After four hours of discussion, Town Meeting members approved amendments to the accessory dwelling unit bylaw, officially bringing the town into compliance with a new state law.
That law, signed by Gov. Maura Healey in August as part of the $5.1 billion housing bond bill, allows accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right in districts that allow for single-family zoning. According to the state, the new law aims to jumpstart housing production and make it easier for families to find affordable places to live.
Town Meeting voted 179-32 with four abstentions to support the article as amended. That amendment—one of three put forth Monday night, one of which was withdrawn—sought to ease requirements on exterior staircases and entrances to ADUs. The amendment was submitted by Precinct 3 Town Meeting member Rachel Heller.
“My amendment fine tunes the bylaw … to make it easier for homeowners to create ADUs,” Heller explained to fellow Town Meeting members Monday night. “ADUs are a part of the housing solution.”
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 no restrictions on whether the primary unit or the accessory dwelling unit is owner-occupied; in other words, both can be rented. The town cannot require more than one parking space for the accessory unit or for any property located within half a mile of a transit stop.
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.
The conversation Monday night began with a motion by Precinct 6 Town Meeting member Susan Croy to indefinitely postpone the article, arguing modifications to the amendment were made before the Town Meeting members had time to talk with constituents. In effect, Croy sought more time to consider the amendment.
After roughly an hour of discussion, with residents speaking for and against postponement, the motion failed. Town officials, including Select Board member Roy Epstein and Planning Board Chair Taylor Yates, countered suggestions that changes were made, noting that setback language—central to the debate—had been in place since early February.
Town officials also urged members to consider that delaying the vote would mean continued burden on Building Department resources, as well as the potential cost associated with legal ramifications the town could face for decisions it makes relating to permits for ADUs.
A second amendment by Heller was rejected, largely because of the unknown impact it may have on the community, as it allowed a greater number of properties to be eligible for the creation of ADUs. Specifically, it adopted a sliding scale for max lot coverage requirements.
“I support ADUS, but I cannot support this amendment,” said Precinct 2 Town Meeting member Kathy Keohane. “We are, I hope, going to pass the ADU legislation and we need to be balanced and measured on any further changes.”
Others, however, supported it because it had potential to open more properties up for ADUs.
Other Business
Town Meeting also accepted two amendments to the MBTA Communities Multi-Family Zoning Overlay District.
One amendment was largely clerical, as it sought to add the overlay district created by Town Meeting in November to the table and list of overlay districts in Belmont. The second amendment was slightly more substantial, seeking to modify the setback requirements in one of the sub-districts (in the area of White Street) to be in line with underlying zoning, rather than be more restrictive.