Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 1/12/2022
SOUTHWICK — After the proposal for a moratorium on new large developments fell through, an alternate proposal to update Southwick’s zoning bylaws faced a similar debate among members of the Planning Board during their Jan. 4 meeting.
The new proposal, submitted by Southwick resident Diane Gale, would add requirements for certain large development proposals such as a Major Development Review, a comprehensive impact statement, a size cap for retail spaces, the use of independent consultants by the Planning Board, and the enforcement of an abandoned building financial surety bond.
Gale said that the new proposal she submitted was a first draft and was still subject to change.
Members of the Planning Board were divided over the abandoned building bond, and the proposal as a whole. Board member David Sutton, who opposed the original moratorium proposal submitted by Gale, expressed concern that the bond would be another unnecessary expense on new businesses that may drive some to choose to set up shop in other communities.
Businesses of a certain physical size would need to pay a bond to the town to be kept in the event that the business leaves and leaves their property behind abandoned. Planning Board Chair Michael Doherty said that there are not many large, vacant buildings in Southwick, but there could be a case where a building is expensive for the town to tear down because it has no feasible use to the town.
“I’m talking about buildings that will require a significant expense to tear down,” said Doherty. “If you are making a very specific building for your business.”
Sutton said that because there are not many large vacant buildings in Southwick, there shouldn’t be a need for such a bylaw, and that it will only serve to drive business away.
“You buy property and change it to fit your needs. You don’t make the guy who had it before you take it down and get it ready for you,” said Sutton.
Doherty said that there are some large properties in Southwick that could soon face proposals for development, and that it would be better to make changes now than to face another controversial development proposal later.
“Knowing what you know now, would you go back and put a limit on the number of car dealerships on College Highway?” said Doherty, referencing last year’s controversial Carvana proposal.
Board member Richard Utzinger indicated that he supported that part of the bylaw changes, as he said he did not think it would be right for the taxpayers of Southwick to have to pay to remediate the property of a business that abandoned it.
“If you put a building like that and they walk away, what do you do? Who absorbs that cost?” said Utzinger, “I think we need to protect the town.”
Planning Board member Marcus Phelps said that the traffic study requirements that are part of the development review and impact statement could be helpful in giving the board a legally valid reason to deny a project if they believe that it will have a detrimental impact on Southwick’s traffic. He said he did not believe that the board currently has that ability with the current bylaws.
Doherty said he would continue to keep the discussion of Gale’s proposal on the Planning Board agenda, though it is unclear if any action will be taken to implement or reject the proposed changes.