Above: Planning Board’s Jesse Stein explains to Town Meeting voters a complication posed by intertwined language in zoning Articles proposed for ADUs. (images edited from video and presentation)
At last night’s Annual Town Meeting, voters rejected a proposal to update bylaws for special permits for Accessory Apartments. In response, the Planning Board pulled a related Article on oversight of uses that the state now allows by-right.
Below are my selected highlights from the discussion and debates on Town Meeting floor. Plus, a look at what that that means in Southborough under current state laws. But first a brief recap of what the Articles were about. (You can skip to the following section if you’re already familiar.)
The Proposed ADU Bylaws
Under new state laws that went into effect this winter, owners of single family homes are entitled to add an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADUs) up to 900 sq ft to their property. (It can be attached or detached.)
There are some restrictions, but as long as they fall within the state law (and meet local zoning restrictions for height, setbacks, etc.) they are considered by-right.
Prior to the change, Southborough homeowners needed to apply for a special permit through the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for any size Accessory Apartments.
The state does allow Towns to add some specific restrictions and reasonable process steps in local bylaws. The Planning Board was seeking to do that under Article 28. And through Article 29, they proposed a revised process to streamline permitting for projects too large for the by-right use.
Going into Town Meeting, the board was aware that the Select Board and Advisory Committee had taken positions in opposition to the Articles.
Confusion over How to Handle the Articles
In opening the discussion of the Articles, Vice Chair Jesse Stein asked for permission to reverse the order for voting, plus combine them for discussion. He explained that in their hearing right before Town Meeting, the board realized that the language for the Articles was intertwined. If Article 28 passed but 29 subsequently failed the result would be “untenable”.
Before the hall voted to allow changing the order, there were questions and debate over the request.
Select Board Member Andrew Dennington pointed out that Article 28 replaces the current Accessory Apartment definition with the ADU definition. He had believed it needed to precede Article 29, since that bylaw refers to ADUs, which currently don’t exist in Town Code.
Chair Meme Luttrell clarified that the ability for anyone with projects larger than 900 sq feet would no longer be able to apply for special permits.
Stein said they would seek approval of 29. If that didn’t pass, they would indefinitely postpone 28.
Select Board Member Al Hamilton suggested that the Articles have “poison pills” within them as they are written and should be brought back in a different forme. He said that there was no pressing need to pass the bylaws last night.
Freddie Gillespie said she was willing to trust the Planning Board about the process.
Article 28 & 29 debates
Oversight or Overreach?
The Planning Board’s Articles would have added a Site Plan Review step for by-right projects. Select Board Member Al Hamilton argued against the extra burden and oversight:
if this Planning Board does not agree with the way you want to plant your property does not agree with the way you want to grade your property does not agree with the architectural styles that you have chosen for your property, then they have the right to deny you a building permit.
Town Counsel rebutted that the Planning Board could use Site Plan Review to impose conditions, which applicants might not like, but they couldn’t outright deny permits for projects that meet the zoning laws.
Upon questioning, Advisory Chair Andrew Pfaff said that he was in favor of cleaning up the bylaw language but not adding restrictions on the short term rentals or requiring Site Plan Review.
Patricia Burns Fiore disagreed with some of the conditions the board included in the bylaw, like requiring the architectural style to be “generally compatible with the existing principal dwelling”. She believed it was overreach.
Short term rental ban
Resident John Butler made a motion to amend Article 29, striking the prohibition on allowing short term rentals (under 31 days). He argued that the change would mean that residents who currently are using that option to raise money to make living in town affordable would lose that right.
Ken Boy said he agreed with a lot of what Butler said. But he worried about short term rentals in detached ADUs on the edge of his property “bringing in different rental people every day”. While his children are older, he would be concerned about kids playing in the backyard not knowing who’s in the new ADU from day to day.
Andrea Giancontieri countered that it’s none of her business what her neighbor build next to her as long as they’re adhering to setbacks and guidelines.
Luttrell defended that the Board was trying to follow the intent of the state law to increase affordable, diverse housing stock. She argued that if the ADUs are used for short term rentals it isn’t available for that use.
Voter Jim Colleary, the Town’s Wiring Inspector, told the hall that he learns about a lot of illegal apartments in town. He believes that the rentals are a necessary income for many seniors in order to be able to afford the taxes to keep living in town.
ZBA’s Mike Robbins shared a concern they discussed at Planning Board meetings that developers could come in and purchase homes for the purpose of adding an ADU and then allowing short term rentals with transient tenants. He believed the restriction was “reasonable control”.
Louis Rosero shared his concern that both Articles “undermine the whole spirt of the law” by adding additional burdens.
The motion to amend failed.
Changing the Board of Authority
In Article 29, the Planning board sought to move the decision authority from the ZBA to the Planning Board. Members explained that under the current bylaws, people seeking a special permit first need to go to the Planning Board. The Board then issues a report to the ZBA. (The ZBA can ignore it but would need to explain why.) The change was to eliminate a step.
Robbins objected to the change. He made a motion to keep the authority with the ZBA. He acknowledged that he hadn’t understood that the Planning Board intended to make that change when he participated in meetings to work through the bylaw changes.
Planning Member Marnie Hoolahan assured the room that the elected members of the Planning Board aren’t “trying to screw you”. The board worked through the issues for months. Referring to other criticisms of the Article, followed:
We don’t use the word restrictive. We use the word transparency and to provide neighbors the benefit of open process to understand what’s happening in their community in their neighborhood.
Upon my questioning of why Robbins preferred the ZBA be the authority, he responded that he wanted to keep it with the board that currently has jurisdiction and “why change something that’s not broken”.
Answering multiple voters during the discussion, Planning members repeatedly stressed the change was to eliminate a process step for applicants. Luttrell noted that the board could handle site plan review and the special permit in one meeting. And she highlighted that the Planning Board meets about every two weeks while the ZBA meets monthly.
That motion to amend failed. But the Article immediately failed the 2/3 approval threshold to pass.
After a quick vote to continue the meeting past 11:00 pm, Stein moved to indefinitely postpone Article 28.
So What Now?
The Planning Board could decide to bring back revised versions to a future Town Meeting.1 In the meantime, the state law dominates.
The Building Commissioner has interpreted that under the law, homeowners can pull permits to build ADUs the same as they would for any addition/renovation/new building project. That’s as long as the project complies with the by-right section of the state law.
The law only applies to residential zones. It caps by-right projects at the lesser of under 900 sq feet or half the gross floor area of the “principal dwelling unit” of the single family home the ADU would be “accessory” to.2 Plus only one is allowed per property.
You can find the regulations here and learn more here.
Owners will still have to follow the Town’s other zoning bylaws for their zoning district, like setbacks and building heights. (Just ignore the restrictions and process related to “Accessory Apartments”.)
For larger projects, the current process for Accessory Apartments will still apply. If you have more questions about what you can/can’t do on your property, you can try reaching out to the Building Department.
Updated (4/8/25 6:46 pm): I used the wrong first name for Jim Colleary.
- Don’t worry, this wouldn’t be added to Warrant for the Special Town Meeting on May 10th. The Town plans to fully dedicated that to the Neary Building Project.
- Under state regulations, Gross Floor Area is “The sum of the areas of all stories of the building of compliant ceiling height pursuant to the Building Code, including basements, lofts, and intermediate floored tiers, measured from the interior faces of exterior walls or from the centerline of walls separating buildings or dwelling units but excluding crawl spaces, garage parking areas, attics, enclosed porches and similar spaces. Where there are multiple Principal Dwellings on the Lot, the GFA of the largest Principal Dwelling shall be used for determining the maximum size of a Protected Use ADU.” The cap impacts homes that have under 1,800 sq ft of gross floor area.
