It’s nearly impossible these days to get approval for even the humble in-law apartment thanks to the housing snobs who call the shots in too many Boston-area suburbs and towns.
Greater Boston is facing the worst housing crisis in decades, with middle-class families steadily being priced out of the region. The area needs more housing of all kinds, including what are now called accessory dwelling units, but which most of us would simply refer to as in-law apartments.
And what are Boston area suburbs and towns doing? In too many cases, they are making it hard if not impossible for homeowners to build these mini apartments, whether to put a roof over grandma’s head or to simply bring in some badly needed rental income during retirement. That’s the finding of a new report by the Pioneer Institute, which teamed up with the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance to look at the various and sundry roadblocks communities too often throw in the path of homeowners looking to build a small addition or convert that room over the garage into in-law apartment.
The report looked at 100 suburbs and towns around Boston. Of these, 32 have no zoning for accessory dwelling units and 31 restrict them to family and relatives.
Of the remaining 37 towns and suburbs, many have piled on so many restrictions and caveats that it’s nearly impossible to get approval to build an addition or a small cottage or mini apartment in the backyard.
Nearly half of these communities limit in-law apartments to homes on lots of a certain size, with Manchester-by-the-Sea demanding they be twice the minimum size. With minimum lot sizes in town ranging up to 2 acres, you can see the problem.
Medfield restricts accessory units to homes built before 1938, while in Burlington, only homes that were at least 1,800 square feet as of 1989 qualify.
Weston only allows accessory dwelling units in homes that are at least 3,000 square feet – apparently you have to be well off to enjoy this perk – while Belmont has limited them to detached historic structures, such as carriage houses. How quaint and how very impractical.
Even middle-class Dedham refuses to give homeowners a break, limiting in-law apartments to homes on lots that are at least 10 percent above the minimum lot size, even though most homes in town are on even smaller, non-conforming lots, the Pioneer report notes.
Scott Van Voorhis
Pathetic Levels of Permitting
Even a modest loosening of all the restrictions towns and suburbs have created over the years could yield thousands of badly needed new apartments.
As it stands now, Boston-area communities on average are granting a pathetic 2.5 permits a year for new in-law apartment. Doubling that number to five permits a year would add another 5,000 new apartments over the next decade, the report notes.
Yet it’s not for lack of trying. Housing advocates have been pushing suburbs and towns to loosen restrictions on accessory dwelling units for two decades.
They’ve had some successes here and there. Hamilton used to require that a home sit on a ludicrous 10-acre lot before an accessory dwelling unit could be added – now any old lot will do. Newton, Carlisle and Lexington all now allow accessory units in detached structures while easing on up on other restrictions as well.
But misguided efforts to protect so-called “neighborhood character” are holding far many more towns and suburbs back.
More than a few towns spell it all out in their zoning plans, making clear they intend to keep everyone from homeowners to developers from spoiling the feel and look of their communities.
The Pioneer report highlights some telling examples, like this one from Sudbury’s master plan – the emphasis added is mine: “A significant aspect of Sudbury’s charm and character is derived from its rural/suburban feeling. Becoming more like towns nearer Boston would not be considered progress.”
Or for that matter, Newton’s “Comprehensive Plan,” which states that homeowners “living in predominantly single-family areas generally wish them to stay that way.”
It goes on to spell out just exactly what that means, warning against being “marginally blurred into resembling the mixed single- and two-family” – Horrors! – “nor to be compromised by large-scale multifamily developments being plopped into their midst.”
Or Wayland’s 2016 plan that warns against apartment development in residential neighborhoods “because of concerns that it would alter the single-family character of most of Wayland’s neighborhoods.”
For these and many other suburbs, rental units, even modest, accessory or in-law units, are just too down market to contemplate.
Kudos to those communities that have opened their doors to accessory units, but the reality is we have a statewide housing emergency on our hands. Taking a town-by-town approach could take decades to result in substantial change. Statewide legislation is needed to make in-law and accessory units much easier to get approval for and build.
Frankly, every homeowner in the state should have the option of adding space for a modest apartment or building a separate structure.
At a time when home prices and rents are once again hitting all-time records, it’s a modest lifeline that could help seniors stay in their homes or get that young college graduate next door out of the basement.
After all, given the hash our state and local leaders have made out of the housing market, it’s the least they can do.
Scott Van Voorhis is Banker & Tradesman’s columnist; opinions expressed are his own. He may be reached at sbvanvoorhis@hotmail.com.
