To the editor:
After many months, the Egremont Planning Board (or more accurately the consultant hired by the Planning Board) has produced the text of changes to the town’s Zoning Bylaw. The “final” version is comprised of 9 separate warrant items, up from the original 7. I have already published an analysis of Articles 1, 3 and 4. I skipped Article 2 because it is a mind-boggling mess that is beyond repair. It is not a bylaw; it is an aspirational wish list that empowers the Planning Board to dictate every detail of projects, running roughshod over applicants, including their professional experts, and sometimes usurping the authority of the Board of Health and the building inspector. It must be defeated.
The Planning Board’s proposals are lengthy, complicated and hard to understand. Townspeople should be given more time to consider them. As many townspeople have suggested, this special town meeting should be postponed. But the Select Board does not have the gumption to do that. Sigh!
Analysis of Article 5:
At first reading, Article 5 seems to add some uses of property that would be beneficial (albeit, of course, subject to the micromanagement of the Planning Board). But it suffers from the same flaws that many of the proposed articles do—namely that it seems to have been drafted without considering how it interplays with other provisions in the zoning bylaw. In this case, it is in conflict with some other very important provisions, and it may conflict with state law regarding accessory dwelling units (ADU).
Remember the basic structure of our zoning bylaw: There is a list of property uses, and if a use is not on the list, it is prohibited.
So if I want to change a building’s use, at least outside the housing arena, I probably need a special permit (or sometimes a site plan review, which is pretty much the same thing, given the Planning Board’s powers). And the new use has to be on the list of allowed uses. OK. So what do the Article 5 proposed changes add? They do not add any additional uses—they just add more requirements if the change I am contemplating falls within the new definitions of “Adaptive Reuse” or “Historic Conversion” or is a change to “Mixed-Use.”
What if I want to convert a barn into a residential unit or a residential duplex or triplex? I can do that without a permit from the Planning Board because those uses are allowed by right in the zoning bylaw’s table of uses. But no more: The changes proposed in Article 5 would change “by right” into “only with permission from the Planning Board.” (The situation is complicated by the Planning Board’s steadfast refusal to endorse the simple change of allowing more than one principal building on a lot, a change many of our surrounding towns have made.)
And if my barn is more than 75 years old, each new housing unit would be required to have at least 400 square feet. But if it is less than 75 years old, I can make the units as large as I want. Does that make sense? And if the new unit is an ADU—which the state is mandating and challenging towns that try to restrict them—shouldn’t I just have to comply with the zoning bylaw’s ADU provisions and not these additional ones?
Our Historical Commission has been working on a bylaw about historic buildings for several years. Why should the Planning Board usurp them? And these proposed changes would impinge on the Zoning Board of Appeals’ jurisdiction. Is that a good idea?
I do not think the Planning Board should have its oar in this water. But if you think they should, how could we fix these flaws and conflicts? We could add provisions saying these new provisions do not apply (a) to any conversions into one-, two-, or three-unit housing; or (b) to anything else that is listed as doable by right; or (c) to anything covered by section 4.5.1.5; or (d) to anything as to which the Zoning Board of Appeals or Historical Commission or Agricultural Commission has jurisdiction; or (e) to anything the town cannot restrict pursuant to state law. That would at least handle most of the conflicts. But there would be little left that these new proposed provisions would apply to. And the confusion created by them would be a lawyer’s field day.
Does anyone read, understand, and consider these proposals?
Richard Allen
North Egremont
Click here to read The Berkshire Edge’s policy for submitting Letters to the Editor.
