This past session, Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, managed to push through the General Assembly and into law a provision that will give families another option in addressing the needs of elderly relatives who find it difficult to stay in their homes due to mental or physical impairments.

But will local municipalities allow families to implement this particular option within their borders?

The legislation, passed by the Senate 36-0 and the House 142-8, supersedes local zoning regulations in allowing the owner of a single-family home to install a “temporary health care structure” on their property, providing a place where grandma or grandpa can live as an alternative to trying to stay in their own home or entering a nursing home.

A cross between a “tiny house” and a mobile home, these structures can be no more than 500 square feet and are typically smaller. They are ADA compliant, with wide entryways, grab bars and single-level living. Only one-person occupancy is permitted and only one unit per property.

Utilities are hooked into the primary residence, insulated to operate through winter. Once such a structure is no longer in use by an impaired person, the owner must remove it within 120 days.

Osten, representing a 19th District that stretches from Ledyard north to Columbia, said after she learned of the temporary homes, which have been approved in several states, she asked senior citizens what they thought of the idea.

“They expressed a lot of interest,” Osten said.

After a first attempt in 2016, the state senator reintroduced the bill this year, adding a provision that lets towns opt out based on a vote by the local board of selectmen or town council. She had local bipartisan support in getting the bill passed, which included co-sponsorship by 18th District Sen. Heather Somers, R-Groton, and Rep. Chris Soto, D-New London.

It is questionable how many families may exercise this new opportunity. Osten pointed to prices of $20,000 to $40,000. She said that as the program grows in use, there will be greater opportunities to resell or secure units as a rental. A Google search for such units, which have been labeled “granny pods” (I hate the name), shows some priced considerably higher.

How best to deal with aging parents will be a growing challenge as the parents of baby boomers grow older, followed by the baby boomers themselves. Having another option is a good thing.

Property owners will have to seek a permit to place such a temporary dwelling on their property and the building official will have 15 days to respond. He or she will be obligated to issue the permit if the structure meets all the requirements of the law.

A senior citizen can place the temporary unit on their own property or it can be installed on that of a relative.

There could be potential problems. Densely populated urban centers are not conducive to such an arrangement. And though the law allows a town to request the posting of a bond to assure compliance, someone somewhere will leave a “pod” in the yard past the 120-day deadline, giving towns an additional enforcement headache.

Some communities may find sticking the units on existing properties unsightly. It will be interesting to see in how many towns the leaders opt to block the provision within their borders.

Hopefully, not too many. Allowing an elderly person to live out their days near family, while maintaining some independence, cannot be a bad thing.

Paul Choiniere is the editorial page editor.