Philip Dromey, the deputy director of planning for the city, shares the new state law around accessory dwelling units, which are now allowed by right in single-family zoning districts in every Massachusetts community. During a hearings meeting on Jan. 27, the City Council unanimously approved regulations around these units.
Photo credit: Focus Springfield
SPRINGFIELD — Before a new state law allowing accessory dwelling units by right in single family zoning districts officially kicked in on Feb. 2, the Springfield City Council unanimously approved a new zoning ordinance that regulates the build-out of these units in the city.
During a hearings meeting on Jan. 27, the full council voted in favor of new regulations for ADUs in Springfield, including criteria that requires people to go through an administrative site plan review process, rather than just simply going through the Building Department to pull permits.
“What this does is allow the city regulatory control to be able to review what’s being proposed for the ADU,” said Philip Dromey, the deputy director of planning for Springfield’s Planning Department, when speaking about why the site plan review process is part of the regulations. “The site plan has to be drawn by a qualified professional; engineer, architect, et cetera.”
According to Dromey, the city of Springfield did not have zoning regulations for ADUs prior to the council’s vote, but actions by the state forced the city to create them.
In August, Gov. Maura Healey signed into law the $5.16 billion Affordable Homes Act, which, among 50 policy initiatives, amends the statewide Zoning Act to allow accessory dwelling units up to 900 square feet to be built by right in single-family zoning districts in every Massachusetts community.
The law, which went into effect on Feb. 2, supersedes any existing local ordinances that are inconsistent with the state’s new ADU law, which is why cities like Springfield are codifying regulations around ADUs.
State law and city regulations
The new state law says that ADUs can be a converted basement or garage, an addition to an existing dwelling; or a completely detached structure, like a cottage or a tiny house in the backyard.
According to the state law, an ADU must be on the same lot of a principal dwelling while maintaining a separate entrance, either directly from the outside or through an entry hall or corridor shared with its principal dwelling. An ADU must also be no larger than half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller; and must be “inclusive of sleeping, cooking and sanitary facilities.”
The state law does not require the principal unit or the accessory unit to be owner occupied, however, ADUs are not allowed to be used for short-term rentals, like Airbnb.
According to Dromey, the state law says that the same people who own the principal building must also own the ADU, and the owner/owners must meet state building codes and any other underlying zoning regulations.
As for the city of Springfield’s new regulations, new criteria around ADU requires that any new units must meet underlying city zoning regulations, and any new construction must go through the full building permit process, along with the aforementioned administrative site plan review process.
Reactions
Although the City Council unanimously approved the new regulations, some are still worried about the effect a state law like this could have on Springfield.
Dromey said he has not heard of any formal “challenges” to the new state law, based on experiences he has had in broader Zoom conferences with the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, but said one concern he has heard in a couple of Springfield neighborhoods is the owner-occupant rule within the law, which states that the owners of the principal property and ADU does not have to technically live there.
“Does that open the door for investors to start scooping up homes and putting in ADUs and renting them?,” Dromey pondered. “Again, that may come out to be true, I don’t know. I certainly do agree with the concern that this does have a possibility of impacting single family residents.”
Richard Allen, a Springfield resident and former chairman of Springfield’s Board of Assessors, said that he was in support of the new regulations put forth by Dromey but expressed concern about the new state ADU law, particularly because it may negatively impact the few areas where the middle class of Springfield can afford homes.
“Single family zoning has been critical to maintaining [the city’s] viability,” said Allen, who noted that Springfield has over 26,000 single family homes across the city. “The ADU, by right, is a use that could threaten the viability of certain segments of neighborhoods.”
City Councilor Jose Delgado recognized the state’s intention of solving the housing crisis with this law but expressed concerns that it may only benefit those with a lot of money or who live outside the city because of the expenses that come with building ADU units.
He said he has seen people from New York and Boston buying single family homes in Springfield, thus causing a spike in housing prices.
“On one hand, I want to make sure we’re doing things right, but I also don’t want to block people who live here who could use that,” Delgado said.
Later in his remarks, Delgado wondered whether the city could institute a residency requirement so people who want to build ADUs must, at the very least, live in the city.
Dromey said he would need to consult with a lawyer to find that out but felt that a residency requirement would not be feasible if owner occupancy is already not required for the ADUs.
“If you can’t require owner occupancy of either the accessory dwelling unit or the principal dwelling, I’m not sure how you then say, ‘But you have to live in Springfield,’” Dromey said.
City Councilor Zaida Govan shared Delgado’s concern about the high costs residents may face when pursuing an ADU due to the building permit and site plan review processes.
Dromey acknowledged that “these accessory dwelling units are not going to be necessarily a cheap thing to do for people.”
“We don’t want to overburden the residents, the homeowners, especially if they are elderly,” Govan said. “I just want to be mindful of that.”
City Councilors Victor Davila and Tim Allen suggested the idea of implementing fees that people would have to pay if they wanted to embark on the administrative site plan review process for ADUs, but it was unclear at the time of the meeting who would be in charge of implementing that.
Both Allen and Davila felt that fees would be a good source of revenue for the city.
“If we’re going to be stuck with this law, we might as well capitalize on it and get some sort of revenue,” Davila said. “It’s not going to be enough to break the bank, of course but … I don’t want to leave any money on the table out there.”
In his remarks during the hearings meeting, Davila also wondered what the regulations are for ADUs in historic districts, because many of his constituents were concerned about that. Dromey said any ADU in a historic district would have to comply with any historic conditions.
The council voted 11-0 in favor of the new regulations. City Councilor Maria Perez was absent from the meeting and City Councilor Brian Santaniello was away during the vote.
