The Town of Danvers planning staff and the Affordable Housing Trust introduced a draft Housing Production Plan at the Planning Board meeting, triggering a wide-ranging discussion of housing needs, the new state accessory dwelling unit law and possible local implementation steps. Aaron Henry, Director of Land Use and Community Services, led the presentation and said the plan's goals are to sustain Danvers' affordable housing portfolio, address senior and accessible housing needs, promote housing production that supports local wealth building and to leverage key sites for mixed‑income housing.

Why it matters: Danvers has achieved the state's 10% affordable housing threshold under Chapter 40B, but town officials said a certified housing production plan makes the town eligible for some state grants and provides a framework for ongoing housing work. The town also faces a new state accessory dwelling unit (ADU) law that took effect Feb. 3, 2025, which requires local zoning to permit ADUs in specified circumstances and creates questions about how existing local rules such as extended family living areas (EFLAs) and dwelling conversions will interact with the new law.

Presentation highlights and evidence of need: Henry summarized the plan’s demographic analysis, noting an aging population and smaller household sizes. He said about 3,000 Danvers households — roughly one in four — spend more than one‑third of their income on housing, a common metric of cost burden. "We have about 3,000 households in Danvers that are spending more than a third of their income on their housing," Henry said.

Key implementation items: the draft contains 19 implementation actions. Staff emphasized several they consider priorities for further work: (1) reviewing two‑family opportunities, (2) developing ADU regulations that promote production while addressing short‑term rental use, and (3) commissioning a planning study of the Endicott Street/Liberty Tree Mall corridor to develop a community vision for zoning and redevelopment. Henry told the board that the Affordable Housing Trust funded the consultant work and that the plan will be refined through further public workshops and inter‑board review among the Planning Board, the Board of Selectmen and the Affordable Housing Trust.

Concerns raised by board members and public commenters: board members asked for additional detail and process clarity. Several members asked that the plan be considered in the context of a broader comprehensive (master) plan and requested more time for inter‑board reconciliation. Tim Spittle asked whether the housing plan functions as the housing element of a comprehensive plan; Henry said the housing production plan can satisfy the housing element requirement. Members pressed for a clearer runway for public engagement and asked staff to provide an age‑cohort break‑out of the cost‑burden and income data.

ADUs, enforcement and unintended consequences: a major thread of the discussion focused on the February ADU law. Several board members and residents warned that by permitting ADUs broadly, the town could see increased density, parking strain and utility demands unless the town carefully defines implementation rules. Board members asked whether the town can limit ADU features (for example, size, setback or short‑term rental use) and how existing EFLAs will relate to the new ADU framework. Henry said the state law limits what towns can require of ADUs but that staff will propose local regulations to manage specific circumstances and to harmonize EFLAs, dwelling conversions and short‑term rental rules. One town meeting member cited the limited response to the project's public survey (284 respondents) and urged wider outreach.

Programs and next steps: Henry said the Affordable Housing Trust has already started some work identified in the plan, including a partnership with Habitat for Humanity to fund a local home‑repair program and seed funds for critical home maintenance for eligible homeowners. Staff proposed forming a housing roundtable of municipal boards and local organizations to build consensus, identifying a third‑party monitoring agent to ensure regulated units remain compliant with affordability rules, and pursuing corridor planning for Endicott Street.

Public comment: multiple residents addressed the board. Town Meeting member Lauren Steves said she opposes automatic rezoning of all single‑family districts to allow two families and questioned the weight given to a small survey sample; Steves observed that "it was a survey of 284 people out of a town of 28,000 that self selected into this survey." Other speakers urged use of native landscaping, noted local cost burdens, and asked that the town prioritize open space preservation while it refines the plan.

Follow‑up and process: staff will circulate the draft to the Board of Selectmen and the Affordable Housing Trust and expects to return to the Planning Board with further revisions and technical details from the consultant. Henry encouraged public input and said planning staff would post the presentation and accept written comments as the plan is refined. The board asked staff to provide additional analyses — including age‑cohort breakdowns of cost burden and a summary of options the town has to regulate ADUs and mitigate adverse impacts — before the next substantive review meeting.

What to watch: the plan will be iterated through additional public outreach and inter‑board negotiations; proposed zoning or regulatory changes that implement the plan (for example, ADU regulations, local preferences for affordable units or a corridor plan for Endicott Street) would return to the Planning Board as discrete regulatory or zoning articles requiring formal public hearings and potential town meeting action.