ORDNC-2025-2 : Amending the Melrose Zoning Ordinance to allow for Accessory Dwelling Units

Transcript (~13 min @ 24:06)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 24:04 Mark Garipay: The next item up on our agenda is ordinance 1, 2, 3, 9 8 amending Melrose amending the Melrose zoning ordinance to allow accessory dwelling units. Um, as you all are aware, we had a public hearing, um, with some suggestions back to the planning board. They have, um, looked into those and have submitted back to all of us in our packet with their recommendations. Um, and we have Ms, uh, Laurie Masa with us tonight. So Floors yours.

▶ 24:38 Speaker 10: Alright, thank you. Thanks for having me. Um, I can give an overview of the planning board recommendation letter, if that sounds good to you all. Um, so the planning board met on February 24th, um, to discuss the questions and comments that came up during the joint public hearing with your committee on February 10th. Um, so the, one of the questions that came up for the, the basement height and story requirement, um, amendment was, um, about the purpose of the amendment. Um, so it's to change the reference point when determining, uh, if a basement is considered a story so that houses don't appear to be a storyteller, um, then they're allowed to be. Um, and the planning board didn't recommending, um, making any, uh, amendments, uh, to this amendment for the accessory dwelling unit amendment. Um, there were concerns over safety issues, overcrowding location of the units in the basement, um, and illegal construction. Um, so we make clear that the building permits and certificates of occupancy are still gonna be required for accessory dwelling units, even though for zoning, um, they don't need a, a special, special permit or any kind of zoning permit. Um, so this is the, the same permits and certificates that are needed for all of their construction and uses in the city. Um, so this should hopefully alleviate the concerns around those issues. Um, regarding the impacts to Abutters, there were questions about the required setback, the height limits, um, and why decks and balconies wouldn't be allowed in the rear yards or in the side yards closest to the nearest abutter. Um, so the requirements were reiterated for these, um, dimensional requirements, um, and the planning board recommends that the requirement about decks and balconies, um, be amended to specify that this restriction only applies to detached ADUs, um, which wasn't, um, totally clear in the, the proposal. Um, in terms of tracking ADUs, we have a, a new category in the building permit system already set up. Um, and there's, there needs to be standard, um, addressing that's required for ADUs. Um, and the state is working on issuing regulations soon about, um, more specifications around, um, how ADUs are addressed. Um, for trash for, um, separate bins, it'd be a separate trash fee for ADUs, um, parking requirements. Um, the proposed doesn't, um, require an additional space and has a maximum of one parking space, um, to limit the additional cars that will be on the road and to mitigate, um, homeowners excessively paving yards to, to add parking, um, for the assessment. Um, right now the properties with, um, an A DU would be access for additional kitchen living space. Um, but there isn't a separate category for ADUs. Um, so the state will likely create a category in the future and then assessing would, um, would use that to assess the ADUs. Um, for dimensions of accessory buildings, there is a question of, um, if the proposed should be based on the maximum, um, coverage depending on the lot size. Um, so we took a another look at this, um, and because it's right now in the proposal, it's based on a set 900 square feet, um, for any accessory for a cumulative cumulatively for accessory buildings on a lot. Um, and the, the board recommended keeping the proposal as is because, um, there's often, there's a range of accessory buildings, um, sizes, but they're generally within a certain range. And so if we increase that even more, then it likely you'd have more multiple accessory, um, structures on a lot and it is pretty generous. Um, as it is, there's also building coverage and open space requirements, which aren't based on lot size and, um, those are still kind of in play with accessory structures.

▶ 28:36 Speaker 10: Um, and then for short term rentals, um, there was discussion about if it should be more explicitly stated that, um, ADUs can't be used as short term rentals. Um, so the board discussed this concern and recommended keeping the proposed amendment, um, with no specific mention of the term short term rental. Um, after the planning board meeting, city staff, um, met with the chair of the planning board and Counselor Hamilton to further discuss this issue. Um, we crafted a revision to the wording. Um, so replacing prohibiting temporary lodging to instead include, um, prohibiting ADUs from being rented or leased out for 31 consecutive calendar days or less. Um, and we would recommend adopting the revised language. Um, the amended language tracks with the state definition for short term rental. Um, but steers clear of using the new terminology, um, within the zoning, which it, it's not, um, currently referenced anywhere. The proposed change will accomplish the goal of making sure that it's clear that short term rentals are prohibited in ADUs. Um, and the recommended change is consistent with the planning board recommendation to not include short the term short term rental in the amendment. So to, to summarize the two recommended changes that the planning board is proposing, um, the first is to change the language regarding temporary lodging to be more specific about limiting the timeframe for renting them. And then the second is, um, clarifying that the, the deck in balcony provision only applies to detached ADUs. Um, and there's no proposed changes to the, the basement height amendment. Um, so the planning board recommends adopting that the city council adopt the, the zoning amendment for the A DU that's dated, um, March 6th, 2025. Um, and I'm happy to answer any questions about the recommendation or anything else that, um, may come up.

▶ 30:36 Mark Garipay: Thank you. Uh, for the record, councilor Reky is, is with us.

▶ 30:42 Speaker 9: Um, any councilor fro?

▶ 30:44 Cal Finocchiaro: Yes. Thank you for coming, um, coming here tonight and for, um, clarifying and making the amendments, I just have a question about the, um, the addressing of the ADUs. Do you have any idea when the state's gonna come out with that information?

▶ 30:57 Speaker 10: I don't. It's, it's been tricky with all of these things. Um, the, you know, regulation is already in effect. Um, but some of the, the other kind of pieces of this are, are coming later. So, um, you know, we do, we have in law apartments right now, so it's not that we, you know, don't know what to do with, um, with addressing, we will address them and have a separate, um, but you know, to have a separate, um, to, to have clear that there's a separate unit on the, the property. Um, but there likely will be more directive about, you know, how they should, how this should work in the future. So, um, we can handle that right now, but we might get further guidance, um, in the, you know, near future.

▶ 31:43 Cal Finocchiaro: And I'm sorry, one more question. Have you, um, received any, um, interest, do you know if there's been an interest in the eighties so far?

▶ 31:50 Speaker 10: So we've received two applications. Okay. Yeah.

▶ 31:54 Speaker 10: Which is, um, you know, we don't expect a lot of them, but, um, uh, yeah, I was surprised that we, we've gotten to already, um, so we'll see there. You know, I'm sure there'll be kind of a, a spike in the beginning, um, as there has been interest over, over the years to have these. Um, so there'll probably be, you know, I, it's hard to guess, but I would say less than 10 and then, and then they'll probably kind of even out over time,

▶ 32:23 Cal Finocchiaro: Hopefully the state solidifies, um, some of the information, so mm-hmm. You have, you know, stuff to work

▶ 32:30 Speaker 10: With. Right, right. But it, we're in a good spot having, you know, um, the proposed owning 'cause there are a lot of municipalities that don't yet and, and you have to allow for them. So, um, you know, that's a harder spot to be in. Yeah.

▶ 32:42 Speaker 1: Great. Thank you.

▶ 32:45 Speaker 9: Thank you. Council Hamilton.

▶ 32:46 Ward Hamilton: Thank you. Uh, I make a motion to amend section six E to read an A DU may not be rented or leased in exchange for payment for a duration of 31 consecutive calendar days or less.

▶ 33:08 Speaker 11: Second point of order is, um,

▶ 33:11 Leila Migliorelli: uh, is that change already been made in the, the version we're supposed to be approving? So I guess a point of clarification, um, Ms. Maa, so the draft that's dated 3 6 20 25 has a highlighted version that has a highlighted text for section six E. Right. Is that inclusive of that? And that's the, that's the document we're supposed to be voting on tonight, is that correct?

▶ 33:37 Speaker 10: Yes. Unless, um,

▶ 33:39 Speaker 11: Unless it's a further amendment that needs to be made on top of that. But

▶ 33:43 Mark Garipay: Do we have to, I I thought we would have to, um, talk, I believe talking about the solicitor that we would have to, uh, adopt the change from the original, original one. I guess I don't, I don't know what the, if, if we vote on the change, we're, we're, we're voting on the change in here, right? Um,

▶ 34:02 Speaker 11: Yeah, I mean I guess my thought is is that if we were,

▶ 34:07 Leila Migliorelli: this is a little unclear to me as I was reading through this. So the, if the draft, the updated draft accompanied the memo from with the planning board, from the planning board, then that would be the final piece where we have to, so you're councilor Gepe, chair gepe, we're supposed to vote on additional changes on top of that for the city. Well, we can do, that's fine.

▶ 34:28 Mark Garipay: Then what we can do is vote on, vote on what's here and then if we have to make a change in full counsel Okay. To, to, To change it, we can, but we'll vote on the, the revised version that's in front of us right now. We'll take a vote and then if talk to the solicitor, if she wants us to make, make a formal change, if we were supposed to do it, we can do that. We can amend it in full counsel. Okay.

▶ 34:51 Leila Migliorelli: Can I just further clarify is then the only difference between the document that was presented and the document we're reviewing in March 6th? The highlighted versions? The highlighted, sorry, the highlighted sections?

▶ 35:03 Speaker 10: Yes. The only change from what was reviewed during the public hearing were the two highlighted

▶ 35:09 Speaker 11: Sections. Okay. Thank you.

▶ 35:10 Mark Garipay: So, so to just to clarify, the two changes is number six, accessory dwelling, section E, it's highlighted and section G, um, subsection two, uh, on detached ADUs regarding the deck. So those are the two changes that are in our packet Yes.

▶ 35:33 Mark Garipay: Was presented. Um, so Counsel Hamilton, that was my mistake when we discussed, so I apologize for that. I was, uh, thinking we needed to make an amendment, but we can do it in full counsel and I'm, now that I'm thinking about it, so, so we

▶ 35:46 Ward Hamilton: Have a motion on the floor that we need to withdraw.

▶ 35:49 Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. I withdraw my second,

▶ 35:51 Ward Hamilton: I withdraw my motion and make a motion to recommend for passage.

▶ 35:57 Mark Garipay: Second. Second. Okay. On discussion we have, um, council Stewart and then was Council Williams, did you have your hand up? I couldn't, no, sir.

▶ 36:09 Robb Stewart: Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Ms. Massive for, uh, clarifying a lot of the points that were brought forward that was helpful. Um, just on section six, number E, um, describe to me the thought process around coming to 31 days versus why not 60 versus why not 90? I'm just curious why 31?

▶ 36:31 Speaker 10: We picked 31 because that's what the short term rental, uh, standard has been for, for it to be considered short term.

▶ 36:40 Robb Stewart: Okay. That's, that is a standard that is known. Okay. That's all I wanted to know. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank You.

▶ 36:48 Speaker 9: Anyone else on discussion?

▶ 36:52 Speaker 9: Madam Clerk, can you call the role

▶ 36:55 Speaker 1: I will. Councilor Occhio? Yes. Councilor Hamilton? Yes. Councilor Chetty? Yes. Councillor Bruski. Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Vandiver? Yes. Councillor Williams? Yes. President Elli? Yes. Chair Gar? Yes. O passes.

▶ 37:17 Mark Garipay: Um, onto the next item, which is ID, 1, 2, 3, 9 9 zoning amendment to change reference point in determining height of basement city zoning ordinance.