Letter: Another look at Williamstown Warrant Article 33

Letter to the EditorPrint Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

The Planning Board has been working hard to expand housing options in Williamstown. This is an important issue and one I fully support, but perhaps it has been working a little too hard.

Last year's housing proposal didn't even make it to town meeting before it was stopped by citizens who raised a number of valid concerns. That proposal targeted a specific area of town for increased density and would have allowed six housing units per lot by right and up to eight units per lot with Zoning Board of Appeals approval. In short it was viewed as an ill-considered and aggressive effort being foisted upon a small area of town, and with too little time left to rework the article, it was tabled.

As a current member of the Williamstown Planning Board, I do not have the impression that NIMBYism is a major issue here, and I believe that there is significant support among the community for new housing options, in general, and for more affordable housing, in specific. The problem is finding an acceptable balance between the legal change of neighborhood rights and expectations, and the accommodation of those changes.

This year, the Planning Board has delivered two new articles, 32 and 33 for consideration at town meeting on May 21. Both articles extend new rights to most residential zones in Williamstown. Although Article 32 is likely to be uncontested, Article 33 remains controversial for allowing a total of three dwelling units per lot in residential neighborhoods, and differentiating between the rights of property owners by allowing new construction of a detached dwelling unit "by right" on conforming residential lots, and only by special permit on non-conforming lots. In Williamstown, these homes are often next door to one another.

To address the issue of imbalance in property rights, an amendment to Article 33 will be presented at town meeting by Anne Hogeland and newly elected Planning Board member Dante Birch. That amendment will retain the current requirement of ZBA approval for all detached dwelling units and restores a level of fairness to this article.



I urge the voters of Williamstown to support this effort at town meeting on May 21.

In my opinion, it is better for the Planning Board to reach for reasonable goals and build on successes rather than overshoot and achieve nothing. Let's get this right, with broad community support, and move forward.

Sincerely,

Alex Carlisle
Williamstown, Mass. 

Carlisle is a member of the Planning Board and writes the Planning Board has not approved this letter.

 

 

 

 


Tags: town meeting 2019,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Flag Meant to Represent Inclusion Sparks Debate in Williamstown

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — One of the authors of a proposed bylaw amendment to allow the display of the Progress Pride on town flag poles said he welcomes more dialogue about the proposal.
 
"It's been a good learning experience through all of this," Mount Greylock Regional School sophomore Jack Uhas said last week.
 
"Any attempt to hinder a conversation in our community would be disappointing to me. I'm excited to hear what people have to say."
 
Uhas is the vice president of the middle-high school's Gender Sexuality Alliance, which developed the bylaw proposal that will be before Thursday's annual town meeting at Mount Greylock.
 
The advocacy group has been talking for some time about how to foster a public display of support for the LGBTQ-plus community.
 
"Last [school] year, we started thinking of ways we could make an impact in the wider community beyond Mount Greylock," Uhas said. "We talked about doing something like painting a crosswalk like they do in other communities.
 
"[Select Board member Randal Fippinger], who was the father of the GSA president last year, came in and talked to us. And, apparently, there were some Department of Transportation regulations that meant it wasn't feasible [to paint a crosswalk]. We pivoted to other strategies."
 
View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories