GREENFIELD — In-law apartments could be allowed Greenfield as early as next month if Town Council passes a proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance during its August meeting.
The town’s Planning Board and Economic Development Committee held a joint public hearing recently on the proposal to gather feedback from the public. The Planning Board will then deliberate during its first meeting in August and make recommendations to the Economic Development Committee, which in turn will send any recommendations it has to the full council.
The ordinance, as it currently stands, would allow apartments up to 800 square feet to be built either inside existing owner-occupied homes, as additions, as new detached structures or inside existing detached structures, like garages or carriage houses. The Planning Board withdrew its original proposal in April 2015 to give members time to do more research after the ordinance proved to be controversial.
About 15 residents showed up to the hearing, and support for the proposed ordinance varied. Some said they were thrilled at the idea that residents may soon be allowed to build the units, which are intended to help keep elders in their homes longer, increase housing density and provide more affordable housing, while others expressed concern the dwelling units could harm the character of existing neighborhoods and questioned how enforceable the ordinance is.
Many agreed upon the idea of allowing in-law apartments inside existing homes, but said they fear detached structures could lead to problems.
Greenfield resident Albert Norman, who couldn’t attend the hearing but sent his comments to the boards beforehand, questioned whether the ordinance would be compatible with state law. A bill passed by the Senate includes an amendment that would make Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) within existing homes by-right, which Greenfield’s proposal also does. The bill is currently in the House.
Norman questioned whether the detached dwelling units, allowed under the town’s proposal, would be legal under state law if the bill passes.
“My understanding would be that if the state does pass that law, (it) would be in conflict with the local ordinance, and the local ordinance would not be legal — it would not be in conformity with state law,” he said.
Norman urged the Planning Board to delete all references to detached structures — unless such structures are existing buildings like garages or carriage houses, which he doesn’t see a problem with — from the proposed ordinance.
The state law would also permit accessory dwelling units up to 900 square feet, while Greenfield’s proposal only allows up to 800 square feet.
Norman also said the final section of the ordinance, which allows the Planning Board to make modifications to the ADU standards outlined in the ordinance to ADUs “after making findings of fact that support its decision,” is too open-ended and undermines the standards put in place earlier in the ordinance.
Planning Board Chairwoman Roxann Wedegartner said the board will consider Norman’s concerns when deliberating next month, but doesn’t think the state law will be a problem. She said she has been in contact with the House about the bill.
Even if it passes, the bill wouldn’t take effect until next June, giving the town time to amend the ordinance, Wedegartner said.
“When the time comes, if we need to amend it to bring it in line with whatever is there, we can do that,” she said. “You can always amend an ordinance, and we already say that internal accessory dwelling units are by-right.”
She added, the bill also doesn’t specifically make detached accessory dwelling units illegal.
“They haven’t made that statement yet and from what I could tell from talking to the House, it wasn’t their understanding that the intent was to make internal ADUs the only kind you can do, but I guess we just have to wait and see on that,” Wedegartner said.
Greenfield resident David Singer said during the hearing that although he mostly agrees with the proposed ordinance, he believes neighboring property owners should get more of a say in the process for obtaining special permits for detached accessory dwelling units.
“If you’re going to do this … I think you have to write in a set of special criteria that would allow the neighboring landowner to come in and ask for certain things,” he said. “You’re giving that special permitting authority way too much leeway to just take it on a case-by-case basis. I’d like to see a little give back with the neighboring landowner.”
Singer said he also objects to the Planning Board being the special permitting authority for detached and non-conforming units.
“You wrote the bylaw, I would like to see somebody else enforce this bylaw … it’s a check and a balance of how that would proceed, in my opinion,” he told the board.
A number of other questions also arose, including who would manage the property if the homeowner is a snowbird and spends half the year out-of-state; whether tenants living in the ADUs would be protected if the homeowner dies; and how the process of selling a home with an ADU would work.
Wedegartner said the Planning Board will try to answer all questions it received from the public before the full council vote in August.
Others expressed concern that detached dwelling units would harm the character of neighborhoods by taking up open space.
Amy Moscaritolo, who was involved in creating the town’s Sustainable Master Plan, said the ordinance would help sustain the people who have lived in Greenfield their entire lives.
“What this ordinance would do is allow a homeowner who has invested their entire life in Greenfield to then move into a living situation where they’re supported by family or by others, and they could stay on their property,” she said. “To just throw this baby out with the bathwater because we’re afraid that something isn’t going to look the way we want it to — it’s so incredibly elitist and it’s so discriminatory to the elderly in our community, and I think that should be a huge part of considering this ordinance.”
You can reach Aviva Luttrell at: aluttrell@recorder.com
or 413-772-0261, ext. 268
On Twitter: @AvivaLuttrell