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 .