WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — In an emotional and contentious three-hour meeting Thursday, the Planning Board voted to send nine zoning bylaw amendments to town meeting.

 

Included in those nine articles were numerous submeasures that forced the board to make 18 different decisions throughout a night that featured calls to slow the process from members of the public and members of the board alike.

 

In the end, 15 of the 18 measures passed — nine 5-0 votes with little to no discussion, three on votes of 4-1, one on a vote of 4-0-1 with an abstention and two on votes of 3-2.

 

One whole article never came to a vote after it became evident the board might not reach an agreement to advance it. One major revision was withdrawn by a 4-1 vote. One measure failed for the lack of a second.

 

If ultimately passed by May's town meeting, the changes proposed on Thursday would, among other things: reduce the dimensional requirements for housing lots in the town's General Residence and Rural Residence 2 districts, promote infill development, remove barriers to small-scale multi-unit developments in GR and RR districts, and alter the development standards for multifamily development — all with an eye toward opening up more opportunities to add to the town's housing stock and, potentially, lower home prices.

 

In some ways, the evening hinged on the question of whether the board should send the questions to town meeting for debate or pull back on its ambitious agenda to allow more time for study.

 

Stephanie Boyd began the night by making a plea for the latter course on several of the proposals.

 

"We started a little bit late on our planning cycle because town meeting was a little bit late [June 9 instead of mid-May], we've also had the board's attention divided with two of us spending significant time on the comprehensive plan as well as the whole board working on that, setting up the committee, the RFP, that kind of stuff," Boyd said. "We've done a lot of good work that doesn't result in a potential warrant article. But that's taken away from our time to do as diligent work as I would like to see on some of the [proposed] articles. Town Hall has also been a little bit short-staffed. We still have an interim, part-time town manager, so some of those town manager duties fall on [Town Planner] Andrew Groff, which then limits his time that he can help and work on planning activities with us. And his office was short-staffed part of the year. … So we haven't had the great support, understandably, from Town Hall. And COVID continues to affect our work environment.

 

"So, as a result, we have not done as much work as we could have. That's not to say we shouldn't forge ahead with some of the initiatives, but let's try to be a little bit realistic."

 

Boyd also questioned the amount of outreach the board has been able to do and the level of awareness in the community about the zoning changes under consideration. The board has received about 20 emails in the last month with the overwhelming majority urging the body to slow down. And several of those voices were heard again during Thursday's public comment portion of the meeting.

 

Chris Winters, the longest serving member of the board, has, since June, framed his proposals as both substantive and incremental changes that are not likely to radically alter the town but may allow for "marginal" increases increases in housing stock that could result in downward pressure on prices and allow more economic diversity in town.

 

To that end, he invoked the diversity, equity and inclusion initiative passed at the 2020 annual town meeting that specifically called on the Planning Board to address exclusionary zoning in the town's code.

 

"This is a controversial topic, and one that town meeting unanimously tasked the Planning Board to consider, specifically, in Article 37 of town meeting [in 2020]," Winters said after the board's votes were taken and public comment was received. "I do not consider this fun. I don't like causing strife to my neighbors. But if we are to put any stock in the spirit of Article 37 and our purported interest in creating more housing that people can afford, the path forward is not frictionless. Unfortunately, I am a key component of the friction. I wish I was not."

 

Winters also addressed the question of whether more study is needed directly and cautioned his colleagues against falling victim to "paralysis by analysis."

 

"The statement, 'We could do more, we could do better,' is almost universally true," Winters said. "But I've been on this board a long time, and when you string together a lot of those, which are always true, you end up not making progress ever. Because it becomes easy to get delayed by cannabis or [accessory dwelling units] or whatever.

 

"This comes down to, for me: Is this a step in the direction of improvement relative to what we have today, and is the risk, if any, low enough that that level of uncertainty is bearable. And, to me, it is."

 

Boyd ended up voting in the majority on four of the six measures that passed in divided votes.

 

The more consistent holdout was Roger Lawrence, who voted against all six of the measures that passed without unanimity.

 

One of his lone no votes came on what currently is called Article G, a proposal to reduce the setback, frontage and area requirements for residential lots in the General Residence district, essentially the "downtown" neighborhoods of housing units that are on the town's water and sewer system.

 

"I think this is the single biggest item that we have on our plate," Lawrence said. "I think that the strategy of increasing density as one measure to achieve affordability is valid thinking. By itself, I know full well, from my own experience, that it will not achieve that. I would like to see this thinking folded back into a more comprehensive and thoughtful process and combined with other provisions that actually do produce affordability, because I think that can happen, and I absolutely would support that wholeheartedly.

 

"But we have not done that yet, and for that reason, I oppose this measure."

 

During a related discussion, Lawrence seized on a remark by Winters that zoning changes he drafted and the Planning Board addressed over the last nine months are not about "capital A" affordable housing, i.e., subsidized housing, but rather about creating the opportunity to increase the town's stock of market rate housing. Winters maintains that market forces will inevitably drive down price if supply is increased.

 

"I think it is an important distinction to be made between what people casually refer to as affordable housing, which is defined, if they're using it in the [formal] sense, as state subsidized housing of some sort," Winters said. "It's income specified, often at a fraction of the prevailing median income. There are provisions that allow for that today. That's how we've gotten some of our 'capital A' affordable housing. They exist today. They'll exist tomorrow.

 

"Unfortunately, for whatever rhetorical reason, people also refer to affordable housing as housing that is more affordable, for logical reasons. Affordability is a spectrum. What is affordable to you may not be affordable to me. What I do know is that when you take steps to loosen the reins on supply, you are more likely to move the needle in the direction of housing that people can afford."

 

Boyd, as she has throughout the year, favored the alterations to the dimensional table in General Residence, giving it a strongly worded endorsement prior to Thursday's vote that prompted one of the evening's few light moments.

 

"This is exactly the kind of measures we should be taking," Boyd said. "[Article G] directly confronts the kind of exclusionary zoning that I discussed earlier this evening. This is what we need to focus on. This is what we need to do. This will not fundamentally change Williamstown and will find nice little pieces of property where people can build a home in the center of town near services of all types. This is what we should be doing."

 

"Wow," Winters said. "Some positivity."

 

"Sometimes, I come around," Boyd replied with a chuckle.

 

Boyd was not laughing moments later when the board addressed Article H, which would have similarly reduced the dimensional requirements for housing lots in the Rural Residence 2 district, by far the largest by area and least populated of the town's residential zones.

 

As she has throughout the process, Boyd argued against rushing to make changes that would allow more housing in RR2, which also includes the majority of the town's active farmland. On Thursday, she made an additional point against more housing in the area: water softeners used in septic systems have been shown in studies to add to groundwater contamination, and more homes and more people equals more and larger septic systems.

 

"I think there are better ways we could get more homes in the rural areas with less of a footprint," Boyd said. "I would prefer thinking of ways to have smaller lots but more land in conservation. I also think, politically, this [proposal] to date has caused a lot of communications.

 

"I would like to go to town meeting with a set of recommendations that, at least, most of our board could be whole-heartedly behind."

 

After Article H passed on a 3-2 vote and the other proposals were dispensed, a member of the town's Agricultural Commission, Brian Cole, appeared during the public comment period to support Boyd's arguments and inform the planners that the Ag Commission would be sending a letter recommending against the article.

 

"We don't think it will be a great thing for farmers and farmland," Cole said. "If you reduce minimal lot size, suddenly a large piece of land could potentially have a lot more lots on it, which may incentivize someone to sell off as more lots. It also may drive up the value of that piece of land, and increased land values generally aren't good for farmers. Many of the farmers in town are leasing land, and if the land owners they're leasing from decide the land they're farming is worth more as a home lot, that's the direction it might go.

 

"It also makes land access more difficult for young and beginning farmers."

 

Another proposed change that would have impacted RR2 prompted one of Thursday's most tense moments.

 

Section one of what is known as Article D (all articles ultimately will be numbered when they are folded into the town meeting warrant) would have allowed for the possibility in RR2 of multi-family development – currently up to 16 units but proposed in a separate section to go to 24.

 

The bylaw as it stands disallows that development in the rural district. Winters' proposal would have allowed it by special permit, i.e., approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, which would have applied a variety of standards, including that proposed development not be "more substantially detrimental" to the neighborhood.

 

The proposal troubled Boyd.

 

"I've had a lot of criticism as I've been on this board from the public," Boyd said. "And I've worked really hard and have always tried to do good for my community. And I have never felt so upset about what we're doing.

 

"We've been talking about these issues for probably a [cumulative] total of two hours. The first time we saw these proposed changes was in October."

 

"Wrong," Winters interjected. "That is absolutely wrong. The very first meeting in June that I chaired, I presented this as a straw man proposal."

 

Boyd replied that those concepts first pitched in June were not made more specific until the fall.

 

"I'm talking about the written changes," she said. "The first time there were written changes were in October. And we spent very little time in October and November. In December, we had a student presentation. And in January, we started voting.

 

"We are not doing a service to our community, and I don't know what to do about that. But I am not happy to be a part of this committee at this time."

 

The Planning Board ultimately voted, 4-1, to pull the provision that would have allowed multifamily housing by special permit in RR2. Winters voted in the majority; Dante Birch voted against withdrawing the proposal.

 

Later in the lengthy debate about Article D, which deals with other aspects of the multi-family bylaw, Boyd asked Winters to let the board hear testimony from the public. Winters opted to stick to the agenda and let the board make its decisions on all 10 of the articles proposed before moving on to public comment, as specified in the agenda.

 

"I thought we were on a committee," Boyd said. "I'm so confused. I have to take a five-minute break, Chris."

 

After briefly not speaking in the Zoom meeting or replying to Winters' inquiries, Boyd returned to the conversation and fully participated in the deliberations.

 

The only article of the 10 on the agenda not to come to vote on Thursday was Article F, which would have loosened the rules around "Major and Flexible Development" as defined in the town code.

 

Boyd said she agreed that the bylaw on major developments was flawed but preferred to not make piecemeal changes as proposed.

 

"I think we need a lot of improvements related to major subdivisions, flexible subdivisions, minor lane subdivisions, and many of those things we have not discussed at all," Boyd said. "I think we'd be in a much better position to take some time to do that comprehensively and not in the context of many, many, many quickly done warrant articles."

 

Peter Beck, who, like Birch, voted with Winters on most of the disputed articles on Thursday, said that while he agreed with the intent of Article F, it was not worth further fracturing the board.

 

"I think the changes here in Article F are small enough, and I'm in favor of them, but I don't think they're worth this level of distraction and loss of focus from our bigger picture," Beck said. "I do think we have better items on the table.

 

"We've got good articles on the table. I like what we're working with. I don't want this meeting or town meeting to fall apart over a tweak to a subdivision code that does need more of an overhaul. It's not because I think this is a bad tweak. I think this is a good tweak.

 

"But I don't necessarily think that Article F is the hill to die on here."

 

Winters immediately said he would leave the article on the table. The board never returned to the issue.

 

It will return to all of the proposed changes at a public hearing, tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, March 22. Winters suggested that the board use the time leading up to the hearing and, ultimately, town meeting, to educate the public about the changes it hopes to bring to a full town vote in May.