Have you ever wanted to add a home or workspace to your back yard? Well a Backyard Cottage might be for you! It is intended as a way to gently add a little more density to our city in a way that is not visible to most people.
However, Backyard Cottages (with capital letters because they have a specific definition in the zoning code) have been a surprisingly contentious issue since they were originally allowed in 2019. And lately the debate around them has flared up yet again with 5 related zoning amendments proposed in the last month.
But let’s start with how we got here.
When they were first introduced, it was hoped that by allowing housing as a use it would spur the creation of new, smaller affordable homes. To try to enforce the affordability aspect, the city required that the new home had to be Affordable to someone making 80% of the area median income (AMI). This turned out to not create much Affordable Housing: there were only 2 Backyard Cottages built over 4 years.
So in 2023, City Council made a change and removed the affordability requirement. This did finally spur some backyard cottages to be built. In conjunction with the easing of Triple Decker restrictions, we have seen some new Backyard Cottages as home builders opt to put 4 homes on a lot. For example, check out this one under construction at 192 Washington Street:
Now if you read the rules, this building may seem strangely large for an “accessory” building. It is about 1,700 square feet, with 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. It’s technically 1.5 stories, though the cross-gable roof gives it plenty of space for a functional 2nd floor and a finished basement adds even more space to the home.
There is a very active debate about “appropriate” size of homes. On one side, we hear stories of families with kids failing to find housing in Somerville. Some want smaller homes to reduce fiscal expenditures on schools. Others complain that new construction is all studios and 1-beds, which are too small for people “in our community.” Lastly, there are folks decrying large “luxurious” new homes, who want cheaper homes to be built. All these conflicting opinions are at the heart of the debate around Backyard Cottages.
Somerville YIMBY has some concerns with the current Backyard Cottage rules: they still require significant setbacks, meaning that buildings must be several feet away from the edges of the lot. Most setback rules are entirely reasonable, but the ones for Backyard Cottages make it nearly impossible to convert existing structures like backyard garages into Backyard Cottages. Many garages and carriage houses in Somerville would be perfect for conversion to housing, but they’re too close to lot lines and the city won’t allow a change in use even if the building remains the same.
That setback obstacle is one of the things Councilor Kristen Strezo’s amendment attempts to fix. We like this idea, because it makes it easier for existing homeowners to add a little more housing in their own back yards. Plus, converting existing buildings is cheaper than building from scratch so it may even result in cheaper homes.
However, there is one line in Councilor Strezo’s proposal that gives us some concern: the amendment limits the total square footage of a Backyard Cottage to 1,200 square feet. This seems like an attempt to create only smaller homes and therefore cheaper homes. But it runs a risk: if homeowners and home builders judge that they cannot make a profit on a home that size, it will not get built. Thus, like the earlier AMI requirement, it would defeat the goal of creating more housing.
Our recommendation would be to eliminate the maximum size, or at least increase the maximum to 1,600 square feet. This is also in line with the amendment’s proposed maximum floor plate of 800 square feet, and would allow for a simpler 2-story building under the proposed rules.
Meanwhile, some people have reacted more negatively to Backyard Cottage construction, and want to make them harder to build in the future. Last year, former City Councilor Denise Provost sued the city to challenge building permits issued for two cottages on a split lot near her home. The suit was over the size of the homes, which were similar in size and design to the one at 192 Washington St. The suit did not prevail and the construction continued.
Then, in March, four Zoning Amendments from lawyer and former City Councilor William White arrived at City Council. As indicated by the accompanying letter, these are direct responses to issues of the earlier lawsuit. They propose the following changes:
Change Backyard Cottages to be an “accessory building structure” instead of the current “accessory building type.” That would make it illegal to sell an ADU as a condo, and instead require all ADUs to be rentals with the same owner as the primary building.
Set a maximum square footage of Backyard Cottages to be the lesser of ½ the total area of the main building or 900 sqft. This would effectively ban three-bedroom “family size” ADUs.
Amend ZBA rules so that minor changes like lot splits require ZBA approval and public hearings. This would add an extra layer of discretionary review, delay, and cost to a broad range of actions.
For split lots, the total new construction must follow Inclusionary Zoning rules and provide 20% Affordable housing. This will reduce housing production by increasing costs, but may also create a trickle of Affordable homes.
It is interesting to see how different groups react to the same changes to our neighborhoods. Councilor Strezo went with a more moderate approach, proposing to restrict some types of construction while encouraging others. Meanwhile, former Councilors White and Provost are proposing only restrictions.
We must remember that with every home built, even if “luxury,” is another household not competing in the rest of the market and driving up prices for existing housing. And multiplying that effect over many new homes can be powerful.
We will be paying attention to how City Council and Land Use talks about these proposed amendments and how that they will remember the lessons of the original Backyard Cottage implementation and not neuter that source of housing for our city.
If you want to chime into the discussion publicly, Councilor Strezo’s amendment will likely be discussed at Land Use Committee tomorrow (March 19th).