GREENFIELD — City councilors serving on the city’s Economic Development Committee and Planning Board members expressed partial support for a package of proposed zoning amendments regulating accessory dwelling units (ADUs) after a joint public hearing this week.

If approved by City Council, the proposed ordinance amendments — brought forth in the form of a citizen’s petition from residents Al Norman, Joan Marie Jackson and Michel Speight — would mandate that the Greenfield Housing Authority provide deed-restrictive rental housing vouchers for ADUs, to the extent that they are available. The vouchers would be for low-income households to limit rental costs to 30% of the household’s income or less.

The amendments also would alter the city’s ordinance to consider units that exist within a principal dwelling as ADUs, limit the number of ADUs allowable on a single-family lot to only one and mandate that any use of an ADU that requires a special permit be brought before the Planning Board for a site plan review.

While Precinct 9 Councilor Derek Helie, At-Large Councilor Wahab Minhas and Precinct 3 Councilor Michael Mastrototaro all voiced support for the amendment to limit the number of ADUs allowable on a single-family lot, Precinct 2 Councilor Rachel Gordon said she did not support it, arguing that she did not believe the regulation would benefit the community, but rather, would place an unnecessary restriction on ADU construction.

“I am not in favor of this. I completely agree that we need to do things that make sense and don’t change the character of the city and give people control over their property. I just don’t see a need to limit ADU construction this way,” Gordon said. “This is a pretty blunt instrument limiting [ADU construction] to one per lot. We have 1,000 different kinds of lots in this town, and there may be a lot that [multiple ADUs] actually makes sense for. ... I don’t want us to lock ourselves into a corner because we’re trying to prevent something that’s not really going to happen anyway.”

Petition details

The citizen’s petition came in the wake of the Affordable Homes Act’s passage in August, which allows for the by-right construction of ADUs statewide. Although the state law allows municipalities some regulatory power over ADUs, it stipulates that the first ADU constructed on a lot is considered a “protected ADU” that can be built by right, while cities and towns can draft bylaws and ordinances governing the construction of subsequent structures.

Helie, however, argued that limiting by-right ADU construction to one per lot was not only legal under the Affordable Homes Act, but seemed to be a reasonable restriction. He added that he does not believe the city has to set more lenient restrictions than the state already does.

“Development is important, but doing it in a practical, reasonable way is also important,” Helie said. “We need to look at this carefully. … The state gives us the ability to allow one ADU on a lot. It’s more than enough for that one lot. I know housing is a crisis for a lot of people, but I also believe in responsible development.”

Other proposals from the citizen’s petition, such as an amendment to provide deed-restrictive housing vouchers on ADUs, received less support from city councilors, with Helie arguing that it was an overstep of local government to dictate how homeowners can rent their property.

While Gordon said she applauded attempts to maintain ADU affordability, she noted she did not believe City Council should have oversight over the Greenfield Housing Authority’s operations.

Minhas, too, commended the amendment for its intention to keep ADUs affordable for low-income individuals.

“I would also like us to see ADUs be for people who need them,” Minhas said. “Having the vouchers is something that would enable low-income people to be able to actually afford them.”

Councilors also disagreed with the amendment to consider units built within principal dwellings as ADUs and regulate them accordingly, with Gordon noting that a unit built within a home would make that home a duplex and, therefore, it would be subject to existing two-family house regulations. Helie echoed these remarks, explaining that since, under state law, multifamily homes require a special permit for ADU construction, a duplex would be subject to the same procedure, should its owner wish to build an ADU on the lot.

“If you have a multifamily dwelling, then automatically, the ADU is [subject to a] special permit,” Helie said. “You can’t just get an ADU on a multifamily property, and that was because it’s an unprotected ADU. It’s not a single-family home, so I don’t really see the need for this [amendment], personally.”

Residents offer strong support of petition

Public comment on the issue, which preceded council discussion, was dominated by supporters of the citizen’s petition — some of whom read talking points listed on a mass email sent by Norman. Speakers claimed that the proposed amendments would prevent corporate landlords from buying up lots of land across the city and capitalizing on their investments through ADU construction.

Robert Catlin, in his remarks to the public, argued that the Affordable Homes Act was unfairly subjecting western Massachusetts to policies drafted in Boston. Catlin added that without more strict regulations, ADUs would present a threat to the city’s character.

“The reason we’re all here is because there’s a housing crisis in this country and in this state. I’m feeling resentful that the governor is imposing rules on western Mass, as often happens, from Boston, that are could potentially really change the character of our town,” Catlin said. “I have a house, and I have people calling me and messaging me all the time, saying ‘You want to sell?’ It’s not local people — they don’t have our interests at heart. They’re going to squeeze as many dollars as they can out of our community, and if it takes throwing up a bunch of ADUs behind a building that’s already a duplex or just a single family on a small lot, they’re going to do everything they can.”

Others, such as Jessa McCormack of Housing Greenfield, spoke on behalf of the organization in opposition to the citizen’s petition amendments. McCormack argued that the regulations are unnecessary and threaten potentially beneficial housing development practices.

“The proposed amendments, they create just unnecessary restrictions. This isn’t a piece of legislation or regulations that work in isolation. There’s lots of other things that are making sure the character of our community will stay in place. … The proposed language that would allow only one ADU on a permitted lot, it seems a little bit like a hammer that sees everything as a nail,” McCormack said. “There’s already a really clear distinction between ADUs and duplexes, triplexes and apartments. We should just go with what everyone understands.”

The proposed amendments are expected to go before City Council for a vote in May after further Planning Board discussion.

Anthony Cammalleri can be reached at acammalleri@recorder.com or 413-930-4429.