GREENFIELD — The Planning Board and Economic Development Committee both voted unanimously Thursday night to alter the city’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) zoning codes to allow construction of an ADU by right on a two-family or multifamily home parcel.
The decision was made at a joint hearing between the two bodies, based on a precedent set by the state attorney general’s decision on East Bridgewater’s ADU regulations in April, which was added to a Frequently Asked Questions page on the state’s website.
The City Council voted to update the city’s ADU zoning ordinance to bring it into compliance with state law last year after a new law was passed allowing ADUs, or detached singular units, to be constructed by right throughout the state.
However, the city’s updated codes, City Planner Eric Twarog explained Thursday evening, were too stringent to comply with state laws.
“We thought we are in compliance with the law, but based on this new information, we are out of compliance with the law, Twarog said. “We defined a protected ADU to only include single-family homes. It must include a two-family, triplex and multi family properties as well.”
When Planning Board Vice Chair George Touloumtzis asked whether the city’s current zoning regulations allow for the construction of a second ADU on a lot, Twarog explained that secondary ADUs would be considered unprotected and could be constructed only through a special permit. The current ordinance prohibits construction of three ADUs on a lot.
The updated ADU ordinance is expected to be put before a City Council vote at the Dec. 17 meeting.
“There were people who wanted us to allow an ADU on a two-family as a right in previous conversations, and we chose not to,” Planning Board member Victor Moschella said. “Now we’re going back to say, ‘well, we’re going to have to allow it.'”
Guidelines, major development review changes ahead
Following the joint hearing between the Planning Board and the EDC, the Planning Board agreed to begin meeting twice a month — on the first Thursday and third Wednesday of each month — in order to tackle the gargantuan task of writing development guidelines for the city, as well as new criteria for the Major Development Review process.
By reviewing design guidelines from municipalities across the state, the Planning Board aims to produce a comprehensive list of guidelines, or rules for developers, to ensure the city is seeing new buildings that fit its character.
“All the different documents seem to have different goals. Springfield is focused on houses, but most of them are focused on the downtown core,” Planning Board member Sarah Brown-Anson said, explaining the unique qualities of different towns’ development guidelines. “Where we might start is improving the pedestrian experience. That can include a lot of things; that could include windows, setbacks, aesthetics trees, landscaping.”
With plans to eventually present a detailed review of the guidelines to City Council, Planning Board alternate Erica Rioux Gees suggested that the board focus not only on the city’s downtown, but the entire city.
“We don’t have to limit ourselves to downtown … I think we should, in this plan, imagine a future where Greenfield is booming and there’s some redevelopment,” Gees said. “We want to have something walkable and livable on Federal Street, on the Main Street artery and some secondary arteries that support residential areas.”
The board also is reconsidering its Major Development Review process, which triggers a more comprehensive overview for larger developments in the city.
Greenfield’s current Major Development Review most recently fell under scrutiny when City Council voted to reject a measure that would have changed the traffic threshold for such a review from 3,000 vehicles a day to 2,000 vehicles a day, meaning a development that is expected to add 2,000 vehicles to nearby traffic only requires a site plan review.
With public debate over how large of a proposal should be considered a major development, Planning Board Chair Jeff Sauser said he hoped the board could study the city’s current practices — as well as the practices of other cities and towns — in depth so that it can determine the best-fitting policy.
“We just think that that whole regime needs to be evaluated, looked at from a first principles perspective, but also with reference to lots of other documents across the state. We’re not just going to make things up,” Sauser said. “We’re going to reference documents that already exist and that are effective and engage with a public process, [hold] public hearings. We’ll figure that out as we go, so that everyone has a chance to weigh in.”