SOUTHWICK — While the chair of the Planning Board threw cold water on a Master Plan recommendation to limit new developments while the town’s zoning regulations are being updated, she agreed to talk more about it.
“The time to do it before we update our zoning,” Planning Board Chair Jessica Thornton said about the Master Plan recommendation to the board.
The recommendation reads: “Consider limiting new development until all zoning enhancements, requests for zoning updates, and adherence to uniformly-applied design/aesthetic standards mentioned in the Master Plan actions have been considered and have planned pathway to implementation.”
Thornton said the board had looked at the recommendation, but since the zoning bylaws are being updated, “considering to put a stop on any new applications or development in town that has already come and gone.”
While board member David Spina didn’t believe limiting development was “completely impractical … and didn’t make sense,” he offered a “different” interpretation of the recommendation.
“The limitation on development would be until such time as all those enhancements to the zoning were actually completed, as opposed to started.”
That prompted Thornton to ask the board if they might consider asking the Master Plan Implementation Committee to cancel the recommendation, which has been allowed on a case-by-case basis — only three so far.
Spina suggested considering the recommendation.
“[Give] it some thought, maybe even some discussion … and deciding one way or another whether or not we want to do this,” which Thornton agreed with.
Board member Marcus Phelps said the town has had a development moratorium in the past.
“It might be interesting to look back,” he said, adding that he wasn’t sure if Town Meeting would have to approve one.
“I would think not,” Thornton said.
She also questioned what development might be limited.
“I don’t know if that’s a conversation that any of us wants to have or should have,” Thornton said.
Despite that, Spina, who is a member of the MPIC, said a decision would need to be made, which Phelps agreed with.
“I think it would be worthwhile to discuss it some more,” he said.
Thornton said the issue would be included as an agenda item during the board’s next meeting.
The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, using a $67,000 state grant, has been revising the zoning bylaws for several months.
Many of the issues in the current bylaws were discovered during the development of the town’s Master Plan, which was drafted by the PVPC using suggestions from a committee that met for over two years to guide the process.
Former Town Planner Jon Goddard, who is now the assistant DPW director, described the revision as “building on the work” of the committee during the development of the Master Plan.
Since the original town bylaws were written in the 1970s, it has been “reworked piecemeal” with new elements added and others removed.
It has left the town with a document that is “awkward,” which is how the PVPC described the bylaws in a comprehensive review of them last year.
“As the town has adopted bylaw amendments and added new sections, this structure has produced some awkward, non-standard placement of content. Finding information in the ZBL can be made more difficult due to various definitions and standards not being in a place where the reader would expect,” wrote the PVPC in the review.
Some of the issues in the bylaw were made apparent last year when the Planning Board went to court because of its decision to deny a special permit to a commercial real estate development company to build and open a Dollar General retail store on College Highway.
There were two lawsuits filed; one that questioned the impartiality of two board members and another that questioned the criteria used by the Planning Board when making a final determination on granting a special permit in both Business zoning districts.
The lawsuit pointed out the vagueness and subjectivity that might be used by the board to justify a decision, including that the business needed to be “suitably located” in town, “be reasonably compatible with the character and scale of other uses permitted,” that the “use will not constitute a nuisance by reason of … visually flagrant structures and accessories,” that the “use is in harmony with the general purposes and intent” of the zoning regulations, “the public good will be served” and “the proposal reasonably protects the adjoining premises against detrimental or offensive effects of the site, including, but not limited to, unsightly or obnoxious appearances.”
When former board member Michael Doherty abruptly resigned in January, he said the Business Restricted zoning district bylaw needed to be revised “sooner rather than later.”
In the comprehensive review, the PVPC pointed to one provision of the bylaw related to “adult entertainment” that would need revising.
It wrote that the bylaw refers to an “Adult Entertainment District [but] does not include a reference to any map identifying the district boundaries.”
The bylaw does, however, prohibit all adult entertainment uses in each of the town’s zoning districts except in the Industrial Restricted district, and it is only allowed after securing a special permit from the Planning Board.
“As such, it does not appear necessary or accurate to include language referring to a district specific to adult entertainment,” according to the comprehensive review.
Goddard said the review will determine “what works well and what doesn’t.”
“[The bylaws] reflect a set of ideals of a different time. Southwick is a different place today than it was before,” he said.
