The commission engaged in a discussion about the potential financial implications of integrating ADUs into the sewer system. As more property owners express interest in adding ADUs, a decision on how to assess fees becomes increasingly urgent. The conversation highlighted concerns over whether existing customers should incur additional charges for new hookups. One participant clearly stated, “I certainly don’t see it being a freebie just because you’re already an existing customer.” This statement underscored the necessity of charging a fee for ADUs, given the additional strain on the system that separate kitchen and bathroom facilities could impose.

The commission examined bylaws that dictate ADUs must be smaller than 50% of the gross dwelling area, prompting further deliberation on a fair fee structure. A proposal was put forward to potentially scale the fee based on the size of the main dwelling. For example, if the fee for a three-bedroom home is approximately $3,500, the fee for an ADU could be set at 50% of that amount. This suggestion was made in light of the size constraints imposed by the bylaws.

Further complicating the issue, the commission discussed the capacity of the existing sewer infrastructure to handle additional load from multiple ADUs connected to a single property. The standard sewer pipe size of 6 inches was noted as generally adequate, but questions arose about financial responsibilities if the system required upgrades. One participant questioned, “If this was true and the 6-in pipe couldn’t handle the additional now, who foots the bill on the replacing it?” This highlighted the need for clarity on whether the cost of necessary upgrades would fall to homeowners or the town.

The urgency of addressing this matter was emphasized with remarks about the potential rapid increase in ADU permits. One participant stated, “I just have a feeling this ADU stuff is really going to pick up steam at some point and it’ll be hard to chase it.” This sentiment reflected concerns about missed revenue opportunities if a fee structure is not established promptly.

In considering solutions, the commission weighed the feasibility of a flat fee structure for ADUs as an alternative to a more complex tiered system based on individual unit specifications. The rationale was that a flat fee could simplify integration into the existing sewer framework and avoid complications associated with varying property requirements.

Beyond the ADU discussion, the commission received updates on infrastructure projects. The Dana Street repairs were highlighted, with excavation work verifying the functionality of bypass piping. Pride Environmental had completed initial work, with further developments scheduled. Additionally, manhole repairs were slated to commence soon, pending review of submitted materials.

The commission also addressed file management issues, discussing the disposal of outdated records. It was clarified that no vote was needed for this purely informational matter. The building housing these files was set to be decommissioned, and only essential records would be retained.