Subject to minor changes discussed last week, Belmont planning officials have voted to recommend favorable action at Town Meeting on the accessory dwelling unit bylaw amendments.
The Planning Board vote followed lengthy discussions on whether ADUs should be allowed for short-term rental use and what the particular dimensional requirements should be.
The bylaw changes come as Belmont looks to come into compliance with a new Massachusetts state law, signed by Gov. Maura Healey in August as part of the $5.1 billion housing bond bill, which allows accessory dwelling units by right in single-family zoning districts. According to the state, the new law aims to jumpstart housing production and make it easier for families to find affordable places to live.
ADUs can stand alone or be attached to an existing dwelling. The new law prohibits Massachusetts cities and towns from imposing owner-occupancy requirements or “unreasonably restricting” the creation or rental of an ADU.
Other requirements in the new state law include having no restrictions on whether the primary unit or the accessory dwelling unit is owner-occupied; in other words, both can be rented. The town also cannot require more than one parking space for the accessory unit, nor can it require a parking space for any property located within half a mile of a transit stop.
Up until Feb. 2, when the law went into effect, Belmont only allowed ADUs by special permit in historic accessory buildings, such as a carriage house, according to Planning Board member Carol Berberian. However, those restrictions are no longer enforceable.
In the meantime, the town is, however, protected in the sense that underlying zoning — such as setback requirements and linear and dimensional requirements — remains in place.
At a Planning Board meeting earlier this month, members agreed unanimously with Chris Ryan, director and town planner of the Belmont Planning Division, that allowing short-term rentals would not be in the spirit of the law.
“The state wants to maximize actual habitable space for permanent residents,” Ryan said. “I think that’s why they offered to have communities prevent ADUs from having short-term rentals in them.”
He said short-term rentals, such as with an AirBnB, are defined as being one week or less.
“I’m sympathetic to the idea of let’s just ban them for simplicity’s sake in ADUs, because that affirms the spirit of the law,” said Planning Board Chair Taylor Yates. “The town does need to decide something about short-term rentals and for us to make that more complicated by extending them to ADUs, I think, it’s just going to create headaches down the road.”
Less straightforward, however, was a discussion on maximum lot coverage and open space. Per the law, Ryan explained, existing lots that are nonconforming related to lot size will not have that nonconformity apply to ADUs. In other words, if the only nonconformity is not having the minimum lot size, the town cannot say no to an ADU. In Belmont, the majority of properties are nonconforming, according to Yates.
“Existing lots that are nonconforming as to lot coverage and open space, they increase that nonconformity up to the revised maximums,” Ryan said, explaining his table of proposed dimensions, which uses a sliding scale of “bonus lot coverage” on properties seeking an ADU. “However, if they seek to exceed that number, they would be required to seek a special permit from the Planning Board. There may be circumstances where certain lots just can’t make it work even with the additional number we’re giving them.”
Resident Sue Bass was among the few residents to speak during the public hearing portion of the meeting. After asking a clarifying question, she encouraged the board to take its time with the ADU amendments, particularly in light of other rezoning initiatives the board plans to tackle.
Berberian expressed concerns with the table of dimensions Ryan proposed, namely with respect to the bonus lot coverage allowed in the General Residence zoning districts.
“My fear is that in addition to adding a lot more density, this is going to potentially incentivize developers to build larger homes with an ADU that can be sold, and then the new owner can elect not to use it as an ADU, so they’re getting to build a much bigger house,” she said.
In a vote to send the proposed table to Town Meeting, the board voted 3-2 in favor of continuing to consider the table in the draft ADU bylaw. Berberian and Andrew Osborn were the dissenting votes. Yates, Thayer Donham, and Alisa Gardner-Todreas voted in favor.
“I am very sensitive in GR [General Residence] as neighbors,” Ryan said. “But I’m also sensitive to the people in GR as homeowners, who may want an opportunity to do something for an elderly parent, a child coming home from college … the bottom line is that it’s the most challenging in the GR district because you’re out of lot coverage instantaneously.”
At its Feb. 4 meeting, the board voted to strike the Single Family Residence A from the chart of new ADU dimensional requirements.
The board also voted unanimously to require that the additional square feet allowed by maximum lot coverage bonuses go to an ADU; to require a special permit for new construction homes with an ADU that uses the maximum lot coverage bonus; and to allow a 5% lot coverage bonus, regardless of whether a lot is conforming.