WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — A deeply divided Planning Board on Tuesday recommended next month's annual town meeting adopt the most contentious zoning bylaw amendment the board has produced this cycle.

 

On a vote of 3-2 that followed the same split as past votes on the topic, the board advocated for passage of what is now known as Article 45 on the town meeting warrant.

 

The act would, if passed, reduce the residential lot dimensions in the town's Rural Residence 2 zoning district in the same proportion that a similar article, No. 44, would do so in the General Residence district.

 

RR2 still would require significantly more square footage, frontage and setbacks than the rules that govern the more populated GR zoning district. But each would see an across-the-board one-third reduction in the dimensional requirements if both articles are adopted by the May 17 town meeting.

 

Proponents argue that by scaling back the dimensional requirements, the town's zoning bylaw would be less exclusionary, more housing could be developed and the town would be more welcoming to a wider array of residents, thus addressing the intent of a diversity, equity and inclusion mandate passed overwhelmingly by town meeting 2020.

 

Critics say allowing higher-density housing throughout town without attaching affordability requirements will not result in less expensive housing. Rather, they say, it would destroy existing neighborhoods and only help developers, not the more diverse population meant to benefit from Article 37 on the 2020 town meeting warrant.

 

In the case of RR2, even residents who support higher-density housing in the town's core neighborhoods say that increasing housing opportunities in the rural parts of town will lead to sprawl, increase development pressures that already are pushing out family farms and harm the environment.

 

Tuesday's meeting, a continuation of a public hearing that started last month and ultimately stretched to nearly six hours, featured many of the same arguments that have been made over the last few months and some emotional testimony from residents on both sides of the issues.

 

Carin Demayo-Wall, who is on the ballot for a seat on the Planning Board in the May 10 annual town election, said Article 45 would, in fact, help farmers like herself.

 

"There are a lot of people in town who don't have any choices to live in what is considered rural," said Demayo-Wall. "They are stuck in housing that we deem is what they have to live in and what we deem they are allowed to be part of. We limit our people in Williamstown to where we think they should live, how they should live.

 

"I really struggle at how we're seeing [Article 45] as offensive when I look it from the perspective of growing up on a farm. If I had to sell in order to keep my farm viable, and farming is what is keeping things open – it's farming in this town. It's not the privileged building their mansions on their 2 1/2 acres. … I don't see how this harms [environment] when I, as a farmer, could sell off a very small part of my land to stay viable and stay in my town where I grew up.

 

"We have to be able to remain here, and we're being chased out of our town."

 

She thanked the Planning Board for putting forth bylaw amendments that would make the town less exclusionary.

 

Other residents argued that the Planning Board was not being thoughtful or respectful of natural resources in proposing Article 45 or Article 46, which would remove a preference in the bylaw against development that would require the builder, at their own expense, to extend municipal water and sewer. 

 

"What I don't want is to see our town become so fully developed with so much sprawl where the environment is just an externality, it doesn't count, it's not important," Wendy Penner said. "One of the things I've always loved and valued about the character of the town is a sense of trying to be respectful of our sensitive systems and resources.

 

"It doesn't mean I don't think we should be looking at potential areas to develop housing in RR2. It does mean that I think rezoning the entire rural residence is a bad idea."

 

The board was encouraged several times to wait until next year, when the town hopes to have a new comprehensive plan in place, before proposing changes to the zoning bylaw.

 

Rhon Ernest-Jones, a director for the Williamstown Rural Lands Foundation, spoke from the floor at Tuesday's hearing.

 

"I cannot represent that it's the position of Rural Lands, but it goes right in the face of what we're trying to do at Rural Lands in terms of preserving the beauty, the agricultural potential of open space," Ernest-Jones said. "To very arbitrarily come up with a series of criteria on the table which is going to allow for more intensive development just seems completely unnecessary, completely in the face of the comprehensive plan that is under consideration.

 

"We strongly oppose it."

 

Planning Board members Stephanie Boyd and Roger Lawrence each voted in the minority of 3-2 votes to recommend town meeting pass Articles 45 and 46.

 

The board Tuesday learned that town counsel, which advises the moderator on procedures for the meeting, has indicated that while the zoning change to General Residence can be accomplished by a simple majority vote of town meeting, a similar change in RR2 would require the kind of two-thirds "super majority" that zoning changes typically have needed in the past.

 

That is because although state law now allows for the lower bar of a simple majority vote on zoning changes meant to promote housing opportunity, that change in the law is intended to apply to areas that have the municipal infrastructure to support higher populations.

 

Either way, the town would be breaking new ground if it passes Article 44 by simple majority, Community Development Director Andrew Groff advised the Planning Board. And, if it does so, Williamstown really would not know whether the zoning change qualifies under last year's amendment to the commonwealth's Zoning Act until the change is reviewed by the Attorney General's Office this summer.

 

Groff said town counsel Joel Bard is recommending the moderator count and record any vote on Article 44 on the chance that it passes by a two-thirds majority anyway. Having the vote totals would allow town meeting's affirmative vote to take effect even if the AGO finds that more than a simple majority was required.

 

The board voted unanimously on Tuesday to ask the state Department of Housing and Community Development for an advisory opinion on the vote threshold question. That advisory opinion, which DHCD said would be available in 30 days, would, like the town counsel opinion, be non-binding.

 

"The final determination would come from the Attorney General's Office or, in the worst case scenario, if there's a challenge, land court," Groff said.