March 2, 2021 by Carol Britton Meyer
The Planning Board is reviewing a citizen's petition warrant article that would allow accessory dwelling units in separate, detached structures on the same lot as the principal dwelling.
The intent is to provide more flexibility in meeting some of the housing needs of Hingham families -- whether to accommodate a grandmother, a father-in-law, an older child just out of college, a relative with physical or other disabilities, or another scenario.
This article is among the proposed amendments to the town's zoning by-law that will be considered at this year's Town Meeting.
The citizen's petition was submitted by Fort Hill Street residents Ray and Jennifer Estes and signed by 15 other citizens besides themselves.
The warrant article is patterned after the 2018 Town Meeting-approved amendment that allows accessory dwelling units, often known as in-law apartments, in primary dwellings with a special permit, with certain criteria in place. Occupancy of the accessory unit is limited to family members or a caregiver.
Monday's meeting was the fourth hearing on the article. Following a two-hour discussion during which Planning Board members and residents shared their thoughts and concerns, Chair Kevin Ellis asked members of the board to provide any proposed changes to the wording to planning staff prior to the next hearing on March 8.
"Now is the time to make any concrete recommendations for changes and to come up with a list of criteria the board is comfortable with, if at all," he said. The Advisory Committee will also discuss the article and make its recommendation. Town Meeting will have the final say.
Concerns and questions the board broached center around potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and to the character of the town, how to enforce the "family" occupancy requirement, what the maximum allowable ADU size should be in the detached structure, the minimum lot size for creating an ADU, entrance and egress requirements, what percentage of a detached structure could be used for an ADU, should they be allowed on the first or second floor of an existing detached building, and what would happen if such a unit become unoccupied, among others.
Planning Board member Gary Tondorf-Dick thinks it's important to protect "the legitimate rights of abutters who don't share support for this [concept]. They may have spent money and time developing their dream home, and now a neighbor could be allowed to create an ADU in a spot where it wasn't allowed before."
Town Real Estate Counsel Susan Murphy said it will be up to the Planning Board to discuss these and related issues and to decide whether to recommend proposed changes to the wording or whether or not to support the warrant article as is.
Tondorf-Dick also noted that with the direction state housing law is headed, "I don't think the [ability to include a] familial requirement will survive much longer."
When a resident brought up the issue of whether such units would provide affordable housing, Estes provided clarification.
"This is not about affordable housing," he said. "It's about providing housing opportunities for a discrete set of individuals -- for example, an elderly family member or an adult child -- [perhaps] with economic, mental health, physical, or other issues -- to provide a chance to live near family but not in same residence if that's not possible or preferable."
Estes explained that the warrant article has been in the planning stages for a long time, that he has consulted with numerous town officials about it, and that a number of residents he's spoken with support the article. "Tons of work and research have gone into this by myself and others," he said. "This is not coming out of the blue."
The number of ADUs allowed in town is capped at 156, or 2.5 percent of the town's overall population. Thirteen have been approved since the 2018 by-law was passed. It was noted several times during the meeting that a number of unpermitted ADUs have been created over the years in different parts of town.
If the article passes, certain criteria would need to be met before a property owner could seek a special permit to create an ADU. Such a unit would have to be in compliance with the town's septic and sewer regulations.
Sewer Commission Chair Robert Higgins was on the call. "I'm not for or against the warrant article, but the commission felt we should be clear that in the town's sewer regulations, there is no provision for the installation of a secondary [separate] sewer line on the same house lot," he explained.
Thirty-year resident Brian Stack does not support the warrant article, stating in part that allowing ADU's in detached structures would mainly benefit "the wealthiest people in town who have the good fortune of living in areas of Hingham [with properties large enough to] accommodate ADUs."
Another reason behind the warrant article is to enable owners of single-family dwellings with existing detached accessory structures situated on the same lot to share space "and the burdens of homeownership with family members, while also protecting the stability, property values, and residential character of the surrounding neighborhood," according to the current version of the warrant article.
A "family member" is considered to be a person related to the owner by blood, adoption, or marriage and may also include domestic help and caregivers the way the warrant article is written.
Only one accessory dwelling unit would be permitted per lot, either as an attached accessory dwelling unit within a single-family dwelling under the current by-law or as a detached accessory dwelling unit in a detached structure so that the total number of dwelling units per lot would not exceed two.
Planning Board member Judith Sneath supported Ellis' request for proposed changes to the warrant article from board members.
"If we all agree that we should put our fingerprint on this before Town Meeting, we need a tight list of our concerns and what we would like to see in the warrant article," she said.
Estes urged the board to craft an article "that's in the best interests of the town. There's no point in waiting any longer. Let's find ways to improve the wording so that the Planning Board and Advisory Committee can get behind it."
For further details visit https://www.hingham-ma.gov/719/Current-Articles