GREENFIELD — As city leaders mull over a proposed amendment package intended to grow and diversify the city’s housing stock, residents spoke before the Planning Board last week to share their thoughts on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and increasing accessible housing for people with disabilities.

In preparation for a Nov. 7 joint hearing with the Economic Development Committee, the board met Thursday to review four zoning amendments proposed by At-Large Councilor John Garrett. If approved, the package would allow multi-family housing by right in the city’s Semi-Residential District, raise the number of residential units allowed in a multi-family building, allow mixed residential and business structures to feature first-floor housing and, at the request of Planning Director Eric Twarog, permit the development of medical clinics by right in the city’s Central Commercial District.

The board also looked into the city’s regulations of ADUs, also referred to as “in-law apartments,” after passage of the state’s Affordable Homes Act made the structures legal by right throughout the state.

Accessible housing

Kicking off a roughly two-and-a-half-hour meeting, Greenfield resident Joannah Whitney, who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair for mobility, addressed the Planning Board, speaking about the prevalence of physical and neurological disabilities and noting that New England’s older housing stock rarely accommodates people with disabilities.

Whitney said the country’s disabled population outnumbers both the population of left-handed people and those who identify as members of the LGBTQ community. She added that often, when older single-family homes are converted into multi-family homes and duplexes, they are rarely renovated with the disabled community in mind.

“People living with disabilities are people first,” Whitney said. “When you talk about a housing development that has one or two or however many mandated number of accessible units, but do not ask whether all the units could be used by someone with a disability, you are participating in a generations-long habit of assuming people with disabilities do not have friends and neighbors who want to include them when they’re planning a birthday party or celebrating the holiday or watching the game.”

When Planning Board Vice Chair Jeff Sauser asked Whitney what procedural changes the city could make to ensure the success of accessible housing, she explained that, generally, it is cheaper and simpler to build new housing with accessible design features than to retroactively upgrade pre-existing properties to fit them with these features.

In response, Twarog noted that the city could secure disability access in future housing developments through technical review — an optional process allowing developers to obtain a preliminary review from the city’s Land Use Board before formal plans for the site are drawn up. Twarog said that although the Land Use Board mainly comprises representatives from the city’s building inspection office, Fire Department, Planning Department, Conservation Commission, Engineering Department and Board of License Commissioners, a representative from the Commission on Disability Access should be present for the process, too.

“We should have someone from the Commission on Disability Access, and [developers] present their projects when they’re in their conceptual state or preliminary stage before formal plans are drawn up. It’s a great way of the city staff to provide comments so that when they do go before the board, it makes sure everything goes smoothly,” Twarog said. “It’s optional; we could make it mandatory. But people like the option.”

Twarog noted that although the technical review process is optional, roughly 60% to 75% of builders choose to undertake it. In response, Whitney continued to express her view that the most efficient and cost-effective route toward accessible housing in the city was through preliminary discussions on disabilities during a development’s planning stage — discussions that she said are often blocked by shame and stigma.

“The whole issue of shame is really important to be upfront about. … None of us chose the environment that we’re living with,” Whitney said. “Somebody 200 years ago designed these buildings, and we don’t have those same values anymore. For many people, depending on their disability, the infrastructure makes it like we’re still living in the 19th century with 19th-century values.”

ADU ordinance amendment

Residents also engaged in a lively debate about two proposed amendments — one brought forward by Garrett, and the other through a citizen’s petition — to regulate ADUs.

Although earlier versions of Garrett’s housing package included revisions to the city’s ADU ordinance allowing the construction of the units by right in all residential zones in the city, Gov. Maura Healey passed the Affordable Homes Act in August, making ADU development by right in municipalities throughout the state.

Residents Al Norman, Joan Marie Jackson and Mitchell Speight submitted a petition signed by 110 residents to the City Clerk’s Office last week, calling for the city to more strictly regulate its ADU ordinance in the wake of a new state law.

The citizens’ proposed amendment sets a minimum lot size of half an acre on ADU developments, and requires parcels that seek to add an ADU to consist of at least 50% open space. It also requires that ADUs meet setback requirements in its host parcel’s zoning district and prohibits their use for short-term rentals such as Airbnbs; whereas, the city’s proposed amendment removes language requiring that non-owner-occupied ADUs undergo a special permit review process from the city’s ordinance, in compliance with the new state law.

Debate over how strictly the city should regulate ADUs ensued, with those in favor of the citizens’ amendment arguing that dimensional restrictions would give an ADU’s neighbors a say in how the units might impact their property values or homes.

“My only concern is over detached units, which end up wandering far away from the primary building and sometimes within 10 feet of another person’s property line or their backyard,” Norman said. “In 2020, the City Council agreed to make detached by special permit. Special permit does not mean ‘no.’ Special permit means we take a very serious look at it and we listen to the neighbors. That’s the way the law was for four years, there was no controversy. There was no one screaming about all the ADUs that were being built. ADUs aren’t being built because, mostly, communities where ADUs are being built are, frankly, affluent white communities.”

Opponents to the citizens’ amendment, such as resident John Anhalt, who referred to himself as a disabled veteran and special needs parent, called it a “shadow ban” on by-right ADUs. Anhalt argued that the open space ratio requirements set forth in the proposed amendment could only be met in the city’s Rural Residential District, causing the petitioners’ proposed amendment to counter-intuitively bring urban sprawl to a rural area.

Anhalt also argued that opposition to the state law would be a disservice to the city’s disabled community, arguing that ADUs can provide semi-independent living for adults with autism.

“The petition owner is calling for sprawl, ironically, out in, let’s say, the meadows. That is bad for preservation of open space, it’s bad for sustainability, it’s bad for affordability. Most recent homes like this are going for $550,000. This is not affordable. Additionally, ADUs are an accessibility issue,” Anhalt said. “ADUs are one of the most direct ways to build accessible housing and get around some of the issues with modifying housing stock that were discussed in-depth earlier this evening.”

Planning Board Chair George Touloumtzis suggested the board avoid voting on either amendment until it had the time to consider elements of both. Sauser added that, despite the Affordable Homes Act, the city can work with its legal counsel to find ways to regulate ADUs in a way the city and general public see fit.

“There’s the state law and then there’s all sorts of ways you can add things,” Sauser said. “When the state law might set a minimum, we can add more than that.”

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