Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hampshire planners debate ADUs, ask staff for comparisons and size limits
Summary
At a Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, staff outlined proposed 'bulk standards' for zoning districts and commissioners discussed adding accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to the code; staff agreed to produce comparative tables and sample site plans and to recommend potential square‑footage caps.
Staff presented a uniform format for proposed zoning districts and explained that "bulk standards"—maximum height, setbacks, lot coverage and floor‑area ratio—control a structure's size, shape and placement on a lot, and recommended applying that format across all districts.
The commission then discussed accessory dwelling units (ADUs). A staff member explained the changes in the draft and said ADUs could be added to the land‑use table "as a permitted or special use in one of the residential districts." Commissioners debated whether to address ADUs now or leave them for later public‑hearing packets. One commissioner urged inclusion now to avoid revisiting text amendments later; other members said more research would be helpful.
Discussion turned to ADU types and limits: participants contrasted basement apartments with separate structures (tiny homes or above‑garage units), and noted other communities' practices, including example square‑footage caps in the 900–1,000 sq ft range. Staff committed to preparing a comparison table of nearby towns' ADU rules, sample site/layout plans and suggested regulatory options (by‑right vs. special‑use controls).
No formal code text amendments or votes were adopted at the meeting; commissioners instructed staff to return with the research and recommended language. The commission also discussed where ADUs should be permitted (estate and some single‑family districts versus R‑2 or multifamily), with the consensus leaning toward allowing ADUs in larger‑lot districts by‑right and treating them as special uses in smaller single‑family zones.
