WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Planning Board last week made incremental progress on proposed bylaw changes it hopes will allow the town to make incremental progress toward becoming more accessible to a wider range of people.

 

Throughout the 2021-22 cycle, the board has been debating a series of proposals to update the zoning bylaw that it wants to bring to town meeting in May.

 

On Tuesday, it reached consensus on the changes included under three of 10 general headings of an ambitious proposal drafted by chair Chris Winters that resulted from months of discussion by the group.

 

Not all the votes were unanimous, and the board will consider each of the proposals one more time before sending them to the Select Board for inclusion on the town meeting warrant. But Tuesday's decisions were an important step on the road from moving the proposals from concept to an actionable item for town meeting to consider in the spring.

 

And the latest discussion saw the panel make one breakthrough on a thorny issue that has at times split the board since the conversation began in the summer.

 

One significant change that Winters has promoted from day one is a change to reduce barriers to multi-family housing – specifically by allowing up to four units in a residential building in any part of town.

 

The existing bylaw allows for up to two units in a dwelling and then treats all buildings with more than two units the same, whether they have three units or 30 units.

 

Winters proposed instead allowing up to four units in a dwelling in the town's residential districts.

 

Stephanie Boyd, who generally has been supportive of a lot of Winters' proposals in the board's discussions, has repeatedly made the case that, in this instance, allowing more multi-family dwellings in the Rural Residence districts is a bridge too far.

 

She did so again last week.

 

"What I wouldn't like to see is higher density housing in our agricultural zones without having more understanding of what the impact might be," Boyd said. "It's both because of the value of agricultural areas, the value of open space and also the potential impact on demand for more services – whether it's paved roads or water or sewer or the increase in transportation and greenhouse gasses.

 

"There are other implications that are potentially not wanted by our community, and we need to do a little bit more research on how this may unfold, I guess is what I'm saying."

 

Roger Lawrence joined Boyd in favoring a less aggressive change to the existing code, arguing that allowing three- or four-unit buildings would lead not to more reuse of existing homes but more demolition of homes to make way for four-unit apartment buildings.

 

Winters argued that all public policy is about competing priorities, and the Planning Board has said that increasing the potential for low-cost housing stock in town is a priority it wants to address.

 

"This is a housing initiative, that's it's purpose," Winters said. "I will never deny that there are tradeoffs being made. This is a housing initiative. It's not a housing initiative, it's not an open space initiative, it's not an architectural aesthetic beauty initiative. We are in the business of the trading off of competing goods. We are in the area where all of life gets interesting: where we have many good things that we want, but we have to optimize. Hard choices have to be made.

 

"If we want to invite people to our community whose access to our community depends on housing that they can afford, a reasonable and common path to that is multi-family housing. And those people should even be able to enjoy the parts of town that we all enjoy for its scenic beauty, it's agricultural, rural aspects in Rural Residence. I feel like you can make three- and four-family units in the Rural Residence with minimal to no negative impact but some positive effect on housing supply and affordability."

 

Not for the first time in the board's deliberations, Winters noted that none of the changes on the table are going to, in and of themselves, solve the problem of affordability in town. But he argued that each opens up the possibility of creating different types of housing at, potentially, lower price points.

 

As the longest serving member of the Planning Board, Winters told his colleagues that in about 17 years of service on the body, he has seen calls for "research and study" delay and ultimately kill good ideas. He challenged his colleagues not to fall victims to paralysis by analysis.

 

"I'll accept your challenge," Boyd responded. "I'll modify my motion. I'll move what [Winters has] proposed here."

 

The board then voted 5-0 to devote the time of the town planner and town counsel to draft warrant article language to make the change Winters proposed.

 

When a warrant article is drafted, the Planning Board will have one more chance to vote on the final language before it goes to the Select Board for the pro forma step of adding it to the town meeting warrant. After that, the Planning Board will schedule an early March public hearing on that and any other zoning bylaw changes that issue from its next couple of meetings.

 

Since the bylaw amendments under consideration each are aimed at increasing housing, they fall under last year's state law that allows certain bylaw changes to be approved by town meeting by a simple majority vote instead of the two-thirds super-majority needed to pass previous bylaw amendments.

 

Lawrence was the lone holdout on two of the bylaw change proposals that the Planning Board advanced by 4-1 votes.

 

One proposal would reduce the amount of open space per unit required for multi-unit housing from 1,500 square feet per unit to 1,000 square feet per unit.

 

Lawrence argued that there was no need to rush a decision that could "dramatically" change residential neighborhoods.

 

"I can't support doing it throughout the entire downtown district because i know that if we increase density sufficiently, we will cross a threshold at some point where it becomes profitable for speculative investors to tear down sections of our downtown and put up speculative residential real estate projects that have nothing to do with affordability at all," Lawrence said. "The danger there is that we've damaged part of our town and not fixed the problem.

 

"With regard to density, and the remainder of our proposals speak to this directly, that's why I think it's very valid that we should permit this issue of increasing density and neighborhood-changing policies to be done when we have the full results of the comprehensive planning process and the housing needs assessment coming to us from [the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission]."

 

Winters countered that the bylaw change proposed is less drastic than Lawrence suggested.

 

"This is five or more units, by special permit, in the residential parts of town – instead of requiring 1,500 feet of open space per dwelling unit, it's a 1,000, so it allows those things to be built on slightly smaller lots than currently," Winters said before the board voted 4-1 to move the proposal ahead.

 

Lawrence similarly voted no on a proposal that advanced, 4-1, to allow multi-unit construction to have a minimum of two exposures, rather than three, per dwelling unit.

 

Lawrence has argued that requiring a minimum of three exposures per unit forces developers to create attractive looking buildings, pointing to the Hemlock Brook condominiums as an example. Without that, the town runs the risk of developers building "factory-style buildings," he said.

 

"I value attractive buildings, but I am, today, prioritizing supply," Winters said.

 

Boyd noted that the Porches hotel in North Adams is an example of an attractive development that has two exposures per unit. Peter Beck said he was persuaded by the fact that no one has built multi-unit housing that conforms to the town's bylaw in at least the 10 years that Groff has been at Town Hall.

 

"We are adjusting it down one level of ease," Beck said. "I agree that not much is going to happen with this particular provision, so I'm neither bothered by it as [Lawrence is] nor thrilled with the expectation of what will come from a slight reduction in this particular provision.

 

"I think we're trying to make it a little easier to work under this provision, but my guess is in the next 10 years we get very similar results to the last 10 years."

 

Groff noted that in his conversations with developers, none have raised the "three-exposure" rule as an impediment. What makes projects unworkable have been the bylaw's dimensional requirements.

 

Nevertheless, Winters argued, and the rest of the board agreed, that it is worth modifying the code to allow multi-unit buildings with two exposures per unit.

 

"Townhouse form has been something the Planning Board has danced around for 10 years," Winters said. "The solution is as simple as getting rid of this one [three-exposure] line."

 

The Planning Board will hold its next meeting and consider the rest of Winters' proposals – including those that would reduce frontage, setback and area requirements in General Residence and Rural Residence 2 – on Tuesday, Feb. 8. It tentatively planned a second February meeting for Thursday, Feb. 17, in order to meet the deadlines to get its proposals ready for inclusion on the town meeting warrant.