Letter: Williamstown Planning Board Proposals

Letter to the EditorPrint Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

An elected planning board member tells us that voting on the zoning proposals at town meeting will let the Planning Board know how we "feel." Any zoning changes passed at town meeting will be "forever," and virtually irreversible. Cite the research that indicates what effect these changes will have.

Perhaps the Planning Board should have spent more time reaching out to all the town's citizenry long before any town meeting. These articles were approved by the Planning Board long before this unnecessarily delayed town meeting will be held. Better yet, place the items for a vote at the town election, even if as non-binding questions if legally necessary. Why are major decisions being made by a small number of citizens at the broken town meeting?

How do all and any articles affect property evaluations and property taxes, but only for some landowners if some but not articles are passed?

Why is a town master plan being conducted if it is totally meaningless?

Perhaps all items should be voted down, as a group, rather than tabled so the Planning Board can start from scratch and ready their proposals for the 2024 town meeting. All town households should be mailed paper copies of the new proposals well in advance of the 2024 town meeting.

Finally, who serves to benefit the most from passing any or all of these failed proposals???

Ken Swiatek
Williamstown, Mass. 

 

 

 

 

 


Tags: zoning,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

AG Clears Williamstown Select Board in Open Meeting Complaint

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Attorney General's Office on Wednesday cleared the Select Board in an Open Meeting Law complaint filed by iBerkshires.com while simultaneously confirming the supposition at the heart of the complaint.
 
The AGO found that the board did technically violate the OML when it moved to executive session on May 11, a misstep the board previously acknowledged in its response to the complaint.
 
The meeting in question was held behind closed doors to discuss the town's response to a proposal from Williams College to acquire the former town garage site at 59 Water St.
 
At the time of the May 11 meeting, the board had held no public discussion, let alone a vote, on whether to enter into negotiations with Williams, the lone respondent to a request for proposals issued by the town for the 1.27-acre parcel.
 
The board cited an exception to the Open Meeting Law that states executive sessions are appropriate if, "holding the discussion in open session may have a detrimental effect on the Board's negotiating position."
 
iBerkshires.com maintained in its complaint that the executive session was premature given the fact that the board on May 11 had no one to negotiate with as it had not agreed — publicly — to negotiate with the college.
 
The news organization cited the fact that the town's RFP clearly indicated a multi-step process in which the board first would decide whether to engage with any of the respondents (assuming multiple bids were made) and then enter into negotiation with one of the respondents.
 
View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories