Peabody Planning Board Public Hearing on ADU Zoning Ordinance - June 18, 2026
Peabody Planning Board Public Hearing on ADU Zoning Ordinance - June 18, 2026
The Peabody Planning Board convened a public hearing on Thursday, June 18, 2026, at 7:00 PM in the lower level conference room of City Hall to consider amendments to the city's zoning ordinance regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The hearing was held in response to the state's Affordable Homes Act (2024), which made ADUs by-right in single-family zoned lots. The board also conducted regular business, including approvals of minutes, continuances, and discussion on AI data centers.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Aris Rumeliotis (3 Wenworth Road): Expressed concern that the proposed ordinance would restrict ADU size to 600 square feet for his 1,280 sq ft home, which he felt was inadequate for a two-bedroom unit. He questioned why the city was prohibiting local ADUs (which allow larger units) and argued the state gives municipalities flexibility. Planning board members clarified that the 900 sq ft cap is state law and that an addition to the primary dwelling could increase the allowable ADU size.
- John Gagnon (contractor, building an ADU in another city): Raised several technical concerns: (1) The ordinance's language on separate entrances appears inconsistent between sections 6.18.2 (allowing shared hallway) and 6.18.3 (requiring separate entrance); (2) The state regulation does not require parking within half a mile of a bus stop—parking is not required at all; (3) Setbacks for detached ADUs should follow accessory building setbacks (e.g., 5 ft for a garage), not primary structure setbacks, as this would make many lots infeasible; (4) For multifamily buildings, the state FAQ states ADU size is 50% of the entire building, not just one unit—the ordinance should clarify this to avoid litigation. He urged the board to address these issues.
- Member of the public (unidentified, possibly John Gagnon continuing): Opposed the state mandate as an unfunded mandate, argued that detached ADUs should not be allowed with only a 5 ft setback (as they are homes, not sheds), and noted a pending court case in Peabody where a building inspector denied a garage-with-ADU at 5 ft setback. He also questioned the requirement for separate addresses, stating that utilities (water, sewer, electric) will come from the primary unit per PMLP policy, making separate addresses unnecessary and potentially confusing.
Discussion Items
- ADU Ordinance Presentation: Andrew Levin (Senior Planner) presented the draft ordinance, highlighting differences from the state model: (1) The city would ban multiple ADUs on a lot (state allows up to 3 with special permit); (2) Require one parking space per ADU regardless of proximity to transit (state prohibits parking mandates within half a mile of a bus stop); (3) Ban short-term rentals of ADUs; (4) Require ADUs to follow primary structure dimensional setbacks; (5) Prohibit local ADUs (which could be larger than 950 sq ft); (6) Require separate addresses for all ADUs (attached and detached).
- Board Discussion:
- Dr. Arnold noted inconsistency between sections 6.18.2 and 6.18.3 on separate entrances—Levin agreed to clarify.
- Dr. Arnold questioned the legality of requiring parking within half a mile of a transit station, citing state prohibition. Levin said this could be added to the board's recommendation.
- A board member argued one parking space is insufficient, especially for a 3-bedroom ADU, and questioned legal pushback against the state law. Levin noted only about 1,200 ADUs have been built statewide.
- Another member raised concerns about detached ADUs using 5 ft setbacks via a garage loophole, which is being litigated. The board discussed that the ordinance would require primary structure setbacks, which could be 25 ft side/40 ft rear in some zones.
- The board clarified that ADUs cannot be sold separately, and owner occupancy is not required—the owner can live elsewhere and rent the unit.
- AI Data Centers Discussion: The board received a memo from the city council requesting recommendations on AI data centers. Andrew Levin noted the planning department is researching regulations. Board member Jeff Saliva read a prepared statement arguing data centers are critical infrastructure and should be allowed in industrial areas like Centennial Park and Russell Street, with performance standards and developer-funded infrastructure. Other members strongly opposed, citing massive energy consumption (a 100,000 sq ft co-location data center could draw 125 megawatts, nearly the entire Peabody peak load), noise from diesel generators, and low job creation. The board voted to form a subcommittee to study the issue further.
Key Outcomes
- ADU Ordinance Recommendation: The Planning Board voted unanimously (8-0) to recommend adoption of the ADU zoning ordinance to the City Council with the following considerations: more clarity on parking requirements, definition of short-term rentals (prohibiting rentals under 30 days), and clarification on square footage calculation for multifamily buildings (to align with state FAQ using entire building square footage). The motion was made by a board member and seconded; all members voted yes.
- Continuances:
- 532 Lowell Street (Map 35, Lot 28): Granted extension to July 16, 2026, pending peer review.
- 81 Prospect Street (Map 39, Lot 6A): Granted extension to July 16, 2026, per prior request.
- AI Data Centers: The board voted to create a subcommittee (volunteers: Dr. Otto, Dr. Arnold, Jeff Saliva, and others) to study data center regulations and report back. The subcommittee will likely meet at 6 PM before regular board meetings.
- Minutes: Approved minutes of the June 4, 2026 meeting unanimously.
Meeting Transcript
All right. Jim, can you see we are getting a black screen? Is that we're also on PV planning board meeting. Um at the lower corner from PV City Hall. At this time, I'd like to suspend the planning board meeting and enter into a public hearing. Notices here by given that the PV planning board city of PB will conduct the public hearing on Thursday, June 18th, 2026 and 7 p.m. at the lower level conference from City Hall PVD and the course of provisions of chapter 40 section five of the Massachusetts General War to consider or amending the zoning ordinance of the city of PVD is follows. Section one by amending section two definitions. Section two by adding 6.18 accessory dwelling units ADUs as follows. Definitions, 6.183 regulations, 6.18 for administration enforcement. Section 3, all ordinances or part of ordinance is inconsistent here with here by repeal. Section 4, this ordinance will take effect, provided by law for remote precipitation of this meeting. The calendar with city clerk's ordinance. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, Andrew Levin, senior planner, and I'll be here to present tonight on the uh ADU violence. So as many of you know, the state passed the Affordable Homes Act at the end of 2024, which allowed ADUs, successory dwelling units to be built in single family home zoned lots regardless of uh municipality in a way to encourage increased housing. Uh as part of that, it became uh by right law now in cities, but with some rules and regulations that went along with that that the commonwealth uh provided. The community development department, Kervell Vance, uh, has been working very closely with the city solicitor and the city council on a draft ordinance uh now for the city to pass in regards to our zoning. Uh we had drafted one, we were all ready to go, and then the state released their own that we could then follow. So then we've said switched it up a couple times, but you have the language in front of you. Uh I just wanted to highlight some of the big differences that you might see. So in the state ordinance, uh there's certain rules and regulations after meet, but the biggest difference is between the city of PVD's ordinance that we're presenting to you and to the city council, uh, compared to the state ordinance is that we are yeah, the ordinance should language should have all been in your packets. Um it was an online too. Um but the largest ones are is that the state allowed you to get a special permit if you want to do multiple ADUs on one lot. This ordinance would ban multiple ADUs. Uh the state ordinance requires that if you uh can't have parking, or you do not have to, you cannot require parking within a half mile of bus stop, but the city uh is making a mentor that every ADU will have one parking space. That's because bus stops sometimes change, and so that it really to a lot of differences over there. The state bylaw uh example bylaw kind of leaves it up to the city when it comes to short-term rentals. The city ordinance would ban short-term rentals of ADUs. Uh the R ordinance would require that ADUs would have to follow the dimensional setbacks of a primary uh building on the site rather than a shed. So you'd have to follow the zoning dimensional requirements of the primary structure. Um we are ban also not uh prohibiting local ADUs right now. The state uh the guidelines are that you can have uh as their protected ADU is they can be uh up to 950 square feet or the up to half the size of the principal dwelling or up to 950 square feet. There's an ability, not here because we were prohibiting it for a thing called a local ADU, which would be that the city would have expanded uh ability for you to create larger ADUs. We're prohibiting that uh through this ordinance, so there'd be no ADUs. Uh we're requiring that separate address be uh in place for ADUs that are made here in the city of Phoebe D. Um just make sure my notes I get everything here uh for you. Um that yeah, I think most of the language is in there, but if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer that again. This is uh a public hearing on this. You'll provide a recommendation to the city council. City council has gone through this pretty extensively. Um so this will be sent back up to the ICD. The S C and D wanted us to have our public hearing because now they have to hopefully adopt it. So I believe they'll be taking this up at their Tuesday meeting um as well. But everybody has any questions for the forward. Yes, Dr. Arnold. Um state regulations say, and you say in here, but then you say it differently a little bit later here, that uh about the entry maintains a separate entrance either directly from the outside or through an entry hall of quarter shared with the principal dwelling. I said this is in 618 2, paragraph one, but then over on 6183, paragraph one, subparagraph A, subparagraph little letter I ADU shall maintain a separate entrance from principal dwelling sufficient to meet state eagress, etc. etc.
openpublica.com