Wednesday, February 12, 2025

News and Ideas Worth Sharing

HomeViewpointsLettersEgremont is asking...

Egremont is asking its residents to vote on an incomplete and error-filled revision of the town’s zoning bylaw

The folks pressing ahead with this unfinished product assure us that they will finish the job and fix the mistakes in due course. They call doing that “phase two.” But they can offer no guaranty that “phase two” will happen or that it will look as we are being told it will look.

To the editor:

On February 4, Egremont voters will be asked to approve a complete revision of Egremont’s zoning bylaw. Although the Planning Board has been working on it for some time, the final version, which is 99 pages long, wasn’t available for review by townspeople or voters until January 13, just three weeks before the scheduled vote.

The new bylaw is not, in my opinion, ready to be voted on:

  • The new bylaw is incomplete; for example, it is missing entire sections, including very important ones called “Development Standards.” It is certain that those to-be-proposed standards will be restrictive.
  • The new bylaw is filled with mistakes, inconsistencies, and anomalies, many of which I will identify in other postings.
  • The new bylaw makes unexplained changes, perhaps the most important of which is creating a complicated concept called “site plan review” without telling the voter where, when, or how that concept applies. In the few instances where the term pops up in the new bylaw, it does so only in confusing and unclear ways. It is unclear whether it applies to some uses and structures or all of them. It is unclear whether it is in addition to the special permit procedure or replaces it. Townspeople are left up in the air, without guidance, trying to figure out what they are allowed to do, what they are prohibited from doing, and what steps they must take to do something.

The folks pressing ahead with this unfinished product assure us that they will finish the job and fix the mistakes in due course. They call doing that “phase two.” But they can offer no guaranty that “phase two” will happen or that it will look as we are being told it will look. As we all know, government moves in unpredictable ways.

Most importantly, it will be at least a year before further changes and fixes can be finalized, as the Planning Board has admitted. Pity the poor Egremonter who needs to build something or change his business during 2025, who must comply with confusing and often contradictory zoning regulations or bide his time waiting for “fixes.”

And in the meantime, the most pressing need in Egremont, housing, languishes.

The proponents believe that three public meetings and one hearing attended by less than 20 percent of the voters are all that is required to inform voters and townspeople what this is all about. I suggest that the majority of voters are unaware that the proposed bylaw makes extensive changes. And I have spoken to many voters who aren’t even aware that a town meeting to approve them is only a few days away. For example:

  • Do townspeople know that there could be another marijuana seller in town? Maybe more than one?
  • Do the tradesmen in town know that they won’t be able to store ANY materials or commercial vehicles outside?
  • Does an artist or music teacher know that if they expand their business, they may have to redo their driveway to provide parking spaces?
  • Do business owners, including the owners of the campground and the airport, know that people can now object to ANY smoke, odors, vapors, glare, electrical interference, or “offensive” noise?
  • Do Egremonters, who for years knew that the zoning bylaw primarily related to their property and not how they use it, know that the new bylaw heavily regulates the use of their property, and that if their particular use can’t be found in the new table of uses, it is prohibited?
  • Do Egremonters who for years have operated businesses from their homes without interference know that now they have to register with the town and abide by a new extensive regimen of restrictions?

We have a housing crisis in south Berkshire County. We need to build less expensive housing. This is not rocket science: To get less expensive housing, we need to make building it less expensive. In my opinion, the new zoning bylaw should have that goal as its number one priority. But instead the new bylaw in many ways makes it more difficult and costly to build less expensive homes, including ADUs and especially multi-family housing.

We all know that there has been too much divisiveness in society of late. Too often people turn to the courts rather than working problems out. The new zoning bylaw has a new provision (Section 5.2.10) that encourages divisiveness. It applies to EVERY property use in town. (At the last minute, farming and housing were exempted.) It empowers anyone in the “area”—not just abutters—to file a complaint about a long list of “hazards,” including fire, fumes, gas, smoke, odor, dust vapor, flashes, glare, etc. (pretty much everything that an overly sensitive person might not like). In contrast, home occupations and light manufacturing are subjected to more reasonable and less onerous restrictions on noise, smoke, etc. But those restrictions are then overridden by the blanket prohibition in Section 5.2.10.

Zoning bylaws in other towns sometimes contain restrictions on noise or light, but those restrictions are carefully crafted to balance competing interests, not to outright prohibit otherwise lawful activities.

As noted above, there are many other changes being proposed in the new bylaw. They are probably well intentioned, but, unfortunately, they contain inconsistencies, mistakes, and conflicts. I will identify them, and their effect on Egremonters, in a separate posting.

In the meantime, here is an example:

There is a new definition of “structure” for which a permit of some sort is usually required. It includes “any production or piece of work” that is “artificially built up” or “composed of parts and joined together in some definite manner.” It doesn’t have to be large to be a “structure.” The definition covers a dog house or bird house or anything you build or assemble. If it is a structure, it may need a special permit, it must meet setback requirements, and it must have off-street parking. So, off-street parking is required for a garage. And for a shed. And for a swimming pool. And for a tennis court. Really?

Here we are, in the middle of winter, looking at an incomplete and error-prone proposed bylaw. Can anyone provide a rational reason why we have to vote on this now?

Richard Allen
North Egremont

Click here to read The Berkshire Edge’s policy for submitting Letters to the Editor.

spot_img

The Edge Is Free To Read.

But Not To Produce.

Continue reading

Leigh Davis is off to a running start

I am certain that, even as a freshman legislator, Leigh Davis will provide the ideas and leadership we all sorely need at the moment.

Those closest to Trump warned us not to let him back in the White House

Trump is transactional. Most decisions are based on what is in it for him.

With the Trump administration’s stop-work order on USAID, the United States has moved backwards, with possibly decades of loss

The administration’s actions are cruel and counterproductive. We can only hope that it is not too late to regain much of what has already been lost.

The Edge Is Free To Read.

But Not To Produce.