37:18The most discussion revolved around the parking requirements for ADUs on small residential lots. The board debated the challenges posed by current regulations that mandate a third parking space when an ADU is added to a property. Concerns were raised about whether these requirements were feasible for properties with limited space. The building inspector plays a critical role in enforcing these regulations, with the authority to deny permits if parking provisions are unmet. The board highlighted the potential long-term implications of insufficient parking, particularly if future tenants require it, despite initial occupants not needing a vehicle.

19:29In addressing these parking concerns, the board discussed the broader implications of state laws, which dictate that only one parking space can be required per ADU unless specific public transportation options are available. The board acknowledged a potential loophole in the state’s draft guidance, which might consider any bus route with flag-down service as satisfying public transportation requirements, potentially negating parking mandates altogether, even though the local community lacks such services.

0:00The board also delved into the language and procedural aspects of the ADU bylaw. There was a consensus on the importance of using consistent terminology, opting for “accessory dwelling units” over “accessory apartments” to align with state statutes and eliminate ambiguity. Adjustments were proposed to streamline the document, moving specific requirements, such as compliance with the state sanitary code, into more relevant sections to maintain focus and reduce redundancy.

19:29Another point of discussion was the aesthetic considerations for ADUs. The original stipulation that accessory apartments must maintain the appearance of single-family homes was scrutinized. Given the new state law permitting independent structures on properties, the board debated shifting aesthetic considerations to the site plan review process, allowing for more case-specific decision-making. This approach aimed to simplify the approval process, making it more accessible for typical homeowners.

56:12The conversation also explored the intricacies of the site plan approval process, particularly the need to adapt existing requirements to accommodate ADUs better. The board recognized that the current language might be too generic, leading to excessive demands on homeowners. Discussions emphasized the need for a balanced approach, distinguishing between the requirements suitable for larger projects and those appropriate for simpler ADUs. Suggestions were made to incorporate waiver language, granting the board discretion to adjust requirements based on a project’s complexity, thereby avoiding unnecessary burdens on homeowners.

0:00The procedural nuances of site plan reviews versus special permits were another focal point. The board considered simplifying the process by replacing public hearing requirements with public meetings for ADUs, recognizing them as by-right projects. This shift aimed to streamline decision-making, with a proposed 90-day deadline for processing applications to ensure efficiency while allowing sufficient time for review. The board also discussed the flexibility to request additional information if an application, though complete, required further details.

1:13:40In addition to ADU-related topics, the board reviewed other planning matters, including the landscaping requirements in multifamily overlay districts and the notification process for public hearings. The board debated whether to align local notification procedures with state law, potentially broadening the scope to include abutters and abutters of abutters within a 300-foot radius. This change aimed to standardize the process, reducing public confusion while ensuring comprehensive community engagement.