The Revere Zoning Subcommittee voted April 20 to forward a package of amendments to the city’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) zoning ordinance to the full City Council, to bring the local code into compliance with state ADU requirements while adding locally framed restrictions and requirements.

Tom Skrowski, identified in the meeting as director and representing city staff, said the city must update its ordinance to "come into compliance with the state regulation" and that staff used the model bylaw produced by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities to craft local language. Skrowski said the city is "left with the task of amending our ordinance to come into compliance with the state regulation, but doing so in a way that imposes a set of reasonable regulations as defined by the state." He said the city solicitor advised that a home-rule petition to exempt Revere was "not a politically or a legally viable solution," so the city must adopt an ordinance that aligns with state law.

Key changes the subcommittee approved include:
- Allowing ADUs by right only in zones where single-family homes are allowed by right; several commercial, industrial and mixed-use districts were clarified so they would not be subject to the ADU by-right requirement.
- Limiting ADUs to one per lot unless a special permit authorizes otherwise.
- Requiring site plan review and building-permit processing through the building inspector; fire- and building-code compliance must be demonstrated.
- Restricting new driveway curb cuts: the subcommittee amended the draft to permit a new driveway entrance or exit only on the no-parking side of the street. The amended subsection reads in part: "No new driveway entrance or exit from a street shall be constructed on a lot with an ADU except on the no parking side of the street."
- Off-street parking limits tied to transit proximity: the ordinance follows state guidance that municipalities may not require parking within a half mile of a bus or subway stop; the draft additionally proposes limiting new ADU parking to a single space in cases where parking is permitted.
- Flood-plain and dimensional changes: the subcommittee approved an amendment that retains a 25% rear/side-yard maximum for detached ADUs generally, but allows up to 35% for ADUs "that cannot comply with 17.25.020 subsection (3)" (the subsection prohibiting construction below FEMA 100-year base flood elevation), as a narrowly tailored exception for properties where basement or below-grade ADUs are precluded by base flood elevation rules.

Councilors and residents pressed staff on how the local rules would be enforced and how they interact with other regulations. Councilor Novosalski and others asked whether curb-cut and parking changes would create conflicts with existing street parking and noted some Revere streets already have one-side parking restrictions. Resident speaker Anthony Pozziali argued homeowners will still need parking and said, "If you have a license, you're gonna have a car." Skrowski and others explained that curb-cut permitting remains subject to Department of Public Works standards and that any building in wetlands or flood-plain areas would still require Conservation Commission approval under the Wetlands Protection Act.

Several technical edits were adopted on the floor: sections that would have prohibited ADUs being used as rentals (an overbroad reading) were stricken because state law allows rental use; a subsection conflicting with the definition of duplex/townhouse was removed. Council members repeatedly emphasized that the local amendments must be "reasonable regulations that serve a legitimate municipal interest" and acknowledged that the state could challenge overly restrictive local rules.

Amendment and final-package votes were recorded by roll call. An amendment raising the rear/side-yard allowance from 25% to 35% for ADUs that cannot meet subsection 3 (flood-elevation issues) passed on roll call with one councilor voting no. The amendment to allow curb cuts only on the no-parking side of the street passed on roll call. The full amended ordinance package received a favorable recommendation to the City Council by roll call (final tally: four yes, one no).

The subcommittee forwarded the revised ADU ordinance package to the full council for a roll-call vote and recommended additional follow-up through site plan review and building-permit processes. The record shows multiple areas left to implement through building, conservation and parking-permit channels rather than through zoning vote alone.

Votes at a glance: ADU ordinance package — favorable recommendation to full City Council (roll-call: Argentio/Argencio: yes; Greeno Sawaya: no; Jaramillo: yes; Novosalski: yes; Zambuto: yes).