DALTON, Mass. — There are too many questions that need to be answered before the Planning Board can vote on amending its accessory dwelling unit bylaw to include movable tiny homes. 

 

Unanswered concerns surround the tax implications of changing the bylaw to include them as vehicles or as real estate. 

 

Town Planner Janko Tomasic said he had contacted the town assessor for feedback but has not yet received a response. 

 

Douglas Smith, the founder of Beechwood Tiny Homes in New Hampshire, attended the meeting last week to answer any questions the board may have had. 

 

"I know on our planning board, we do not have anything to do with taxes. Why is that relevant to the planning board in Massachusetts? Is that something you folks are responsible for in your state," Smith asked.

 

Board member Don Davis clarified that he does not feel comfortable amending a bylaw that will cause issues for other departments in the future. 

 

"It seems to me [referring to Davis off camera] I hear taxes, and I hear movable, so this is a typical [not in my back yard] response that we've come across in all the advocacy that I do," ADU subcommittee member Amy Turnbull said. 

 

Davis emphasized several times throughout the discussion that he is not against tiny homes. He just wants to wait until he has the facts and information before making decisions.

 

He even pointed out that he helped a friend move their tiny house from North Carolina to Lake George, N.Y., and described it as "a beautiful tiny house." 

 

Tensions were high during the Wednesday meeting due to confusion over a motion not to vote on amending the bylaw. 

 

Board member Jarred Mongeon opened the discussion with an update that Great Barrington adopted language in its ADU bylaw to include moveable tiny homes as accessory dwellings. They allow ADUs by right in every zone. 

 

"A movable, tiny home connected to electricity, water, sewer, and septic that has its chassis, wheels, and hitch concealed shall be considered an accessory dwelling," Mongeon said. 

 

Mongeon also updated the board that on Aug. 6, the state updated its law to allow accessory dwelling units without local zoning approval if they meet certain requirements. This state law would not go into effect until February 2025.

 

"We find that there are certain parameters within the new state law that are different from ours, so we're going to have to address that because we cannot be more restrictive than the state one. We can be less restrictive, but we cannot be more restrictive," he said. 

 

When opening up the discussion, Mongeon emphasized that he is not looking for a vote on amending the bylaw to include movable tiny homes. He just wanted to start the discussion. 

 

"I don't want to go vote on nothing or talking about it myself unless I actually see the new rules and regulations that come out, so I make a motion to table this until we actually have the documents," Davis said. 

 

Based on the discussion with the ADU subcommittee, Mongeon recommended that the board use Great Barrington as an example for its bylaw changes. 

 

He said the subcommittee wanted to open discussions about adopting the language that Great Barrington did and including moveable tiny homes as an option for ADUs. 

 

Davis again emphasized that he feels uncomfortable adopting "anybody's information" until he has read the new laws. 

 

Mongeon noted that the state law has nothing to do with movable tiny homes but said he understands the objection and a decision does not need to be made today. 

 

Turnbull said she is frustrated because this topic has been tabled for the last three monthly meetings. 

 

"I had brought a presenter [Smith] here through the subcommittee, and you shut us down. I'm very, very embarrassed about that. Here's a gentleman who took time out of his day, and you shut him down," Turnbull said. 

 

Board chair Vice Chair Zack McCain III pointed out that Smith did not give a presentation and attended the meeting to answer any of the board’s questions. 

 

During the meeting, Smith reiterated what had been explained during previous meetings — that tiny homes, even though they are on wheels, are not the same as mobile homes or recreational vehicles and are built to a similar standard as regular homes. 

 

The tiny home industry is facing a lot of challenges due to the conflicting regulations with different agencies like the state Department of Housing and Urban Development and the American National Standards Institute, Smooth said. 

 

There is a lot of "finger-pointing in the industry," and there is confusion about who is responsible for regulating tiny homes, he said. 

 

"However, as a builder, I use a service from [National Organization of Alternative Housing Inc.] and they do offer a dwelling standard. We, as builders, build those tiny homes as close as we possibly can to an actual home," Smith said. 

 

Turnbull said she has already received an offer from NOAA to attend a future meeting if necessary.