The Southborough Planning Board on Jan. 27 continued its public hearing on proposed revisions to the town ADU (accessory dwelling unit) bylaw to Feb. 10, 2025, giving staff and town counsel more time to reconcile state model language with local zoning and administrative practice.

The hearing opened with an explanation that the proposed changes implement portions of the state housing law and related model regulations, and that the board received revised draft language from town counsel and comments from town departments and residents. Planning Office staff told members the legal notice ran Jan. 13 and Jan. 20 and that copies of the draft are available at town hall and on the board's agenda center.

Why it matters: the state law creates a new “protected” (by-right) ADU path limited to defined size and conditions; towns must amend local bylaws to conform. Board members and staff repeatedly noted questions about how the state definitions — especially the 900-square-foot protected-ADU cap, gross floor area rules, and treatment of preexisting nonconforming structures — will work in practice in Southborough.

During discussion, the board reviewed written comments received from residents and town bodies. Resident Paul Carter argued design review should remain with the Planning Board, while the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and the building commissioner raised questions about parking and how to treat construction of a new garage intended to serve an ADU. Building Commissioner Chris Lund confirmed he plans to apply the state-regulated approach for protected ADUs starting Feb. 2 and to continue enforcing the town's current accessory-apartment rules for units that do not meet the state protected criteria.

Board members debated whether to preserve the town's existing accessory-apartment provision (174-9b) for larger or otherwise ineligible ADUs; several members supported keeping the existing text so that unprotected ADUs remain available via the ZBA's special-permit process. The board also asked town counsel to clarify references in the draft to the town zoning code (noting several typographical cross-reference issues) and to confirm how preexisting nonconforming accessory structures (for example, garages or barns) are treated under the state's model rules.

Other matters discussed included whether by-right ADUs could be built in modular or manufactured units and how the bylaw should treat trailers and mobile homes; town staff said those questions need town-counsel guidance and possible further state clarification. Members also asked for input from the board of health about septic impacts.

Outcome: The board voted to continue the public hearing to Feb. 10, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. and left open further comments to be incorporated into a revised draft for the next hearing.

What happens next: planning staff will forward outstanding technical questions to town counsel (including clarifications about nonconforming-structure conversions, garage construction, parking, and whether to retain 174-9b), seek comments from the board of health on septic feasibility, and post an updated redline for the Feb. 10 meeting.