Williamstown Planners Review 'Cottage Court' Bylaw

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Planning Board last week took its first look at some proposed zoning bylaw amendments the panel could bring to town meeting as early as May.
 
Two of the drafts considered are echoes of a spring 2023 proposal to allow manufactured homes on residential lots.
 
A third is a new proposal to make possible increased housing density in the town's General Residence district.
 
Kenneth Kuttner and Roger Lawrence have formed a working group to develop the latter proposal, which would allow a development known as "cottage courts" — small single-family homes grouped together on a parcel around a common area and, often, a common building with amenities, like a laundry room.
 
The pair have been talking about the concept in Planning Board meetings for months. On Tuesday, they took the next step.
 
"I think it really is a two-year process," Lawrence told his colleagues. "We do have some meat to present to you tonight. This is the first time we have a bylaw — 16 or 17 months later — that we have something with some real meat to bring to you."
 
Generally, the other three board members reacted favorably to the bylaw language as presented, though each of the other planners had suggestions about places where the document could be tweaked.
 
Ben Greenfield, for example, questioned the draft that would have limited the number of homes in a cottage court to 12.
 
Kuttner said the intent of the cottage courts is to create discrete "pocket neighborhoods."
 
"It's a question of scale," Lawrence said in a meeting telecast on the town's community access television station, Willinet. "Williamstown is a beautiful town. Ken and I are interpreting our task as creating opportunities for greater density without turning Williamstown into a different place.
 
"We like it the way it is, but we need more dwelling units. We think this is the way to do it."
 
The bylaw as drafted would allow the creation of a cottage court on as little as one third of an acre and would require 3,630 square feet of lot area per home, creating the potential for up to 12 units per acre.
 
It also would permit a limited number of duplexes in a cottage court, provided those two-unit structures are built with one-bedroom units.
 
The homes themselves would be restricted to a footprint of 800 square feet and a maximum floor space (including a second floor) of 1,200 square feet.
 
Cory Campbell asked about existing buildings on a parcel and how they might interact with the draft bylaw's proposed limit on the size of the court's "shared use building."
 
Campbell brought to mind a not dissimilar proposal to build duplexes on a Water Street lot. At one time, the developer was proposing to renovate and create apartments in the existing Grange Hall building at the site, a structure that exceeds the floor space of 800 square feet for a common building in the draft bylaw.
 
Peter Beck agreed that pre-existing structures should be treated differently and noted that the common building — an option, not a requirement in the bylaw — as described in the draft in the context of the development's overall common area, including open space.
 
"I would make the built common area a separate section from the open space," Beck said. "I'd say the open space requirement is an open space requirement — separate from that, you can build a common building or have adaptive reuse of an existing structure."
 
Kuttner and Lawrence agreed to look at reworking that section of the bylaw.
 
Since cottage courts are predicated on common space (and, perhaps, a common building), they generally have some form of joint ownership, although the homes themselves can be owner occupied.
 
The draft bylaw included a suggestion that the finished product include a requirement for a "condominium association or homeowners association."
 
Town Planner Andrew Groff noted that the town cannot regulate the mode of ownership for residences, but he did point Kuttner and Lawrence to an existing section of the zoning bylaw on subdivisions, which requires management of common space, like roads.
 
"What we can't do is say it has to be all rental or it has to be all ownership," Groff said.
 
Tuesday's discussion of bylaw proposals began with yet another presentation from Paul Harsch explaining why he believes the town should not permit manufactured homes.
 
Later in the meeting, Beck showed his colleagues two possible bylaws they could bring to the next town meeting that would advance the manufactured housing concept favored by a majority — but not the needed super majority — of attendees at the last annual town meeting.
 
Beck's first suggestion would allow the manufactured homes in the General Residence, Southern Gateway and Rural Residence districts provided those homes are built "since 2023," up to the latest federal standards.
 
Beck's second proposed bylaw would allow manufactured homes by right as accessory dwelling units only in GR, Southern Gateway, RR2 and RR3.
 
"The modern [2023 or later] one addresses some of the concerns that were raised," Beck said. "[The ADU proposal] addresses the home equity concern, if that's a concern for folks. Because your primary home is still the primary driver of your home equity. This is your ADU, just like your converted shed or your garage.
 
Beck also offered a third proposed bylaw draft that would combine the two concepts, permitting manufactured homes only as ADUs and only if built in 2023 or later.
 
"I'm just trying to put in words some of the different things we've bounced around," Beck said. "I framed it. You can go check it out. Reference it to the other parts of the code. See if any of it is attractive to you — if all of them are attractive to you, if none of them are attractive to you. Now, it's in bylaw language that you can get a firmer grip on."
 
In other business, the Planning Board learned that the owner of the Sweetwood Independent Living Community again asked to postpone a discussion about a proposed zoning bylaw amendment to cover its property. Through its attorney, CareOne had been suggesting the town could hold a special town meeting to address its proposal rather than waiting until the May 2024 gathering.
 
Lawrence pointed out that with each passing month, the likelihood of a special meeting diminishes and it becomes more likely any bylaw amendment will be dealt with as part of the town's regular calendar.
 
"Either a rather large number of citizens petitioning the town or the Select Board can call [a special town meeting]," Groff said. "I've explained to them that a special meeting, at least in Williamstown, is not the preferred way of going about this. In other towns, they're more common. We do them exceedingly rarely."
 

Tags: housing,   zoning,   

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