Planning Board forwards prohibited-uses zoning amendment to council; debates ADU rules and outdoor lighting standards

The New Shoreham Planning Board voted July 9 to forward to the Town Council a draft zoning amendment intended to clarify and define prohibited uses in the town’s zoning ordinance. The board found the amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the motion to forward the draft passed by voice vote.

Planning staff reviewed several last edits to the prohibited-uses draft, including additions and wording changes for trailer transport references, inclusion of shellfish transport language, adding bees to livestock definitions, clarifying personal-use umbrellas, and tightening the definition of underground storage tanks and containers. Karen (planning staff) ran the board through the final changes before the motion.

The board devoted a lengthy discussion to proposed amendments to Section 5.13 (secondary dwelling units / ADUs), largely to reconcile prior state-law changes and local policy choices. Staff and members said they found no new state-law changes in the most recent legislative package that would require changing the proposed ADU rules derived from 2024 guidance. One revision noted in the draft: the due date for an ADU affidavit was changed from June (odd years) to December (odd years).

Members raised several policy questions to be resolved before forwarding ADU rules to the council: whether removing plumbing and cooking appliances should be the required method to demonstrate abandonment of an ADU use; treatment of wet bars or limited sinks; the 600-square-foot bonus for ADUs tied to a 15-year commitment and what happens after that period; whether ADUs associated with commercial uses (shopkeeper apartments) should be called out separately; and whether ADUs should be excluded from density calculations in the context of a “larger development proposal” (staff noted that exclusion derives from state law and left interpretation flexibility to staff).

Board members asked staff to redraft ambiguous language about abandonment (for example, adding “as required” after plumbing) and to return ADU text next month for a final review. Board members also flagged longer-term policy items—condominiumization of ADUs, commercial ADUs, and the secondary-dwelling rules in section 403—to be scheduled for future meetings.

The board additionally reviewed an outdoor lighting draft. Members discussed technical points such as whether flag lighting should be allowed to shine upward (the draft allows limited upward flag lighting under lumen thresholds), clarifying that residential lighting controls “shall” be automatic, and whether lighting guidance should accompany building-permit or zoning-application materials. The board asked staff to prepare a cleaner, dated version of the ordinance with a clean copy and a redlined copy, and suggested adding the lighting guidance to the zoning-plan-review packet so applicants see expectations early.

Only the prohibited-uses amendment was forwarded to the Town Council on July 9; ADU changes and lighting revisions were left for further edits and return next month.