Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the ADU Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves exterior stairs for ADU at Reservation Road after contentious debate
Summary
The commission approved exterior stairs giving access to an accessory dwelling above an existing garage at Six Reservation Road despite several commissioners arguing the structure is a detached, non‑conforming accessory building and that approval would bypass ADU rules and a public hearing.
Ray Tribuseio sought approval May 11 to add an external staircase and landing to provide access to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above an existing garage at Six Reservation Road. The application before the commission was narrowly focused on the stairway; the broader ADU status of the building and whether a special permit or public hearing was required was the core of a heated debate.
Several commissioners, including Commissioner Jameson, urged denial or referral because they viewed the garage as a detached, non‑conforming accessory building in the front yard and argued that allowing stairs would effectively enable an ADU in a front‑yard detached structure without the public notice and special permit that the town’s ADU rules require. Commissioner Jameson stated at length: "...this seems like kind of an end run around the ADU regulations," and warned that approving the stairs would set a precedent allowing other non‑conforming buildings to bypass current rules.
The applicant and his representatives said they had sought advice from counsel and that the town attorney provided an opinion supporting the application. Ray Tribuseio said he had undertaken engineering and paid consultants to meet requirements and that he believed the stairs were a ministerial matter needed for access. He told the commission he had been advised that an ADU under 700 sq ft would not need additional variances to proceed.
Despite repeated objections from several commissioners who urged that the correct path would be a variance or a special‑permit/public‑hearing process, the motion to approve the exterior stairs passed. After the vote, commissioners noted the tension between property‑owner rights and maintaining the integrity of zoning rules; the transcript records dissent and at least one commissioner calling the outcome "fundamentally unfair" to others who followed the standard process. The meeting record does not list a full numerical vote tally in the transcript.
Next steps: staff will issue any required building permits for the stairs consistent with the approval. Commissioners who opposed the decision suggested appeal paths and cautioned that future similar requests could require stricter review.
