image description
The Planning Board voted to recommend against passage of two warrant articles concerning apartments at Sweetwood.

Williamstown Planning Board Recommends Defeat of Sweetwood Zoning Request

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — Planning Board meetings in recent years frequently have featured spirited debates for and against zoning bylaw amendment proposals with advocates for and against on both sides of the table in the Select Board Meeting Room.
 
On Tuesday, there was little of that.
 
Instead, there was near unanimous opinion on the board and among attendees at the pre-town meeting public hearing that no one wants to see that meeting approve a pair of bylaw amendments brought by the owner of the Sweetwood Independent Living Community on Cold Spring Road.
 
By late in the hearing, even the attorney representing Sweetwood was suggesting that if the planners could recommend at least one of the amendments, the petitioner would be grateful.
 
In the end, the board voted 5-0 to recommend town meeting vote down both amendments because, the elected officials said, each could have unintended consequences and requires more study.
 
There was sympathy among the board members for the motivation behind the bylaw amendments. Basically, the 70-unit Sweetwood facility is operating at just over half capacity, and the operator, New Jersey's CareOne, is looking for a way to convert some portion of the empty units to regular apartments in order to keep Sweetwood in business.
 
That is not possible because Sweetwood operates under a special permit that designates the facility as an "assisted living residence" in the town's Rural Residence 2 and RR3 zoning districts.
 
Article 25 on the annual town meeting warrant would change the zoning covering the Sweetwood property to that of the nearby Southern Gateway District. If passed, the amendment would create an "island" of Southern Gateway not connected with the rest of the district, which currently runs south on Cold Spring Road (Route 7) with a southern terminus near the A Frame Bakery, a little less than a mile from Sweetwood.
 
The second article placed on the warrant by landowner petition, Article 26, would allow conversion of existing buildings to "multifamily dwellings" (the bylaw's term for apartments) by right in the Southern Gateway District. Currently, such a conversion is allowed in the district, but only with approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals through the special permit process.
 
Karla Chaffee of Boston's Nixon Peabody LLP said CareOne has long been looking at ways to make the Sweetwood property viable.
 
"We decided with the spring town meeting coming up, we would very much like to change the zoning definition of prop to allow for conversion of the use from strictly assisted living to allow multifamily dwellings," Chaffee told the Planning Board. "What will not change if the articles are adopted is programming/services for current residents. Every resident has a contract with Sweetwood that will continue to be honored."
 
Several residents of Sweetwood and family members of residents addressed the board with concerns that those contracts, which include services like dining options, transportation and health and wellness programs, could go away as more of the facility converts to non-assisted living apartments over time.
 
"Let me give you a scenario that keeps me up at night," Williamstown native and Sweetwood resident Peter Mehlin said. "If they bring in outside renters, it can be 50/50 newcomers to seniors. However, realistically, we're a dying population. As apartments become vacant, unless there is serious active marketing to seniors, we'll end up with 60/40 newcomers to seniors, then 70/30, then 80/20.
 
"At what point will all the services I went to Sweetwood for stop being economically viable?"
 
Perhaps worse, while a small portion of the occupied units at Sweetwood are owned by the residents, the majority are rentals. And residents fear that they will be forced out of their homes once the facility starts converting to regular apartments.
 
"I want to say there are, at present, three of the 38 [occupied] apartments that are owned," one resident told the board. "They have their own contracts, true. However, the rest of us have month-to-month contracts. We could leave with two months' notice, and I guess they could get rid of us with two months' notice."
 
Another concern raised on Tuesday night: the fact that moving the property into the Southern Gateway District allows it to be used as a hotel by right.
 
The planners acknowledged that CareOne has no plans to start operating a hotel on the site, but it was noted several times that CareOne may not be the landowner forever, and a future owner may see the profitability of a hotel offering one of the best views in the region.
 
"I know the facility says their intention is not to have a hotel/mote by right in their plans," Planning Board member Peter Beck said. "But having the parcel in a different zone that allows a by-right use is something to consider even if that is not the intention of the current owner."
 
Several times, the planners said they wished that CareOne had engaged the board earlier in the year to discuss options that may have allowed the conversion of some of the apartments to multifamily units while avoiding the unintended consequences. It was pointed out that the board could have developed an overlay district, like the one that covers the Cable Mills complex, or it could have taken another look at the regulations in the Southern Gateway District. Or, it was pointed out, CareOne could have asked the town to look at changing the special permit that allows Sweetwood to operate in RR2 and RR3 in the first place.
 
But given the appearance of the landowners petition a couple of months before the annual town meeting, there is no time to do any of that.
 
Beck noted that if CareOne does decide to start working collaboratively with the Planning Board, there is the possibility of holding a special town meeting midyear to address any zoning bylaw amendments that are needed to make the property economically viable. A special permit process with the ZBA would not be tied to the town meeting calendar and could, theoretically, happen even faster.
 
That said, no one in town government can stop Articles 25 and 26 from going to May's annual town meeting. They are on the warrant that the Select Board closed on Monday night.
 
The Planning Board's twin 5-0 votes recommending against passage echoed a unanimous decision by the Select Board on Monday to make no recommendation on the Sweetwood bylaw amendments because board members felt they lacked sufficient information.
 
There was another echo of that Monday vote in Tuesday's Planning Board meeting.
 
The annual public hearing addressed not only the Sweetwood bylaw amendments but several zoning bylaw amendments crafted by the Planning Board over the last year that are on the town meeting warrant.
 
The board heard just a few comments from residents on those proposals — all positive — and voted to recommend passage of each of the five articles by town meeting.
 
One of the articles cleans up outdated language in the bylaw around manufactured homes. The next is more substantive and would, if passed, allow those homes anywhere a "stick-built" home is allowed in town with the same frontage, setback and area restrictions that apply in a property's zone.
 
A third Planning Board proposal to town meeting would reduce the frontage requirement for residential lots in the General Residence District from 100 feet to 66 feet.
 
Two other amendments on the town meeting warrant would allow, by right, three-family and four-family homes in the General Residence District.
 
The frontage and multi-unit changes grew out of Planning Board proposals that town meeting referred back to committee in June 2022. This year, the board decided to break the multi-unit proposals into two separate warrant articles: one moving the by-right development from two units to three units and another that raises the limit to four units.
 
The reason for two separate articles is to allow the meeting, if it wants, to act more incrementally rather than going from allowing duplexes directly to allowing four-unit homes, though most of the Planning Board members agree that the latter step is needed to increase housing options and density in the town's core.
 
On Monday, one member of the Select Board voted to recommend passage of the three-unit bylaw but against recommending the four-unit bylaw. On Tuesday, one member of the Planning Board, Roger Lawrence, followed suit, voting to recommend passage of the three-unit bylaw but against passage of its companion legislation.

Tags: assisted living,   Planning Board,   town meeting 2023,   

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

Guest Column: Full Steam Ahead: Bringing Back the Northern Tier Passenger Railroad

by Thomas HuckansGuest Column

You only need a glance outside to see a problem all too familiar to Berkshire county: closing businesses, a shrinking population, and a stunning lack of regional investment.

But 70 years ago, this wasn't an issue. On the North Adams-Boston passenger rail line before the '60s, Berkshires residents could easily go to Boston and back in a day, and the region benefited from economic influx. But as cars supplanted trains, the Northern Tier was terminated, and now only freight trains regularly use the line.

We now have a wonderful opportunity to bring back passenger rail: Bill S.2054, sponsored by state Sen. Jo Comerford (D-Hampshire, Franklin, and Worcester), was passed to study the potential for restoring rail from Boston to North Adams. In the final phase of MassDOT's study, the project is acquiring increased support and momentum. The rail's value cannot be understated: it would serve the Berkshire region, the state, and the environment by reducing traffic congestion, fostering economic growth, and cutting carbon emissions. The best part? All of us can take action to push the project forward.

Importantly, the Northern Tier would combat the inequity in infrastructure investment between eastern and western Massachusetts. For decades, the state has poured money into Boston-area projects. Perhaps the most infamous example is the Big Dig, a car infrastructure investment subject to endless delays, problems, and scandals, sucking up $24.3 billion. Considering the economic stagnation in Western Massachusetts, the disparity couldn't come at a worse time: Berkshire County was the only county in Massachusetts to report an overall population loss in the latest census.

The Northern Tier could rectify that imbalance. During the construction phase alone, 4,000 jobs and $2.3 billion of economic output would be created. After that, the existence of passenger rail would encourage Bostonians to live farther outside the city. Overall, this could lead to a population increase and greater investment in communities nearby stops. In addition to reducing carbon emissions, adding rail travel options could help reduce traffic congestion and noise pollution along Route 2 and the MassPike.

The most viable plan would take under three hours from North Adams to Shelburne Falls, Greenfield, Athol, Gardner, Fitchburg, Porter, and North Station, and would cost just under $1.6 billion.

A common critique of the Northern Tier Rail Restoration is its price tag. However, the project would take advantage of the expansion of federal and state funds, namely through $80 billion the Department of Transportation has to allocate to transportation projects. Moreover, compared to similar rail projects (like the $4 billion planned southern Massachusetts East-West line), the Northern Tier would be remarkably cheap.

One advantage? There's no need to lay new tracks. Aside from certain track upgrades, the major construction for the Northern Tier would be stations and crossings, thus its remarkably short construction phase of two to four years. In comparison, the Hartford line, running from Hartford, Conn., to Springfield spans barely 30 miles, yet cost $750 million.

In contrast, the Northern Tier would stretch over 140 miles for just over double the price.

So what can we do? A key obstacle to the Northern Tier passing through MassDOT is its estimated ridership and projected economic and environmental benefits. All of these metrics are undercounted in the most recent study.

Crucially, many drivers don't use the route that MassDOT assumes in its models as the alternative to the rail line, Route 2. due to its congestion and windy roads. In fact, even as far west as Greenfield, navigation services will recommend drivers take I-90, increasing the vehicle miles traveled and the ensuing carbon footprint.

Seeking to capture the discrepancy, a student-led Northern Tier research team from Williams College has developed and distributed a driving survey, which has already shown more than half of Williams students take the interstate to Boston. Taking the survey is an excellent way to contribute, as all data (which is anonymous) will be sent to MassDOT to factor into their benefit-cost analysis. This link takes you to the 60-second survey.

Another way to help is to spread the word. Talk to local family, friends, and community members, raising awareness of the project's benefits for our region. Attend MassDOT online meetings, and send state legislators and local officials a short letter or email letting them know you support the Northern Tier Passenger Rail Project. If you feel especially motivated, the Williams Northern Tier Research team, in collaboration with the Center for Learning in Action (CLiA), would welcome support.

Living far from the powerbrokers in Boston, it's easy to feel powerless to make positive change for our greater community. But with your support, the Northern Tier Rail can become reality, bringing investment back to Berkshire County, making the world greener, and improving the lives of generations of western Massachusetts residents to come.

Thomas Huckans, class of 2026, is a political science and astronomy major at Williams College, originally from Bloomsburg, Pa.

Survey: This survey records driving patterns from Berkshire county to Boston, specifically route and time. It also captures interest in the restoration of the Northern Tier Passenger Rail. Filling out this survey is a massive help for the cause, and all responses are greatly appreciated. Use this link.

View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories