The Zoning Board of Appeals hopes to bring a zoning revision to Special Town Meeting in October.
Before public hearings are opened, they are inviting the community to learn more and provide feedback on their draft proposal at a public forum in three weeks.
The proposed Article would make it easier to pursue discretionary permits for two-family homes in most zoning districts. Based on the state law, that could also allow for some two-family homes to add a third “accessory” dwelling to their lots. (Scroll to the bottom for more on that.)
August 12th Public Forum & Public Process
The ZBA’s forum is scheduled for Wednesday, August 12th at 7:30 pm. The hybrid forum will be held in the Town House Hearing Room with an option for remote participation by zoom.
(It will also be recorded for later viewing.)
The ZBA has also created a page on the Town website with details on the proposed bylaw change, and the meeting & process schedule.
If all goes as planned, an Article will be on the Warrant for the Special Town Meeting on Saturday, October 17th.
Links include a “clean” draft of the proposed changes and a redlined version.
At their July 15th meeting, the ZBA approved sending the draft proposal to the Select Board to be referred to the Planning Board. If that is approved, Planning would then be charged with holding public hearings in September.
Proposed Two-Family Zoning Changes
The effort was initially introduced to the board this spring by member Doris Cahill. She referred to the fact that ADUs were meant to allow owners of existing homes to add a unit. She said that members were alerted to a concern that developers were instead using it to get around the Town’s time restriction that prevents building new two-family homes.
The board agreed that they should get rid of the “two-year rule” in the bylaws. The ZBA’s Assistant Lara Davis took on drafting the zoning changes.
At their July 17th meeting, Davis walked them through the proposed revisions and rationale.
The bylaw changes include adding the following definition to the bylaws:
Two-Family Dwelling
A detached residential building on a single lot containing two (2) dwelling units and which is either divided vertically so that the dwelling units are side by side, separated by a shared wall (townhouse) or is divided horizontally so that one dwelling unit is above another (duplex); except that a single family dwelling with an accessory dwelling unit, attached or detached, shall not be considered to be a Two-Family Dwelling.
The newly defined use would be referred to in revised language for the special permitted use.
Under existing code, multiple zoning districts currently list a special permit use for:
Conversion of a one-family house in existence for two years or longer to a two-family dwelling, on a lot with a minimum of 15,000 square feet.
The proposed amendment strikes and replaces that with:
Construction of a two-family dwelling or conversion of a single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling on a lot that meets the minimum lot size for the zoning district in which the dwelling is located.
Davis explained that the current 15,000 sq ft minimum stems from 1955 zoning bylaws for “Residence C”. That zone was eliminated in the 1960s. Instead of specifying a new figure, she suggested that setting the zoning by each district’s minimum would be more equitable.
Davis also removed a restriction that “Not more than the required minimum exterior alterations have been or will be made to the one-family house and to any accessory buildings”. She noted it didn’t make sense since that was removed within the ADU bylaw and under this bylaw change they are allowing new construction.
While the changes would make it easier to pursue a permit in more circumstances, permits would need to go through a public hearing process.
Upon questioning, Davis highlighted that the standard special permit restrictions and discretion still applies. That includes the board’s ability under § 174-9 to deny projects that are “substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood”.
The posted drafts of the ZBA’s bylaw don’t include an additional change that the ZBA may also pursue.
If the Planning Board agrees, Davis recommended eliminating a long section asking for a report to the ZBA by the Planning Board including on “the advisability of granting the special permit and any restrictions that should be imposed as conditions thereof and the provisions for off-street parking”. She pointed out that the “those things are looked at through the Building Commissioner as part of the building permit process”. ZBA Chair Dave Williams agreed that made sense.
One more change that is included in the drafts is to strike “There must be no other apartment on the lot on which the two-family residence is proposed.” According to Davis, that conflicts with state ADU laws.
ADU Impacts
This spring, Town Meeting approved bylaw changes that allow ADUs as large as 1,200 sq ft but no larger than the primary dwelling.
Last week, Davis told the ZBA that (under state law) ADUs are allowed by right on two-family lots. And, she believes that under the state’s zoning definitions, the primary dwelling for comparison would be the full two-family units. (So, a home with two 900 sq ft units could also have an ADU on the property up to 1,200 sq ft.)
Davis doesn’t expect this would lead to a number of new, connected 3-family units. She told the ZBA that she believed 3-unit home would trigger more expensive commercial code requirements (like adding sprinkler systems). And she believed that if an owner invested in significant upgrades to a pre-existing 3-family home, that would also trigger requirements to meet modern zoning codes.
The ADU bylaw does allow for detached units. However, while owners have the right to add an ADU to residential property, it does need to comply with other building and zoning restrictions (like zoning setbacks, septic capacity, etc.)
[Note: The revised ADU bylaws aren’t written into the Town Code yet, since they are still being vetted by the state Attorney General’s Office. But they are expected to be approved as effective April 12, 2026. In the meantime, you can read about the version passed by voters here.]
