Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Bylaw Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board reviews ADU bylaw edits and proposed site-plan review triggers; staff to seek legal clarification
Summary
The board reviewed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) bylaw language sent to legal counsel and proposed edits to site-plan applicability to capture significant external changes. Members suggested lowering a floor-area trigger and removing a redundant clause; legal counsel will be asked for wording guidance.
On March 13 the Lakeville Planning Board reviewed proposed revisions to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) section of the zoning bylaw and multiple proposed edits to the site-plan review applicability section.
Durfee said the ADU changes — which include adding language making ADU approvals subject to provisions cited from state regulation — were reviewed by legal counsel with no flagged concerns. The board discussed deleting an older accessory-apartment definition and carrying forward the ADU language that had been part of a previous town meeting warrant; Durfee noted the Attorney General is still reviewing some ADU-related articles from the fall town meeting and the review period had been extended.
On site-plan review applicability, the board discussed several newly proposed triggers intended to capture larger external modifications even when no new primary structure is being built. Topics included whether to lower a floor-area threshold (members suggested reducing a 1,500-square-foot trigger to 1,000 or 700 square feet), and whether to quantify parking changes (the board agreed to require site-plan review for expansion or new parking areas of five or more spaces). The board agreed to remove a redundant clause and consolidate triggers under an enlargement/intensification threshold that covers business or industrial changes but not single-family or duplex housing.
Legal counsel had also asked whether the planning department should be listed explicitly on the technical-review distribution list; the board agreed that the Planner should be included. Members raised a procedural question about a proposed requirement that applicants "shall" meet with an informal technical review committee prior to filing; planners and members recommended changing the word to "shall meet, if requested" or similar language so a single department declining a pre-application meeting does not create a procedural stalemate.
Durfee said she will seek legal counsel’s wording guidance on the prior-meeting language, the revised site-plan triggers and the proposed floor-area and parking thresholds before drafting a public hearing warrant for April.
