Letter: Another look at Williamstown Warrant Article 33

Letter to the Editor04:00PM / Monday, May 20, 2019Print Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

The Planning Board has been working hard to expand housing options in Williamstown. This is an important issue and one I fully support, but perhaps it has been working a little too hard.

Last year's housing proposal didn't even make it to town meeting before it was stopped by citizens who raised a number of valid concerns. That proposal targeted a specific area of town for increased density and would have allowed six housing units per lot by right and up to eight units per lot with Zoning Board of Appeals approval. In short it was viewed as an ill-considered and aggressive effort being foisted upon a small area of town, and with too little time left to rework the article, it was tabled.

As a current member of the Williamstown Planning Board, I do not have the impression that NIMBYism is a major issue here, and I believe that there is significant support among the community for new housing options, in general, and for more affordable housing, in specific. The problem is finding an acceptable balance between the legal change of neighborhood rights and expectations, and the accommodation of those changes.

This year, the Planning Board has delivered two new articles, 32 and 33 for consideration at town meeting on May 21. Both articles extend new rights to most residential zones in Williamstown. Although Article 32 is likely to be uncontested, Article 33 remains controversial for allowing a total of three dwelling units per lot in residential neighborhoods, and differentiating between the rights of property owners by allowing new construction of a detached dwelling unit "by right" on conforming residential lots, and only by special permit on non-conforming lots. In Williamstown, these homes are often next door to one another.

To address the issue of imbalance in property rights, an amendment to Article 33 will be presented at town meeting by Anne Hogeland and newly elected Planning Board member Dante Birch. That amendment will retain the current requirement of ZBA approval for all detached dwelling units and restores a level of fairness to this article.

I urge the voters of Williamstown to support this effort at town meeting on May 21.

In my opinion, it is better for the Planning Board to reach for reasonable goals and build on successes rather than overshoot and achieve nothing. Let's get this right, with broad community support, and move forward.

Sincerely,

Alex Carlisle
Williamstown, Mass.

Carlisle is a member of the Planning Board and writes the Planning Board has not approved this letter.

Tags: town meeting 2019,

iBerkshires.com Text Ads

Greylock Youth SummerFest

Come join in on the wealth building fun! August 3-8. Click for event details. Insured by NCUA.

www.greylock.org

rk MILES Blding Materials

Are You Ready to Update Your Home? Start With rk MILES. 4 Locations (800)670-7433

www.rkmiles.com

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

Mount Greylock School Committee OKs Updated Policy on Seclusion, Restraint

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
05:57AM / Tuesday, August 25, 2026

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Mount Greylock School Committee recently approved an updated policy on time-outs, seclusion and the physical restraint of students.

The policy is based on updated state regulations that came down last winter. Superintendent Joseph Bergeron told the panel at its August meeting that his office waited on recommendations from the Massachusetts Association of School Committees that were released in May and ran the proposed changes past the district's legal counsel.

That timing — and an expectation from the commonwealth that districts have the updated policy in place for the start of the 2026-27 academic year — led to an expedited process for the School Committee, which did not do a first read with a vote at a subsequent meeting as is its practice.

"Policy JKAA speaks to the ways the school district and our procedures shall abide by the updated state regulations," Bergeron said. "We're not going to have a lot of leeway.

"Nothing about the way we interact with our students on a day-to-day basis is being shifted by this."

For example, the commonwealth does not allow schools to use "seclusion," or, "the involuntary confinement of a student alone in a room or area, with or without adult supervision," except some extreme cases, like when, "when student behavior poses an imminent threat of assault, or imminent serious physical harm to self or others, but only if safeguards are accounted for," the updated policy reads.

"From the state's perspective and my perspective, the idea of locking a child in a room without adult supervision is something we've never done," Bergeron said. "And it's something the state wants to make explicitly that nobody ever does."

View Full Story