Proposed ADU Regulations Spark Debate Among Bridgewater Residents
Community & Economic Development Committee recommends new ADU regulations to Town Council
BRIDGEWATER - May 5 - The Bridgewater Community and Economic Development Committee has voted to recommend new accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations to the Town Council, despite concerns from some residents about potential impacts on neighborhoods and questions about the scope of the state law.
The committee voted 3-0 during its recent meeting to advance the Planning Board's recommendation that would allow ADUs primarily for single-family homes in residential AB, C and D Gateway and East Gateway districts.
ADUs, which are smaller residential units on the same lot as a primary dwelling, are being mandated by Massachusetts state law as part of efforts to address the housing crisis.
"The purpose of the state adopting this legislation was to promote more housing to address the housing crisis in the state," explained town planner Shane O'Brien.
The proposed regulations include several key provisions to address resident concerns. ADUs cannot be sold separately from the principal structure, must have their own connections to septic or sewer systems if detached, and cannot be used as short-term rentals like Airbnb.
"Our ordinance does not allow for these to be short-term rentals," O'Brien noted during the meeting.
Janet Hansen, a Pleasant Street resident, expressed mixed feelings about the regulations.
"I'm kind of in the middle of the road there. I'm not for this, but I guess it's state [law] that you don't necessarily get away from it," Hansen said. "I'm still concerned about where is it allowed? Is it allowed anywhere in town?"
Hansen worried about unexpected changes to neighborhoods. "If you buy a home and you see another nice home next to you, you're not anticipating that they're going to squish something else next to you," she said.
O'Brien assured residents that important safeguards remain in place. "They still have to meet the dimensional requirements in terms of setback and lot coverage," he said. "It's really no different than if they added a garage to their house after they moved in."
These dimensional requirements include setbacks that generally range from 15 to 30 feet depending on the zone, which dictate how close structures can be to property lines.
The most significant point of contention emerged from Kenneth Sear, who owns a four-unit building on Hemlock Drive classified as a legal, non-conforming structure. Sear challenged the town's interpretation that ADUs should be limited to single-family homes.
"I believe that I am entitled by state law to build an ADU on the property based on the definitions in 760 CMR 71," Sear said. "It defines principal dwelling as including a legal, non-conforming structure."
Sear cited guidance from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) that he believes supports his position. "The towns need to allow protected ADUs by right within or on lots with a principal dwelling. This includes single-family residential dwellings, duplexes, triple-deckers, multifamily buildings, and mixed-use residential buildings," he quoted.
O'Brien suggested referring the legal question to the town attorney, noting that if Sear is denied a building permit, he can appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
"Given some confusion, perhaps in the language from the state and what the town ordinance is, it might be prudent to have the town attorney offer an opinion on it as well," O'Brien said.
Sear indicated he plans to proceed with a building permit application regardless. "I am going to be going ahead and applying for the building permit because I can still qualify under state law. Even if you don't have the ordinances drafted yet, it has to default to the state law," he said.
Committee member Kevin Perry noted this approach allows for case-by-case consideration. "I think that allows us to take it as a case-by-case basis as well and just gives us a standard that the town can go by at least with the single-family home situation," Perry said.
The ADU regulations now move to the Town Council for final consideration, where the legal questions raised by Sear may receive further review from the town attorney before adoption.
The state law defines ADUs as a "protected use" similar to religious facilities, childcare facilities, and educational facilities under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, according to Sear.
In other business, the committee recommended withdrawing a tax increment financing (TIF) agreement for the former Broad Street Friendly's lot development project.
"There is no agreement currently in front of the council. There hasn't been an agreement negotiated," explained Bob Rulli, Community Economic Development Director. "We've established that we need to designate a TIF area, and that hasn't happened yet."
The committee unanimously voted to recommend withdrawal of the TIF agreement so it can be resubmitted later in the proper form as an ordinance, allowing for a public hearing and proper establishment of a TIF area.
Watch the complete meeting courtesy of the Town of Bridgewater.
This article was generated through use of artificial intelligence. Please contact us with any concerns regarding accuracy.