To the editor:
After many months, the Egremont Planning Board has produced the text of changes to the town’s zoning bylaw. (The proposal actually comes from the consultant hired by the Planning Board, who has captured the process so thoroughly that citizen comments are always referred to her and apparently cannot be incorporated without her approval.) The “final” version is comprised of seven separate warrant items. I have already submitted an analysis of Article 1; this is an analysis of Article 3. I have skipped Article 2 for now because it is a mind-boggling mess. I will try to analyze Article 2 and the other articles to the extent that I have time in the too-short period from their recent publication to the presently scheduled early December date for the proposed special town meeting.
Analysis of Article 3:
To understand this article, you have to keep in mind that the Egremont Zoning Bylaw is structured, unfortunately, such that if a use of property is not specified in the bylaw, it is prohibited. Not simply allowed only with a special permit, but prohibited. Before the complete rewrite of the zoning bylaw last winter, commercial enterprises—“retail business or consumer service establishment”—were allowed but required a special permit. Those inartful phrases had not, so far as I know, ever prevented a business from getting a special permit, but the Planning Board was concerned that they might. That concern could have been easily alleviated by changing the phrasing to “commercial enterprise.” While that wording might seem too broad to some people, unworthy enterprises would not happen because the standards that must be met for a special permit are so stringent and subjective that the Planning Board could easily turn down an application for, say, a big box store (the boogie man that haunts those who think such an enterprise would destroy Egremont).
But instead, the revised zoning bylaw added 24 specific and narrowly defined categories of businesses, four of them to be allowed by right, 2½ to be banned and 17½ to be allowed by special permit. That approach resulted, of course, in prohibiting anything not on the list, whether through inadvertence or because a particular business had not even been imagined or whatever. At the time, I alerted the Planning Board to that unintended (?) result and upon request described two or three business types that almost everyone would think desirable but could not be squeezed into any of the 24 categories and therefore would not be allowed. I could have conjured up dozens more of them.
I was ignored. So much for our town being business friendly.
The new proposal does not correct that flawed structure. It just moves two of the 24 uses from “special permit” to the slightly less onerous “site plan review.” For three other categories—professional offices, restaurants, and stores—special permit is replaced by the less onerous site plan review, but only if those uses are in one of the village districts, not in the rest of town, and only if they have less than 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. If a professional office, restaurant, or store has greater than 1,000 square feet, it needs a special permit if it is in one of the village districts, and—wait for it—it is PROHIBITED anywhere else in town.
The old John Andrews restaurant on Route 23—now Hilltown Hot Pies—has 2,720 square feet according to the town’s property records. Those records do not show the square footage of Hy’s Fried (the Old Eg, once a speakeasy according to legend), but it looks like it’s more than 1,000 square feet. Both those restaurants may be grandfathered for now, but if they want to change meaningfully or expand in the future, sorry, no. And no new restaurants outside the villages. Nor professional offices or stores.
The town is trying to attract younger people. Younger people need to make a living. They might be professionals or want to open boutiques or be the next master chef. Why would we want to allow them do those things in our town but only if they can satisfy these crazy quilt requirements? A restaurant is almost always larger than 1,000 square feet, but new ones would not be allowed outside the village districts. Likewise for a two-plus-unit office building or a store selling retro clothing.
Are we really trying to attract younger people to town, or are we not? Are we really trying to encourage business in town, or are we trying to discourage it?
Richard Allen
North Egremont
Click here to read The Berkshire Edge’s policy for submitting Letters to the Editor.
