EAST LONGMEADOW — The Planning Board is in the process of crafting a bylaw to regulate tiny homes, in-law apartments and other “accessory dwelling units.”
Planning and Community Development Director Rob Watchilla began by explaining that the state, looking to address Massachusetts’s housing crisis, passed the Affordable Homes Act earlier this year. A provision of the law makes accessory dwelling units a protected, “as by right” use for residential property. Watchilla said that most towns in Massachusetts have required a special permit from the Planning Board before constructing a secondary residence on a single property.
“This is a mandate from the state,” said Planning Board Chair Russell Denver. “This is a further stripping away of local zoning prerogative by the community. Whether the town believes it is an appropriate piece of legislation or not, we really have little ability to reject this proposal.”
Planning Board member William Fonseca added, “Our hands are tied, and we’ve just got to do our due diligence and protect ourselves as best as possible without superseding the law.”
While the town is required to allow accessory dwelling units beginning Feb. 2, 2025, it can pass reasonable restrictions, including a site plan review, as part of a bylaw.
There are three types of accessory dwelling units. They can be detached, separate structures or those that are attached to the primary residence, as in an addition. They can also be contained within a primary residence, with no changes to the exterior appearance of the building, such as basement units. Each of these types would be allowed in AA, A, B, and C residential zones.
As drafted, the bylaw would limit properties to one accessory dwelling unit. The units must meet sanitary, environmental and building codes. Temporary structures, including mobile homes, are not allowed to act as accessory dwelling units. The units are not eligible for a site plan review waiver. The side and rear setbacks for an accessory unit are the same as the primary dwelling. However, the front setback is 10 feet farther from the property line than it would be for the main residential structure.
The units must not be larger than half the size of the main residence or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller. It must have its own entrance and egress to the outside and if there is a staircase to the unit, it must not be visible from the street. Watchilla said this is to avoid having exposed “fire escapes,” but noted that this provision was one that the town’s attorney, Jesse Belcher-Timme of Doherty Wallace, said may be challenged in court as overly restrictive.
To be “suitable for habitation” under state law, the units are required to have a kitchen, bathroom, plumbing connections, electricity and heating systems, and comply with occupancy limits. A previous draft had specified no more than three occupants and two bedrooms, but Watchilla said Health Director Tammy Spencer recommended removing that because occupancy is regulated under building and sanitary codes. He said there may also be situations where the occupants would be one or two parents with two or more children.
“You’re going to put a smaller building next to the principal residence … that conceivably could have … ,” Denver said before trailing off. He followed up asking, “Do you want six people in a two-bedroom, eight people in a two-bedroom? How does that, then, really change the character of the neighborhood?” Watchilla said the state’s building codes set maximum occupancy depending on square footage.
The units would have to have a clearly posted address, separate from the primary dwelling for mail and package delivery, and emergency service response.
Parking was discussed at length. The drafted bylaw specified that an accessory dwelling unit must be accompanied by one off-street parking space, either in the primary driveway or in a secondary driveway, which Watchilla said is allowed at some residential properties. Denver questioned the requirement, saying people can park in public ways.
“Just because you can park in the street, doesn’t mean we want you parking in the street,” Town Manager Tom Christensen interjected. Denver countered, “Do you want to look out at that property that used to have two cars, now has five cars sitting in that driveway? It has the potential to change the character of the town in a way that a lot of people may not like.”
During the public comment period, a resident said the off-street parking requirement “sounds like it’s in there to limit the use of ADUs, especially if people are unable to comply with it. It seems like more of an imagined problem than a real problem.” They said off-street parking concerns should be addressed separately from the accessory dwelling unit bylaw.
An accessory dwelling unit would not be allowed to be sold separately from the primary residence and short-term rentals would not be an allowed use of the units.
Certain restrictions in the bylaw only apply to detached accessory dwelling units. Watchilla said the attached and contained units could be thought of as similar to an apartment, whereas the detached units are more along the lines of a separate home. As such, detached units must have separate water and sewer connections. The detached unit can be a pre-existing renovated structure in the rear or side yard of the property but is limited to one and a half stories tall. Just as with any building construction, the unit would need a building inspection.
Denver asked Christensen if the accessory dwelling unit bylaw would “supersede the need for the Center [Town] District’s housing component.” One of the primary reasons behind the town’s pursuit of the Center Town District is expanding the housing stock in town while creating greater diversity in the types and sizes of the units available.
Christensen responded, “So, I don’t know, Russ. I don’t know how popular [the accessory dwelling units are] going to be. I don’t know what’s that real number of how many units we need. I think we need diversity in our housing.” Deputy Town Manager Rebecca Lisi added that housing production plan report is due shortly that will inform the town on how many units will be needed over the next decade according to population trends.
Deputy Town Manager Rebecca Lisi opined, “If you’re offering more different types of housing in the center of town where you’re developing more full neighborhoods that are close to amenities, you’re offsetting the pressure for ADUs to pop up in the neighborhood. Without a Center Town District, you’re more vulnerable to people seeking relief and taking matters in their own hands and setting up ADUs in their homes and around their yard.”
Watchilla said the cost of building an accessory dwelling unit is “not cheap” and estimated that between materials and labor, pouring a foundation, running utilities and creating a parking spot, “that could cost you tens of thousands of dollars.” Even with a prefabricated building, the site work costs would still be incurred. Denver researched the cost of prefabricated tiny homes on Amazon.com and found they could be purchased for about $40,000. “And that’s what is scary,” Denver said, before calling the number of accessory units that will be built in town, “The great unknown.”
Town Councilor Ralph Page addressed the Planning Board with questions. He asked if an accessory unit built as an addition to a garage or other outbuilding would be subject to the rules for attached units or detached units. He also wondered whether the entire building would be subject to the accessory unit restrictions.
Watchilla confirmed that the unit would be considered detached and that only the addition would be required to comply. However, building on Page’s question, Watchilla said a garage may be 5 feet from a property line, but they would not want a dwelling unit that close to a neighboring property. “Someone’s living there, they have windows, there might be kids inside,” he said.
In-law apartments already exist in town, Page pointed out. Under the bylaw, they would need a separate electrical meter and if not already in compliance, a separate entrance. Watchilla told him, “Anything that exists now, it going to be hard to catch it, unless they come here for a permit.”
Page questioned the need for a site plan review of attached units, since site plans are not required for houses. The site plan review would be the Planning Board’s primary oversight of the units, which would also need to be listed on an accessory dwelling unit registry at the Planning Department.
“What if you [add the unit] going toward the streets?” Denver asked. “It changes the entire look of the house.” Page responded that if it meets the setback requirements, “Then, you’re allowed.”
Denver remarked, “I would like to be able to look at [the property owner] and say, ‘You know, you’re doing an injustice to your neighbors.’” However, Page said he did not see a difference between expanding the front of a house to enlarge the living room and doing so to add an accessory unit.
“I think that’s what we’re hoping for is that these units will go in and blend in with the neighborhood and you won’t even notice them,” Page commented. Denver said, “I hope so,” and that he was neither for nor against the bylaw. Instead, he said he asked so many questions, so residents know the Planning Board does its due diligence.
The Planning Board continued the public hearing on the bylaw to its Jan. 7 meeting at 6 p.m.
While Denver was concerned that there would not be enough time to allow the Town Council to pass the bylaw by the Feb. 2 deadline, Page and Watchilla agreed that because the bylaw process had been advertised and was underway, the rules of the bylaw will take effect when the state law’s accessory dwelling unit provision does.
However, Christensen said there is a chance the town could be challenged in court without a bylaw in place.
