Peabody planning board recommends ADU zoning changes, asks for clearer rules on parking, rentals and unit size

The Peabody Planning Board voted unanimously Thursday to recommend that the City Council adopt a new zoning section establishing rules for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), while asking staff and legal counsel to clarify parking requirements, short-term rental language and how unit size will be calculated for multifamily buildings.

Andrew Levin, senior planner, presented the draft ordinance and said it implements the state Affordable Homes Act while preserving several local limits. "The state allowed a special permit for multiple ADUs on one lot — our ordinance would ban multiple ADUs," Levin said. He also described the draft's departures from state guidance: an annual inventory tied to one required parking space per ADU, a ban on short-term rentals of ADUs, a requirement that ADUs follow the dimensional setbacks of the primary structure, and a prohibition on a local ADU pathway that would permit larger units than the state's baseline allowances.

The board's request for clearer language followed questions from members and the public about multiple technical points. One member asked about inconsistent wording on whether an ADU must have a separate entrance or may be served by a shared entry hall; Levin said he would review the sections and revise the language to match state egress requirements. A local contractor urged the board to confirm how building-code egress and sprinkler requirements would apply to attic and basement conversions, saying: "You have to meet building code" and noting that a single entrance may be acceptable if code-required sprinklers or secondary exits are provided.

Public commenters raised concerns about parking, snow parking operations, and the practical effect of a 900-square-foot cap. "One spot is not adequate," a resident said, warning that winter snow could make street parking unsafe for extra vehicles. Levin responded that because bus stops and transit locations can change, the planning department is proposing a one-space requirement to avoid later complications, but he agreed to highlight parking and transit-language options in the recommendation to council.

The board also spent substantial time on interpreting the state's 50% rule for multifamily buildings. Multiple speakers warned that if the "principal structure" calculation is read differently across municipalities, it could lead to widely varying ADU sizes (for example, whether a two-family's "primary structure" is one apartment or the whole building). A contractor and other commenters urged the board to ask City Legal to review state frequently asked questions and guidance before Council action to reduce litigation risk.

Aristides Rumeliotti, a West Peabody resident, said the draft as written could limit older residents' ability to add a livable two-bedroom unit. "I live in a single family of less than 1,300 square feet ... I will be confined to live in a closet," Rumeliotti said, asking the board to consider flexibility for older households. Levin and other board members explained the planning board's role is to provide a recommendation to City Council and noted the city also maintains a separate family-accessory pathway that can allow larger units under building-code review.

Before the vote the board agreed to request the City Council and staff consider specific clarifications in the recommendation: parking and snow-management procedures, an explicit local definition for short-term rental length/leasing (30 days was referenced during discussion), clear language on how the "principal structure" square-foot calculation applies to multifamily buildings, and an explanation of whether a lease should be required for occupants of ADUs. Board members stressed that any clarifications should align with state law where required.

A motion to recommend adoption of the proposed ADU zoning amendment with those considerations carried by roll call, with all voting members recorded as voting yes (Joseph Gagnon; Tom French; Dr. Giulio Barra Caccati; John Ford; Roy Simos; Jeff Saliva; Dennis Feld; Thomas Bettencourt). The board will forward its recommendation to the City Council, which Levin said is expected to take the official vote at its meeting on Tuesday, June 24, 2026.

Other business after the hearing included unanimous approval of the minutes from the June 4 meeting and motions granting continuances for site-plan matters (532 Lowell Street and 81 Prospect Street) to July 16, 2026. The planning board also agreed to convene a subcommittee to study data centers and possible zoning/regulatory responses (see separate article).

The planning board's recommendation is advisory; the City Council retains final authority to adopt, modify or reject the ordinance. The council's consideration date was stated during the meeting as June 24, 2026.