3 Towns the AG Struck Down — What Sudbury, Leicester, and Canton Had Disapproved

Since the ADU law took effect in February 2025, the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office has been reviewing town bylaws — and rejecting the ones that go too far. Three towns have become case studies in what happens when local zoning tries to override state law.

Between them, Sudbury, Leicester, and Canton had 7 provisions disapproved by the AG. Here's what they tried, why it failed, and what every other town should learn from it.

Sudbury: 3 Disapprovals (October 2025)

Sudbury's Planning Board went to the May 2025 Special Town Meeting with an ADU bylaw designed to maximize local control. The AG struck down three provisions and partially struck a fourth.

Single-family dwelling restriction — Disapproved. Sudbury tried to limit ADUs to lots that currently have single-family homes on them. The AG said no: ADUs must be allowed on any lot in a single-family residential zoning district, regardless of what's already built there. A duplex on a lot zoned single-family? Still eligible for an ADU.

Minimum lot size requirements — Disapproved. The bylaw set minimum lot sizes for ADU construction. The AG deleted the provisions entirely. State law and 760 CMR 71.03(4)(a) are clear: no minimum lot size for protected use ADUs.

Principal dwelling setback applied to ADUs — Disapproved. Sudbury applied the same setback requirements to ADUs that apply to principal dwellings. The AG ruled that ADUs cannot be subject to stricter dimensional requirements than single-family homes under 760 CMR 71.05.

Parking provisions — Partially disapproved. Portions of Sudbury's parking requirements exceeded the state cap of one space per ADU. The AG deleted the offending language.

The result: Sudbury's bylaw now has visible scars where the AG's red pen hit. The remaining provisions — including an “architecturally harmonious” design requirement — survived review but still sit in gray-area territory.

Leicester: 3 Disapprovals (May 2025)

Leicester was one of the earliest AG decisions and set important precedents that other towns ignored at their cost.

Bedroom cap — Disapproved. Leicester tried to limit ADUs to two bedrooms. The AG cited G.L. c. 40A §3's prohibition on regulating the interior area of single-family residential buildings. You can cap square footage at 900. You cannot dictate how that space is divided.

Single-family restriction — Disapproved. Same issue as Sudbury. Leicester tried to limit ADUs to single-family lots only. The AG applied the same reasoning: single-family zoning district is what matters, not the current use.

Dimensional noncompliance — Disapproved. Leicester's dimensional requirements exceeded what state law allows for protected use ADUs.

The Leicester decision became the reference point the AG cited when disapproving similar provisions in other towns. Worcester's current 2-bedroom cap is essentially the same provision Leicester got struck down for — it just hasn't been challenged yet because cities' ordinances aren't subject to AG review.

Canton: 1 Disapproval (June 2025)

Canton's case was narrower but equally important.

Minimum lot size — Disapproved. Canton required a minimum lot size for ADU construction. The AG disapproved it, reinforcing the principle established in Leicester: the state does not allow minimum lot size requirements for protected use ADUs.

Canton's decision is notable because EOHLC specifically references it in their FAQ as guidance for other municipalities. If your town's bylaw has a minimum lot size requirement for ADUs, it's unenforceable — and the AG has said so explicitly.

The Pattern

Across all three towns, the AG's disapprovals cluster around a few themes:

You can't limit where ADUs go based on existing use. The state law applies to zoning districts, not individual properties. If single-family homes are allowed in a district (even by special permit), ADUs are allowed there by right.

You can't impose stricter dimensional rules on ADUs than on houses. Setbacks, lot sizes, and other dimensional requirements for ADUs cannot exceed those applied to the principal dwelling.

You can't regulate the interior. Bedroom caps, interior layout requirements, and similar restrictions conflict with §3's prohibition on regulating interior area.

You can't require more than one parking space. The state caps it. Towns that tried to exceed it got caught.

Who's Next?

Several towns currently have provisions on their books that match exactly what the AG struck down:

Needham has 4 inconsistent provisions including owner-occupancy and a special permit requirement that's produced only 12 ADUs in three years. Milton still has owner-occupancy and family-only restrictions in its unreformed bylaw. Plymouth and Nantucket have provisions the AG hasn't reviewed yet but that mirror disapproved language from other towns.

These provisions are technically unenforceable regardless of whether the AG has formally reviewed them. But having them on the books creates confusion for homeowners, delays for builders, and legal risk for towns that try to enforce them.

We track every AG disapproval and every inconsistent provision across 25 communities in our Bylaw Consistency Tracker. If you're a builder, planner, or homeowner trying to understand where your town stands, it's all there.