West Stockbridge — Although some members of the West Stockbridge Planning Board said they had a better understanding of the new state laws regulating accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and short-term rentals (STRs) passed under the Commonwealth’s Affordable Homes Act last month, the group voted to delay amending their proposed local bylaws until more information is clarified about what the new measures entail. The new state law goes into effect in February.
Generally, STRs are units within a home or property rented for 31 consecutive days or less. An ADU is generally considered to be a rentable living space attached or detached to a single-family-home lot.
West Stockbridge currently doesn’t have regulations allowing STRs and ADUs within its borders. Before the legislature addressed these zoning categories in its Affordable Homes Act, the Planning Board approved relevant proposed bylaws July 15. In its proposal, the Planning Board’s STR provisions required: limiting the rental to not more than 30 consecutive days and 40 days annually, with an option for an additional 40 days by special permit; STRs to be registered with the town administrator; owner-adjacent units only; a local manager to be on site or able to respond within two hours, or 30 minutes for an emergency; adequate parking; and no signage or events. Its proposed ADU bylaw provisions require: the ADU be used in conjunction with a single-family home, or owner-occupied property; be a maximum of 900 square feet and not greater than 25 feet tall or exceed two stories; setback limits of the lot housing the ADU be met; and not allow recreational vehicles to serve as ADUs.
The continuance is the second for the Planning Board that has also sought the advice of local experts before proceeding. “As we said at the last meeting, there was a new state law passed or signed into effect that regulates ADUs and creates exemptions for ADUs,” said Planning Board Chair Dana Bixby. “We sought review from town counsel and also sought review from Berkshire Regional Planning Commission. At the last regular meeting, I expressed my frustration with this after having done the work we’ve had done.”
Bixby said the dais recently received an additional document from town counsel, KP Law, P.C., with “opinion and clarification about the meaning and intent” of the new legislation. However, that memorandum “wasn’t really completely helpful,” Bixby said, adding that she had “a minor understanding” of the state law impact on the local proposed bylaws.
The group agreed that the legislative regulations covering STRs weren’t as much of a change as those focused on ADUs. In discussing whether to advance an STR proposed bylaw while holding back the ADU proposed bylaw, Bixby acknowledged an advantage to releasing revisions to both the proposed STR and ADU bylaws at the same time including holding and providing notice for a single public hearing, as well as drafting one set of recommendations.
She listed how the proposed local bylaws could conform to the new state legislation. “Under the state law, we cannot limit ADUs to owner-occupied properties,” Bixby said, adding that the proposed local bylaw would have to eliminate that provision. She said the state law also allows the homeowner the right to have an ADU of less than 900 square feet in size, a provision that aligned with the Planning Board’s proposal, but the group differentiated between existing ADUs and to-be-constructed ADUs that may not be allowed by the new state law. Parking space allotment and requiring a special permit for ADUs on a nonconforming lot—including lot size and setback—are other areas in the local draft that may also be contrary to the state legislation, Bixby said.
“So, we can attempt to edit the ADU [proposal], move it forward, take a pass at getting it right, and have it move along with the STR [proposal],” she said. “Or we sit on it, and we do nothing until we have better clarification on what the allowable rules and regulations might be from the state.”
Bixby said she didn’t have any information as to when such clarification would be forthcoming and, should the proposals moved forward anyway, those local bylaws would conflict with state law. “It’s almost virtually impossible to be in compliance if you don’t know what the allowable rules and regulations, would be which we don’t know because no one can tell us,” she said.
Select Board Chair Andrew Potter announced that the Select Board will conduct a joint meeting on September 23 at 6 p.m. with the Planning Board, Affordable Housing Trust administrators, town counsel, and other experts to discuss the new legislative mandate. Once edited, the proposed STR and ADU bylaws will go to the Select Board for review before returning to the Planning Board to schedule a public hearing on the suggested measures.
Although a hearing on The Foundry’s proposed special permit amendment was scheduled for the Planning Board meeting, the session was continued for lack of a quorum to September 17 at 7:15 p.m.
