EDITOR’S NOTE: The following column was written by the Hadley property owner who rented a site to Sarah Hastings, the woman who sought Town Meeting permission to occupy a tiny house.
It was a time of trust and a time not to be trusted, a time of solution and a time of chaos, a time of acceptance and a time of rejection. It was a tiny time hoping for a longer time.
We bought a small farm in Hadley from a family who are longtime residents. A grandchild is thrilled with how much we care for the grandparent’s home. We were not fortunate enough to inherit the property, but very fortunate to afford the property. Our three-year building permit will expire in January.
Much of the work has been accomplished. The remaining work will go on a renewal permit, essentially paying twice. That’s fine. It’s a good system and we can only work so fast. The permits allow us to live in the house while we bring it to compliance standards.
In summer we sell produce. I inquired about a permit and one is not needed. Seems odd as we are dealing with food, but I trust in the town’s oversight.
A year ago Sarah Hastings graduated from college. Her personal vision and housing solution was to construct a tiny house. A brave endeavor for someone who did not cut her teeth on carpentry skills. Sarah’s plan of living within her means is fundamentally sound. Thus far her physical sweat has produced a diploma, but not a competitive salary.
Sarah met with officials in many towns for occupancy. No town in this area has a specific ruling for or against this type of dwelling, but all were willing to work with her. She chose Hadley and she became our tenant and neighbor on East Street.
She worked on meeting the requirements of state and local governments. A complaint was filed against her and action was required. Process allows for one to challenge the action through prescribed methods.
In short Sarah requested an amendment to the town’s bylaw that allows for only a single dwelling on a property and minimum square footage. I thank the various board members who allowed this concept to continue to a town vote, and to the voters on both sides who came out in an impressive number to participate in group process. I must admit, it’s baffling to be criticized for not obtaining a permit that does not currently exist, and when there was an opportunity to create such a document, it was voted against.
Why criticize me for not having a permit and then vote against granting permission? We were also criticized for asking the town’s “forgiveness” instead of permission. I’ve spoken to the latter, but the former? I find forgiveness a bit strong language. Forgiveness is what one seeks after willful disobedience. We sought acceptance. This next part I fear is how some choose to criticize people in general. During the meeting I was in a men’s room stall and two gentlemen came in to use the urinals. They smirked about the “chicken coop.”
The term “chicken coop” appears to be a buzz word for either Sarah’s house, or all tiny houses. I’m not sure and it wasn’t the appropriate place for clarification. I was crestfallen, though, knowing that Sarah would be powerless to douse such a wildfire from the microphone and item No. 29 would fail before it reached the floor.
Calling her home a “chicken coop” is like a limousine owner calling a compact car a tricycle. No, it’s an acceptable motor vehicle. We hope to have chickens someday, but we’re certainly not going to raise them in Sarah’s home.
The first person in opposition to the amendment change didn’t speak to the amendment as instructed, but to legitimate personal concerns. The first was Sarah’s home not having a second means of egress in case of fire.
While I appreciate the concern for her safety, my understanding is that her oversized bedroom window is egress. Ultimately my take on this is immaterial; the ruling will come from a safety professional. Sarah said, “My house does not currently meet all compliance standards, but if the amendment passes I will be able to work with town officials toward compliance.”
This is to say that if she obtained a permit but was unable to meet town requirements, her dream would die a natural death. Safeguards are already in place through salaried oversight.
Sarah is a monumentally trustworthy young lady, a testament to her generation. She no longer lives in her home. Her pain is a unique one: she is a homeowner without a home to live in. Not homeless though, for she has arranged alternative housing.
In one case, from someone outside the fine town of Hadley, Sarah was called a “trouble maker.” To call someone a trouble maker is in fact inciting trouble, thus being a troublemaker. The same person threatened physical harm on her blog. Yet Sarah holds no animosity. I suppose we will live with such inconsideration provided no one gets injured.
I am not a bleeding heart that takes in any stray. No, I am one of the coldest, most rigid people I know. But I do believe in the truth and being fair. We did not know Sarah before she approached us.
The easiest thing to do would have been to tell her no when she came seeking a place for her tiny house. After understanding her plan, I admitted that I did not have a compelling reason to say no to her and she was welcome.
We are proud of what Sarah has built for herself and no less proud of her for losing the vote. She gave it her best.
Ron Adams lives with his wife Donna at 42 East St. in Hadley.