Williamstown Planners Suggesting Numerous Changes to Zoning Bylaw

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — At the outset of its most the recent meeting, the Planning Board's chair suggested that it take a number of zoning bylaw amendment proposals out of order, moving a heavily discussed proposal to reduce residential lot sizes to the end and first dispensing with what he characterized as the "least controversial" items on the board's plate.
 
One hour, 20 minutes later, they got to the proposal about lot size dimensions.
 
At the end of the nearly three-hour meeting, two things were clear: The Planning Board has been dealing with complex issues throughout the last nine months, and May's annual town meeting, where any bylaw changes need to be approved, could be a long one.
 
When Chris Winters, the chair, opened the discussion about bylaw amendments back in June, he was clear that he believed Chapter 70, the portion of the town code dealing with residential development, needed an overhaul. And he signaled that he would be pushing for significant — if incremental — changes to open up more potential for different housing types and more housing units in the town of 7,500.
 
Though town meeting still is three months out, the clock starts ticking soon for the public notice and hearing deadlines that the Planning Board must meet in order to get any articles on the meeting warrant.
 
At its January and February meetings, the board advanced most of the proposals before it to the drafting stage, though not always unanimously.
 
Last Tuesday, it OK'd most of the "least controversial" proposals that Winters optimistically hoped to move through quickly, though one passed on a 3-2 vote and another was withdrawn by Winters after he was swayed by a colleague's argument.
 
What resulted were six proposed bylaw amendments that the board will review and, potentially, send off to the Select Board for inclusion on the town meeting warrant at its special meeting this Thursday at 7 p.m.
 
As is noted every year at this time, the initial step of sending the articles to the Select Board for its Feb. 28 meeting is largely ceremonial and highly procedural.
 
The articles will then come back to the Planning Board, which will hold at least one public hearing on the proposal in the spring. The Select Board itself will have the opportunity to weigh in with advisory votes on each of the six articles at some point in April or early May.
 
The Planning Board will be able to make minor changes to the warrant articles coming out of the public hearings, but the proposals need to be substantially consistent with the drafts that get printed in a newspaper in the days leading up to the public hearing.
 
Ultimately, all residents who attend the annual town meeting will have the opportunity once again speak for or against the proposals before each is subject to vote. Longtime meeting members will note that these bylaw amendments, unlike past changes to the town code, will require a simple majority for passage at the meeting; a state law signed last year allows zoning changes that are specifically designed to increase housing opportunities to pass town meeting (or a city council) with simple majorities instead of the two-thirds vote they required in the past.
 
Last Tuesday, when the board started digging into some of the "less controversial" proposals, two members of the five-person panel pushed for tabling any potential warrant articles beyond those the board advanced in January.
 
"If we add any more warrant articles than we already have on our plate, we just can't get them done," Stephanie Boyd said. "I think we should just go with working on completing the work to ready the articles we discussed last week and not add any more to it. Any article we add adds more work to redraft, more work to present to the public, more work to do some analysis."
 
Roger Lawrence agreed, saying the board has done no case studies to assess how the changes it is proposing will play out in the real world.
 
A proposed change to Chapter 70-8.4 was one of several specific sticking points that came up at Tuesday's meeting.
 
In his comprehensive review of the zoning bylaw, Winters found a clause in the requirement for special permits for new construction that reads, "Providing adequate water, sewerage and drainage for this location should pose no unusual public problems, and preferably would not result in utility extension past undeveloped parcels."
 
Winters argued that it is counterproductive for the town to actively discourage extension of the water and sewer line for new homes and, in fact, extending them is better for sanitation purposes and cost-sharing by current users of the system.
 
He suggested language that allows the Zoning Board of Appeals (the special permit granting body) to consider the need for extending the lines but does not suggest the town prefers them not to be extended.
 
"If someone owns a lot that's 200 yards beyond the [sewer] line, what we're currently suggesting to the Zoning Board is that they should look askance at that," Winters said. "In so doing, we're suppressing – at the margin, again, this is all marginal – we're suppressing slightly the opportunity for new housing supply."
 
The suggestion prompted a lengthy discussion that included questions from the board about whether the Hoosic Water Quality District sewage treatment facility could handle "marginally more" homes. Community Development Director Andrew Groff advised the board that facility was built to serve North Adams and Williamstown in the late 1970s, when North Adams had 20,000 residents, as opposed to the current population of 13,000
 
In the end, the board voted 5-0 to propose Winters' less restrictive language, but the vote came with a caveat.
 
"I'll vote yes, but I want to reiterate on all of these motions, I need more information," Boyd said. "I'll say yes, let's move it along, but I need to know more about what the impact of this might be, and I want to hear from our constituents.
 
"I want to make it clear it's not going to be easy sailing at our next meeting."
 
That meeting is scheduled to be held remotely via Zoom at 7 p.m. on Thursday and will be telecast on the town's community access television station, Willinet.

Tags: zoning,   

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

Letter: Incomplete Picture from Greylock School Committee

Letter to the Editor

To the Editor:

At the October Mount Greylock School Committee meeting, there was much celebration over the student growth percentiles (SGP) from last year's MCAS test data (Spring 2026). Growth is worth celebrating. But I worry the meeting, and the coverage of it, left families and our community with an incomplete picture of how our students are doing in math.

"Growth" sounds like it means scores went up, but that isn’t quite what SGP measures. SGP compares each student to students in the state who scored about the same the year before, then ranks how they did this year against that group. If a whole group of similar students decreases, the student who decreases the least can still earn a high growth percentile. A strong SGP tells us our students did better than their peers who scored similarly the year before. It doesn't tell us whether they are at grade level.

For example, the current 6th grade class at Williamstown Elementary School (WES) has decreased in their grade-level math proficiency every year since their 3rd grade MCAS. In 2024, 64 percent of the class was meeting expectations; in 2025 48 percent were at grade level, and in 2026 only 33 percent of their class met grade-level expectations. Our current WES 5th grade class follows a similar trend, with 48 percent meeting grade-level math expectations last year vs 56 percent meeting expectations in 2025 when they were in 3rd grade.

Not every class follows this pattern; our current 7th graders gained to 62 percent last year. But seeing entire classes decrease is something that deserves our attention.

Growth comparisons across the state provide useful information, but they do not tell the complete story. We also need to look at where our students are in terms of grade-level proficiency and how those numbers are changing from year to year within the Mt. Greylock school district. This will be our first year with the math interventionist role filled at WES and our second year with the new i-Ready curriculum.

As we watch whether these changes are working, I hope the School Committee will discuss proficiency alongside growth in its public meetings, so our community can see the full picture. Growth matters, but it isn’t enough if fewer of our kids are reaching grade level each year.

Sincerely,

Jenna Hasenkampf
Williamstown, Mass.

Hasenkampf is a parent of WES students in Grades 2 and 4.

 

 

 

View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories