (public‑hearing continuances)

The board approved multiple continuances related to site plans and special permits that will return to the Jan. 27 agenda. Votes were recorded as unanimous on each continuance: all motions below passed.

- 250 Turnpike Road, contractor's yard — motion to continue the major site-plan public hearing to Jan. 27, 2025 at 7 p.m. and to extend the planning-board decision deadline to Jan. 31, 2025. Vote recorded: Luttrell — yes; Stein — yes; Julian — yes; Demirio — yes; Rochelle — yes. (Motion approved.)

- 2 East Main Street, mixed‑use building — motion to continue the major site‑plan hearing to Jan. 27, 2025 at 7:10 p.m., and to extend the decision deadline to Feb. 14, 2025. Vote recorded: Luttrell — yes; Stein — yes; Julian — yes; Demirio — yes; Rochelle — yes. (Motion approved.) The separate special‑permit hearing for the same address was continued to Jan. 27, 2025 at 7:10 p.m.; vote: Luttrell — yes; Stein — yes; Julian — yes; Demirio — yes; Rochelle — yes. (Motion approved.)

- 26 Meadow Lane (Reservoir Meadows) — motions to continue the major site‑plan hearing and related special‑permit hearings (low‑impact development and major residential/flexible development) to Jan. 27, 2025 at 7:15 p.m., and to extend the major site‑plan decision deadline to Feb. 14, 2025. Vote recorded on continuances: Luttrell — yes; Stein — yes; Julian — yes; Demirio — yes; Rochelle — yes. (Motions approved.)

What the board asked staff to do

- Publish the legal ad and open the public hearing on Jan. 27 for the ADU bylaw and regulations.
- Send written questions to Town Counsel Jay Tolerman about the front‑yard prohibition and clarify the treatment of preexisting nonconforming structures.
- Circulate a draft comment letter to the Commonwealth on 760 CMR and submit comments before the Jan. 10 deadline.
- Request Board of Health and DPW written input for the Jan. 27 public hearing packet (septic/Title 5, curb cuts and water‑meter concerns).

Ending

Board members said they prefer to start conservatively — adopting the state’s protected‑ADU standard (900 square feet or 50% of the primary dwelling, whichever is less) and revisit changes such as larger units, additional ADUs on a single property, or other waivers after initial experience with the rule. The board will reconvene the discussion at its Jan. 27 meeting, when public comment and additional department input will be on the record.