Zoning board continues Pietro ADU variance request after debate over law change, footprint and hardship

Chris Pietro told the Town of Charlton Zoning Board of Appeals on March 3 that his family relied on town guidance and spent substantial money before a state law change reduced allowable ADU size. “From the very beginning, we sought guidance, asked questions, and moved forward, only receiving confirmation that we were permitted to proceed,” Pietro said, describing finalized plans for a roughly 1,250‑square‑foot accessory dwelling unit with a two‑car garage and about $171,000 in expenditures to date.

Kurt Meascus, the town’s building commissioner and zoning enforcement officer, answered board questions about when laws changed and about what informal staff comments mean. “Nothing is a sure bet until a building permit has been issued,” Meascus told the board, noting that the governor signed the Affordable Homes Act in late 2024 and that Charlton’s ADU rules were subsequently adjusted to align with state limits (the state limit the board cited is 900 sq ft or half the principal dwelling, whichever applies).

Board members pressed two technical points: how much of the existing house the applicants proposed to “annex” into the new ADU, and the additional footprint created by the two‑car garage. Meascus and members walked through the math on the record: plans completed in 2024 showed a living area over the new 900‑sq‑ft threshold (reported overage ~256 sq ft) and a total footprint increase that includes a roughly 576‑sq‑ft garage (the board discussed a footprint overage of about 450 sq ft). Several members said their larger concern was that annexing parts of the existing first floor would create two separate dwelling units for code purposes and could trigger building‑code separation and egress requirements.

The board questioned whether money already spent or reliance on informal staff guidance satisfies the statutory hardship test. Members said ordinary hardships typically arise from physical constraints unique to a lot (topography, septic location, well placement), not from intervening law changes or pre‑permit expenditures. The applicants noted they recorded a deed restriction with the board of health to address septic and bedroom counts.

Board members advised a narrower approach: consult with the building inspector to reconfigure the design so the existing dining room and study remain part of the main house (not annexed into the ADU) and then seek limited relief only for the garage siting or size if the lot’s configuration truly prevents alternatives. The board asked the applicants and their contractor to present refined plans and a hardship justification tied to physical constraints (septic, lot shape, or similar) rather than primarily to prior reliance on informal guidance.

Because the applicants had not yet pulled a building permit and because the board wanted a tighter, engineering‑backed hardship claim, the board voted to continue the variance petition to April 7, 2026. The continuance gives the applicants time to work with the building inspector on egress, fire‑separation and a possible exterior man‑door, to narrow the requested relief, and to return with clearer evidence of any site‑specific constraints.

The hearing is scheduled to resume at 7 p.m. on April 7, 2026; the board did not adopt or deny any variance at this meeting.