Less than three months after Town Meeting approved changes to Marblehead’s accessory dwelling unit bylaw to comply with a new state law, town officials are still working to determine exactly how the regulations should be implemented.
Learning the process
The Affordable Homes Act, signed into law in 2024, allows one accessory dwelling unit, or ADU, by right on most residential lots across Massachusetts. While municipalities may adopt reasonable regulations, they cannot require a special permit for qualifying ADUs.
“The Planning Board really can’t deny the ADU,” Community Development and Planning Director Brendan Callahan said.
Marblehead adopted its own ADU bylaw before the state law took effect. This spring, Town Meeting approved amendments intended to bring the local bylaw into compliance while preserving local oversight through Planning Board site plan review.
At a July 14 Housing Committee meeting, Callahan acknowledged that town staff, Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals are still working through the new approval process.
“We’re all learning right now,” he added.
ADUs created within an existing home’s footprint have generally been straightforward to review, according to Callahan. More complex proposals involving additions often require zoning relief before receiving Planning Board approval, raising questions about the proper sequence of reviews.
Callahan said the town is revising its online ADU application to make the approval process clearer for homeowners. Callahan is also considering updating the town website and creating educational materials to explain the new rules.
The town’s website contains outdated information from the previous bylaw, Callahan said, including an obsolete maximum ADU size. The amendments approved by Town Meeting are still awaiting review by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office.
Housing Committee members said the process needs more clarity and public education.
“I think it’s just a matter of getting people in the same room, making sure that there’s alignment around the application process because it seems like there might be some confusion around the application process itself that is slowing that process down,” member Nisha Austin said.
Committee members also discussed educating residents through outreach, informational flyers and future community discussions.
Applications raise questions
The Planning Board’s July 14 meeting illustrated the challenges of implementing the new bylaw, with two ADU applications remaining unresolved.
The application for 6 Broadmere Way was continued after attorney Matthew Wolverton, representing Richard and Elaine Spenceley, requested that the required site plan review and ADU approval be consolidated into a single public hearing. The board voted unanimously to continue the matter.
A proposal at 9 Maple Circle generated significantly more discussion and highlighted many of the procedural questions town officials are still trying to answer.
Representing 9 Maple Circle LLC, Wolverton said the proposal had been revised since its June hearing. Architect Craig Bosworth told the board the driveway had been widened from 12 to 15 feet at the fire chief’s request, the building’s elevation had been lowered, a retaining wall had been reduced to 2 to 3 feet and moved farther from the property line, and a stormwater infiltration system had been added.
Wolverton also argued the proposal complies with dimensional requirements and that state law does not require additional off-street parking because the property is within one-half mile of a bus stop.
Several abutters remained unconvinced.
Dorothy Nicholas of 16 Maple Circle said a roughly 10-foot choke point at the driveway entrance would require vehicles to encroach on neighboring property. Justin Bradbury of 6 Old Salem Road argued the proposal does not meet state fire code requirements because the ADU would sit behind the primary structure. Mark Fulton of 6 Maple Circle questioned the long-term maintenance of the drainage system and whether emergency vehicles could safely access the site during winter.
The board voted unanimously to continue the application to its next scheduled meeting, directing the applicant to provide additional information about the zoning restrictions, the building’s location relative to the primary residence and guidance from the fire chief on emergency access.
Town lacks ADU data
The Current repeatedly requested data on how many ADUs exist in Marblehead and how many applications have been submitted and approved over the past two years.
As of publication, the town had not provided the requested information.
Callahan acknowledged on July 14 that the town has not consistently tracked ADU activity but said he plans to work with the building commissioner to develop a better database.
“I think it would be helpful to have baseline data around what’s being approved,” Austin said, suggesting the town also track how often applications are continued, what conditions are imposed and whether the permitting process is working as intended.
