GREENFIELD — In what was described as a “protest vote” Wednesday night, City Council failed to meet the necessary vote count needed to amend, and bring into compliance with state law, Greenfield’s ordinance on accessory dwelling units, or ADUs.
The vote, 6-5, failed to pass an ordinance amendment allowing the construction of one ADU on a two-family or multifamily home parcel by right, as required by the state’s Affordable Homes Act, which Gov. Maura Healey signed into law in August 2024.
Although Greenfield had already amended its ADU ordinance to allow one ADU by right on lots with single-family homes in accordance with the Affordable Homes Act, the Attorney General’s Office, in reviewing East Bridgewater’s ADU regulations, had issued a decision earlier this year regarding ADUs on two-family or multifamily home parcels. The decision found that “a municipality cannot limit protected use ADUs to lots with only single-family homes on them,” according to a Frequently Asked Questions page on the state’s website.
The Planning Board and Economic Development Committee both voted unanimously to approve the ordinance amendment pertaining to two-family and multifamily parcels at a joint hearing between the two bodies on Dec. 4.
However, when the proposed amendment was brought before the full City Council, multiple city councilors felt the state’s new ADU regulations represented an overreach.
“We have to follow this, because this is the law, but … I’ll be a troublemaker and vote ‘no,'” At-Large City Councilor Wahab Minhas said, introducing the protest vote. “That could get us into legal trouble, but just on principle, I do not agree with the state shoving their version of whatever they want to push forward for their agenda to small municipalities. I don’t agree with that; I believe in as much freedom and liberty as possible at the local level. Secondly, not everything legal is moral. … Sometimes it’s good not to follow the law.”
Precinct 3 City Councilor Michael Mastrototaro also voted against the amendment, though he referred to it as a “meaningless” act of protest, in defiance of what he believed to be an overreach from Beacon Hill.
“[In] Boston, the governor is shoving laws down local municipalities’ throats and crossing the line,” Mastrototaro said. “I know housing is important and we need housing, but this is my opinion; I’m not out to debate it. I’m voting ‘no.’ I know it’s a meaningless vote. It’s a protest vote, but there it is.”
City Councilors Katherine Golub (Precinct 1), Patricia Williams (Precinct 6), Derek Helie (Precinct 9), Sara Brown (At-Large), Vice President John Garrett and President Lora Wondolowski voted in favor of the ADU ordinance amendment while Minhas, Mastrototaro, Precinct 4 City Councilor John Bottomley, Precinct 7 City Councilor William “Wid” Perry and At-Large City Councilor Michael Terounzo voted against it.
Although the final vote was 6-5, Assistant City Clerk Quinn Jaquins said the vote required a simple majority of the full council, which equates to seven or more votes. Precinct 2 Councilor Rachel Gordon and Precinct 5 Councilor Marianne Bullock were absent.
Garrett, who argued against Minhas’ invocation of civil disobedience to protest a law that intends to promote housing, said in an interview following the council meeting that he did not believe the vote would stick. He predicted that the amendment would likely be revisited and approved in the months ahead.
“It’s going have to happen eventually, and so the [state] consequences will be limited. I’m just disappointed we didn’t do it right away, because again, the moral thing to do is pass this law,” Garrett said. “The libertarian idea that we shouldn’t listen to what the big old state says is exactly how we got in this housing crisis. It was a million tiny decisions like the one we made tonight that got us here. That’s why they’re taking away local control in the first place.”
A voicemail left with the law office of Gordon Quinn, the attorney who represents Greenfield, seeking comment on any potential legal ramifications was not returned before press time on Thursday, nor was an email. However, the state’s Frequently Asked Questions page on ADUs states that “any zoning provisions that are inconsistent with the ADU law and ADU regulations are unenforceable. A protected use ADU, as defined in the ADU regulations, cannot be subjected to local regulations that are disallowed by state law. Therefore, local permitting decisions should not take into account any local zoning rules that conflict with the ADU law or ADU regulations in general or when applied to a particular protected use ADU permit application.”
Wednesday night’s council meeting marked the last for Helie, Terounzo and Perry, who each have a reputation for being unafraid to vote against the majority.
A protest vote at his final council meeting, Perry said, seemed appropriate.
“That’s my parting gift,” Perry said. “I did it on principle. I don’t think the state should be telling local cities what to do.”
Terounzo echoed Perry’s remarks, adding that he joined City Council to be a voice for his constituents, not the state.
“When I joined City Council, the reason why I wanted to come in was because I had witnessed an ordinance be shoved down the taxpayers’ throats after it had already been voted down in an election,” he said. “I didn’t want to see anything like that happen.”
Correction, December 19, 2025 1:07 pm:
An earlier version of this article inaccurately described the vote count necessary for the ADU ordinance to be amended. Although the final vote was 6-5, Assistant City Clerk Quinn Jaquins said the vote required a simple majority of the full council, which equates to seven or more votes. Precinct 2 Councilor Rachel Gordon and Precinct 5 Councilor Marianne Bullock were absent.