Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town hears extensive public comment on proposed ADU law; board tentatively sets decision timeline
Summary
Town staff outlined proposed ADU zoning changes that would lower lot‑size thresholds and broaden eligibility; residents, advocates and homeowners raised accessibility, neighborhood character and technical concerns. The board closed the hearing with the record left open through April 6 and discussed scheduling a vote for April 8.
The board continued a public hearing on a proposed local law to permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs) across several residential districts. Garrett Duquesne, commissioner of community development and conservation, summarized staff changes to the draft: lowering the minimum lot size threshold for some ADU categories (for expansions to 7,500 square feet from 10,000) and a 20,000‑square‑foot threshold for new detached ADUs, extending ADU eligibility into the R7.5 zone and including a one‑year sunset clause to allow the board to reassess the law after an initial period.
Duquesne said the revisions would raise the percentage of single‑family homes eligible for ADUs from roughly 62% to about 85%. He also described a Planning Board waiver process for conversions of accessory garages that do not meet setback requirements.
During the five‑minute public comment period, Christian Benner described a practical edge case where a garage in the middle of a 15,000‑square‑foot lot would be impractical to convert without relocation; he urged staff and the board to consider exceptions for relocations that would improve site layout. Bill Gentish described his personal interest in an ADU for special‑needs family care and asked for options or expedited consideration for specific cases. Multiple residents, including Walter Simon and Hugh Schwartz, expressed support for an ADU law in principle while pressing for lower minimums or a clear hardship pathway. Some speakers urged reliance on Planning Board discretion for waivers; others asked procedural questions about timing for a final vote.
After discussion, the board voted to close the public hearing, leave the record open until April 6 and agreed to target April 8 as a possible decision date, with the option to move the decision to a later regular meeting if necessary. Staff said they would prepare decision documents and application materials for the board to consider prior to a final vote.
