Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 3/7/2023
SOUTH HADLEY – The Planning Board opened a public hearing during their Feb. 27 meeting to discuss proposing articles to Town Meeting for the purpose of creating a new Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Zoning Bylaw.
The board held back on voting until their next meeting but completed the hearing where they received much feedback from residents on the proposed bylaw.
ADUs are small houses or apartments that exist on the same property lot as a single-family residence and have come to play a role in serving the national housing need in recent years.
Director of Planning and Conservation Anne Capra noted during her opening comments of the public hearing that the drafting of this bylaw on ADUs came from the town looking to update their housing production plan, a plan communities typically create every 5 to 7 years to lay out inventories of housing stock and then understand how that housing meets the needs of residents based on income, family size, etc.
“The [current drafted] bylaw defines an ADU specifically as not larger in floor area than half the floor area of the principal dwelling, or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller,” Capra explained.
Capra continued and broke down the different types of ADU between an attached or detached unit. An attached ADU would be any scenario like interior of the lower level of basement, built above the garage, an attached garage conversion.
A detached ADU as defined in their bylaw writing is described more as being separate and more than five feet from the principal dwelling.
Capra also explained that current state requirements have made it so communities must meet a 10 percent threshold of affordable housing units that make up their housing market. According to data shared during her presentation, South Hadley current has 5.6 percent of affordable housing units within town.
The state efforts have led Capra and the Planning Board to explore ways to create affordable housing in the community. She noted that the South Hadley housing market sees high rates and lack of rentals available. When learning more about ADUs, it provided a potential solution for South Hadley residents and in this instance that could work in conjunction in creating affordable housing options in town.
Capra noted during her presentation that since ADUs make use of the existing infrastructure and housing stock, they’re also environmentally friendly and respectful of a neighborhood’s pace and style. She added the ADU’s intended market will be working class as well as seniors.
Benefits listed that would come from the proposed bylaw include increasing the supply of smaller housing stock for smaller households, creating a wider range of homes, prices, rents and locations, increasing diversity and reverse decades of exclusionary zoning, provide homeowners with extra income to meet rising homeownership costs, diverse the local tax base, and provide more compact urban and suburban growth.
When opened up to public comment, resident Linda Young questioned how affordable housing would specifically be coming out of allowing ADUs. Capra said the ADUs would not create deed restricted affordable housing, but the point was allowing small units that may be rented and made available at a lower cost than a larger unit to do so.
“There is a need in South Hadley for a range of housing at multiple lower price points. Some of them may in fact be deed restricted, through other projects,” Capra said. “The fact is there’s a lot of people in our community that would actually qualify for deed restricted housing if we had more of it, but we don’t. So we need to continue to work at creating other types of housing that potentially would be available at more ‘little a’ affordable prices.”
Capra explained during her opening comments that capital ‘A’ Affordable housing is defined as deed restricted units that must meet income qualification while little ‘a’ affordable housing are housing units that are not deed restricted but have rental or ownership rates that meet middle income and workforce median household incomes.
Young agreed this need for the town was valid but said she did not think it was going to be solved through ADUs. She also asked the board why there was not a minimum size requirement listed in the draft of the bylaw to which Planning Board Chair Brad Hutchison responded saying they were not trying to discriminate or be exclusionary toward people with smaller homes.
“But that really puts a lot of density into neighborhoods. That’s my feeling anyway, I think there should be a minimum size…” Young said. “I am definitely against the detached. I don’t understand that at all for South Hadley and I think we’re really creating a mess with that.”
Another resident expressed concern about mobile homes being under the state’s definition of “dwelling units” and if they were allowed on properties it would decrease homeowners values.
“A homeowner right to the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of his or her home could be severely compromised or taken away by second houses in people’s back and side yards,” the resident said.
Capra provided clarity to the resident’s question and noted while the definition at the state level was correct, the definition of an ADU in the town’s draft bylaw does not include mobile homes and differentiates as an accessory dwelling unit, so they would not be permissible.
Martha Terry from the South Hadley Zoning Board of Appeals argued eliminating the detached option in the bylaw was the key to meeting the goals of creating the bylaw. She also argued the current writing in the draft did not leave a well-defined use of detached dwelling units and that it could lead to many issues.
“Detached accessory dwelling units open up an entirely new set of concerns and issues,” Terry said.
Terry further explained that the privacy of homeowners could be impacted as well as property values. She asked for “simplicity and consistency” of a bylaw and felt detached accessory dwelling unit was an incorrect option for the town’s problem.
Terry said the term ADU was misleading and should be “conversion of a single-family house to a two family home with an accessory dwelling unit.” Her main argument was that looking at the single-family zoning districts as the space to incorporate new ideas for affordable housing was wrong.
She noted through many conversations with residents about these ADU discussions that was some disconnect on what is exactly coming out of the proposed bylaw.
“Many people assume that an ADU means just a portion of the house where an in-law or relative stays. When I explained the true meaning of an ADU, a permanent change to a single-family house, a homeowner can rent to anyone. Not just relatives. Many people change their minds,” Terry said. “I’m not sure they favor such a permanent change to their neighborhoods so I would like for future reference, any reference to an ADU to reflect the true nature of what’s happening in the proposed bylaw…Let’s call it what it really is.”
Terry said with the current proposed draft that adding a detached ADU on a residential property would have the principal dwelling no longer be just a single-family space as often people just end up renting out the space instead of using it for reasons like family.
“I think this is a stretch or an over extension of the intent of the bylaw,” Terry said.
Resident Robert Salthouse said he applauded the board’s effort to create housing diversity and reducing exclusionary zoning but agreed the detached portion seemed unnecessary. He agreed the housing needs could not be met with just one approach but felt a combination of new apartments, new apartment buildings, new multifamily housing and conversion should suffice instead of detached dwelling units.
“Once this is allowed, there’s no going back. Allowing detached units assumes a zero-sum game which threatens to reduce the attractiveness and affordability of our town to all residents, current or future, whatever income level and background,” Salthouse said.
Salthouse noted with the town’s efforts already in growing Smart Growth zoning districts that these areas may be better suited for the detached ADU potential and that brining it into the residential zoning seemed not in the best interest of residents.
Salthouse suggested a slight revision to the draft that changes the language making it so instead of having to share the same lot, the ADU has to be “sharing the same building as the principal dwelling.”
“We all want South Hadley to be a welcoming community for everyone with housing available to all residents or future residents of the Greater Springfield area and I don’t see how we can meet that goal by making the community less attractive with substandard housing,” Salthouse said.
Board member Nate Therien said he felt close to being ready to move forward on voting to bring the proposed bylaw to Town Meeting. He added he was curious after hearing comments form the public what other members thought was the best course of action and what changes needed to be made in their current draft.
Board member Mike Davis said he thought a detached house can be surrounded by courtyards and landscaping that would enhance the appearance of the site. He felt the notion from public comment that any detached unit would create a “blight” on the neighborhood was more of a worse case scenario fear than grounded in what commonly happens.
Vice Chair Diane Mulvaney agreed with Davis and noted prefab houses have improved in design and look over the years and that there are great options that don’t ruin a residential property. She said there were great arguments on both sides of attached only or including detached units and that this was the biggest discussion that would be had going forward.
Hutchison added agreed with his fellow board members line of thinking and thought the detached provisions were an “essentially part of this bylaw.”
“I think the detached, as Mike Davis said, is the most flexible and certainly from a fire separation standpoint the easiest to implement,” Hutchison said.
Board Clerk Joanna Brown said as much as Hutchison felt like he wanted the detached provision in the bylaw, she felt the opposite way.
“I think the defining characteristic for me is that we do have different zones in our town and A1 housing is to my mind a very, very special component of what we have here,” Brown said. “When I look in my backyard I can walk down in my backyard and see seven houses worth, it’s a clear view and the other way four or five houses, it’s a clear view. There’s a really pronounced sense of continuity, shared landscape and vista and beauty, or quiet and privacy.”
Brown added if detached ADUs were allowed they would “blow A1 zoning out of the water” and felt it was taking away from homeowners who purchased their homes due to the residential area. She asked fellow board members where the rush was coming from in trying to enact the bylaw now.
After the discussion, the board voted to close the public hearing. No vote was taken as the board agreed giving it a week before their first March meeting to review feedback and potential changes to the draft was needed before voting on bringing it to Town Meeting.