A group of Pioneer Valley residents testified before the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities at a public hearing on Friday aimed at garnering feedback on the state’s draft regulations on accessory dwelling units, or ADUs.

In August, Gov. Maura Healey signed the Affordable Homes Act into law, allowing ADUs to be constructed by right across the state.

The legislation, which allows municipalities to draft bylaws setting dimensional requirements for their construction, sparked controversy in municipalities such as Greenfield, where opponents to the by-right ADU clause filed an ordinance in the form of a citizen’s petition calling for regulations on ADU construction based on lot size limitations.

The citizen’s petition in Greenfield, if passed, would set a minimum lot size of half an acre on ADU developments and require that property owners seeking to add an ADU have a parcel with at least 50% open space.

The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities’ current draft regulations protect ADUs from “unreasonable regulation” on a municipal level and list a number of criteria that would constitute an “unreasonable regulation,” such as design standards that are so “restrictive, excessive, burdensome or arbitrary that it prohibits, renders infeasible or unreasonably increases the costs” of an ADU.

“Municipalities shall not prohibit, impose a prohibited regulation or unreasonable regulation, or, except as provided under 760 CMR 71.03(5), require a special permit, waiver, variance or other zoning relief or discretionary zoning approval for the use of land or structures for a protected use ADU, including the rental thereof, in a single-family residential zoning district; provided that municipalities may reasonably regulate a protected use ADU,” the draft law states.

Public comment for the ADU clause of the Affordable Homes Act closed Friday, only weeks before the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities’ intended date to file the final regulations so the law can take effect on Feb. 2.

Greenfield residents Al Norman, Mitchell Speight and Joan Marie Jackson, who filed the citizen’s petition, testified on Friday advocating for increased municipal regulatory power over ADUs.

“The draft regulations impose many unmeasurable and arbitrary requirements that are overly broad and vague, resulting in little local control over housing elements like density, design, lot space and open space,” Norman said. “We should be able to adopt setback, height, lot size and open space requirements, and we urge you to go back and change these regulations ... We don’t have single-family districts in Greenfield. All of our zoning districts are one-, two- and three-family, so this creates a situation where we have no flexibility.”

Norman’s comments were echoed by Speight and Jackson, who also spoke at the meeting, arguing that the state’s draft regulations are “arbitrary and capricious,” and rely too heavily upon municipal interpretation.

Jackson suggested additional language be added to the draft regulating ADU construction in historic districts and adding occupancy limits consistent with existing state law.

Others, such as Conway Planning Board member Jeff Lacy, also commented on the draft regulations. Lacy noted that although he generally supports ADUs and has drafted “quite liberal” ADU bylaws, he believes the regulations “went too far.”

“My general comments are that applicability really should be in single-family-only zones, that was the perceived problem — that there were housing diversity deserts where only single-family was allowed,” Lacy said. “If towns want to expand it to other types of dwellings — two-family, three-family, multi-family, they can do that at the town’s discretion.”

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