WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — Planning Board meetings in recent years frequently have featured spirited debates for and against zoning bylaw amendment proposals with advocates for and against on both sides of the table in the Select Board Meeting Room.

 

On Tuesday, there was little of that.

 

Instead, there was near unanimous opinion on the board and among attendees at the pre-town meeting public hearing that no one wants to see that meeting approve a pair of bylaw amendments brought by the owner of the Sweetwood Independent Living Community on Cold Spring Road.

 

By late in the hearing, even the attorney representing Sweetwood was suggesting that if the planners could recommend at least one of the amendments, the petitioner would be grateful.

 

In the end, the board voted 5-0 to recommend town meeting vote down both amendments because, the elected officials said, each could have unintended consequences and requires more study.

 

There was sympathy among the board members for the motivation behind the bylaw amendments. Basically, the 70-unit Sweetwood facility is operating at just over half capacity, and the operator, New Jersey's CareOne, is looking for a way to convert some portion of the empty units to regular apartments in order to keep Sweetwood in business.

 

That is not possible because Sweetwood operates under a special permit that designates the facility as an "assisted living residence" in the town's Rural Residence 2 and RR3 zoning districts.

 

Article 25 on the annual town meeting warrant would change the zoning covering the Sweetwood property to that of the nearby Southern Gateway District. If passed, the amendment would create an "island" of Southern Gateway not connected with the rest of the district, which currently runs south on Cold Spring Road (Route 7) with a southern terminus near the A Frame Bakery, a little less than a mile from Sweetwood.

 

The second article placed on the warrant by landowner petition, Article 26, would allow conversion of existing buildings to "multifamily dwellings" (the bylaw's term for apartments) by right in the Southern Gateway District. Currently, such a conversion is allowed in the district, but only with approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals through the special permit process.

 

Karla Chaffee of Boston's Nixon Peabody LLP said CareOne has long been looking at ways to make the Sweetwood property viable.

 

"We decided with the spring town meeting coming up, we would very much like to change the zoning definition of prop to allow for conversion of the use from strictly assisted living to allow multifamily dwellings," Chaffee told the Planning Board. "What will not change if the articles are adopted is programming/services for current residents. Every resident has a contract with Sweetwood that will continue to be honored."

 

Several residents of Sweetwood and family members of residents addressed the board with concerns that those contracts, which include services like dining options, transportation and health and wellness programs, could go away as more of the facility converts to non-assisted living apartments over time.

 

"Let me give you a scenario that keeps me up at night," Williamstown native and Sweetwood resident Peter Mehlin said. "If they bring in outside renters, it can be 50/50 newcomers to seniors. However, realistically, we're a dying population. As apartments become vacant, unless there is serious active marketing to seniors, we'll end up with 60/40 newcomers to seniors, then 70/30, then 80/20.

 

"At what point will all the services I went to Sweetwood for stop being economically viable?"

 

Perhaps worse, while a small portion of the occupied units at Sweetwood are owned by the residents, the majority are rentals. And residents fear that they will be forced out of their homes once the facility starts converting to regular apartments.

 

"I want to say there are, at present, three of the 38 [occupied] apartments that are owned," one resident told the board. "They have their own contracts, true. However, the rest of us have month-to-month contracts. We could leave with two months' notice, and I guess they could get rid of us with two months' notice."

 

Another concern raised on Tuesday night: the fact that moving the property into the Southern Gateway District allows it to be used as a hotel by right.

 

The planners acknowledged that CareOne has no plans to start operating a hotel on the site, but it was noted several times that CareOne may not be the landowner forever, and a future owner may see the profitability of a hotel offering one of the best views in the region.

 

"I know the facility says their intention is not to have a hotel/mote by right in their plans," Planning Board member Peter Beck said. "But having the parcel in a different zone that allows a by-right use is something to consider even if that is not the intention of the current owner."

 

Several times, the planners said they wished that CareOne had engaged the board earlier in the year to discuss options that may have allowed the conversion of some of the apartments to multifamily units while avoiding the unintended consequences. It was pointed out that the board could have developed an overlay district, like the one that covers the Cable Mills complex, or it could have taken another look at the regulations in the Southern Gateway District. Or, it was pointed out, CareOne could have asked the town to look at changing the special permit that allows Sweetwood to operate in RR2 and RR3 in the first place.

 

But given the appearance of the landowners petition a couple of months before the annual town meeting, there is no time to do any of that.

 

Beck noted that if CareOne does decide to start working collaboratively with the Planning Board, there is the possibility of holding a special town meeting midyear to address any zoning bylaw amendments that are needed to make the property economically viable. A special permit process with the ZBA would not be tied to the town meeting calendar and could, theoretically, happen even faster.

 

That said, no one in town government can stop Articles 25 and 26 from going to May's annual town meeting. They are on the warrant that the Select Board closed on Monday night.

 

The Planning Board's twin 5-0 votes recommending against passage echoed a unanimous decision by the Select Board on Monday to make no recommendation on the Sweetwood bylaw amendments because board members felt they lacked sufficient information.

 

There was another echo of that Monday vote in Tuesday's Planning Board meeting.

 

The annual public hearing addressed not only the Sweetwood bylaw amendments but several zoning bylaw amendments crafted by the Planning Board over the last year that are on the town meeting warrant.

 

The board heard just a few comments from residents on those proposals — all positive — and voted to recommend passage of each of the five articles by town meeting.

 

One of the articles cleans up outdated language in the bylaw around manufactured homes. The next is more substantive and would, if passed, allow those homes anywhere a "stick-built" home is allowed in town with the same frontage, setback and area restrictions that apply in a property's zone.

 

A third Planning Board proposal to town meeting would reduce the frontage requirement for residential lots in the General Residence District from 100 feet to 66 feet.

 

Two other amendments on the town meeting warrant would allow, by right, three-family and four-family homes in the General Residence District.

 

The frontage and multi-unit changes grew out of Planning Board proposals that town meeting referred back to committee in June 2022. This year, the board decided to break the multi-unit proposals into two separate warrant articles: one moving the by-right development from two units to three units and another that raises the limit to four units.

 

The reason for two separate articles is to allow the meeting, if it wants, to act more incrementally rather than going from allowing duplexes directly to allowing four-unit homes, though most of the Planning Board members agree that the latter step is needed to increase housing options and density in the town's core.

 

On Monday, one member of the Select Board voted to recommend passage of the three-unit bylaw but against recommending the four-unit bylaw. On Tuesday, one member of the Planning Board, Roger Lawrence, followed suit, voting to recommend passage of the three-unit bylaw but against passage of its companion legislation.