Loading...
8559_ZONING AMENDMENT 54 REG. VOTERS - 1 ACRE 150 FEET FRONTAGE ? 559 zolillml acrt / t AN ADMENDMENT TO PETITION PH-2008-3 PETITION TO CHANGE ZONING CODE Requesting to change zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 square feet, with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. Amended as follows: Whereas, this amendment will only pertain to all Agricultural District Zoned Land; and Whereas,, Chapter 180-41 . Lot Size: of the code of The Town of Agawam authorizes the use of land and erection of buildings in the Agricultural District: currently reads as follows: "No lot shall be used for residence purpose with a frontage of less than 120 feet on a street or and area of less than 20,000 square feet"; and Whereas, amendment to Charter 180-41 . Lot Size: shall read as follows: Residential building lots in the Agricultural District shall not be less than 3/4 of an acre in lot size or 32,670 square feet with a 150 foot frontage on a street per residential building lot, and Whereas, smaller existing lots, 3/4 acre or less, the size of structures shall conform to the size of the lot, in Residential Zone A-1 , A-2, A-3, and Residential Zone B District. DATED THIS 19th DAY OF May, 2008 SUBMITTED BY: Billy J. Chester, Petitioner Town of Agawam 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1837 Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927 April 29, 2008 Travis Ward, Acting Chairman Agawam Planning Board 36 Main Street Agawam, MA 01001 Dear Mr. Ward: The Agawam Town Council has received a request for an amendment to the Agawam Zoning Ordinance which, if enacted, would require that all residential building lots be not less than one (1) acre in size with 150' of frontage. Agawam's current residential requirements are as follows: Agawam Residential Zoning Requirement Zoning District Size Frontage Residence A-1 17,000 square feet 125 feet Residence A-2 15,000 square feet 110 feet Residence A-3 2 acres - 8 units/acre 150 feet (multi-family) Residence A-4 7 acres - 16 units/acre none (elderly housing) Residence A-5 10 acres -4 units/acre 150 feet (age-restricted) Residence B 12,000 square feet 100 feet Open Space Residential 5 acres - 1 unit/acre 100 feet Development Agriculture 20,000 square feet 120 feet The amendment proposes to replace the lot size and frontage requirements in all the residential zone with the one (1) acre, 150' frontage requirements. Historically, Agawam's multiple residential districts allow for the construction of diverse housing types. They range from the traditional single family dwellings to the recently adopted Age-Restricted Housing and Open Space Residential Housing. Each housing district addresses a certain population group and has resulted in Agawam's ability to continue to be an affordable home for all residents. The proposed amendment, though well intended, has a number of far-reaching implications. Residential housing does cost more in services than it pays in taxes. The American Farmland Trust has been conducting Cost of Community Services (COOS) studies since the mid-1980's. Agawam was one of the original communities to be studied. The purpose of the studies is to determine the fiscal contribution and costs of existing land uses. Agawam's results were as follows: Cost of Community Services Studies: Revenue-to-Expenditure Ratio in Dollars Community Residential Commercial& Working& Source including farm Industrial Open Land houses Agawam 1 :1.05 1 : 0.44 1 : 0.31 American Farmland Trust 1992 The study is over 10 years old, but represents that commercial, industrial and open space cost Agawam far less in services than residential development. To some extent, Agawam's commercial and industrial sector subsidizes residential services . A summary of the American Farmland Trust's studies has been attached. One result of increasing the minimum lot size is that potentially fewer homes would be built resulting in fewer costs in services including schools. Some may even argue that it results in the preservation of more open space. However, many planning studies have concluded that the negatives out-weigh the potential savings. Increasing lot sizes, especially in this case where it would be applied across the board, consumes more land and presents a barrier to housing for young families and the elderly. Recently, lots in Agawam have been, selling for between 5130,000 to $170,000. Though these costs may decline somewhat during the current housing downturn, they are still beyond the reach of many first-time home buyers and those on a fixed income. This means that children who were raised in Agawam and Agawam's older residents may find that they will have to move to be able to afford a home. Another negative impact of the proposed amendment is the effect that it would have on many pre- existing lots. As the earlier table shows, Agawam currently has eight residential districts none of which would meet the requirements of the proposed amendment. If the amendment is approved by the Town Council potentially all of Agawam's existing developed and undeveloped lots would become non-conforming. Board of Appeals approval would be required to build or make additions to all of these non-conforming lots. Approval to build would not be a given. If the intention of the proposed amendment is to slow and/or limit growth, there are a number of ways of achieving this without such far-reaching impacts. The Town could adopt a temporary moratorium during which time community input could be solicited on how growth can best be controlled without such significant impacts. I would not recommend this approach given the economic climate and problems being experienced by the housing industry. Other approaches include increasing the minimum lot size in one district. 1n the early 1990's there was a proposal before the Town Council to increase the minimum lot size in the Agricultural District from 20,000 square feet to 1 acre. This was the district in which the increased lot size made the most sense due to the lack of sewers. The proposal was defeated by the Town Council after intense lobbying by the farming community who wished to keep their options open to develop their property. Decisions on how to control growth should be made after careful study and community input. The proposal as submitted would limit housing to only a select population and does not reflect Agawam's tradition as stated in the report"Coming Together far Consensus:A Working Statement of Goals and Objectives to Guide Agawam into the Future (October 27, 1993)which stated: "From Agawam's rural past we've retained a sense of being a small town where friendly people with a wide range of incomes know each other and participate in civic activities, school affairs and sports......This is a good place to raise a family in a nice neighborhood with lots of children, and then enjoy retirement years... " Sincerely, K � S Deborah S. Dachos, Director Office of Planning and Community Development AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER DESCRIPTION The process is straightforward, but ensuring Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies are a reliable figures requires local oversight. The most case study approach used to determine the fiscal complicated task is interpreting existing records contribution of existing local land uses. A subset to reflect COOS land use categories.Allocating of the much larger field of fiscal analysis, COCS revenues and expenses requires a significant studies have emerged as an inexpensive and amount of research, including extensive reliable tool to measure direct fiscal relationships, interviews with financial officers and public Their particular niche is to evaluate working administrators. FARMLAND and open lands on equal ground with residential, HISTORY commercial and industrial ]and uses. INFORMATION Communities often evaluate the impact of COCS studies are a snapshot in time of costs growth on local budgets by conducting or cum- CLC NTE R versus revenues for each type of land use.They missioning fiscal impact analyses. Fiscal impact do not predict future costs or revenues or the studies project public costs and revenues from FACT impact of future growth.They do provide a different land development patterns. They gener- baseline of current information to help local ally show that residential development is a net officials and citizens make informed land use fiscal loss for communities and recommend tom- and policy decisions. mercia-1 and industrial development as a strategy SHEET METHODOLOGY to balance local budgets. In a COCS study,researchers organize financial Rural towns and counties that would benefit records to assign the cost of municipal services to from fiscal impact analysis may not have the COST, O working and open lands, as well as to residential, expertise or resources to conduct a study, Also, commercial and industrial development. fiscal impact analyses rarely consider the Gonrri- Researchers meet with local sponsors to define the bution of working and other open lands uses, COMMUNITY scope of the project and identify land use which are very important to rural economies. categories to study. For example, working lands American Farmland Trust(AFT) developed may include farm, forest and/or ranch lands. COCS studies in the mid-1980s to provide SERVICES Residential development includes all housing, communities with a straightforward and inex- including rentals, but if there is a migrant agricul- pensive way to measure the contribution of agri- turai work force, temporary housing for these cultural lands to the local tax base. Since then, workers would be considered part of agricultural COCS studies have been conducted in at least STUDIES land use. Often in rural communities,commercial 102 communities in the United States. and industrial land uses are combined. COCS studies findings are displayed as a set of ratios that FUNCTIONS &PURPOSES "am Farm and compare annual revenues to annual expenditures Communities pay a high price for unplanned American Farmland Trust for a community's unique mix of land uses. growth.Scattered development frequently causes FARMILAND INFORMATION CENTER COCS studies involve three basic steps: traffic congestion, air and water pollution, loss One Short Street,Suite 2 of open space and increased demand for costly Northampton,MA 01060 I. Collect data on local revenues public services. This is why it is important for (800)370-4899 and expenditures. citizens and local leaders to understand the rela- www.farmlandinfo.org 2. Group revenues and expenditures and tionships between residential and commercial NATIONAL OFFICE allocate them to the community's major land growth, agricultural ]and use, conservarion and 1200 18th Street, NW,Suite 800 use categories. their community's bottom line. Washington, DC 20036 3. Analyze the data and calculate revenue-1:0- (2021 331-7300 expenditure ratios for each land use category. www.farmland.org August 2004 The FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER(F1C)is a clearinghouse for information about farmland protection and stewardship. The FIC is a public/private partnership between USDA's.Natural Resources Conservation Service and American Farmland Trus AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER COCS studies help address three claims that are that of other commercial and industrial land commonly made in rural or suburban uses. On average, because residential land uses communities facing growth pressures. do not cover their costs,they must be subsidized 1. Open lands—including productive farms and by other community land uses. Converting agri- forests—are an interim land use that should cultural land to residential land use should not be developed to their"highest and best use." be seen as a way to balance local budgets. COST OF 2. Agricultural land gets an unfair tax break The findings of COCS studies are consistent with when it is assessed at its current use value for those of conventional fiscal impact analyses, farming or ranching instead of at its potential which document the high cost of residential COMMUNITY use value for residential or commercial development and recommend commercial and development. industrial development to help balance local budgets. What is unique about COCS studies is SERVICES 3. Residential development will lower property that they show that agricultural land is similar to taxes by increasing the tax base. other commercial and industrial uses. In every While it is true that an acre of land with a new community studied, farmland has generated a STUDIES house generates more total revenue than an acre fiscal surplus to help offset the shortfall created of hay or corn,this tells us little about a comma- by residential demand for public services. This is nity's bottom line. In areas where agriculture or true even when the land is assessed at its current, For additional information forestry are major industries, it is especially agricultural use. farmland protection and steward ship important to consider the real property tax con- Communities need reliable information to help contact the Farmland Information tribution of privately owned working lands. them see the full picture of their land uses. Center. The service,FIC offers a staffed Workingand other open lands may generate less answ P Y g COOS studies are an inexpensive way to evalu- rogramonitoring, online library, revenue than residential commercial or industrial + ate the net contribution of working and open program monitoring, fact sheets ro ernes but the require little public infra- P P Y 9 P lands.They can help local leaders discard the and other educational materials. structure and few services. notion that natural resources must be converted COCS studies conducted over the last 20 years to other uses to ensure fiscal stability.They also show working lands generate more public rev- dispel the myths that residential development enues than they receive back in public services. leads to lower taxes, that differential assessment Their impact on community coffers is similar to progfams give landowners an "unfair" tax break and that farmland is an interim land use just waiting around for development. Median COCS Results www-farmlandinfo.org One type of land use is not intrinsically better $1.2S than another,and COCS studies are not meant (800) 370-4879 $1 00 to judge the overall public good or long-term merits of any land use or taxing structure. It is $0.75 up to communities to balance goals such as maintaining affordable housing, creating jobs $0.50 and conserving land. With good planning, these $0 25 goals can complement rather than compete with each other. COOS studies give communities $0.00 another tool to make decisions about their Commercial Working& Residential futures. &Industrial Open Land Median cost—per dollar of revenue raised—to provide public services to different land uses. American Farmland Trust American Farmland Trust works to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment. AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST - FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES, REVENUE-TO-EXPENDITURE RATIOS IN DOLLARS Community Residential Commercial Working& Source including Sc Industrial Open Land farm houses Colorado Custer County 1 : 1.16 1 :0.71 ' 1 :0.54 Haggerty,2000 Saguache County 1 : 1.17 1 :0.53 1 :0.35 Dirt,Inc.,2003 Connecticut Balton 1 : 1.05 1 :0.23 1 : 0.50 Geisler, 1998 Durham 1 : 1.07 1 :0.27 1 :0.23 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Farmington 1 : 1.33 1 :0.32 1 :0.31 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Hebron 1 : 1.06 1 :0.47 1 :0.43 American Farmland Trust, 1986 Litchfield 1 : 1.11 1 :0.34 1 : 0.34 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Pomfret 1 : 1.06 1 :0.27 1 : 0.86 Southern New England Forest Consortium,1995 Georgia Carroll County 1 : 1.29 1 :0.37 1 :0.55 Dorfman and Black,2002 Grady County 1 : 1.72 1 :0.10 1 :0.38 Dorfman,2003 Thomas County 1 : 1.64 17 0.38 1 :0.66 Dorfman,2003 Idaho Canyon County 1 : 1.08 1:0.79 1 :0.54 Hartmans and Meyer,1997 Cassia County 1 : 1.19 1:0.87 1 :0.41 Hartmans and Meyer,1997 Kentucky Lexington-Fayette 1 : 1.64 1;0.22 1 :0.93 American Farmland Trust, 1999 Oldham County 1 : 1.05 1:0.29 1 :0.44 American Farmland Trust,2003 Maine Bethel 1 : 1.29 1 :0.59 1 :0.06 Good,1994 Maryland Carroll County 1 : 1.15 1 :0.48 1 :0.45 Carroll County,Dept.of Management&Budget, 1994 Cecil County 1 : 1.17 1 :0.34 1 :0.66 American Farmland Trust,2001 Cecil County 1 : 1.12 1 : 0.28 1 :0.37 Cecil County Office of Economic Development, 1994 Frederick County 1 : 1.14 1:0.50 1 :0.53 American Farmland Trust,1997 Harford County I : 1.I1 1 :0.40 1 :0.91 American Farmland Trust,2003 Kent County 1 : 1.05 I :0.64 1 :0.42 American Farmland Trust,2002 Wicomico County 1 :1.21 1 :0.33 1 :0.96 American Farmland Trust,2001 Massachusetts Agawam 1 : 1.05 1 :0.44 1 :0.31 American Farmland Trust, 1992 Becket 1 : 1.02 1 :0.83 1 :0.72 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Deerfield 1:1.16 1:0.38 1 :0.29 American Farmland Trust, 1992 Franklin 1 : 1.02 1 :0.58 1 :0.40 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Gill I : 1.15 1:0.43 1 :0.38 American Farmland Trust, 1992 Leveretr 1 : LIS I :0.29 1 :0.25 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Middleboro 1 : 1.09 1 :0.47 1 :0.70 American Farmland Trust,2001 Southborough 1 : 1.03 1 :0.26 1 :0.45 Adams and Hines, 1997 Westford 1 :1.15 1 :0.53 1 :0.39 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1595 Williamstown 1 : 1.11 1 :0.34 1 :0.40 Hazlet et al., 1992 Michigan Marshall Twp.,Calhoun Cry. 1 : 1.47 1 :0.20 1 :0.27 American Farmland Trust,2001 Newton Twp.,Calhoun Cty. 1: 1.20 1 :0.25 1 :0.24 American Farmland Trust,2001 Scio Township 1 : 1.40 1 : 0.28 1 :0.62 University of Michigan, 1994 AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES, REVENUE-TO-EXPENDITURE. RATIOS IN DOLLARS Community Residential Commercial Working& Source including &Industrial Open Land farm houses Minnesota Farmington 1 : 1.02 1 :0.79 1 :0.77 American Farmland Trust,1994 Lake Elmo 1 : 1.07 1 :0.20 1 :0.27 American Farmland Trust, 1994 Independence 1 : 1.03 1 : 0.19 1 :0.47 American Farmland Trust, 1994 Montana Carbon County 1 : 1.60 1 :0.21 1 :0.34 Prinzing,1999 Gallatin County 1 : 1.45 1 :0.16 1 0.25 Haggerty, 1996 Flathead County 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.26 1 :0.34 Citizens for a Better Flathead; 1999 New Hampshire Deerfield 1 : 1.15 1 :0.22 1 :0.35 Auger,1994 Dover 1 : 1.15 1 :0.63 1 :0.94 Kingsley et al.,1993 Exeter 1 : 1.07 1 : 0.40 l :0.82 Niebling,1997 Fremont 1 : 1.04 1 :0.94 1 :0.36 Auger,1994 Groton 1 : 1.01 1 :0.12 I :0A8 New Hampshire Wildlife Federation,2001 S€rarham I : 1.15 1 :0.19 1 :0A0 Auger, 1994 Lyme - 1 : 1.05 1 :0.28 1 :0.23 Pickard,2000 New Jersey Freehold Township 1 : 1.51 1 :0.17 1 :0.33 American Farmland Trust, 1998 Holmdel Township 1 : I.38 1 :0.21 1 :0.66 American Farmland Trust, 1999 Middletown Township 1 : 1.14 1 : 0.34 1 :0.36 American Farmland Trust, 1998 Upper Freehold Township 1 : 1.18 1 :0.20 1 :0.35 American Farmland Trust, 1998 Wall Township 1 : 1.29 1 :0.30 1 :0.54 American Farmland Trusr, 1998 New York Amenia 1 : 1.23 1 :0.25 1 :0.17 Buckna[[,1989 Beekman 1 : 1.12 1 :0.18 1 :•0:48 American Farmland Trusr, 1989 Dix 1 :1.51 1 :0.27 1 :0.31 Schuyler County League of Women Voters,1993 Farmington 1 : 1.22 1 : 0.27 1 :0.72 Kinsman et al., 1991 Fishkill 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.31 1 :0.74 Bucknall, 1989 Hector 1 :1.30 1 : 0.15 1 :0.28 Schuyler County League of Women Voters,1993 Kinderhook 1 : 1.05 1 :0.21 1 :0.17 Concerned Citizens of Kinderhook,1996 Montour 1 : 1.50 1 :0.23 1 :0.29 Schuyler County League of Women Voters, 1992 Northeast 1 : 1.36 1 :0.29 1 :0.21 American Farmland Trust, 1999 Reading 1 : 1.88 1 : 0.26 1 :0.32 Schuyler County League of Women Voters,1992 Red Hook 1 : 1.11 1 :0.20 1 : 0.22 Bucknall, 1989 Ohio Clark County 1 : 1.11 1 :0.38 1 :0.30 American Farmland Trust,2003 Knox County 1 : 1.05 1 :0.38 1 :0.29 American Farmland Trust,2003 '.Madison Village 1 : 1.67 1 :0.20 1 :0.38 American Farmland Trusr, 1993 ivindison Township 1 : 1.40 1 :0.25 1 :0.30 American Farmland Trust, 1993 Shalersville Township I 1.58 1 :0.17 1 :0.31 Portage County Regional Planning Commission, 1997 AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES, REVENUE-TO-EXPENDITURE RATIOS IN DOLLARS Community Residential Commercial Working W Source including Br-Industrial Open Land farm houses Pennsylvania Allegheny Township 1 :1.06 1 :0.14 1 :0.13 Kelsey,1997 Bedminster Township 1 : 1.12 1 :0.05 1 :0.04 Kelsey,1997 Bethel Township 1 : 1 08 1 :0.17 1 : 0.06 Kelsey, 1992 Bingham Township 1 : 1.56 1:0.16 1 :0.15 Kelsey,1994 Buckingham Township 1 : 1.04 1 : OAS 1 :0.08 Kelsey,1996 Carroll Township 1 : 1.03 1 :0.06 1 :0.02 Kelsey, 1992 Hopewell Township 1 : 1.27 1 :0.32 l :0.59 The South Central Assembly for Effective Governance,2002 Maiden Creek Township 1 : 1.28 1 :0.11 1 :0.06 Kelsey, 1998 Richmond Township 1 : 1.24 1.0.09 1 : 0.04 Kelsey, 1998 Shrewsbury Township 1 : 1.22 1 :0.15 1 :0.17 The South Central Assembly for Effective Governance,2002 Stewardson Township 1 :2.11 1 :0.23 1 :0.31 Kelsey, 1994 Straban Township 1 : 1.10 1 :0.16 1 --0.06 Kelsey,1992 Sweden Township 1 : 1.38 1 :0.07 1 :0.08 Kelsey,1994 Rhode Island Hopkinton I : 1.08 1 .0.31 1 :0.31 Southern New England Forest Consortium,1995 Little Compton 1 : 1.05 1 :0.56 1 :0.37 Southern New England Forest Consortium,1995 Portsmouth 1 : 1.16 1 :0.27 1 : 0.39 Johnston,1997 West Greenwich 1 : 1.46 1 :0.40 1 :0.46 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Texas Bandera County 1 : 1.10 1 :0.26 1 : 0.26 American Farmland Trust,2002 Bexar Cunty 1 : 1.15 1 :0.20 1 :0.18 American Farmland Trust,2004 Flays County 1 : 1.26 1 :0.30 1 :0.33 American Farmland Trust,2000 Utah Cache Counry 1 : 1.27 1 :0.25 .1 :0.57 Snyder and Ferguson, 1994 Sevier Counry 1 : 1.11 1 :0.31 1 : 0.99 Snyder and Ferguson, 1994 Utah County 1 : 1.23 1 :0.26 1 : 0.82 Snyder and Ferguson, 1994 Virginia Augusta County 1 : 1.22 1 :0.20 1 : 0.80 Valley Conservation Council, 1997 Clarke Counry 1 : 1.26 1 :0.21 1 :OAS Piedmont Environmental Council, 1994 Culpeper County 1 : 1.22 1 :0.4I 1 :0.32 American Farmland Trust,2003 Frederick County 1 : 1.19 1 :0.23 1 :0.33 American Farmland Trust,2003 Northampton County 1 : 1.13 1 :0.97 1 :0.23 American Farmland Trust,1999 . Washington Skagit County 1 : 1.25 1 :0.30 1 :0.51 American Farmland Trust,1999 Wisconsin Dunn 1 : 1.06 1:0.29 1 :0.18 Town of Dunn, 1994 Dunn 1 : 1.02 1 :0.55 1 :0.15 Wisconsin Land Use Research Program, 1999 Perry 1 : 1.20 1 : 1.04 1 :0.41 Wisconsin Land Use Research Program 1999 Westport 1 . 1.11 1 :0.31 1 :0.13 Wisconsin Land Use Research Program, 1999 American Farmland Trust's Farmland Information Center acts as a clearinghouse for information about Cost of Community Services studies. Inclusion in this table does not necessarily signify review or endorsement by American Farmland Trust. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING BOARD FROM: BARBARA BARD, COUNCIL CLERK SUBJECT: PH-2008-3 PETITION TO CHANGE ZONING (ZC-2008-2) DATE: 4 J 9 J2008 The attached petition has been referred to the Planning Board by the Agawam City Council. Please inform as to what date is set for your public hearing. A tentative City Council Public Hearing date of May 51h has been scheduled. Thank you. RECEIVE) APR 1 2008 e ' 4�1 ii7 Town of Agawam Interoffice Memorandum _ TO AGAWAM CITY COUNCIL. MAYOR SUSAN DAWSON FROM RICHARD M. THEROUX, TOWN CLERK RE PETITION TO CHANGE THE ZONING CODE The attached petition is being forwarded for your attention. The petitioners are requesting to change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 square feet, with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. This petition has been filed under article 8, sec. B of the Agawam Home Rule Charter. 2-u-4 u� , CO March 17, 2008 =fir, Agawam Town Council .� Town of Agawam n T• 36 Main Street Agawam, Ma. 01001 cn ' Councilors: Submitted herewith is a petition to change the zoning code, of the Town of Agawam, of all future residential building lots to be no less than one(1) acre, consisting of 43,560 square feet, with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. The town council is requested to hold a public hearing and act by taking a vote on the merits of this petition or any action thereof, which is address to it and which is signed by fifty two voters. The hearing shall be held by the town council, by a committee or subcommittee thereof, and the action by the town council shall be taken not later than three months after the petition is filed with the town clerk. The town clerk shall mail notice of the hearing to the ten petitioners whose names first appear on this petition at least forty-eight hours before the hearing. Notice by publication, of all such hearing shall also be made and shall be at public expense. Sincerely, Billy J. Chester This petition is hereby submitted to the Town of Agawam to change the zoning code for all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 Square Feet with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. Petition Summary: Our school systems our overburden with the influx of additional students ev"ry year and this has caused a tremendous tax burden on the homeowners in this community. Action Petitioned For: We, the undersigned, believe it is time to move forward and our leaders a responsively on this issue to increase the residential building lot size to no Iess than one (1) acre. �. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE RIT- 64k MI& e0' 14 I SO w , ` U�; WAIy, 08 Page 2 of 7 17 9 This petition is hereby submitted to the Town of Agawam to change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 Square Feet with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE e.4 el 'OOF ru f r i P AGAWAM, Page 3 of 7 08 MAP 17 AM 11: 59 This petition is hereby submitted to the Town of Agawam to change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 Square Feet with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE A �QZA il M CV ttnK- e0 u Iya Q ao C5 r i r hD r Wit. a ` ' ✓ � �71 j S AGAWAM, -MASS. Page 4 of 7 08 MAR 17 APB I1 r 59 This petition is hereby submitted to the Town of Agawam to change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 Square Feet with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE ✓1 M/ aPt, - QLAI 75fil ,� AGAWAM, MASS, Page 5 of 7 08 MAR 17 AM 11: 59 This petition is hereby submitted to the Town of Agawam to change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 Square Feet with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE I': '14 L„. .. �]C41 `?r,'/-L' 1 1 f'1 dO t\ OW 6141 ' u. LlHiK AGAWAm' MASS. Page �ph,� 17 AM 11= 59 This petition is hereby submitted to the Town of Agawam to change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (I) acre, consisting of 43,560 Square Feet with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE LI / 6� ✓ �/JVJ AGAWAM, MASS. Page 7 of 7 08 RR 17 Ali II: 59 This petition is hereby submitted to the Town of Agawam to change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 Square Feet with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SK NAT� RE 00, —�._. a 6E Zasl CERTIFIED BY THE BOARD OF REGISTRARS - 54 REGISTERED VOTERS FROM THE TOWN ,pf GAh'AM ' Richard M . Theroux , Clerk , Board of Registrars This petition is hereby submitted to the Town of Agawam to change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 Square Feet with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE G1 EE)jI�L l fI-C 1 13 1 . /C Zvo :57- tiQ t21 Minimum one-acre lot size gets cold . shoulder Council VP, town planner hoods in town, while town planner Deborah S. Dachos outlined a litany of express deep reservations potential pitfalls the town could face. "One of the things that makes By Ric Sardella Agawam so unique in my perspective is aan@turley.com its neighborhoods. I believe that if we increase the minimum lot size, we will The vice-president of the Agawam lose the character of our town.Agawam, Town Council as well as the to.wn's in essence,will become Longmeadow. It director of Planning and Community may not happen overnight, but incre- each cast doubts about a proposal that mentally, I believe that will happen," would increase the minimum building Calabrese said. lot size to one acre in all residential Zoning laws presently allow for zones.The proposal also calls for a mini- frontage between 100 and 125 square mum frontage requirement of 150 feet. feet, and 20,0W square feet for building The proposal, first heard at a public in an Agricultural .Zone, 12,000 in hearing conducted by the Planning Residential Zone B, 15,000 in Zone A=2, Board on May 1, is scheduled to be 17,000 in A-1, and in A-4(elderly hous- voted on by planners on Thursday, May ing),seven acres;with 16 units per acre. 15, with a recommendation to be for- Calabrese acknowledged that-if the warded to the Town Council for a public zoning by-laws were amended to include hearing on Monday,May 19, the one-acre proposal, the above square- The proposal surfaced in the wake foot requirements would at least double. of a citizen's petition filed by Billy J. Calabrese said the long-term ramifi- Chester of Barry Street,Feeding Hills. cations of the one-acre zoning would According to Cecilia Calabrese, the have an adverse affect on the town. council's vice-president, the bottom line please we LAND,page 21 is simple —maintaining the neighbor- Wray 15,2008 AGAWAN ADVERTISER NEWS Page 21 Land from page I amendment. If the amendment is nity input could be solicited on how the minimum lot size in the Agricultural approved_ by the Town Council, poten- growth can be best controlled without Zone from 20,000 square feet to one tially all of Agawam's existing devel- such significant impacts. I would not acre. "When I think about current home- . oped and undeveloped land would recommend this approach given the eco- "This was the district in which the owners,I also think of the people that.for become non-conforming,".Dachos said. nomic climate and problems being expe- increased lot size made the most sense one reason or another have vacant resi- To pass the amendment, a positive rienced by the housing industry,"bathos due to the lack of sewers," Dachos said. dential or agricultural land. One con- two-thirds vote of the council (eight of said. "The council defeated the proposal after stituent received inherited land from her the I I councilors) would be needed. Dachas said the Town Council intense lobbying from the farming com= grandparents and plans to deed the prop- Dachos warned that those wishing to could revisit a proposal it defeated in the munity who wished to keep their options erty to her child so the child can one day -build a home and current homeowners early 1990s that attempted to increase open to develop their'property." build-a home here. wishing to build an addition would need "If one-acre zoning becomes the law to seek relief from the Board of Appeals.of.the land .in Agawam, that land now before being allow to proceed. becomes worthless. We will be stealing "Approval to build would not be a the dream of home ownership from that given,"she said. family, and countless others, I suspect," When contacted for comment, Calabrese said. Chester said he understands that his In her report to the Planning Board, . amendment faces opposition. But he Dachos said increasing lot,sizes across contends the amendment's motives are in the board consumes more land and press the town's best interest. ents a barrier to housing for young fami- "We have people building 3,100 lies and the elderly. square foot homes on a half acre lot or "Recently, lots in Agawam have less. Homes are being built that do not been selling for between $130,000 to conform to that particular parcel. The $170,000. Though these costs may homes are being crammed together. This decline somewhat during the current kind of cluster housing is going on all housing downturn, they are still beyond the time in our town.. the reach of many first-time homebuyers "I am in favor of open space and I and those on a fixed income.This means guess their definition of open.space is a the children who were raised in Agawam lot different from what I consider to be and Agawam's older residents may find open space,"Chester said. that they will have to move_to be able to Chester said a compromise may be afford.a home,"said Dachos. limiting building on agricultural land to She-stated that many planning stud- one-acre Iots only,'especially in areas ies.have concluded that the savings where no municipal sewers exist. Me towns may realize in delivering munici- contended that the zoning laws govern- pal services such as police,fire,and pub- ing residential building in town continue lic-schools from limiting home construc- to be a burden on the taxpayers due to tion are out-weighed by a variety of increased costs in police and fire servic- other factors. es,and to the schools. .Dachos is also concerned, like Dachos remarked that if the amend- Calabrese, about the effect the one-acre nient was aimed at slowing or limiting limit would have on many pre-existing growth in town, there are several-ways:to lots. proceed without the far-reaching impact "Agawam currently has eight resi- it would create. dential districts, none of which would "The town could adopt a temporary meet the requirements of the proposed moratorium during which time comma- AgawamDepartment Memo To: Barbara Bard, Council Clerk From: Christopher C. Johnson Date: May 6, 2008 Re: Citizen Petition to Change frontage and area requirements for residential building lots Barbara, At this point it would be impossible to draft an agenda item relative to the citizen petition because it lacks specificity. Do they want to change the town's zoning ordinances relative to all zones which allow for the construction of single family homes? Do they want to change only the zoning ordinances relative to the residential zones? Do they want to change only the zoning ordinances relative to the agricultural zone? The petition falls under Section 8-1(b) of the charter which provides as follows: Section 8-1. Free Petition (b) Group Petitions; Action Required --The town council or the school committee, as may be, shall hold a public hearing and act by taking a vote on the merits of every petition which is addressed to it and which is signed by at least fifty voters. The hearing shall be held by the town council or the school committee or, in either case, by a committee or subcommittee thereof, and the action by the town council or school committee shall be taken not later than three months after the petition is filed with the town clerk. Hearings on two or more petitions tiled under this section may be held at the same time and place. The town clerk shall mail notice of the hearing to the ten petitioners whose names first appear on each petition at least forty-eight hours before the hearing. Notice by publication, of all such hearings shall also be made and shall be at public expense. . If the Council believes that the petition has merit and votes in the affirmative, the Council would have to specify what provisions of the town's zoning ordinances they would like to amend. At that point, I could draft an ordinance amendment to reflect the changes. Once the ordinance amendment was drafted, the Council would have to follow the procedures outlined in M.G.L. c. 40A, § 5 to adopt the change. Any vote by the Council on the petition could not effectuate an amendment to the town's zoning ordinances. Please call with any questions. Ve tru Christoph . Johnson cc: Mayor 1 y 0 Town of Agawam It "' 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1837 1� Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927 May 16, 2008 Gina M. Letellier, President Cecilia Calabrese, Vice President George Bitzas, Councilor Gina M. Letellier, Councilor Jill Messick, Councilor Joseph Mineo, Councilor Dennis Perry, Councilor Donald M. Rheault,Councilor Robert Rossi, Councilor Jill Simpson, Councilor Robert M. Young, Councilor Agawam Town Council 36 Main Street Agawam, MA 01001 Dear Councilors: The Planning Board is in receipt of a petition for a change to the Agawam Zoning Ordinance. The petition requests that all residential building lots he not less than one(1) acre in size with 150' of frontage. The Planning Board held its public hearing on the revision on May 1,2008. At its meeting held on May 15, 2008, the Planning Board was unable to vote on the petition because one of the three members present at the meeting was not at the May 1" public hearing. Despite the inability to vote on the petition, the Board wishes to convey its lack of support for the proposed amendment. Because the proposed amendment would apply to all eight (8) residential districts, the Board feels that it would make home ownership unattainable for individuals on a fixed income and young families. Agawam currently allows for the construction of a diverse range of housing which satisfies the needs of all Agawam residents. The proposal, as presented, only allows for new construction on an acre lot. Given that one-half acre lots are now priced at $150,000 in Agawam, the cost of an acre lot would make home construction prohibitive to many. The Board is in agreement that some of the new home construction has resulted in large homes being built on small lots. This does sometimes result in neighborhoods where homes appear to be built on top of one another. However, the Board does not feel that increasing lot sizes across the board is the way to address this one issue. Attached you will find a letter from a resident who would be affected by the amendment. The Board has also heard from other residents who would be similarly affected. Attached you will also find the report presented to the Board by the Planning Director. If you desire any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Planning Office at 786-0400, extension 283. Sincerely, Violet Baldwin, Acting Chairman Agawam Planning Board cc: Mayor, Clerk, File iRFr,FIVED MAY 13 2008 P, ¢� 60ARD f 4 46V � r I RFC FIVED MAY 13 2008 pdop R." liNNINU BOARD ;6 4e;e,4 iole� 4 //X17 Iz- �- �u�o.:e a Memorandum To: Planning Board CC: Chief Robert Campbell 'From: Sgt. Richard Niles Date: 04/28/2008 Re. Proposed Zoning Amendment—One acre building lots w/ 150' frontage I have no comment on this proposed zoning amendment. Respectfullyn Submitted Sgt. Richard Niles Safety Officer �3o AIR �' 9 24a$ Agawam Taws. �f 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1.837 Tel. 413-786-,0400 Fax 413-786-9927 MEMO TO: Building Inspector Town Solicitor Engineering/DPW Safety Officer Fire Department Health Department Conservation Commission Board of Appeals School Committee Assessors FROM: Planning Board SUBJECT: Proposed Zoning Amendment- 54 Registered Voters - One acre buildings lots with 150' Frontage For All Future Residential Building Lots DATE: April 11, 2008 The Planning Board is in receipt of the attached zoning amendment by 54 Registered Voters to "change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one acre, consisting of 43,560 SF with a 150' frontage per residential building lot". The Board will be holding at public hearing on Thursday, May 1, 2008. Please submit any comments you may have prior to that date. . Sincerely, Travis Ward, Acting Chairman AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD TW:prk INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING BOARD FROM: BARBARA BARD, COUNCIL CLERK SUBJECT: PH-2008-3 PETITION TO CHANGE ZONING (ZC-2008-2) DATE: 4/9/2008 The attached petition has been -referred to the Planning Board by the Agawam City Council. Please inform as to what date is set for your public hearing. A tentative City Council Public Hearing date of May 5t'has been scheduled. . Thank you. AE I V F APR 1 2008 r Town of Agawam Interoffice Memorandum TO AGAWAM CITY COUNCIL MAYOR SUSAN DAWSON FROM RICHARD M. THEROUX, TOWN CLERK RE PETITION TO CHANGE THE ZONING CODE The attached petition is being forwarded for your attention. The petitioners are requesting to change the zoning code of all future residential Building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 square feet, with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. This petition has been filed under article 8, sec. B of the Agawam Home Rule Charter. - I4-4 )qvllb jjjq q'- CO } March 17, 2008 w _ .:fir-: v 3 r � Agawam Town Council Town of Agawam = c 36 Main Street o Agawam, Ma. 01001 — c- c-n rT' Councilors: Submitted herewith is a petition to change the zoning code, of the Town of Agawam, of all future residential building lots to be no less than one(1) acre, consisting of 43,560 square feet, with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. The town council is requested to hold a public hearing and act by taking a vote on the merits of this petition or any action thereof which is address to it and which is signed by fifty two voters. The hearing shall be held by the town council, by a committee or subcommittee thereof, and the action by the town council shall be taken not later than three months after the petition is filed with the town clerk. The town clerk shall mail notice of the hearing to the ten petitioners whose names first appear on this petition at least forty-eight hours before the hearing. Notice by publication, of all such hearing shall also be made and shall be at public expense. Sincerely, Billy I. Chester Town of Agawam 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1837 Tex. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927 April 29, 2008 Travis Ward, Acting Chairman Agawam Planning Board 36 Main Street Agawam, MA 01001 Dear Mr. Ward: The Agawam Town Council has received a request for an amendment to the Agawam Zoning Ordinance which, if enacted, would require that all residential building lots be not less than one (1) acre in size with 150' of frontage. Agawam's current residential requirements are as follows: Agawam Residential Zoning Requirement Zoning District Size Frontage Residence A-1 17,000 square feet 125 feet Residence A-2 15,000 square feet 110 feet Residence A-3 2 acres - 8 units/acre 150 feet (multi-family) Residence A-4 7 acres - 16 units/acre none (elderly housing) Residence A-5 10 acres - 4 units/acre 150 feet (age-restricted) Residence B 12,000 square feet 100 feet Open Space Residential 5 acres - 1 unit/acre 100 feet Development Agriculture 20,000 square feet 120 feet 0 0 The amendment proposes to replace the lot size and frontage requirements in all the residential zone with the one (1) acre, 150' frontage requirements. Historically, Agawam's multiple residential districts allow for the construction of diverse housing types. They range from the traditional single family dwellings to the recently adopted Age-Restricted Housing and Open Space Residential Housing. Each housing district addresses a certain population group and has resulted in Agawam's ability to continue to be an affordable home for all residents. The proposed amendment, though well intended, has a number of far-reaching implications. Residential housing does cost more in services than it pays in taxes. The American Farmland Trust has been conducting Cost of Community Services(COCS)studies since the mid-1990's. Agawam was one of the original communities to be studied. The purpose of the studies is to determine the fiscal contribution and costs of existing land uses. Agawam's results were as follows: Cost of Community Services Studies: Revenue-to-Expenditure Ratio in Dollars Community Residential Commercial & Working& Source including farm Industrial Open Land houses Agawam 1 :1.05 1 : 0.44 1 : 0.31 American Farmland Trust 1992 The study is over 10 years old, but represents that commercial, industrial and open space cost Agawam far less in services than residential development. To some extent, Agawam's commercial and industrial sector subsidizes residential services . A summary of the American Farmland Trust's studies has been attached. One result of increasing the minimum lot size is that potentially fewer homes would be built resulting in fewer costs in services including schools. Some may even argue that it results in the preservation of more open space. However, many planning studies have concluded that the negatives out-weigh the potential savings. Increasing lot sizes, especially in this case where it would be applied across the board, consumes more land and presents a barrier to housing for young families and the elderly. Recently, lots in Agawam have been selling for between $130,000 to $170,000. Though these costs may decline somewhat during the current housing downturn, they are still beyond the reach of many first-time home buyers and those on a fixed income. This means that children who were raised in Agawam and Agawam's older residents may find that they will have to move to be able to afford a home. Another negative impact of the proposed amendment is the effect that it would have on many pre- existing lots. As the earlier table shows, Agawam currently has eight residential districts none of which would meet the requirements of the proposed amendment. If the amendment is approved by the Town Council potentially all of Agawam's existing developed and undeveloped lots would ! i become non-conforming. Board of Appeals approval would be required to build or make additions to all of these non-conforming lots. Approval to build would not be a given. If the intention of the proposed amendment is to slow and/or limit growth, there are a number of ways of achieving this without such far-reaching impacts. The Town could adopt a temporary moratorium during which time community input could be solicited on how growth can best be controlled without such significant impacts. I would not recommend this approach given the economic climate and problems being experienced by the housing industry. Other approaches include increasing the minimum lot size in one district. In the early 1990's there was a proposal before the Town Council to increase the minimum lot size in the Agricultural District from 20,000 square feet to 1 acre. This was the district in which the increased lot size made the most sense due to the lack of sewers. The proposal was defeated by the Town Council after intense lobbying by the farming community who wished to keep their options open to develop their property. Decisions on how to control growth should be made after careful study and community input. The proposal as submitted would limit housing to only a select population and does not reflect Agawam's tradition as stated in the report"Coming Together for Consensus:A Working Statement of Goals and Objectives to Guide Agawam into the Future (October 27, 1993)which stated: "From Agawam's rural past we've retained a sense of being a small town where friendly people with a wide range of incomes know each other and participate in civic activities, school affairs and sports......This is a good place to raise a family in a nice neighborhood with lots of children, and then enjoy retirement years... " Sincerely, S Deborah S. Dachos, Director Office of Planning and Community Development AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER = DESCRIPTION The process is straightforward, but ensuring reliable figures requires local oversight. The most Cost of Community Services (COGS) studies area g q g case study approach used to determine the fiscal complicated task is interpreting existing records contribution of existing local land uses. A subset to reflect COCS land use categories. Allocating of the much larger field of fiscal analysis, COOS revenues and expenses requires a significant studies have emerged as an inexpensive and amount of research, including extensive reliable tool to measure direct fiscal relationships. interviews with financial officers and public Their particular niche is to evaluate working administrators. FARMLAND and open lands on equal ground with residential, HISTORY commercial and industrial land uses. INFORMATION Communities often evaluate the impact of COCS studies are a snapshot in time of costs growth on local budgets by conducting or com- CENTE R versus revenues for each type of land use. They missioning fiscal impact analyses. Fiscal impact do not predict future costs or revenues or the studies project public costs and revenues from FACT impact of future growth.They do provide a different land development patterns. They gener- baseline of current information to help local ally show that residential development is a net officials and citizens make informed land use fiscal loss for communities and recommend com- HEETand policy decisions. mercia-1 and industrial development as a strategy METHODOLOGY to balance local budgets, In a COCS study, researchers organize financial Rural towns and counties that would benefit COST OF records to assign the cost of municipal services to from fiscal impact analysis may not have the working and open lands, as well as to residential, expertise or resources to conduct a study. Also, commercial and industrial development. fiscal impact analyses rarely consider the conrri- Researchers meet.with local sponsors to define the bution of working and other open lands uses, COMMUNITY scope of the project and identify land use which are very important to rural economies. categories to study. For example, working lands American Farmland Trust (AFT) developed may include farm, forest and/or ranch lands. COCS studies in the mid-1480s to provide SERVICES Residential development includes all housing, communities with a straightforward and inex- including rentals, but if there is a migrant agricul- pensive way to measure the contribution of agri- tural work force, temporary housing for these cultural lands to the local tax rase. Since then, workers would be considered part of agricultural COCS studies have been conducted in at least STUDIES land use. Often in rural communities, commercial 102 communities in the United States. and industrial land uses are combined. COCS studies findings are displayed as a set of ratios that FUNCTIONS &PURPOSES American Farmland Trust compare annual revenues to annual expenditures Communities pay a high price for unplanned for a community's unique mix of land uses. growth. Scattered development frequently causes FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER COOS studies involve three basic steps: traffic congestion, air and water pollution, loss One Short Street,Suite 2 of open space and increased demand for costly Northampton,MA 01060 1. Collect data on local revenues public services. This is why it is important for {800)370-4879 and expenditures. citizens and local leaders to understand the rela- www.farm€andinfo.org 2. Group revenues and expenditures and tionships between residential and commercial NATIONAL OFFICE allocate them to the community's major land growth, agricultural land use,conservation and 1200 18th Street, NW,Suite 800 use categories. their community's bottom line. Washington, DC 20036 3. Analyze the data and calculate revenue-to-- (202)331-7300 expenditure ratios for each land use category. www.farmland.org o August 2004 The FARMLAND INFORMATION CENT€s{FIG} is a clearinghouse for information about farmland protection and stewardship. The FIC is a public(private partnership between USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service and American Farmland Trus AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST F A R M L A N D IN FORMATION CENTER COCS studies help address three claims that are that of other commercial and industrial land commonly made in rural or suburban uses. On average, because residential land uses communities facing growth pressures: do not cover their costs,they must be subsidized 1, Open lands—including productive farms and by other community land uses. Converting agri- forests—are an interim land use that should cultural land to residential land use should not be developed to their "highest and best use." be seen as a way to balance local budgets. COST OF 2. Agricultural land gets an unfair tax break . The findings of COCS studies are consistent with when it is assessed at its current use value for those of conventional fiscal impact analyses, farming or ranching instead of at its potential Which document the high cost of residential COMMUNITY use value for residential or commercial development and recommend commercial and development. industrial development to help balance local budgets. What is unique about COCS studies is SERVICES 3. Residential development will lower property that they show that agricultural land is similar to taxes by increasing the tax base. other commercial and industrial uses. In every While it is true that an acre of land with a new community studied, farmland has generated a STUDIES house generates more total revenue than an acre fiscal surplus to help offset the shortfall created of hay or corn,this tells us little about a commu- by residential demand for public services.This is nity's bottom line. In areas where agriculture or true even when the land is assessed at its current, For additional information on forestry are major industries, it is especially agricultural use. farmland protection and stewardship important to consider the real property tax con- e P P Y Communities need reliable information to help contact the Farmland Information tribution of privately owned working lands. P Y g them see the full picture of their land uses. Center.The FIC offers a staffed Workingand other open lands may generate less P Y g COOS studies are an inexpensive way to evalu- answer service,online library, revenue than residential, commercial or industrial ate the net contribution of working and open program monitoring, fact sheets properties, but they require little public infra- and other educational materials. lands.They can help local leaders discard the structure and few services. notion that natural resources must be converted COCS studies conducted over the last 20 years to other uses to ensure fiscal stability. They also show working lands generate more public rev- dispel the myths that residential development enues than they receive hack in public services. leads to lower taxes,that differential assessment Their impact on community coffers is similar to programs give landowners an "unfair" tax break and that farmland is an interim land use just www.farmlandinFo.org Median COCS Results waiting around for development. One type of land use is not intrinsically better $1.25 than another,and COCS studies are not meant (800) 370-4879 $1 00 to judge the overall public good or long-term merits of any land use or taxing structure. It is $0.7S up to communities to balance goals such as maintaining affordable housing, creating jobs $O.SO and conserving land. With good planning,these $0.2S goals can complement rather than compete with each other. COCS studies give communities $0.00 another tool to make decisions about their Commercial Working& Residential futures. &Industrial Open Land Median cost—per dollar of revenue raised—to provide public services to different land uses. American Farmland Trust American Farmland Trust works to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment. AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST • FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES, REVENUE-TO-EXPENDITURE RATIOS IN DOLLARS Community Residential Commercial Working & Source including 8&Industrial Open Land farm houses . Colorado Custer County 1 : 1.16 1 :0.71 1 :0.54 Haggerty,2000 Saguache County 1 : 1.17 1:0.53 1 :0.35 Dirt,Inc.,2001 Connecticut Bolton 1 : 1.05 1 :0.23 1 :0.50 Geisler,1998 Durham 1 : 1.07 1:0.27 1 : 0.23 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Farmington 1 ; 1.33 1 :0.32 1 :0.31 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Hebron 1 : 1.06 1:0,47 1 :0.43 American Farmland Trust, 1986 Litchfield 1 : 1.11 1 :0.34 1 :0.34 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Pomfret 1 : 1.06 1 :0.27 1 ;0.86 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Georgia Carroll County 1 : 1.29 1:0.37 1 :41.55 Dorfman and Black,2002 Grady County 1 : 1.72 1:0.10 :1 :0.38 Dorfman,2003 Thomas County 1 : 1.64 1:0.38 1 :0.66 Dorfman,2003 Idaho Canyon County 1 : i.OE 1 :0.79 1 :0.54 Hartman and Meyer, 1997 Cassia County 1 : 1.19 1 :0.87 1 :0.41 Hartman and Meyer,1997 Kentucky Lexington-Fayette 1 : 1.64 1 :0.22 1 :0.93 American Farmland Trust, 1999 Oldham County 1 : 1.05 1 :0.29 1 :0.44 American Farmland Trust,2003 Maine Bethel 1 : 1.29 1 : 0.59 1 :0.06 Good, 1994 Maryland Carroll County 1 : 1.15 1 :OAS t:0.45 Carroll County Dept.of Management 8c Budget,1994 Cecil County 1 : 1.17 1:0.34 1 :0.66 American Farmland Trust,2001 Cecil County 1 : 1.12 1 :0.28 1 :0.37 Cecil County Office of Economic Development, 1994 Frederick County 1 : 1.14 1 :0.50 1 :0.53 American Farmland Trust, 1997 Harford County 1 : 1.11 1 :0.40 1 :0.91 American Farmland Trust,2003 Kent County I : 1.05 1 :0.64 1 :0.42 American Farmland Trust,2002 Wicomico County 1 : 1.21 1 :0.33 1 :0.96 American Farmland Trust,2001 Massachusetts Agawam 1 : 1.05 1 :0.44 1 : 0.31 American Farmland Trust, 1992 Becket 1 : 1.02 1 :0.83 1 :0.72 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Deerfield 1 : 1.16 1:0.38 1 :0.29 American Farmland Trust, 1992 Franklin 1 : 1.02 1 :0.58 1 :0.40 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Cill 1 : 1.15 1 :0.43 1 :0.38 American Farmland Trust, 1992 Leverett 1 . 1.15 1 :0.29 .1 :0.25 Southern New England Forest Consortium,1995 Middleboro 1 : 1.08 1:0.47 1 :0.70 American Farmland Trust,2001 Southborough 1 : 1.03 1 :0.26 1 :0.45 Adams and Hines, 1997 Westford 1 : 1.15 1 :0.53 1 :0.39 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Williamstown 1 : 1.11 1 :0.34 1 :0.40 Hazlet et a1.,1992 Michigan Marshall Twp., Calhoun Cry. 1 : 1.47 1 :0.20 1 : 0.27 American Farmland Trust,2001 Newton Twp.,Calhoun Cry. 1 : 1.20 1 :0.25 1 : 0.24 American Farmland Trust,2001 Scio Township 1 : 1.40 1:0.29 1 :0.62 University of Michigan, 1994 r AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST • FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES, REVENUE-TO-EXPENDITURE RATIOS IN DOLLARS Community Residential Commercial Working& Source including & Industrial Open Land farm houses Minnesota Farmington 1 : 1.02 1 :0.79 1 :0.77 American Farmland Trust, 1994 Lake Elmo 1 :1.07 1 : 0.20 1 :0.27 American Farmland Trust, 1994 Independence 1 : 1.03 1 : 0.19 1 :0.47 American Farmland Trust, 1994 Montana Carbon County 1 : 1.60 1 :0.21 1 :0.34 Prinzing,1999 Gallatin County 1 : 1.45 1 :0.16 1 :0.25 Haggerty, 1996 Flathead County 1 : 1.23 1 :0.26 1 :0.34 Citizens for a Better Flathead, 1999 New Hampshire Deerfield 1 : 1.15 1 :0.22 1 :0.35 Auger,1994 Dover l : 1.15 1 :0.63 1 :0.94 Kingsley et al.,1993 Exeter 1 : 1.07 1 :0.40 1 :0.82 Niebling,1997 Fremont 1 : 1.04 1 :0.94 1 :0.36 Auger,1994 Groton 1 : 1,01 1 :0.12 1 :0.88 New Hampshire Wildlife Federation,2001 Stratham 1 : 1.15 1 :0.19 1 :0.40 Auger, 1994 Lyme L 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.28 1 :0.23 Pickard,2000 New Jersey Freehold Township 1 : 1.51 1 :0.17 1 :0.33 American Farmland Trust, 1998 Holmdel Township 1 : 1.38 1 :0.21 1 :0.66 American Farmland Trust, 1998 Middletown Township 1 : 1.14 1 : 0.34 1 :0.36 American Farmland Trust, 1998 Upper Freehold Township 1 : 1.18 1 : 0.20 1 :0.35 American Farmland Trust, 1998 Wall Township 1 : 1.29 1 :0.30 1 :0.54 American Farmland Trust, 1998 New York An-jenia 1 : 1.23 1 :0.25 1 :0.17 Bucknall, 1999 Beekman 1 : 1.12 1 :0.1fl 1 : 0.48 American Farmland Trust, 1989 Dix 1 :1.51 1 :0.27 1 :0.31 Schuyler County League of Women Voters,1993 Farmington 1 : 1.22 1 :0.27 1 :0.72 Kinsman et al., 1991 Fishkill 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.31 1 :0.74 Bucknall, 1989 Hector 1 : 1.30 1 : 0.15 I :0.28 Schuyler County League of Women Voters,1993 Kinderhook 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.21 1 :0.17 Concerned Citizens of Kinderhook, 1996 Montour 1 : 1.50 1 :0.28 1 :0.29 Schuyler County League of Women Voters, 1992 Northeast 1 : 136 1 :0.29 1 :0.21 American Farmland Trust,1989 Reading 1 : 1.88 1 :0.26 1 : 0.32 Schuyler County League of Women Voters, 1992 Red Hook 1 : 1.11 1 :0.20 1 :0.22 Bucknall, 1989 Ohio Clark County I : 1.11 1 :0.38 1 :0.30 American Farmland Trust,2003 Knox County 1 : 1.05 1 :0.38 1 :0.29 American Farmland Trust,2003 Madison Village 1 : 1.67 1 :0.20 1 :0.38 American Farmland Trust, 1993 Madison Township 1 : 1.40 1 : 0.25 1 :0.30 American Farmland Trust, 1993 Shalersville Township 1':1.58 1 : 0.17 1 :0.31 Portage County Regional Planning Commission,1997 • i AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES, REVENUE-TO-EXPENDITURE RATIOS IN DOLLARS Community Residential Commercial Working & Source including &Industrial Open Land farm houses Pennsylvania Allegheny Township 1 ; 1.06 1 :0.14 1 :0.13 Kelsey,1997 Bedminster Township I : 1.12 1 :0.05 1 :0.04 Kelsey, 1997 Bethel Township 1 : 1.08 1 :0.17 1 :0.06 Kelsey,1992 Bingham Township 1 : 1.56 1 :0.16 1 :0.15 Kelsey, 1994 Buckingham Township 1 : 1.04 1 : 0.15 1 :0.08 Kelsey,1996 Carroll Township 1 : 1.03 1 : 0.06 1 :0.02 Kelsey, 1992 Hopewell Township 1 : 1.27 1 :0.32 1 : 0.59 The South Central Assembly For Effective Governance,2002 Maiden Creek Township 1 : 1.28 1 :0.11 1 : 0.06 Kelsey, 1998 Richmond Township 1 : 1.24 1 :0.09 1 :0,04 Kelsey,1998 Shrewsbury Township 1 : 1.22 1 :0.15 1 :0.17 The South Central Assembly for Effective Governance,2002 Stewardson Township 1 :2.11 1 :0.23 1 :0.31 Kelsey,1994 Straban Township � : 1.10 1 ! 0.16 1 :0.06 Kelsey,1992 Sweden Township 1 : 1.39 1 : 0.07 1 :0.09 Kelsey, 1994 Rhode Island Hopkinton 1 : 1.08 1 : 0.31 1 :0.31 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Little Compton 1 : 1.05 1 :0,56 1 : 0.37 Southern New England Forest Consortium,1995 Portsmouth 1 : 1.16 1 :0.27 1 : 0.39 Johnston, 1997 West Greenwich 1 : 1.46 1 :0.40 1 :0.46 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Texas Bandera County 1 : 1.10 1 : 0.26 1 :0.26 American Farmland Trust,2002 Bexar Gurtty 1 : LI5 1 :0.20 1:0.18 American Farmland Trust,2004 Hays County 1 : 1.26 1 :0.30 1 : 0.33 American Farmland Trust,2000 Utah Cache County 1 : 1.27 1 :0.25 .1 : 0.57 Snyder and Ferguson, 1994 Sevier County 1 :1.11 1 :0.31 1 : 0.99 Snyder and Ferguson, 1994 Utah County 1 :1.23 1 :0.26 1 :0.82 Snyder and Ferguson, 1994 Virginia Augusta County 1 : 1.22 1 :0.20 1 :0.90 Valley Conservation Council, 1997 Clarke County 1 : 1.26 1 :0.21 1 :0.15 Piedmont Environmental Council, 1994 Culpeper County 1 : 1.22 1 : 0.4I 1 :0.32 American Farmland Trust,2003 Frederick County 1 : 1.19 1 : 0.23 1 :0.33 American Farmland Trust,2003 Northampton County 1 : 1.13 1 :0.97 1 :0.23 American Farmland Trust, 1999 Washington Skagit County i : 1.25 1 :0.30 1 : 0.51 American Farmland Trust,1999 Wisconsin I Dunn 1 :1.06 1 :0.29 1 : 0.18 Town of Dunn; 1994 Dunn 1 : 1.02 1 :0.55 1 : 0.15 Wisconsin Land Use Research Program, 1999 Perry 1 : 1.20 1 : 1.04 1 : 0.41 Wisconsin Land Use Research Program, 1999 Westport 1 : 1.11 1 :0.31 1 : 0.13 Wisconsin Land Use Research Program, 1999 American Farmland Trust's Farmland Information Center acts as a clearinghouse for information about Cost of Community Services studies. Inclusion in this table does not necessarily signify review or endorsement by American Farmland Trust. LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD The Agawam Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Thursday, May 1, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Agawam Public Library, 750 Cooper Street, Agawam, MA. The purpose of this hearing will be to hear the petition of fifty-four(54) registered voters on a zoning amendment to "change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one acre, consisting of 43,560 SF with a 150' frontage per residential building lot". A copy of the proposal can be obtained from the Agawam Planning Office between the hours of 8:30 AM and 4:30 PM in the Agawam Town Hall, 36 Main Street, Agawam, MA. BY ORDER OF: rn Travis Ward, ACting Chairman Agawam Planning Board z� 3 (Ad to be run 4/17/08 &4/24/08) c.a . cc: Planning Boards in: Westfield West Springfield Suffield Southwick Springfield Pioneer Valley Planning Commission Department of Housing & Community Development, Boston 9 Billy J. Chester Madeline Bandarra Oeter Veto 320 Barry Street 3 Corey Colonial Avenue 69 Dogwood Lane Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Agawam, MA 01001. Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Mark Gravel Mark Martin Joseph LaPorte Sr 273 Leonard Street 98 Valentine Street 79 Perry Lane Agawam, MA 01001 Agawam, MA 01001 Agawam, MA 01001 Laurie Courtney-Charest Gilles Charest Daniel Rogowski 82 Liberty Street 82 Liberty Street 177 South Westfield Street Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Diane Bradford Lesley Conant Kathy Rose 16C Mansion Woods 418 Meadow Street 139 Poplar Street Agawam MA 01001 Agawam, MA 01001 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Desiree Fillion Linda Wojcik Lisa Barboza 33 Norman Terrace#33 2 Sutton Place 9 Henry Street Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Agawam, MA 01001 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Albert Renaud Stephanie Bean Maryann Paleologopoulos 23 Losito Lane 261 North Street 164 River Road Agawam, MA 01001 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Agawam, MA 01001 Michele Anderson Teresa Ruggeu Daniel Czerwiec 35 Lincoln Street 10 Ash Lane 103 White Fox Road Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Agawam, MA 01001 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Ann Marie Perry Maryellen Rennell Jim Quesnel 165 Cambridge Street 38 Rhodes Avenue 164 South Street Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Agawam, MA 01001 Charles Santinello Gail Rahilly Thomas Sheehan 161 School Street 75 Anvil Street 35 DePalma Street Agawam, MA 01001 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Constance Santinello Daniel O'Neill Alex Bellefleur 161 School Street 4 Memory Lane 785 North Westfield Street Agawam, MA 01001 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 4b Dana Weyiel Trudy Beavis Dianne Sherman 799C South West Street 21 Kellogg Avenue 111 Sheri Lane Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Steven Paul Judy Lavin Eric Davis 16 Tanglewood Lane 86 Liquori Drive 94 Garden Street Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Gina Morin S. Paynter Francis Asselin 30 Joanne Circle 359 Barry Street 97 Bradford Drive Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Karen Brown Linda Birk Lisa DeRose 60 Liberty Street 699 Barry Street 22 Tom Street Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Maureen Haglund Phil Charette Dave MacManus 55 South West Street 154 Elmar Drive 563 Barry Street Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Rich Porfilio Elsie Mallory Susan Gillen 14 Jamie Lane 27 Harding Street 43 Hunter's Greene Circle Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Agawam, MA 01001 Agawam, MA 01001 Ruth Ford Jim Stevenson A. Valego 52 Dogwood Lane 97 Princeton Avenue 31 Meadow Street Agawam, MA 01001 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Agawam, MA 01001 Helen Chester Teddy Quirk Antonio Benerakis 320 Barry Street 5 Church Street 81 Pleasant Drive Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Agawam, MA 01001 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Richard B'Shara Joseph B'Shara Lisa Harnish 4 Nicole Street 4 Nicole Terrace 77 Oak Hill Avenue Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Agawam, MA 01001 Lyle Moquin Bruce Kennedy Diane Drzal 43 South West Street 98 Chestnut Lane 143 Hendom Drive Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Agawam, MA 01001 Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Agawam Town of ! 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1837 1t► Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927 MEMO TO: Building Inspector Town Solicitor Engineering/DPW Safety Officer Fire Department Health Department Conservation Commission Board of Appeals School Committee Assessors FROM: Planning Board SUBJECT: Proposed Zoning Amendment- 54 Registered Voters - One acre buildings lots with 150'Frontage For All Future Residential Building Lots DATE: April 11, 2008 The Planning Board is in receipt of the attached zoning amendment by 54 Registered Voters to "change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one acre, consisting of 43,560 SF with a 150' frontage per residential building lot". The Board will be holding at public hearing on Thursday, May 1, 2008. Please submit any comments you may have prior to that date. Sincerely, Travis Ward, Acting Chairman AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD TW:prk INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING BOARD FROM: BARBARA BARD, COUNCIL CLERK SUBJECT: PH-2008-3 PETITION TO CHANGE ZONING (ZC-2008-2) DATE: 4/9/2008 The attached petition has been referred to the Planning Board by the Agawam City Council. Please inform as to what date is set for your public hearing. A tentative City Council Public Hearing date of May 511'has been scheduled. Thank you. RECEIVED APR 1 p 2008 P Town of Agawam Interoffice Memorandum TO AGAWAM CITY COUNCIL MAYOR SUSAN DAWSON FROM RICHARD M. THEROUK, TOWN CLERK RE PETITION TO CHANGE THE ZONING CODE The attached petition is being forwarded for your attention. The petitioners are requesting to change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 square feet, with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. This petition has been filed under article 8, sec. B of the Agawam Home Rule Charter. *vwT9V CO March 17, 2008 � r �rrt Agawam Town Council - Town of Agawam o cn 36 Main Street Agawam, Ma. 01001 un rr' Councilors: Submitted herewith is a petition to change the zoning code, of the Town of Agawam, of all future residential building lots to be no less than one(1) acre, consisting of 43,560 square feet, with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. The town council is requested to hold a public hearing and act by taking a vote on the merits of this petition or any action thereof, which is address to it and which is signed by fifty two voters. The hearing shall be held by the town council, by a committee or subcommittee thereof, and the action by the town council shall be taken not later than three months after the petition is filed with the town clerk. The town clerk shall mail notice of the hearing to the ten petitioners whose names first appear on this petition at least forty-eight hours before the hearing. Notice by publication, of all such hearing shall also be made and shall be at public expense. Sincerely, Billy I Chester This petition is hereby submitted to the Town of Agawam to change the zoning code for all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 Square Feet with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. Petition Summary: Our school systems our overburden with the influx of additional students ev�y �. year and this has caused a tremendous tax burden on the homeowners in this community. ' �r . h Action Petitioned For: We, the undersigned, believe it is time to move forward and our leaders a5i a responsively on this issue to increase the residential building lot size to no less than one (1) acre. un . L, r PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE 1. iVI Lac'v. r-r `01 L fj lf''77 S" 08 Page 2 of 7 This petition is hereby submitted to the Town of Agawam to change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 Square Feet with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE � c r *.dAQ . Oe Ile C - 1 . AGAWAM. �yf ..,. . Page 3 of 7 08 MAR 17 ANf I: 59 This petition is hereby submitted to the Town of Agawam to change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 Square Feet with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE inC- j:ts: a Y, Z 4, e/ 'P� Lb 5 i -/-u (-A) _C :Ad 0 LJ 11A (01 Mardavt-s-la'jeo I Dn c)L-x)u It) :Eye, 0 �l. fv CLEiiN CT AGAWAM, MASS. Page 4of7 08Hp,4 17 AH11+ 59 This petition is hereby submitted to the Town of Agawam to change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 Square Feet with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE /74 e A . O'L7611'r -75 AWt 4 fMaLma I;LEH, Ul��it i AGAWAM, MASS. Page 5 of 7 08 MAR 17 AM 11: 59 This petition is hereby submitted to the Town of Agawam to change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 Square Feet with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE �"7c del; 7 AGAWAM, MASS. Page �pfi 17 ll11= 59 This petition is hereby submitted to the Town of Agawam to change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 Square Feet with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE C-1 —7 c,C. 'iAd1--) YO-A,. i „ i r� CLiLIHr IU AGAWAM, MASS. Page 7 of 08 MAR I I AM 11: 59 This petition is hereby submitted to the Town of Agawam to change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 Square Feet with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. PRINT NAME ADDRESS SI NATURE OR rG-- (fit' -;f7 /r � • /�` ��.u.-� ��..- i`�Z_.._.���_.. 6 - 3usrl-r) CERTIFIED BY THE BOARD OF REGISTRARS - 54 REGISTERED VOTERS FROM THE TOWN rpf AGAWAM Richard M . Theroux, Clerk , Board of Registrars This petition is hereby submitted to the Town of Agawam to change the zoning code of all future residential building lots to be no less than one (1) acre, consisting of 43,560 Square Feet with a 150 foot frontage per residential building lot. PR T NAIVE ADDRESS SIGNATURE Cie- Od r !/ , t� / I Gi fie- m-►,�,� L1 t a Ne c� Town of Agawam 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1837 �- .. Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927 May 16, 2008 Gina M. Letellier, President Cecilia Calabrese,Vice President George Bitzas, Councilor Gina M. Letellier, Councilor Jill Messick, Councilor Joseph Mineo, Councilor Dennis Perry, Councilor Donald M. Rheault, Councilor Robert Rossi, Councilor Jill Simpson, Councilor Robert M. Young, Councilor Agawam Town Council 36 Main Street Agawam, MA 01001 Dear Councilors: The Planning Board is in receipt of a petition for a change to the Agawam Zoning Ordinance. The petition requests that all residential building lots be not less than one (1) acre in size with 150' of frontage. The Planning Board held its public hearing on the revision on May 1,2008. At its meeting held on May 15, 2008, the Planning Board was unable to vote on the petition because one of the three members present at the meeting was not at the May I"public hearing. Despite the inability to vote on the petition, the Board wishes to convey its lack of support for the proposed amendment. Because the proposed amendment would apply to all eight (8) residential districts,the Board feels that it would make home ownership unattainable for individuals on a fixed income and young families. Agawam currently allows for the construction of a diverse range of housing which satisfies the needs of all Agawam residents. The proposal, as presented, only allows for new construction on an acre lot. Given that one-half acre lots are now priced at $150,000 in Agawam, the cost of an acre lot would make home construction prohibitive to many. T The Board is in agreement that some of the new home construction has resulted in large homes being built on small lots. This does sometimes result in neighborhoods where homes appear to be built on top of one another. However, the Board does not feel that increasing lot sizes across the board is the way to address this one issue. Attached you will find a letter from a resident who would be affected by the amendment. The Board has also heard from other residents who would be similarly affected. Attached you will also find the report presented to the Board by the Planning Director. If you desire any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Planning Office at 786-0400, extension 283. Sincerely, Violet Baldwin, Acting Chairman Agawam Planning Board cc: Mayor, Clerk, File MAY 13 2008 60ARD p, move 4,;7" Jilin . ' SAW .