Affordable Homes Act
Governor Maura Healey has presented the Affordable Homes Act to the legislature for review and potential implementation, as announced in her latest State of the Commonwealth address. Among its provisions, one aspect of this proposed legislation is the allowance of "Accessory Dwelling Units" (ADUs) in all residential zoning districts statewide, designated as an "as of right" provision, which is subject to amendments and the likely implementation of local zoning bylaws or ordinances which are subject to review by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) and the Attorney General’s Bylaw Review department. Historically, ADUs have been known by various names such as in-law apartments or granny flats. Notably, the Affordable Homes Act contains the following language regarding this matter:
SECTION 12. Section 1A of chapter 40A of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2022 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out the definition of “Accessory Dwelling Unit” and inserting in place thereof the following definition: “Accessory dwelling unit”, a self-contained housing unit, inclusive of sleeping, cooking and sanitary facilities on the same lot as a principal dwelling, subject to otherwise applicable dimensional and parking requirements, that (i) maintains a separate entrance, either directly from the outside or through an entry hall or corridor shared with the principal dwelling sufficient to meet the requirements of the state building code for safe egress; (ii) is not larger in gross floor area than 1/2 the gross floor area of the principal dwelling or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller; and (iii) is subject to such additional restrictions as may be imposed by a municipality, including but not limited to additional size restrictions, and restrictions or prohibitions on short-term rental, as defined in section 1 of chapter 64G; provided, however, that no municipality shall unreasonably restrict the creation or rental of an accessory dwelling unit that is not a short-term rental.
SECTION 13. Section 3 of said chapter 40A of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph:”No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit, unreasonably restrict, or require a special permit or other discretionary zoning approval for the use of land or structures for an accessory dwelling unit, or the rental thereof, in a single-family residential zoning district; provided, that the use of land or structures for an accessory dwelling unit under this paragraph may be subject to reasonable regulations, including but not limited to 310 CMR 15.000 et seq., if applicable, site plan review, regulations concerning dimensional setbacks and the bulk and height of structures and may be subject to restrictions and prohibitions on short-term rental as defined in section 1 of chapter 64G.The use of land or structures for an accessory dwelling unit under this paragraph shall not require owner occupancy of either the accessory dwelling unit or the principal dwelling; provided further, that not more than 1 additional parking space shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit; and provided further, that no additional parking space shall be required for an accessory dwelling located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station. The executive office of housing and livable communities may issue guidelines or promulgate regulations to carry out the purposes of this paragraph.”
Millbury should consider proactively amending its zoning bylaw to include such additional provisions should the Affordable Homes Act be enacted by the state legislature, which it seems likely it will. Some recommended topics to consider based upon research into the Los Angeles and Silicon Valley models that Governor Maura Healey referenced, but provided no specifics, are the following.
Property setbacks should align with the existing setbacks designated for the zoning district. While California mandates a 4-foot setback from side and rear property lines, the front setback for the zoning district applies, these may not be suitable for Massachusetts or Millbury.
Limit the maximum height of an ADU to 16 feet and a single story.
Detached ADUs should be positioned on a plane projected across the property behind the rear wall of the existing dwelling, with an additional setback to comply with the Massachusetts Comprehensive Fire Code for structure separation.
Interior space must adhere to the Massachusetts State Building Code standards for living, sleeping, cooking, and bathrooms, including essential fixtures.
A minimum of one standard off-street parking space as stipulated in the Affordable Homes Act bill.
All utility connections, such as electricity, water, sewer, and communications (e.g., telephone and broadband internet), must be separate and independent of the existing dwelling and installed underground.
No lot size minimum.
No owner occupancy requirement.
Not more than one ADU per property.
Additional examples or provisions from other jurisdictions may offer valuable insights for consideration. As California, the southwestern, and northwestern United States exhibit distinct development patterns unlike those of New England, it's crucial to recognize these disparities. Consequently, any additional zoning requirements should be aligned with the development norms of Massachusetts and Millbury, within reasonable bounds.
Other residents may have other thoughts or ideas that they would like to share with the Millbury Planning Board, as the board and public are currently in the process of public hearing for recommending amendments to the Millbury Zoning Bylaw. Therefore, this effort should be combined with this current effort and the creation of a zoning district to comply with the state mandated MBTA Inclusionary Zoning.
Who could benefit from building or flying in an ADU?
Cost-Effective Alternative: Hosting aging parents in an ADU could be more affordable than assisted living, tailored to their required level of care, or who may need some financial assistance.
Childcare Savings: Transform your ADU into a convenient living space for parents, allowing them to assist with childcare and potentially reducing daycare costs.
On-Site Caregiver Accommodation: With an ADU, you can offer separate housing for caregivers right on your property, ensuring close and accessible support for your loved ones.
Income Generation: Unlock the potential for extra revenue by renting out your ADU to tenants, accommodating family members, or utilizing it as guest quarters, adding to your monthly income stream.
Separate Living Spaces: Navigate divorce, separation, or partnership changes seamlessly with an ADU, allowing you to maintain ownership of your property while providing separate living quarters until the market aligns with your investment goals.
Flexible Work Environment: Transform your ADU into a dynamic space suitable for a home office, art studio for creative endeavors, recording podcasts or videos, or any other bespoke need, offering a versatile solution tailored to your lifestyle.
Empowering Independence: Offer your adult child the opportunity for independent living in an ADU while ensuring peace of mind with parents nearby to offer any needed support, fostering a balanced and supportive environment for their growth and well-being.
Pros and Cons of Being a Landlord with an ADU:
Pros:
Income Generation Opportunity: Renting out an ADU can provide a steady stream of income, supplementing your finances.
Potential for Positive Tenant Relationship: With the right tenant, you can establish a mutually beneficial arrangement, fostering a harmonious living situation.
Cons:
Strong Tenant Rights: Massachusetts laws heavily favor tenants, potentially complicating eviction processes and landlord-tenant disputes.
Risk of Problematic Tenants: Dealing with difficult tenants can be challenging and may require time and effort to resolve, impacting your peace of mind and daily routine.
To lay out a plan to accommodate additional living spaces and address the housing crisis, there are numerous factors to consider. Nonetheless, employing thoughtful and creative solutions can effectively tackle these challenges. It's akin to a balancing act, as with many contemporary issues. Nevertheless, prioritizing proactive planning over reactive measures can significantly impact the development of a solution that benefits the majority without causing excessive disruption. Given that the proposed legislation in the bill adopts an "as of right" mandate, which represents the state's new forced compliance model, it is imperative to identify a solution that aligns with the needs of our community seamlessly.
Subsidized Housing Inventory
It's important to highlight that the addition of extra housing units results in a reduction of the state-mandated Subsidized Housing Units (SHI), thereby increasing the difficulty of meeting the 10% threshold necessary for Safe Harbor status, notably, a status where no new affordable housing units are mandated. Less than 23% of communities across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, attaining SHI status remains a formidable challenge. This is chiefly attributed to Chapter 40B's status as an unfunded mandate, the shifting target for compliance, the requirement of a minimum of 25% affordable units, and the previous practice of affordable units expiring within 15-25 years. Affordable housing initiatives necessitate a novel approach. Although the Affordable Homes Act will certainly introduce essential housing units, it also brings forth challenges that require careful consideration. While drawing inspiration from housing models in Los Angeles and Silicon Valley, it's imperative to customize solutions that address both market-rate and affordable housing needs while aligning with the unique characteristics of our community. The state legislature's one-size-fits-all approach, which has been previously implemented, may not effectively resolve issues and could potentially exacerbate or create new challenges. Since its enactment in 1969, 55± years ago, Chapter 40B has remained largely unchanged despite significant shifts in our communities' needs. Therefore, a comprehensive reassessment is imperative. Although attempts to repeal Chapter 40B have been made, they were met with strong opposition from developers and major donors. This is because Chapter 40B permits developers to construct market-rate apartments at a ratio of 75%, while only mandating 25% affordable units, which many perceive as not truly affordable, while potentially being able to circumvent, certain local zoning bylaws, such as height, density, and parking requirements.