Councilor Curran introduced an ordinance at a subcommittee meeting to define apartment types and set a 500-square-foot minimum for one-bedroom units in Springfield, while allowing developers to seek a discretionary waiver to build smaller units.

The measure, Curran said, is intended to give councilors “common definitions of what a 1 bedroom, a 2 bedroom, a 3 bedroom, and a 4 bedroom is” and to prevent developers from marketing very small units as full one-bedroom apartments. Curran cited guidance developed by MassHousing and the Department of Housing and Community Development as the basis for the proposed minimums.

Supporters and opponents said the proposal could shape the city’s housing supply in different ways. Housing department and code enforcement officials warned that adding a discretionary waiver or another approval step could delay or discourage development at a time the city needs more units, while nonprofit providers and developers said smaller, well‑designed micro-units with on-site services are essential to housing people exiting homelessness and others who need affordable options.

Curran, who said he "introduced this legislation about a year ago," told the subcommittee the specific concern arose after developers won approval for buildings that included one-bedroom apartments of roughly 375 square feet. He said the ordinance would codify target unit sizes cited in state guidance — for example, studio 500 sq. ft., one-bedroom 600 sq. ft., two-bedroom 750 sq. ft. — and require a waiver process if a developer seeks to build below the city standard.

Jerry McCafferty, director of Springfield housing, raised procedural and policy concerns. "I do have a concern about the fact that this ordinance prohibits development of units under square is 500 square foot, unless there is a waiver, a waiver that is discretionary," McCafferty said, adding that Springfield is experiencing household growth and that micro-units are one tool to increase unit counts. He told the committee many small-unit projects are targeted to young professionals, single-person households and older adults, and that some projects include shared amenity space to extend living areas beyond individual units.

Code enforcement and building staff cautioned that the ordinance would create an extra regulatory layer. One building official noted that the Massachusetts building code (780 CMR) and related commentary already set minimums and that micro-units can meet the code in many cases; another warned the added approval step could be used to delay or block development, increasing costs and causing some developers to abandon projects.

Developers and nonprofit housing providers described projects now in progress that rely on compact units with supportive services. Olivia Bernstein, vice president of supportive housing at the Mental Health Association, said MHA and partners are moving 20 people into renovated units at Chestnut Crossing and that those apartments are "compact, but they're very well designed, and they're dignified, they're private, and they are needed." Bernstein said smaller apartments with on-site support "isn't just appropriate, it's essential" for many people exiting long-term homelessness and for older adults with disabilities.

Representatives for two projects described unit counts and sizes: Home City Development’s Chestnut project and Friends of the Homeless/CSO’s Worthington Street project. CSO said the Worthington site includes roughly 110 micro-units and 36 units in development, each about 340 square feet, clustered with on-site services. MHA and CSO noted that supportive housing with smaller units can reduce emergency-room visits and interactions with police by providing stable housing with services.

Tom Kegelman, executive director of Home City Development, urged caution about restricting micro-unit development citywide, calling micro apartments "an up and coming trend" in many U.S. cities and arguing that restricting unit size would not by itself address affordability. Kegelman and others said permitting burdens and other local ordinances often drive up development costs.

Council members were split. Several councilors, including Tracy Whitfield and others on the subcommittee, opposed requiring a waiver step, saying extra approvals would add delay and cost and could harm seniors and low-income residents who need immediately affordable units. Others said the ordinance is intended to protect renters from being marketed into undersized units and to give councilors clarity when voting on special permits.

No formal vote was taken at the subcommittee meeting; members heard testimony from city staff, developers and nonprofit providers and agreed to continue the discussion at a future meeting or when the measure reaches the full council.

The subcommittee heard repeated warnings that adding a discretionary waiver could lengthen timelines for projects already subject to special permits and other local requirements, and stakeholders asked the council to balance concerns about unit quality and tenant protections against risks that tighter local rules could limit the supply of affordable and supportive housing.