Pushback: Cluster, but not clutter

Al Norman

Al Norman

By AL NORMAN

Published: 10-29-2024 2:01 PM

Greenfield has written its open space/cluster development zoning ordinance three times. The concept of “more houses on less land” is attractive — but apparently not so much to developers. Our first open space ordinance — for lots 5 acres and up — dates back to at least 1989. Our Town Council amended it in 2007, and a third time three weeks ago.

In 35 years, only one cluster development has been built in Greenfield: Silver Crest project, 18 years ago. The new cluster development likely won’t elicit much response either, but it offers some important guidance for “open space” on smaller lots.

One of the purposes of Greenfield zoning is to “encourage housing for persons of all income levels.” But there are three lesser-known purposes of zoning: 1) “to prevent the overcrowding of land”; 2) “to avoid undue concentration of population”; and 3) “to facilitate the adequate provision of open space.”

The newest cluster zoning iteration creates “common open space,” which provides that all land not devoted to dwellings, roads or other development will “preserve land in essentially its natural condition.” But what about open space on much smaller parcels than the house lots that many of us live on? How will we prevent “the overcrowding of land” to “avoid undue concentration of population” on very small parcels?

Open space is precious on small lots, too. It’s where we plant our gardens, where the kids play, or just open yards. One city councilor told me: “Yards are not ‘open space’ in the same way as a forest. A yard with a lawn planted with grass is an ecological dead zone for native wildlife … Yards are basically an aesthetic preference.” But our zoning defines “open space” as “ground space other than that occupied by structures, walkways, drives, parking or other impervious surface.” A lawn is open space.

Last August, the state bulldozed the definition of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), replacing it with two new mandates: Principal dwellings or ADUs (900 square foot maximum) no longer have to be “owner-occupied,” and no longer require special permits for the first ADU on a lot.

Granny flats are still possible, but they compete with landlords or investment companies with the cash to buy up single-family homes, convert them into two- or three-family dwellings, plus erect an ADU in the backyard. You could wake up one morning to find the single-family house next door being converted “by right” into four dwellings with no abutter notice. If just 10% of the single-family homes in Massachusetts added an ADU, our neighborhoods would be crowded by 170,000 backyard ADUs. The Metro Area Planning Council says suburban communities, where lot sizes are bigger, “ranging from 1 acre to 3 acres or larger, these lots could easily accommodate an ADU.” But many Greenfield housing lots are smaller than a half-acre.

In 2020, the City Council agreed with me that detached ADUs should require a special permit. But Greenfield’s proposed ADU draft requires only a site plan review for detached ADUs. It says ADUs will add “moderately priced rental units,” yet these rents may be more than low-income people can afford. The ADU ordinance allows the Planning Board to grant a “hardship waiver” of any ADU standards, such as reducing the setbacks from neighbors’ homes.

There have been few ADUs approved in Greenfield over the past decade, in part because very few homeowners have $250,000 to build an ADU, which will raise their property taxes by $5,097, plus water, sewer bills, and another homeowner’s insurance policy. If the ownership of the principal dwelling and the ADU become divided, under state condo law, all units must become owner-occupied.

On Sept. 30, 104 Greenfield voters submitted a zoning petition calling or the following changes to our local ADU rules:

■A minimum lot size for an ADU.

■A minimum open space requirement for ADU lots.

■No use of ADUs for short-term rentals.

The new state law goes into effect on Feb. 2. ADUs will be subject to site plan reviews, and clarified dimensional regulations. ADUs and cluster developments don’t address our major housing challenge: to expand homeownership. We need a coalition of public and private funding sources (banks/credit unions) to offer grants and low-interest loans to homebuyers, along with a focused initiative on living wage jobs.

I urge residents to speak out at the two meetings left on ADUs: Nov. 7 at 6:30 p.m., the Planning Board ADU public hearing at John Zon Center; and Nov. 20 at 6:30 p.m., the City Council vote.

Al Norman’s Pushback column is published in the Recorder the first and third Wednesdays of the month.