By Michelle Kelley
Revere is a city with a proud identity, shaped by the unique needs and dynamics of our residents. Under Article 89 of the Massachusetts Constitution, we have the right—through home rule—to govern in the best interests of our community. That’s why I have urged the Revere City Council to approve a request for a Home Rule Petition to exempt our city from Section 8 of the Commonwealth’s Affordable Homes Act on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Instead of bowing to the state’s one-size-fits-all mandate, we should preserve our sensible local ordinance under Title 17, Chapter 17.25, which fits Revere like a glove.
Our existing ADU rules were crafted with care. They help single-family homeowners—many of them seniors—legalize un-permitted “in-law” apartments built decades ago. We require owner-occupancy for two years, prohibit add-ons to principal dwellings, and limit ADUs to one per single-family home. These are common-sense measures that protect our neighborhoods.
The state’s new law, however, throws that balance out the window. It allows ADUs on any principal dwelling—single- family, multi-family, even townhouses—in single-family zoning districts, with no owner-occupancy requirement and the option for multiple ADUs on a single primary dwelling. Worse, it bans off-street parking requirements for ADUs within a half- mile of a “public transit stop”—a term the state defines to include every MBTA bus stop. In a city like Revere, where bus stops blanket our streets, this means ADUs could sprout up everywhere with no off-street parking required. Meanwhile, towns like Danvers, with fewer bus stops, skate by with far less impact. This isn’t equity—it’s a disproportionate burden on dense, working-class communities like ours.
Our police, fire, and ambulance services are already stretched thin. Traffic congestion clogs our streets, and side streets groan under the weight of scarce parking. Our single-family neighborhoods—the backbone of Revere’s character—are under attack. The state’s heavy-handed approach ignores these realities, imposing an unfunded mandate that forces cities and towns to bear the costs of enforcement, infrastructure strain, and lost quality of life with no financial support from Beacon Hill.
And let’s be clear: this law won’t create a single unit of affordable housing. It merely allows property owners to add market-rate units – it is not a solution for families struggling to find homes they can afford. Revere deserves better than a policy that dresses up as progress but delivers chaos presented under the guise of a housing crisis.
By pursuing this Home Rule Petition, we’re not rejecting housing—we’re defending our right to shape it. Our ordinance already strikes the right balance, supporting homeowners while safeguarding our neighborhoods. This exemption is a practical step. But it starts with us. We must act now to protect Revere’s future and send a message to the Commonwealth: we know what’s best for our city.
Michelle Kelley is a Revere City Councillor-at-Large.
