GREENFIELD — While no votes were taken Thursday night, Planning Board members weighed possible zoning changes that would allow for more than one multifamily building to be constructed on a lot, or potentially allow for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) larger than 900 square feet.
The topic came up at the request of Planning Director Ella Wise, who said she has been working with a few property owners who want to convert existing structures on their property into residences, but are currently blocked by the city’s zoning codes.
“In the past few months, two local homeowners have approached me about building out ADUs. … One was a woman with a beautiful home that was getting too much to maintain, and she wanted to convert her barn into an ADU and rent out the primary for income,” Wise said. “Then another gentleman, who received a special permit a few years ago, has a home within the neighborhood that has three units, and he had received a special permit from the [Zoning Board of Appeals] to convert an existing barn into a dwelling unit — and that was not as an ADU, but under the multifamily regulation.”
However, Wise explained the man was unable to complete the project before the special permit lapsed, and when he reached out to the Planning & Development Department for a new permit, he learned that in 2024, an amendment was made to the regulations, deleting a section that had allowed more than one multifamily building to be on the same lot.
The deleted section reads: “More than one (1) building may be placed on one (1) lot, but no structure may contain more than twenty-four (24) dwelling units and no more than six (6) dwelling units shall be served by a single primary entrance. Each structure will be separated by a minimum of forty (40) feet. The Zoning Board of Appeals may allow more than twenty-four (24) dwellings per building in existing structures being converted to multifamily units.”
In a memo to the board, Wise said she reviewed City Council and Planning Board meeting recordings from two years ago and she believes the intent of deleting that section was to remove the 24-unit cap, but that doing so inadvertently made it illegal to have multiple multifamily buildings on one lot.
To fix this, she said the board has a few options: it can add a sentence to the multifamily regulations specifically stating that more than one building can be on one lot, or it could allow for ADUs larger than 900 square feet by special permit.
“I want to do something to rectify that situation so he can build out and convert this existing barn, as he intended to do, for his kids to live,” Wise said on Thursday.
“If it’s an existing building on an existing lot, a homeowner should be able to do pretty much what they want to within the guidelines of the setbacks, heights and restrictions,” Planning Board member Victor Moschella said. “If someone wants to turn a barn into a residence, they should be able to do that.”
Wise mentioned ADU development has been slow due to high costs of construction, and she believes increasing the allowed size could make it easier for people who have existing structures, like barns, to convert them into dwellings.
The original proposed language Wise included for the Planning Board to review would allow ADUs to potentially be as large as the primary dwelling with a special permit, which raised discussion among board members and members of the public. Protected, by-right ADUs that do not need a special permit would still be limited to 900 square feet.
Greenfield resident Al Norman said he had no problem with barns being converted, but he argued that removing the cap on the number of dwellings that can be on one lot is a mistake that could result in higher density. He added that density is more than just buildings, but the people that live in them and would fill the neighborhoods. He added that by removing size caps on ADUs, property owners and developers could essentially “replicate the primary” dwelling on the lot.
“It’s not an accessory to anything,” Norman said.
Board members went back and forth on what the spirit of an ADU is, and whether it should be a new build or a converted structure. While they made no decisions on how they want to address the issues the two homeowners are having, they did agree they wanted to make some changes and make the steps easier for other property owners in the future.
“We made a mistake,” Planning Board Vice Chair George Touloumtzis said. “That sometimes happens because there’s so many moving parts. … If something wasn’t intended and it could prevent something that we think is good, as far as planning, then I think that would be something that we would want to say, ‘Let’s try [to fix] that quickly.'”
The Planning Board is set to continue discussions and potentially vote on how to proceed at its next meeting in September.
