By Adam Swift
A new Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance was approved by the city council last week.
Last year, Governor Maura Healey signed the Affordable Housing Acts. Part of that act requires that all municipalities allow the construction of ADUs, sometimes known as in-law apartments, in any zone that allows single-family homes.
Earlier this spring, several city councillors raised concerns about the “one size fits all” approach of the state mandate, noting the city already has an ordinance on the books. Councillor-at-Large Michelle Kelley presented a motion asking the city solicitor to look into filing a home-rule petition exempting Revere from the state-wide mandate.
At last week’s meeting, Kelley and Ward 5 Councillor Angela Guarino-Sawaya cast the two votes against approving the new city ADU ordinance.
Prior to the full council vote, city Planning and Community Development Director Tom Skwierwaski presented an updated ADU ordinance to the zoning subcommittee that will limit the number of districts where the ADUs will be allowed by right, as well as addressing some parking issues.
During the meeting, the subcommittee also approved an amendment that would allow for additional curb cuts for newly created ADUs only on the sides of streets where no parking is allowed.
According to Skwierawski, the city solicitor stated that a home-rule petition exempting the city from the state mandate would not be a politically or legally viable solution.
“What we are left with is the task of amending our ordinance to come into compliance with state regulations, but doing so in a way that imposes a set of reasonable regulations as defined by the state,” Skwierawski said.
The planning director said he worked on some of the updates to the city’s ADU ordinance with Kelley and Ward 4 Councillor Paul Argenzio.
The biggest change in the draft of the ADU ordinance was the updating of the zoning use table.
“By law, we need to allow ADUs by right in any neighborhood where a single-family home is allowed by right,” said Skwierawski.
To address that issue, he said the city looked to remove the single-family home by right designation for a number of business and commercial zoning districts where they are currently allowed.
“We don’t have any right getting single-family houses built on Broadway or on Shirley Avenue or on Squire Road,” Skwierawski said. “We can clarify our use table to state that single-family homes aren’t allowed by right there, and that also means those same districts, we don’t need to comply with the ADU law.”
Skwierawski said the city also clarified with the state that the city ADU does not need to allow for the construction of more than one ADU on a single lot.
The modifications to the ordinance also included not allowing any new driveway entrances or exits for a principal dwelling that contains an ADU, although the council did approve the amendment potentially allowing for new curb cuts if they were on a side of a street that does not allow parking.
In addition, there will be no variances granted to allow for the building of ADUs.
“This is something we saw in a few other communities and there were concerns about this at the last meeting,” said Skwierawski. “Site plan review is also going to be required per the ordinance. Additional units built below base flood elevation would also be prohibited.”
The state mandate states that the city is not allowed to require parking for any ADU created within a half-mile of any bus or public transportation stop.
In addition, the city ordinance states that any ADU where the principal dwelling is not a single-family home, it would not allow additional on- or off-street parking.
“The state wants to encourage the use of public transportation, so we are going to take advantage of that to make sure that any ADUs in two- or three-families or apartments don’t have any more cars on our roadways and that they are using public transportation,” said Skwierawski.
And under no circumstances would the city allow for the creation of more than one parking space for an ADU, he added.
Argenzio said he believed the restrictions the city was placing on the ADU ordinance were reasonable and would hold up in court.
“I think they go a long way in limiting and helping keep the fabric of our existing neighborhoods,” he said.
In particular, Argenzio said he was pleased to see that no variances would be allowed to create the ADUs, and that there would be no more than one ADU per lot allowed.
“I want to go on the record to say that our ADU ordinance that we have is more than sufficient and it speaks to the goal of having elderly or senior citizen inlaw apartments,” said Kelley. “That spoke to this issue without having to go on this one-size-fits-all state mandate forced on us. So I’m against it, but I thank Tom for the modifications so it is as reasonable as I guess we can get.”
