WILBRAHAM — Accessory dwelling units, such as tiny homes and in-law apartments, were again a topic of discussion at the Feb. 12 Wilbraham Planning Board meeting. During the public hearing, continued from Jan. 8, the board discussed which provisions would be allowed under the state guidelines and which would not.
While Planning Director Michelle Buck said there were no “significant” changes from the Jan. 8 draft, the bylaw had been adjusted to reflect that accessory dwelling units must comply with the standard setbacks for all dwellings in residential zones. The language had previously required additional distance from property lines, but the state prohibits regulations for accessory units that are more restrictive than those for primary dwellings. For this reason, the maximum height of accessory dwelling units would be the same as those of primary residences in each residential zone.
Despite some initial confusion on the matter, Buck said the state allows municipalities to place a limit of one accessory dwelling unit per property. As such, that regulation was added back into the document. Planning Board member Bradley Gregory said that, while he was originally not in favor of blocking more than one accessory dwelling unit per property, however he had since learned that Freddie Mac, one of the largest mortgage lenders in the country allowed a single accessory dwelling unit.
Buck said the town attorney had concerns that requiring a detailed site plan for the units would run afoul of the state’s prohibition on restrictive regulations. She said he was “advising caution.”
Building Inspector John Walsh told the board that the site plan review provision of Monson’s accessory dwelling unit bylaw had been “shut down” by the state, however, Planning Board member John McCloskey said East Longmeadow had included a similar requirement in its bylaw and added that it was allowed under the state’s guidelines. Gregory said he was “uncomfortable” with requiring a site plan review.
“We want a win-win,” said Planning Board member John “Jack” Luttrell. “I want my grandchildren to afford a house, yet we don’t want some willy-nilly [accessory dwelling units].”
Resident JP McGrath said site plan reviews were needed. He noted that RJ Chapdelaine, a local contractor, had questions about the accessory dwelling unit he hoped to build. A novice would know even less about what is allowed under the bylaw.
Resident Jeff Smith also spoke in favor of a site plan review requirement to provide Wilbraham with more control over the units. He said the state was “painting” municipalities with “a very broad brush” and called it state “overreach.” Another resident agreed.
Select Board member Marc Ducey attended the meeting and said, “My biggest concern is protecting the rights of existing property owners in Wilbraham. I just don’t want to infringe on any abutter.”
Planning Board Chair James Rooney pointed out that the board had conducted three site plan reviews earlier during the meeting and it had taken less than an hour. “Our site plan review is not that complicated.” He said he did not see a need to create a separate process for accessory dwelling units.
As of the meeting, the state Attorney General’s office had not responded to a request for feedback on the bylaw. Awaiting that feedback, the public hearing was continued again until March 5.
