Planner presents draft ordinance revisions to implement state affordable-housing changes

Jeff Be, a senior planner with the Kbec Valley Council of Governments, presented a packet of ordinance revisions the panel drafted to align the town's code with a recently enacted state affordable‑housing law the transcript refers to as LD 2003 (also noted in places as LD203). He told the board the changes primarily affect the building code and the zoning ordinance and described the revisions as largely housekeeping with a few substantive clarifications.

Be said municipalities face a short window to bring local ordinances into compliance once state rulemaking is finalized, and recommended the board adopt the revisions now so the town retains limited local discretion in the areas the state allows. "An accessory dwelling unit cannot be a standalone dwelling unit on a property. It has to be accessory to or subordinate to a primary ... single‑family dwelling unit," Be explained, adding that the distinction between an ADU and a separate primary dwelling is one of the law's trickier points for residents and boards.

Board members asked for clearer language on several points Be flagged. The meeting record shows the group agreed to mark confusing or out‑of‑scope language for later review rather than resolve every sentence at the meeting. Topics flagged for future clarification include:

- The building‑code sentence referencing the National Fire Protection standard that participants described as "confusing" and in need of later clarification. - Who is responsible for ensuring compliance on non‑single‑family structures (owner/builder/architect/engineer versus enforcement by the code officer), with the board agreeing to add language to clarify when third‑party inspection is required for multifamily or commercial projects. - Permit‑fee treatment for accessory dwelling units; staff noted ADUs currently fall under the town's structure fee schedule but that a separate permit‑fee line could be considered.

The planner also said some state rulemaking has not yet been published and recommended adopting interim revisions now so the town is not forced to default immediately to state standards when an application arrives. "If an application comes before you all related to this, you would have to revert back to the state standards and you wouldn't get any say whatsoever in the few areas that the state has allowed you all to have a say in," he told the board.

The board asked staff to revise wording in the building‑code chapters to explicitly reference "multifamily/commercial" where third‑party inspection or fire‑marshal review is intended; participants cited a recent conversion of the North Lansancy building as an example of when multi‑unit projects drew fire and specialty inspections.

Before moving into the zoning chapter, the board agreed the packet needs more time for review. One member moved to table the remainder of the zoning presentation so members could read materials and return with comments; that motion carried. The board also noted they received a grant in 2024 that supported the ordinance‑update work and that some follow‑up will be required once state rulemaking is issued.

Next steps recorded at the meeting included staff edits to clarify the owner/builder versus enforcement responsibilities, adding explicit references to commercial/multifamily thresholds for third‑party inspections, consideration of a separate ADU permit fee, and circulating corrected zoning maps and tables for member review ahead of the next meeting. The board tabled the zoning review and adjourned.