Letter: Amherst’s Jumbo ADUs Not Allowed in Deerfield’s New Bylaw
ADU under construction at 79 Taylor St. Photo: amherstma.gov
As highlighted in a story in today’s (7/28/26) Daily Hampshire Gazette, Deerfield’s proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) bylaw avoids a major loophole present in Amherst’s interpretation of state law.
Amherst’s interpretation exempts finished attics from gross floor area calculations, allowing developers to build multi-level ~1,200-square-foot “jumbo” ADUs—complete with attic bedrooms, bathrooms, and stairs—without triggering the owner-occupancy requirements standard for units of that size.
While the Gazette article didn’t explicitly note that finished attics are not exempt, that distinction is made clear in the Town of Deerfield, MA Code (Ch. 179 Zoning). Deerfield’s draft caps ADUs at 900 square feet (allowing up to 1,200 sq. ft. only by special permit) and explicitly excludes attics from floor area calculations only when they remain unfinished—stipulating that attic space with headroom of seven feet or more is counted toward living space and story limits.
By counting finished attic living space toward the unit’s total size limit, Deerfield prevents unmonitored mega-ADUs and avoids the zoning controversy, legal uncertainty, and state pushback currently facing Amherst.
Amherst officials previously claimed there was no way to avoid this interpretation under state law. Given that Deerfield has successfully navigated this issue, Amherst should promptly correct its error.
Ira Bryck
Ira Bryck has lived in Amherst since 1993, ran the Family Business Center for 25 years, hosted the “Western Mass. Business Show” on WHMP for seven years, now coaches business leaders, and is a big fan of Amherst’s downtown.
Attics have been used as living space at least since the sixteenth century with development of the Mansard Roof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansard_roof). There are a number of buildings in Amherst with Mansard Roofs. As Mr. Bryck acknowledges, “Amherst officials previously claimed there was no way to avoid this interpretation under state law.” Do not assume a court will uphold what Deerfield has enacted. The Town of Deerfeld is inviting litigation where the only sure winners will be the lawyers for the litigants. The best lawsuit is one you can avoid.
Our Town is playing games with semantics again! The clear intent of the bylaw allows two types of ADUs limited to 900 OR 1200 sf living space. Third floor finished and habitable space is not usually called an attic. Likewise storage space hasn’t been used for sleeping since the days of indentured servants and is usually called an attic.
Another reason we should never buried Town Meeting.😢
Did you ever seen a toddler cover their eyes and think no one can see them? This is what is happening here. The second level is a half floor. The Building Commissioner said so. “I have found that the ADU proposed and under construction at 27 Newell Court does not comply with the ZBL, because it is too large in square footage to be considered an attic.” (May 12, 2026 email from Rob Morra.) Pretending it’s an attic by calling it an attic doesn’t stop the second level from being a half floor. Building out less than the entire second floor area available doesn’t make that floor area disappear. IT IS STILL THERE. A half floor is countable as part of Gross Floor Area (GFA) A half floor also could be considered intermediate floored tier–also countable GFA–under our ADU bylaw.
What difference in your life does a 300 square foot difference in a nearby ADU make? Why are people so, so concerned about this? Genuinely curious.
This seems to be another notch in the long history of a very vocal group of Amherst residents that are overly opposed to housing being built anywhere near them (or anywhere in town, frankly). Call them “NIMBYs” or “neighborhood defenders”, their effects on the town have been the same over the decades – unaffordable rents and skyrocketing property taxes. Development must happen if Amherst is ever to have enough housing for people to be able to afford to live here at all. Otherwise, they’ll continue to spread to surrounding towns – lost property tax revenue.
How are we to pay for schools, the DPW, the fire department, roads, and sidewalks without property taxes? Every time you see a pothole or another maintenance issue long deferred, stop and think – this is the direct result of not enough property tax revenue being raised. In order to raise enough tax revenue to pay for this maintenance, we need more dense housing. More housing on less land = more $$$ for the town to pay for the services we all need and enjoy.
Sidenote: I would hope that adding an ADU increases the property taxes that the landowner has to pay. If this is not the case, that needs to be rectified immediately. Denser development serves no purpose for Amherst without increased tax revenue.
Joseph: if you think the 299 square foot finished “attic” should count towards the total square footage and be taxable – to pay for schools, roads, public services, fire and police, and all that – and are upset that is doesn’t and isn’t – you may be a nimby!
If you think that if the rules say you can build a 900 square foot accessory unit, but 1200 sq ft if you live on the property; and are upset at the person who hacks the law to try and build 11 such non-owner occupied houses, you may be a nimby.
And from your letter objecting to how the library project has been mangled, you clearly are a nimby! welcome!!