image description

Williamstown's Sweetwood Plans Another Try at Zoning Change

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The owner of Sweetwood Independent Living Community plans to take another try at obtaining a zoning change to allow conventional apartments at the South Williamstown facility.
 
This time, CareOne plans to have the current Sweetwood residents on its side.
 
Attorney Jeffrey Grandchamp appeared before the Planning Board last week to inform it that Sweetwood's proprietor hopes to bring a different type of zoning request to May's annual town meeting.
 
Instead of a two-step approach that would have rezoned the Sweetwood property and expanding the uses in the new zone, Sweetwood is aiming for an overlay district to cover the assisted-living site.
 
Last year, when CareOne first came to the town with a landowner's petition to alter Sweetwood's zoning, current residents made the trip to Town Hall to voice their objection to the plan.
 
This year, Grandchamp said the residents are more amenable but there still are details that need to be worked out before the town meeting warrant article is ready to share publicly.
 
"I don't have exact language for you," Grandchamp said at the Planning Board's Jan. 9 meeting. "We are working with the residents to make sure we have language they would approve. They've approved generally what I've discussed with you, but there's a lot of nuance. There are a lot of constituencies, and we want to make sure residents are comfortable with how it's going to work both from a zoning perspective and practically with their lives."
 
In the past, CareOne explained that Sweetwood is operating at about half capacity. And in order to make the "independent living" facility viable, the New Jersey company wants to put some of the apartment units on the open market. The problem is that Sweetwood operates under a special permit that specifically allows an "assisted living residence" under the town's bylaw.
 
Residents of the facility have told the Planning Board that, among other things, they were concerned that a transition to make Sweetwood a regular apartment house would be the beginning of the end to the services on which they rely.
 
Grandchamp, in his first appearance before he board on the issue, said last week that CareOne is working on a concurrent agreement with residents to address their concerns before the zoning change is made.
 
"Some of [the concerns] aren't suitable for a zoning bylaw, like if there are non-traditional Sweetwood residents living there, can they use the laundry machines," Grandchamp said. "Those aren't things typically handled by a zoning bylaw.
 
"But they are things we can handle through a contract. The idea being the residents would have two measures of protection. One, we would have to live within the restrictions of the special permit. And our agreement with them may require us to ask for specific limitations on what we can do with the special permit. The second protection would be a formal legal contract they can enforce."
 
Under the plan Grandchamp laid out last Tuesday, the overlay district would allow use of the facility as both an assisted-living and multi-family living facility by special permit issued from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
 
The Planning Board has no jurisdiction over any warrant article a landowner brings directly to town meeting. But Grandchamp noted last week that without the body's positive recommendation to the meeting, its likelihood of passage in May was diminished.
 
Board member Kenneth Kuttner asked Community Development Director Andrew Groff whether the proposal from CareOne might raise concerns about "spot zoning."
 
"It's not spot zoning if there's something unique about the property," Groff said, pointing to other overlay districts the town has created at Cable Mills on Water Street and the Waubeeka Golf Links property.
 
Roger Lawrence asked Grandchamp to notify the Planning Board about meetings of Sweetwood's residents group so board members can attend for themselves and gauge the level of support for the proposal.
 
Grandchamp said he would and told the board he expects to be back at its Feb. 13  meeting with more information about the warrant article.
 
The Planning Board also discussed the final decisions it needed to make on a proposed "Cottage Housing" bylaw amendment for May's town meeting.
 
The board has spent much of the year developing the bylaw, which would, for the first time, allow in the town's General Residence district development of a "collection of densely spaced small single-family or duplex structures, arranged around a common area or areas."
 
Following its Feb. 13 meeting, the Planning Board intends to send the warrant article to the Select Board for inclusion on the town meeting warrant. That then will trigger a public hearing required by statute on the proposal, which the board has planned for March 12 — potentially continuing to March 26.
 
After any minor or technical changes to the proposed bylaw in March, it would go on the town meeting warrant, which the Select Board is scheduled to seal on April 8.
 
In other business, the Planning Board discussed how to move forward in light of a meeting with the Select Board one night earlier on the notion of a town bylaw on short-term rental units.
 
The planners discussed continued outreach to members of the Select Board to encourage progress on the issue. Chair Peter Beck noted that the bylaw from Great Barrington would be a good model to address both the Planning Board's intent in pursuing a bylaw and concerns raised that such local regulation might be too restrictive.
 
"‘[The Great Barrington bylaw] allows for unlimited days for [accessory dwelling units], unlimited days for bedrooms, and if you're going to rent the entire [residence], it's 150 days — more than enough for a side business but still less than a full business would want to do," Beck said. "The garage apartment we were hearing about would have unlimited days.
 
"It's generous. It should allow anyone who is doing it in town right now to continue what they're doing. But it would disallow, or at least disincentivize, the idea of taking a primary dwelling unit and making it a permanent Airbnb."

Tags: housing,   Sweetwood,   

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