TM rejects most PB bylaws changes, leaves nip ban in place

By Beth David, Editor

Fairhaven Town Meeting members passed a $61.2 million budget at the annual TM on Saturday, 5/4, passing all operating budget items with some discussion and explanations, but no real opposition. The collection of bylaws changes proposed by the Planning Board, however, garnered lots of dis­cus­sion, and resulted in a mixed bag of successes and failures for the PB. 

The town faced a $2.2 million shortfall at the beginning of budget season. Town Officials closed the gap with a mixture of budget cuts to de­part­ments, personnel changes, without layoffs, and fee in­creases, including a new $100 annual trash fee .

The PB bylaw changes in article 20 were separated into nine motions, and removed the portion regarding shipping containers.

Motions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, all failed after much discussion. Those motions included the proposed changes to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and six changes to different areas of the “Use Regulation Schedule”; and a change to the solar bylaw.

The solar bylaw change would have removed the words “within five years,” for removing trees, with PB chairperson Cathy Melanson arguing that the change would mean no cutting of any trees would be allowed.

Former long time PB member Wayne Hayward argued that the change would not pass muster with the Attorney General’s office, and that it made no sense not to allow any cutting of trees at all, such as around the edges of a property, for instance.

He said the change was “insulting,” as he had worked on the original bylaw, and the idea that the PB is “defending every last tree, that’s kind of funny to hear.”

The measure failed to get the 2/3 measure required.

A change that would have made docks and piers a “by-right” prospect for home owners also got shot down.

PB members, including Realtor Diane Tomassetti, argued that projects would still have to go through all the agencies that regulate   waterways, including Mass. Depart­ment of Marine Fisheries, Coastal Zone Management, etc.

TM member Andrew Jones said that he was “absolutely certain” that Planning Board would still have to be involved. 

PB member Patrick Carr said there was “misinformation” and referred to a photo that was in the 4/18/24 issue of the Neighb News showing a possible full buildout of docks in Round Cove. Mr. Carr said it was an old study and there is only one dock there now, not 28. He said they were only projections and did not come true. 

There was a little confusion as to what the changes would mean, with Town Counsel Heather White weigh­ing in, but with TM members still confused on whether the regulating authority would still be PB and Zoning Board of Appeals, or if all local control would be gone. 

Ms. Melanson said the idea was to make it easier for homeowners to get their personal docks. 

“We’re not trying to do anything nefarious here,” said Ms. Melanson.

The vote failed to get the 2/3.

A series of changes from fences/hedges to “Body Art Establishments” also failed, with TM members mostly saying the changes were too con­fusing, and the last minute changes from the day before did not inspire confidence. 

The discussion around ADUs got the most discussion, and it got rather testy at times, and was confusing through it all, with Ms. Melanson constantly at odds with TM members who insisted they were reading one thing, while she was saying another. One of those moments was especially stark when she insisted that ADUs would not be allowed in the Industrial Zone, while TM member Amy Desalvatore said it looked that way in the warrant.

Ms. Desalvatore said she did not want to see kids playing where tractor trailers were. Ms. Melanson said that was not the case.

The moderator called a three-minute recess for Ms. Melanson to confer with Town Counsel Heather White, who confirmed that the bylaw would allow ADUs in both the business and industrial zones. 

The ADU bylaw would not allow new construction for a unit, but it would allow them in sheds, pool houses, and other small, detached structures.

Mr. Hayward reiterated his recurring theme that he was not necessarily against the changes, but there was no code written to make sense of it all. He said, more than once, that they cannot simply remove a few words, add a few words. They need to write code to cover all the bases. 

“I didn’t move to Fairhaven to watch it slowly turn into New Bedford,” said TM member, David Patterson.

“Approving this change won’t make the sky fall,” said Will Gardner, a well known proponent of denser zoning. He noted that many municipalities allow ADUs “by right,” such as Arlington, Lexington, Newton.

“Last time I checked, those towns have not become blighted hell­scapes,” said Mr. Gardner. 

Motion, #1, to allow ADUs by right in some areas failed.

Motion #2, proposed changes to regulations for parking, including where ADUs are, and in Mixed Use zones. Here, the confusion abounded even more, with no one knowing how it would affect new multi-family units, and seemed designed to eliminate the need for a special permit.

“You have to have the language to match the intent,” said Mr. Hayward.

That motion also failed.

Motion #3, also proposed regula­tions for parking in a Mixed Use District and 13 other changes.

TM member Brian Monroe said he had no confidence that any of the language was “legally correct” because no expert was speaking on it. 

Ms. Melanson took “great offense” to that, and had to be cautioned by the moderator not to name names. But she got her point across, and noted that the Town Planner had worked on all the changes with the PB for months, but got another job.

Mr. Carr said he was “deeply saddened” that the ADU motion did not pass, and blamed it on “total misinformation.”

He noted the demographics of the town, i.e., people are getting older.

“You may be looking for an ADU in a couple years,” said Mr. Carr. “I saw a lot of white tops with hands up.”

TM member Ann Richard said she watched the meeting when the PB discussed the changes and it was all done too quickly, and individuals only had two minutes to speak. 

“I think a lot needs to be done before you pass it,” said Ms. Richard.

Ms. Melanson decried the “mis­under­standing and misinformation out there.”

Motion #3 also failed.

Victories for the PB included changing their election term to three years, even though it will result in the eight-member board changing 50% of its makeup every three years; a change that allows the PB and Select Board to change fees instead of the change needing to go before TM; and a change to allow two copies, not 10, of plans, but the part that would have eliminated certified mail failed.

Other bylaws changes passed with little difficulty, including updates to the Stormwater Bylaw; a new “Flow Neutral” bylaw regulating sewer connections; changes to the Tree Warden bylaw; and adoption of a new Public Shade Tree Bylaw.

Community Preservation Act expenditures all passed, although not before some discussion about spending $277,000 on a BMX bike track at Macomber Park.

A citizens petition to get TM to reconsider its vote to ban nips from being sold in liquor stores in Fairhaven failed. Store owners told TM that they have lost 1/3 of their business since the ban went into effect on 1/1/24. and have thousands of dollars worth of inventory that they will have to throw out. They said if litter is the problem, then fight litter, not nip bottles. Customers are simply going out of Fairhaven to spend their money.

A couple of TM members, however, said they noticed a marked difference in litter on the roads. 

The meeting wrapped up just a few minutes before 3 p.m.,  for a total of about six hours. The meeting is available in its entirety at www.Fairhaven TV. com.

•••

Click here to download the 05-09-24 issue: 05-09-24 CherryBlossomFest

Support local journalism, donate to the Neighb News with PayPal