Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Occupancy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning Board raises enforcement concerns over new state household definition; asks staff for options

5576827 · August 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Board members questioned a state-mandated household definition (minimum one person per bedroom; max five unrelated persons) and its effect on seasonal worker housing and owner-occupied arrangements, and asked staff to return with options.

The New Shoreham Planning Board on Aug. 13 reviewed a draft change to the zoning ordinance’s definition of "household" put forward to comply with new state law. Staff read the state language into the record: "The maximum number of people per household can be set by local ordinance. It shall not be less than 1 person per bedroom and shall not exceed 5 unrelated persons per dwelling."

Members expressed concern about practical effects. Several board members said the provision, as drafted, could make common seasonal-worker housing arrangements illegal (for example, multiple unrelated summer workers sharing bedrooms) and questioned enforcement. Board members discussed the interplay between the household definition and other ordinance provisions (for example, septic capacity and short-term rental rules) and noted that the definition appears primarily in the definitions section rather than embedded in use-specific sections.

Peter, planning staff, advised the board that the language came from the solicitor’s suggested compliance changes and recommended they consider where the occupancy rule should be enforced and how it should interact with existing provisions. Board members asked staff to produce a short analysis showing where the definition is used in the ordinance and options for controlling maximum occupancy (for example, per-bedroom limits tied to septic design or different rules for owner-occupied versus rental uses).

The board did not adopt the language at the meeting and asked staff to return with suggested alternatives and an impact analysis for discussion in September.