Pittsfield Looks to Update Zoning for ADUs

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Accessory dwelling units will be by-right in early 2025 and the city wants to be prepared.

On Tuesday, the Community Development Board voted to become the petitioner for amendments to the City Code that reflect the new ADU legislation. City Planner Kevin Rayner has crafted a draft ordinance that the board will dig into before it goes to the City Council.

As a part of the $4.1 billion Affordable Homes Act signed into law over the summer, ADUs up to 900 square feet can be built by right in single-family zoning districts.

"This legislation will go into effect February 2, 2025, so we're trying to get our ordinance to accommodate ADUs by that point," Rayner said.

"Our ordinance wasn't prohibitive against accessory dwelling units, but we do need to up our dimensional requirements to kind of accommodate for them as they are, sort of like an accessory structure, in a way but they have some different requirements because they are being used as a dwelling."

The city plans to allow ADUs in a one- to two-family residential use, allowing for duplexes that meet other requirements to have one.

Most of the amendments will take place in Article 23 Section 9.101, which outlines restrictions for accessory buildings.  

"They're mostly dimensional. We're going to make it so that maybe you can't take up more than 20 percent of the lot coverage," Rayner said.

"We are going to have it be 20 feet from the rear lot line and the logic behind that is, like we said in the previous discussion, accessory structures can go from 10 feet all the way up the lot line as long as they meet fire code and we figured because it's a dwelling, because somebody's living there, you wouldn't want somebody right up against your rear property line who is occupying and living in that dwelling."

Under the current code, an ADU in a residential district cannot exceed 15 feet in height, cannot be located closer than 10 feet to the principal building, and cannot occupy more than 10 percent of the total lot.

"We've also talked about height in there, the accessory structure height is 15 feet and we have kept that standard in the ADU but it is amendable for a special permit," Rayner explained.

"So if they wish to go higher, or if there's an existing structure that they're putting an ADU in and that is over 15 feet that can be overcome with a special permit. The special permit granting authority in that case we've decided will be the Zoning Board of Appeals, unless that property is in the downtown Creative District, where then it would be this board."



He reported that one ADU is by right but any additional ADU will require a special permit.

"Each ADU will require one additional on-site parking spot to compensate for the increase in the dwelling," he added.

"And we've kept the size requirement consistent with the state legislation, which says it will be half the gross floor area of the principal structure or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller."

The state gave the option to allow short-term rentals to be ADUs, which the city has taken up.

"We’ve decided that we don't want to prohibit short-term rental ADUs," Rayner said.

"And the logic with that is, if you have an ADU on your property, the owner might go into an ADU and then rent out the main structure."

Board member Matthew Herzberg asked how the ordinance will work in districts with a form-based code, explaining that in some cases, it may be more permissive than what is written.  Rayner said that it should be allowed by right in residential areas but the city doesn’t want to be prohibitive and this will be considered.

The parking requirement may be something to look at, board member Libby Herland added, especially in the Downtown Creative District.

Also on the agenda was a discussion about short-term rentals, which is popping up all over Berkshire County. Rayner explained that these are trickier than ADUs.

"Short-term rentals are a little bit more tricky than the ADUs in how they are going to be regulated and how certain different departments within the city government will interact with each other in terms of short-term rentals," he explained.

"And so we wanted to take a step back and make sure our draft was a good place before we brought it before the board. We do anticipate that that draft will be ready by the December meeting."


Tags: ADU,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Fenton: Governor's Council Must Deliver for the Berkshires

Community submissionGuest Column
I am a Springfield lawyer running for Governor's Council and I am asking for Berkshire County residents to support me over an incumbent from North Adams. 
 
Here's why: Last year I learned about staffing issues in our regional courts that I could not ignore. In 2025, it was reported that four of Western Massachusetts' 11 Superior Court judgeships were vacant, all at the same time. A few weeks later, that grew to five vacancies. This meant there were only six Superior Court judges serving all of Western Mass at a time when Berkshire, Hampshire, Franklin, and Hampden counties had more than 100 pending homicide cases. 
 
Those numbers were alarming to me, so I started to engage with leaders in the community who work most closely with the court system and I came to learn that these vacancies were only the tip of the iceberg here in Berkshire County.
 
I learned that no Superior Court or District Court judge had been appointed from the Berkshires since the current incumbent took office. As a result, there is not a single Superior Court judge who lives in the Berkshires today, and several of the District Court judges drive in from other counties to support Berkshire courts in Pittsfield, Great Barrington, and North Adams. Court staff also informed me about severe staffing shortages at the Berkshire Clerk of Courts office resulting in other counties needing to loan staff to the Berkshires just so hardworking employees can take a brief and planned summer vacation. This is not normal. These issues are a reflection of genuine problems with the Berkshire County court system and show a lack of proactive attention from our Governor's Councilor.
 
Instead of focusing on regional equity, I watched as the current incumbent celebrated that she has voted against the governor's nominees more than any other councilor, without much explanation as to why. Most recently, she voted against two extremely qualified former prosecutors for the Parole Board. This was despite an in-person plea from the governor and a letter of support from all the three of the district attorney's from Western Mass. Those votes do not show independence or standing up for principles, they demonstrate naivete, and an unwillingness to work with the key stakeholders.
 
I had seen and heard enough. I decided to jump in the race and challenge the incumbent to address these problems head-on.
 
I am a partner of a regional law firm. I understand our courts and the importance of having qualified, fair and hardworking judges. And I know how important it is to have judges from the Berkshires serving the Berkshires. To achieve that, you need strong relationships with the legal community and local stakeholders. You need to know how to use the power of the Governor's Council to fight forcefully for our region. And you need to be laser focused on identifying vacancies before they occur so that they can be filled quickly with local candidates.
 
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories