Planning commission moves to restore six-month repair window for nonconforming buildings; debates duplexes, ADUs and short-term rentals

At its April 8, 2025 meeting, the Village of Stockbridge Planning Commission discussed several proposed zoning changes and recorded a motion to reinstate a six-month period for owners of unsafe nonconforming buildings to obtain permits and restore structures within their original footprints.

The commission’s discussion centered on allowing restoration to a safe condition without forcing full re-conformance to current zoning standards. Commissioners debated whether repairs should require a formal legal process through the board of appeals and a building official, and emphasized limiting repairs to the original building footprint. The minutes record a motion ‘‘to reinstate a six-month period for obtaining a permit to restore nonconforming structures that have become unsafe,’’ with a possible additional six-month extension; the motion text states that major alterations that expand the footprint would require full current conformance. The minutes do not record a mover, second, or vote result for that motion.

The question of duplexes and accessory units drew substantial comment. The commission recorded a decision not to allow duplexes in R-1 districts pending further discussion. Commissioners also discussed allowing mother-in-law additions in R-1 as a special use with conditions, but left final determinations for a future meeting. Public commenter Kim Morehouse expressed opposition to automatically permitting duplexes, saying, "I wanted to make sure that we didn't get pushed into something that we didn't really agree with. But I don't want duplexes to be allowed by rights," a concern echoed by other participants in the public-comment period.

Commissioners addressed cottage industries and home-occupation rules, including where to draw lines between small-scale home businesses, bed-and-breakfasts and larger rental platforms. The commission tabled motions after debating consistency with prior ordinances, enforcement practicalities and differentiating cottage industries from bed-and-breakfast operations and Airbnb-style rentals. Discussion on bed-and-breakfast regulation included suggested limits that ranged from three guest rooms (six guests) to five rooms (ten guests), as well as concerns about noise, traffic and minimum bathroom requirements; several commissioners favored handling these uses through special-use approvals and specific building standards.

The commission also discussed the timing and format of draft zoning articles submitted by consultant McKenna, noting late delivery of redline drafts for several articles (see separate item on consultant performance). The meeting concluded with procedural items and adjournment at 8:37 p.m.

The commission did not adopt final ordinance language for the items discussed; most proposals were left for further review and future meetings.