The board’s primary focus was on crafting a new ADU bylaw to replace the existing, often-confusing regulation. Emphasizing clarity and efficiency, the board opted for a complete overhaul rather than further modifications to the current bylaw, which had become unwieldy due to numerous redline changes. Legal counsel advised that public feedback might prompt minor adjustments, but changes were not anticipated as the board’s direction had become clearer.

Central to the new bylaw is ensuring compliance with state ADU laws. The board discussed the importance of defining key terms within the bylaw, such as “accessory dwelling unit” and “principal dwelling,” to prevent misunderstandings.

A notable aspect of the proposed regulations is the treatment of ADUs as extensions of the principal dwelling for dimensional standards. This provision simplifies the approval process by allowing ADUs to be permitted by right, provided they meet certain criteria. However, if an ADU does not conform to dimensional standards, applicants must seek zoning relief.

Setbacks were another area of concern, particularly for detached ADUs. The current bylaw treats detached ADUs as part of the principal dwelling, which complicates the application of additional setbacks required for fire safety. The board debated the implications of these regulations on property rights and community aesthetics, striving to maintain a town-like ambiance rather than a densely packed urban environment.

The discussion also addressed the treatment of existing non-conforming structures. The board emphasized that ADUs should not exacerbate existing non-conformities, particularly regarding setback violations. Instead, improvements to non-conformities are permissible, provided they do not increase the degree of non-conformity. This approach aligns with the town’s zoning bylaws and ensures any new construction adheres to established standards.

Another topic was the distinction between attached and detached ADUs. The board considered whether attached ADUs, akin to in-law apartments, would have less neighborhood impact than detached units, which could appear as separate dwellings. This led to broader discussions about maintaining neighborhood character and ensuring adequate spacing between detached ADUs and principal dwellings.

Design standards for ADUs were also scrutinized. The board proposed specific requirements, such as shared entryways and concealed staircases, to minimize visual impact. Additionally, the definition of gross floor area for ADUs would encompass all habitable space, including garages and basements, provided ceiling heights meet regulatory standards.

Parking requirements generated considerable debate. The board decided that an additional parking space would generally be required for ADUs, except for those near public transportation routes. This decision seeks to balance neighborhood aesthetics with practical considerations, such as preventing residents from parking on grass or non-designated areas.

The board also tackled the issue of existing ADUs and their compliance with new state definitions. They clarified that existing legal uses would not be retroactively affected by the new bylaw, as they are typically grandfathered. However, properties with non-compliant ADUs could add a compliant ADU under the new regulations, potentially allowing for two ADUs on a single lot.