New Council Unveils Zoning Changes To Increase Allowed Dwelling Units On All Lots

/, 15 Comments

UPDATE: New state legislation on accessory dwellings gives the town the option to opt in or not to the legislation. The Town’s Affordable Housing Commission (AHC) wrote an ordinance that would opt the town in, but they went beyond the state law, for instance they set no limits on the size of the second dwelling unit. Town Councilor Susan Cooper, Planning Commission members and others have been telling the new Town Council that the Town is not required to opt into this law. On January 9 they finally got the message how extreme these changes are that are proposed by the AHC and that they are not mandated by the state. The Town Council did not go forward at this time. There are groups working to change the state law to give towns back the ability to have reasonable accessory dwelling unit regulations, so action on these regulations is postponed for now.

On the January 9 Town Council agenda is consideration of proposed zoning changes regarding Accessory Dwelling Units.

Charlestown Zoning Ordinances, enacted many years ago, provide for two types of accessory dwelling units: (1) Accessory Family Dwelling Units—units restricted to the approximate size of a one-bedroom apartment, attached to the owner-occupied year-round home, and used for year-round residence of a family member(s)—and (2) larger, attached or detached Income Restricted Accessory Dwelling Units—units that must meet income and deed restrictions required to be considered Low and Moderate Income Housing.

These ordinances were invalidated by a state law enacted in June 2022 at the end of the last legislative session.

New Zoning Ordinance amendments are being proposed that would strike both of the above ordinances in their entirety and replace them with much more permissive language that potentially could double the number of dwelling units in Charlestown.

Some highlights of the changes:

  • A second dwelling unit would be allowed on any new or existing lot in all of the residential zoning districts in Charlestown.
  • There would be no minimum size for a lot that could add a second dwelling unit.
  • There would be no restriction on the size of the accessory dwelling unit or on the number of bedrooms.
  • Although the number of bedrooms would be limited by septic system capacity, a second or larger system could be added.
  • The second dwelling unit could be added as an addition to a dwelling, or it could be added in an existing detached structure or attached to the existing detached structure; however, because there is no date restriction on the date the “existing” structure was constructed, another accessory structure, such as a barn, could be permitted and built and then converted to a second dwelling unit.
  • Neither of the dwelling units would be required to be for year-round use nor owner-occupied. One or both could be rentals, including short-term rentals, such as those rented through Airbnb.
  • There would be no requirement that the occupants of either dwelling unit be related.
  • The developer of a new subdivision could add a second dwelling unit to each new lot, resulting in a doubling of the allowed number of houses in the subdivision.
  • Someone building a new home on an individual lot could add a second dwelling unit on the same lot that could be built concurrently with the first, resulting in a doubling of the allowed number of dwellings on the lot.
  • The second dwelling unit could be placed in “existing” accessory buildings as close as 10 feet to neighboring property lines rather than the current 20 to 100 feet depending on zoning district.
  • Non-conforming lots and structures could add a second dwelling unit.
  • Restrictions on accessory dwelling units that may exist in condominium associations, homeowner associations, or similar residential property bylaws would be overridden.
  • Second dwelling units could be built in floodplains, even though the subdivision regulations would not allow a new lot to be created in a floodplain.
  • A Special Use Permit would be required where a setback variance would normally be required. Special Use Permits are a much lower standard of review than a Variance. Objecting abutters would have to prove that the placement of just one new dwelling unit would pose a threat to drinking water supplies, disrupt the neighborhood, result in traffic congestion, and threaten public health and safety. While the cumulative effect of many new dwelling units would exceed these standards, it would be very difficult for an abutter to prove that one new dwelling unit would.
  • In commercial and industrial districts, a second dwelling unit would be allowed by special use permit and accessory to any lawfully existing or proposed residential use.
  • Accessory dwelling units, and existing dwelling units that are rented would be allowed to be rented at market rates. There is no requirement that rentals be affordable.
  • There is a provision in the proposed Zoning changes that would allow property owners to voluntarily submit their rentals as affordable if they meet certain criteria, but the restriction can be year to year and would not be required to be long-term.

This increase in overall housing density is being proposed for Charlestown without any assessment of the cumulative potential impacts of the increased septage on groundwater, drinking water, and the coastal ponds and other water bodies. Putting no limit on the number of bedrooms and allowing any lot to create an additional new short-term rental will impact coastal areas especially.

These new zoning regulations are being proposed as a solution to affordable housing, but because they allow a 100% increase in the density of market rate housing without requiring that any of the units be affordable, such extreme density increases for market rate housing would make it even harder to require developers to provide a percentage of housing in new developments as affordable. Most such “inclusionary” ordinances allow 10% to 20% increases in density to accommodate affordable housing. But after increasing the density to 100% for market rate units, there would be no additional available capacity in groundwater or other environmental impacts to absorb the additional affordable housing units.