Massachusetts courts have ruled that our state has the “strongest type of home rule,” where cities and towns have the right “to regulate the use of land, buildings and structures to the full extent of [their] independent constitutional powers … to protect the health, safety and general welfare” of their inhabitants.

But the state decided to “take away … power to limit the use of land” from municipalities, and give the state power to “protect” a long list of land uses (including religious or educational buildings, child care facilities, solar installations, battery storage systems, accessory dwelling units), overruling local zoning powers.

Municipalities are rewriting their Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) zoning to conform with draft state regulations. Greenfield has proposed regulations for the City Council agenda tonight even though the state hasn’t finalized its ADU regulations.

Greenfield used to require these ADUs to be “owner-occupied,” and free-standing ADUs had to get a special permit. All other ADUs had a site plan review. Now, everything is “by right,” which means a developer needs no special permit, variance, or other zoning approval. Our building inspector will be the only person who approves an ADU. No Planning Board. No Zoning Board of Appeals.

You, as a neighbor, will not know an ADU is being built until you hear a bulldozer digging near your kitchen door.

Most homeowners can’t afford ADUs: They’re financially strapped paying for the upkeep of their principal home, paying off their mortgage, and keeping up on their property taxes. One developer in Greenfield is offering 24 community-based small condos of 250 to 500 square feet for $150,000 to $250,000. Another developer is asking $240,000 to $320,000 for a 600- to 800-square-foot home. This is not “affordable” housing.

ADUs will mostly be financed by developers or corporate landlords, targeting market-rate renters. The focus on enabling family members to live closer has shifted to landlords buying single-family homes to convert into two- or three-family units, plus a backyard ADU. But Greenfield’s proposed zoning says “only one ADU may be created within a single-family or two-family house or house lot.” The state says you can build a second ADU if you get a special permit. We don’t know how many people will be allowed to live in an ADU.

The new state law allows municipalities to create “reasonable regulations” for ADUs. Greenfield has chosen not to add any reasonable regulations, and the city has eliminated site plan review. The ADU statute allows “such additional restrictions as may be imposed by a municipality, including, but not limited to, site plan review, regulations concerning dimensional setbacks and the bulk and height of structures.”

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

The ills of a billion-dollar enterprise: The slow-death of the cannabis industry, and what might be done to reverse the trend

Sex assault complaint spurs review at Mohawk Trail Regional School District

Greenfield Fire Station’s energy use 250% higher than expected

Former Mohawk Trail ski coach, Rowe park manager sued for alleged sexual assault of former student

Franklin Tech English teacher honored for bringing ‘the very best’ out of students

Real Estate Transactions: March 28, 2025

Your Daily Puzzles

Cross|Word

Flipart

Typeshift

SpellTower

Really Bad Chess

One hundred and five Greenfield citizens proposed a half-acre minimum lot size, and a 50% open space requirement for lots that will become denser with two homes instead of one. Existing state zoning law for child care facilities says that municipalities can write regulations “concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements.”

We have the right to control zoning “gross density,” a units-per-acre measurement.

The executive branch of state government proposes that any standards which are “more restrictive than what is required for a Single-Family Residential Dwelling in the Single-Family-Residential Zoning District” are unreasonable. It is the state which is being unreasonable. Cities like Greenfield are accepting this draft language, even though the ADU law contains no such restrictive mandates. Instead of defending our constitutional zoning powers, we’re letting the state pretend two-home lots are one home.

The other major zoning change the Greenfield City Council will reconsider tonight is a confusing vote that removed entirely the limit on how many multifamily dwellings can exist in a single project. Councilor Wahab Minhas wants the council to reconsider that vote, so that residential homeowners in many neighborhoods will not have to fight off large apartment complexes.

Readers should email citycouncil@greenfield-ma.gov today to ask councilors to:

1) support the citizens’ amendment for a half-acre minimum lot size to apply for an ADU.

2) Require a minimum open space of 50% for ADU lots.

3) Keep site plan reviews for ADUs.

4) Rescind the vote that allows unlimited apartment buildings in most residential zones.

ADUs and multifamily dwelling expansions are being rushed like a fast and furious franchise. The “600 residences” needed is actually a 10-year goal. We can produce at least 60 dwellings on average per year in a coordinated way, with fewer unintended consequences for our infrastructure, schools, and the taxpayers who foot the bills.

Al Norman’s Pushback column is published in the Recorder every first and third Wednesday of the month.