To the editor:
The proposed changes in zoning requirements proposed by the planning board, while well-intended, violate much of the Great Barrington’s award-winning master plan.
Articles 15-17 contradict the town’s objectives of retaining its assets. Rather than achieving housing density through new construction of apartment buildings, it destroys established neighborhoods, including historic districts, which define their character. It also reduces green space by right.
These articles allow, by right, accessory dwelling units such as garages, tiny houses and mobile units to increase in size to 900 square feet; to increase in height in some cases to 25 feet; to enable the sell-off of these divided lots to separate owners. Our historic assets, many of which include nonconforming buildings on tight lot lines, will indeed be denser, reduced in green space and potentially change the character of the district. Planning board proposals in the past, such as allowing ground-mounted solar arrays in front yards, by right, were defeated similarly in historic districts.
It is no secret that real estate investment companies have found Great Barrington a target for renters and Airbnb properties. They are willing to pay above-market prices as in Boston. Having different owners of dwelling units on an existing lot in areas of high demand and renting them out could destroy the stability of communities. This change should NOT be by right. While not the intent of these changes, this freeform, “by right” splitting of lots would make our most desirable, most livable communities prey to these “investment” parties.
I urge the defeat of articles 15-17 and ask the planning board to rethink its proposed changes to conform to our master plan. This patchwork of changes could be made by 100 people (the quorum) by a “yes” vote of only 67 people in a parking lot. I also call for the defeat of Article 11, which changes the special permit-granting authority for PURDs from the selectboard to the planning board. I believe the selectboard has a better perspective of balancing changes.
The format of town meetings under COVID-19 does not lend itself to debate and is disadvantageous to opposing views. The lack of reasonable audio-visuals for discussing the pros and cons of warrants is missing. This format favors the proposing board because people just want to “get it over with.”
At minimum, these changes should be voted on when full debate is possible and should be “passed over” for a more thoughtful review at a later date.
If these are not passed over, I urge defeat of these articles.
Sharon Gregory
Great Barrington
