Gardner hearing considers allowing cottage kitchens in residential neighborhoods

The City of Gardner held a joint public hearing on Nov. 3 to consider an ordinance amending chapter 6.75 of the city zoning code to allow cottage kitchens to operate and sell prepared foods on-site in residential districts.

Mayor Mike Nicholson, the co-sponsor of the proposal, told the council and planning board that cottage kitchens are “basic­ally home based kitchens that, operate some type of commercial, enterprise through the goods that they cook within their home,” and that the change would give operators already working informally a lawful option to sell from their homes. He said the proposal would initially allow cottage kitchens in the city’s residential districts (Single-Family Residential 1, Rural Residential 2 and General Residential 3), and not in the city’s commercial or industrial zones.

The ordinance would not waive state requirements. The mayor and staff repeatedly noted that “all aspects of the state building code and state sanitary code do still apply,” and that sanitary-code requirements — for example, minimum equipment and space, three-bay sinks, grease traps or hoods where required — would determine what can be prepared and sold. City staff also told the bodies that operators would need a health department permit and that inspections tied to those permits occur under the health department’s schedule; staff described an annual inspection cycle tied to the health permit.

Councilors pressed for detail. Councilor Tassoni asked whether there are restrictions on what can be sold; staff answered that the sanitary code and building code control allowable foods and required equipment. Councilor Mack asked about ServSafe or allergen training; staff confirmed that the same food‑safety and training standards required for other permitted food operations would apply to cottage kitchens.

Mayor Nicholson said he is aware of at least seven home operations currently preparing goods in Gardner that had not followed the formal permitting path, and described the ordinance as intended to create a legal avenue for similar businesses to operate without being blocked by zoning ambiguity.

No vote was taken. The hearing on item 11688 was opened, public testimony and council questions were heard, and President Tyrus declared the public hearing closed; the council and planning board will consider the ordinance in subsequent deliberations and any formal vote would come later.

Ending: The proposal remains a matter for the council and planning board; staff pointed to the packet of statutory references and the city’s Community Development and Planning office for technical questions and next steps.