Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Hampden planning board agrees to reword ADU provision after debate over front-yard setback
Loading...
Summary
The Town of Hampden Planning Board debated a draft requiring accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to sit behind the primary dwelling, concluding that the language could unduly bar ADUs on deep-setback lots and agreeing to reword the section to require conformity with frontage setback, height and lot-coverage rules.
The Town of Hampden Planning Board voted informally to reword a proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) provision after a lengthy discussion about how a strict ‘‘behind the front building wall’’ requirement would affect lots with deep setbacks.
Board members said the draft language could render ADUs infeasible on properties where the primary house sits far from the road. A long-serving member (Speaker 2) cited local examples—Bennett Road and Glendale Road—where houses are set well back from the street and warned that a blanket prohibition on ADUs in front yards would be ‘‘so restrictive…that it prohibits, renders infeasible or unreasonably increases the costs of the construction.’’
The board examined how existing nonconforming-lot rules and state Attorney General guidance interact with the draft. Several members agreed the planning board’s site-plan review process offers appropriate discretion to evaluate unique situations and the views of immediate abutters. One member summarized the compromise by reading the revised wording into the record: "ADUs shall comply with frontage setback, height and lot-coverage requirements," replacing the explicit ‘‘behind the front building wall’’ phrase.
Members discussed the procedural consequences of the change. They asked whether the edit, being less restrictive, requires re-submission to the Attorney General and whether town meeting action would be necessary; the board’s working consensus was that because the rewording aligns the bylaw with standard setbacks and is less restrictive, it likely would not require repeating the entire adoption process, though town counsel will confirm.
The board also debated the treatment of preexisting nonconforming lots. Several members noted that if an ADU would increase a lot’s nonconforming nature, a variance or special permit route may be triggered; others pointed out that special permits offer more flexibility than variances, and the zoning enforcement/building inspector and the Zoning Board of Appeals have defined roles in those reviews.
The planning board directed staff to re-draft section b with the streamlined language and to consult with town counsel about any necessary steps with the Attorney General. The change aims to preserve neighborhood protections while avoiding an unintended ban on ADUs for homes with long driveways or large front yards.
The planning board approved the minutes of its March 11 meeting and adjourned; the ADU edit will return to the board for final wording and counsel review.
