Zoning – THE AMHERST CURRENT

What is a good downtown plan?

By Jonathan Tucker

In “A civil conversation, Part 3,” Meg Gage listed some crucial requirements of a good plan for downtown Amherst. They were:

“Setting goals based on a vision”
Whose vision? While I believe that there could be consensus (or, at least, consent) over basic characteristics for the form and function of a downtown, there is unlikely to ever be (and, in Amherst, there never has been) agreement or consensus about most of what that should include. For instance, limiting the height of downtown buildings to the 2-3 stories typical of the 19th and early 20th century would inhibit the ability of Amherst’s extremely confined and small downtown to provide meaningful amounts of downtown housing, diverse retail, or any of the rest of the uses the community has said it wants.

For another instance, despite people’s general impression, Amherst’s downtown boasts a highly diverse range of architecture that reflects the community’s historical evolution and change. Every new architectural form–including the 1889 Town Hall–was in its time greeted with dismay and disapproval. Form-based zoning for downtown Amherst should not dictate the replication or even overweening evocation of historical styles, but should instead emphasize compatibility. Time passes, needs change. Communities need to change with them.

“Clarity about values”
Again, whose? There are always multiple individual voices – usually raised in alarm or dismay – whenever a private or public entity tries to actually put those values on the ground. These Civil Conversations would not be either needed nor happening if that were not true. The Amherst Master Plan is the closest thing the community has to a genuine expression of collective community values. But many will always fight against efforts to bring the Master Plan’s objectives to fruition, usually on the grounds that some imagined perfection has not been achieved. If the community wants what its Plan offers, it needs to proceed to accomplish those objectives anyway.

“Establishing the exact need”
Not only impossible, but, in the process, misleading. Human needs and the setting within which they arise change constantly. The community can (and has) take frequent snapshots of need (housing, employment, transportation, parking, food and retail goods availability, etc.). But trying to measure exactly how much affordable housing (for instance) downtown Amherst needs or will need is by its nature an exercise in speculative generality, not least because it could be very different in a matter of months, depending on wider changes in the economy, etc. Assuming that “exactness” can be achieved creates an unreal expectation.

“Evaluating options for meeting the need including size, location, who is served, etc.”
This is already done, in two ways, through the market analyses conducted by private developers and the studies undertaken by the public sector. In the end, there can be no perfect option, only options that are more flawed or less flawed in terms of everyone’s expectations. Amherst as a community is diverse and rarely agrees with itself about what its needs are or even should consist of. And there are, properly, limits on what the public can dictate to private property owners.

“Creating a business plan – reviewing research and other information about viability, cost of building, operating budget, etc.”
Again, the best the public sector can do in evaluating something like a redevelopment plan for an area is to spend a lot of money and more time than anyone wants developing potential scenarios based on current-day expectations and market conditions, which are themselves destined to be outdated within a few years, if not sooner. There is a persistent myth that studying something and conducting due diligence on economic, physical, and social feasibility (which the public sector absolutely is obliged to do) will then produce a given, mutually-agreed-upon outcome that will come into being by the time anything is built, completed, and operating. That is never true. A downtown plan is a great idea, but all such planning and projective speculation can do is provide a ‘ballpark’ sense of goals and objectives, and a greater familiarity with the moving parts, so that the community can adjust as time passes. Which it will.

“Getting input from everyone who will be affected while there are still options from which to choose.”
Including the option of stopping things, which has for so many years in Amherst seemed to be the principal motivation for insisting on options and choices? For all forms of development there are existing, legally mandated avenues for public involvement and input. None of those can possibly obtain “input from everyone who will be affected.” In some cases, extending public permit processes too widely and over too long a period of time can violate both the rights of those doing the development (public or private) and corresponding land use law.

The best that public process can do (and most often does) is to provide a reasonable opportunity for the immensely diverse cohort of humanity that constitutes “everyone who will be affected” to involve themselves. The purpose of public process is to serve the interests of all those involved. All those involved includes the development rights of property owners and the broad public interests that thoughtful development can serve, as well as those who feel aggrieved by change they do not like.

In the end, the perfect remains the enemy of the good. No development, however thoughtfully and carefully planned, responsibly permitted, and competently executed, will perfectly meet the expectations of all of those who believe their interests are involved. That is why community planning exercises and permit processes have a structured beginning and a reasonable end. People have a right to do useful things with their property and communities have a right to reasonably direct how those changes can occur. But unless that process is in fact reasonable, it is not legitimate.

Jonathan Tucker, an Amherst native who now lives in Northampton, worked in the Amherst Planning Department for 32 years and was planning director for 10 years. He staffed the Planning Board, Design Review Board, Historical Commission and Redevelopment Authority. He served on task forces focused on housing, parking, transportation and conservation.

A civil conversation, Part 3

By Andy Churchill and Meg Gage

Andy: In our last column, we talked about how downtown has evolved over the years and that further development should be done in a way that supports vibrancy and increases tax revenues. And we talked about the idea of using design standards, technically known as “form-based code,” to guide the look and feel of future development.

This time, let’s get more specific. Let’s take our readers on a virtual walk downtown and think about future design standards. What aspects do we like, and want to see more of? What elements would we prefer never to see again?

Meg: Okay, I’ll play. Do you want to go first?

Andy: I would say my favorite block downtown is the stretch with Fresh Side, Hastings, and Collective Copies, west of the Common. Those buildings have retail on the ground floor and offices and apartments upstairs. And some of them are four stories tall, but they have design features that make them attractive and not overwhelming. I could go for more of that style downtown.

Meg: I agree. As you might expect, one of my favorite downtown spots is the Amherst Cinema building that combines an independent film house with a number of successful, small businesses as well as a small art gallery. Imagine a successful business that sells frozen yogurt year-round with milk from local cows! Small businesses can succeed if they have the appropriate infrastructure support – like plumbing, electricity, and walls – rather than cavernous undeveloped space. Thanks to Barry Roberts for partnering with the Amherst Cinema to make that happen. And thanks to the Amherst Cinema for investing in a rigorous business plan before any renovations happened. Again, planning!!

In terms of the appearance of downtown blocks, I like the block between Subway and Formosa, where the Lincoln Building is. This stretch combines old and new buildings but with a somewhat unified style and (my favorite) a very wide sidewalk. Hooray for wide sidewalks!

Andy: As for negative aspects, I am puzzled by the way the North Pleasant “skyline” suddenly drops off around Antonio’s, and we go from multi-story, mixed-use buildings to a series of old family homes pressed into service as businesses. Those seem like prime targets for redevelopment, along with the single-story CVS and Zanna buildings – just continue the multi-story line down the street, so more people can live and work downtown. But do it with some style – not like the bland, soulless brick building next to the fire station, where The Works is.

Meg: Don’t forget the most hideous building in town or perhaps in the Valley: The Bank of America building that is 45 degrees out of whack with every other building in town, has those horrific square columns with no structural or artistic purpose, the outrageous useless space that has to be heated and cooled – and the bizarre gerbil run on the second floor! That is one building everyone agrees is a downtown catastrophe!

Andy: Ugh. Yes.

Meg: I think a redesigned building there would make a fabulous Thorne’s Market-style venue with 2–3 floors of small boutiques and some carefully planned, financially sustainable arts space on the top floor. Maybe film-making courses sponsored by Amherst Cinema, and/or rehearsal space for the black box theater we can create in the old fire station! I am convinced, as I said earlier, that we could attract more small businesses if more infrastructure – plumbing heating, electricity – were provided. Maybe it could be “Roberts’ Market”! The Bank of America could sell it and consolidate their business at the Triangle Street mini bank. I know what you’re thinking: “Dream on, Meg!”

Andy: Well, while we’re dreaming, how about an easily accessible parking garage with plenty of space for all the people using “Roberts’ Market” and all the other current and future attractions downtown?

Meg: Sure, a parking garage based on a plan so it’s the right size, in the best location and structured so it’s public parking and not parking primarily for student renters. A private parking lot makes me nervous! A topic for the future we probably won’t agree on! I fear the editors of the Amherst Current were hoping we might have more fireworks than we did this time around, so that sounds like a great topic for next time. Ka-boom!

Andy: Haha! You crack me up. So much to argue about; so little time!

Meg: You know, Andy, I think we could agree on the importance of planning and perhaps also on the components of a good plan.

Andy: Yes, planning is good. Good planning is even better! Where would you start?

Meg: Well, I would start with goals or what some call a “vision.” What do we want? I am a big fan of quite specific goals and sometimes find the concept of “vision” to result in vagueness, but having a vision of what we want is also important. And that vision can be translated into goals. I think our Master Plan lays out a lot of that.

Andy: Having been part of the Master Planning process, it always warms my heart when it gets referenced. It really was a substantial public outreach project – more than 1,000 residents provided input back in 2006-10, and in 2020 it was reviewed and adopted by our Town Council. I think you’re right that it provides a broad vision – and that we need a more specific plan for our downtown.

Meg: When I think about the components of a good plan, whether it’s about our downtown or about building a house or about creating a strong organization, there are some crucial requirements. I would roughly summarize them as:

Setting goals based on a vision
Clarity about values
Establishing the exact need
Evaluating options for meeting the need including size, location, who is served, etc.
Creating a business plan – reviewing research and other information about viability, cost of building, operating budget, etc.
Getting input from everyone who will be affected while there are still options from which to choose.

Andy: Those sound like good components of a planning process. To get even more specific about the future look and feel of the downtown, I think we should revisit Amherst’s previous attempt to establish form-based code. To quote from the Form-Based Code Institute’s website:

Form-based codes address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. The regulations and standards in form-based codes are presented in both words and clearly drawn diagrams and other visuals… This approach contrasts with conventional zoning’s focus on the micromanagement and segregation of land uses, and the control of development intensity through abstract and uncoordinated parameters…

Amherst already has a form-based code proposal drafted; it was presented to Town Meeting a few years ago. Maybe the Town Council could ask the Planning Board to hold some hearings on that draft and see if we can get an updated version approved that will reflect the will of the community and put some rules in place to guide development going forward.

Meg: That would be a good first step – well-advertised public hearings about relevant topics is almost always a good idea! I confess needing to relearn about form-based design before I jump in as gung-ho advocate. I will do that before we reconvene!

A civil conversation, Part 2

Editors’ note: This is the second in a series of respectful conversations about Amherst issues from two different points of view. Click here to read Part 1.

By Meg Gage and Andy Churchill

Andy: Well, some people never learn! Here we are again, taking another whack at our different opinions about Amherst’s downtown. I understand you actually lived downtown as a child, up through your high school graduation. What was that like?

Meg: Yes, but I’m not into glorifying my Amherst childhood. Sometimes it seems there’s some merit in having been around a long time, some kind of extra credit. That’s not my thing.

Andy: Aw, c’mon – how about doing it in a nice, Amherst-y, non-competitive way?

Meg: Well, OK. Here’s a quick memory of growing up on North Pleasant Street. We lived across from the Dairy Queen that was next to the Mobil station, where Zanna is now. On summer evenings I’d look across the street from my bedroom window at the college students sitting on the hoods of their cars, eating ice cream cones together. I thought that was the most wonderful thing a college student could do. But it turned out as a Brandeis student I wasn’t the sort to sit on a car hood eating ice cream!

Andy: Wow – a Dairy Queen downtown – I could go for that. I might even sit on a car hood!

Meg: Another memory is of the White sisters, two elderly women who lived across the street, just about where 1 East Pleasant is now. They were the first Amherst girls to have bicycles and were quick to share with pride a framed newspaper article with a picture of them in bloomers with their bikes. Really dating myself here!

Andy: Great memories. And, of course, you’ve seen a lot of change since then. I wonder, does that make you in some way resistant to development downtown? I get the sense that some folks on “your side” are nostalgic for simpler times, when UMass was smaller, there was a grocery store downtown, etc. So, they are reflexively against more change, regardless of potential benefits of downtown vibrancy and revenues to support town services.

Meg: Indeed, I’ve seen a lot of change. But I am not particularly nostalgic for those days, and there were some not-so-great things, particularly related to gender and race. I’m not at all against change, and frankly, I can’t think of anyone I know who opposes all change. Nothing stays the same, and change is an opportunity to make things better, in my opinion. (BTW, there were TWO grocery stores downtown; Louis was where the CVS is now, and across the street, next to the Unitarian Church, was the A&P. There were two shoe stores, Bowles and Mathews, and a hardware store. Also, a drugstore with a soda fountain where Subway is now!)

Meg’s childhood home; Photo credit Sarah Marshall

Andy: Well, Amherst certainly has changed since then!

Meg: The big catalyst for the very rapid change that came to Amherst in the 1960s was the rapid expansion of the UMass student body, from 7,600 in 1963 to over 23,000 undergrads and 4,500 graduate students in 1970. Before then, there was no Echo Hill, no Amherst Woods, no residential areas to the east and west of East Pleasant Street.

Andy: So, whole new family neighborhoods sprang up, presumably to accommodate faculty and staff supporting all those new students. And the malls and supermarkets weren’t in place on Route 9 yet. Once those arrived, the old stores downtown couldn’t compete, I guess. And then, more recently, the big box stores sealed the deal.

Meg: One of the big mistakes Amherst made back then, IMHO, was to zone the big box stores out of Amherst rather than creating terms for them to be built in Amherst, with design standards for signage, scale, set-backs, etc. Perhaps they could have been built along what is now University Drive – or any number of other places away from the center of town. Amherst has always been the customer base for the malls in Hadley, so near the Amherst line. What a shame we don’t reap the tax benefits! An example of Amherst not adapting to changing circumstances.

Andy: So downtown Amherst evolved. It came to feature more restaurants, bars, and small, boutique-style retail, with a smattering of offices and apartments in those buildings that had upstairs space. The recent Archipelago buildings by Kendrick Park have added some housing to the mix. So, the question now is: What’s next?

Meg: Yes, exactly! Let’s do “what’s next,” with a plan! I am very enthusiastic about the Business Improvement District’s interest in developing the arts in downtown Amherst. The benefits of what has become known as the Creative Economy are well established – creative arts as a magnifier of economic success. It is an evolving concept focused on the relationship between creativity, business, technology, ideas and the arts. North Adams is one of the best examples around. In 1991, before MASS MoCA was established, North Adams had an unemployment rate of almost 13 percent. In November 2019 (just before Covid), it was 3 percent. Granted, many of the new jobs were in the service sector, but they were jobs that weren’t there before.

Andy: I would add, there’s also room for more people living and working downtown, to provide ready customers for downtown establishments and tax revenues for our town’s infrastructure. But that will require more development, more densification of the downtown with housing and office space, as our master plan suggests.

Meg: Sounds good, Andy, but I don’t see many people moving into the new apartment buildings who work downtown. They are mostly students.

Andy: Do you actually know that? I don’t, and I’m not sure it matters that much. It’s not like the new buildings are fraternities! More people living downtown is a good thing for the vibrancy of downtown and for tax revenue. We live in a college town; we need to get used to having college students in it, maybe even (gasp) see that as a benefit! More taxable rental units for students would generate more revenues for the town. They don’t all have to be downtown, though – maybe more development on Olympia Drive, or a “student village” approach to University Drive. A topic for another column!

Meg: I enjoy living around college students – although I can do without the Blarney Blowout! And housing is a fine idea, but what kind of housing and for whom and where? I’m sounding like a stuck record, but all this needs to be based on a plan! Ideally, Amherst’s new housing would help people in Amherst acquire wealth – one of my big disappointments of building so much rental housing. Rental housing is extractive and profits only the owners and builders – no one else is gaining wealth.

Andy: So, would you prefer condos downtown? Not sure those would be accessible to people without wealth in the first place. And what’s to prevent rich parents from buying them for their college kids? I hear you, but not everyone wants to buy property and be chained to it that way. There is a place for rental units, and for more office space. I agree with your point about needing a plan, though.

Meg: BTW, it may surprise you that I am a big fan of the master plan. I wish the Town were using it as more of a guide than it seems to me is the case. My other gripe about our recent development (and some not so recent) downtown is the architecture of the new buildings. We desperately need design standards that encourage attractive buildings that support a lively downtown.

Andy: I agree – we need design standards to guide development, technically known as “form-based code.” Interestingly, Northampton has just started a process of public discussion about it. And a few years ago, Amherst actually had a form-based code proposal on the table. It would have set design guardrails for the town – and likely prevented the most complained-about aspects of the new buildings. Unfortunately, as you know, Town Meeting voted it down.

Meg: I actually voted for the form-based code proposal in Town Meeting and agree we should look at it again. But back then, it had both technical and emotional aspects and a perceived lack of transparency on the part of the Town that made it difficult to get a two-thirds majority in Town Meeting. Form-based design is perhaps a topic for another column, but at this point I’d rather look forward than backward. It’s way past time to stop bashing Town Meeting!!

Andy: In its later years, Town Meeting richly earned any bashing it gets, most egregiously by voting down the elementary school project (a project I know we both supported).

Meg: Andy, the school vote was more complicated. A majority of Town Meeting supported the school proposal, but state law required two-thirds support. Can we agree it is time to stop bashing – and praising – Town Meeting?

Andy: I will say that Town Meeting is now irrelevant, and I’m glad that it is. But I do think we need to continue to take some lessons from that experience, in which a minority of townspeople decided they knew best, overstepped their role (which was simply to approve the borrowing based on whether the Town could afford the project), and used a variety of insider techniques to frustrate the will of the majority. I worry that we haven’t seen the last of that I-know-best approach, which makes it hard for people to trust each other enough to come together on a generally accepted vision for moving forward.

Screen shot of website designed by Anser Advisory Management, LLC

Meg: Well, I hope we can build more trust through better communication, and develop a plan for the future that does have broad support. Thinking about the elementary school situation, I am impressed with how hard the new Elementary School Building Committee and School Committee are working to build trust and transparency and to listen to people’s concerns and wishes for the new school, early in the process and continuously as the process advances. I think people feeling they’ve been heard and their ideas considered goes a long way toward people accepting change, even if their ideas are not followed.

Andy: How about for the next part of this discussion we get more specific about future design standards? Let’s take our readers on a virtual walk downtown. What aspects do we like, and want to see more of? What elements would we prefer to never see again?

Meg: Great idea! See you on the sidewalk!

In Part 3 of “A civil conversation,” Meg and Andy will walk around downtown Amherst and exchange views on the buildings.

Town-wide solar assessment should precede solar zoning bylaw

By Laura Draucker

In December, the Energy and Climate Action Committee (ECAC, of which I am the chair) submitted a letter to Town Council recommending that, before the Council enacts a solar zoning bylaw, it support the town in conducting a solar assessment and planning process. I summarize our letter in this post.

Burning fossil fuels to power vehicles, create the materials and products we use every day, and heat and power our homes and buildings contributes to nearly 90 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. Climate change has already contributed to devastation across the globe and must be curtailed to avoid unimaginable impacts to livelihoods and the environment.

To address this, the Commonwealth has enacted several laws and policies designed to move the state toward net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050. Interim goals for 2025 and 2030 should be established by July of this year. In addition, the Town of Amherst has made its own commitments to reducing GHG emissions, also aiming for carbon neutrality by 2050 with interim goals of 25 and 50 percent reductions by 2025 and 2030, respectively. These goals are what is required to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Last year, ECAC supported the town in developing the “Climate Action, Adaptation, and Resiliency Plan” (CAARP), which lays out specific actions we need to implement to meet our goals.

A key component of Massachusetts’s “2050 Roadmap” is expanding wind and solar power to provide the energy previously provided by fossil fuels. Even with the necessary improvements to energy efficiency, electricity demand is expected to more than double due to widespread electrification of buildings and transportation services. That electricity must be from clean, renewable resources to meet our goals, and doubling the clean electricity supply will require solar and wind generation to increase more than ten times from 2025 through 2050. Offshore wind power is slated to provide the majority of new generation capacity, but an estimated 20-23 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity will also be needed. As of the end of 2020, Massachusetts had about 3.4 GW of total solar capacity installed.

Thus, a staggering amount of new solar capacity must be developed. The state estimates that, even with maximal rooftop deployment, ground-mounted solar on approximately 60,000 acres of state land will be needed over the next 30 years. While ECAC believes we need a process where we can come together as a community and determine what the Town of Amherst’s share should be, it is likely to amount to several hundred acres.

Forests in Massachusetts currently sequester the equivalent of about 7 percent of state GHG emissions. The Roadmap concludes that, even with losses of forests to development of housing and clean energy resources, forests will continue to grow and increase GHG sequestration.

Locally, we should ensure that our natural resources are protected while we develop solar capacity, and we feel a solar resource assessment is needed. An assessment would address questions such as:

How much rooftop, parking lot canopy, brownfield, and ground-mounted solar is available in Amherst to meet the Town’s and Commonwealth’s goals for 2025, 2030, and 2050?
How much land is available that currently qualifies for Massachusetts SMART program incentives? (That stands for Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target.) What are the current uses of that land, and who are the owners?
How much Amherst land will be needed for solar facilities to meet 2050 goals beyond the amount allowed under our current land-use policies?
What may be the impact of the town’s efforts on the state’s climate change goals?
What may be our goals for solar capacity?
What are the pros and cons of siting alternatives to create that capacity?
What are residents’ perspectives and preferences?
What may be local benefits of solar financing and ownership options?
How can we engage with developers and the Community Choice Aggregation program?

A toolkit that communities can use to engage in a solar planning process should soon be available from the UMass Clean Energy Extension. The information developed by such a planning process can help the Town develop a solar bylaw that:

Recognizes the importance and likely need for ground-mounted solar;
Guides solar development in favorable locations and balances community values with the need for renewable energy;
Incentivizes suitable solar developments through expedited review and permitting;
Identifies and requires best practices for natural resource management on parcels hosting solar developments; and
Is consistent with existing local and state laws and climate action commitments.

ECAC is ready to help.

This post has not been authorized by ECAC.

Two views on solar moratorium

First, by Gerry Weiss

On Nov. 8, Lynn Griesemer and Pat DeAngelis of the Town Council introduced a zoning amendment proposing a temporary moratorium on the permitting and approval of large-scale ground-mounted (LSGM) solar photovoltaic installations.

Their reasoning was that Amherst needs to create a bylaw governing those LSGM
installations and, until that bylaw is law, the permitting of such installations could have negative effects on the environment. The Council voted to send the proposal to the Planning Board and the Community Resources Committee.

On Jan. 12, the CRC held a public hearing on the matter, with a presentation by the petitioners, who included newly elected Town Councilor Ana Devlin Gauthier, a former member of the Conservation Commission. Public sentiment at that hearing was lopsidedly in favor of a moratorium.

Many people believe that Amherst needs a Solar Installation Bylaw, so the Planning Board and Planning Department will undertake that task. The State of Massachusetts has been promoting such bylaws for the past seven years, and several communities in the state have created them for their towns and cities. So, it makes sense for us to hold off permitting these large-scale installations until a bylaw is created. The CRC hearing on Jan. 12 went late into the night, so deliberation before a vote will take place today.

Rather than go into the details myself of what a moratorium will and will not do, I direct you to Devlin Gauthier’s excellent presentation on the matter.

The most-often-cited reason not to have a moratorium is that our planet is burning up (I agree) and to possibly (are there plans that haven’t been submitted?) postpone a new LSGM installation by even a few months would put Amherst and the planet further behind in our quest to achieve a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.

The State of Massachusetts gave guidance for solar installation bylaws in 2014. Amherst is behind the curve on this initiative, but that does not mean we should rush headlong into clear-cutting hundreds of acres of forest without any guidelines. A large solar installation on a former forest is not a win-win.

While an LSGM will likely result in a net gain in carbon sequestration, there will be losses. Forests sequester carbon, turn CO2 into oxygen, filter pollutants out of the air and protect our water supply. Given the extremely short-term gains possible versus the likely costly errors without a bylaw to guide the process, it’s hard to understand why the idea of a moratorium is controversial.

Gerry Weiss has lived in Amherst for 41 years, served on the Select Board, the Charter Commission, The Disability Access Advisory Board and is the current President of Craig’s Doors, having served on the their Board of Directors for the past 11 years.

Second, by Johanna Neumann

Last month, the Planning Board voted (5-2) not to recommend a 18-month moratorium on ground-mount solar arrays larger than an acre to the Town Council.

In my view, the majority of board members felt that the provisions of Amherst’s current bylaw that guides the siting of solar projects and other energy facilities are adequate for the time being. They also felt a discomfort with using moratoriums to dictate public policy outside of an emergency. And they were confident that Amherst residents want our town to continue to play a leadership role in the transition to clean energy.

Amherst already has a bylaw that guides the siting of energy projects like solar arrays. While this bylaw could be made more specific, it has allowed for the successful construction of ground-mount solar arrays like the one behind Atkins Market in South Amherst, the panels going up now on the old landfill, and the proposed solar array at Hickory Ridge.

The bylaw includes language for setbacks, management plans, and more. The existence of the bylaw has not resulted in major problems with the solar systems installed to date, and so I and other Planning Board members felt that a moratorium isn’t necessary to prevent problems with potential solar installations in the future.

Some of us also felt that governing by moratorium is too reactionary. In the past few years, there have been two proposed moratoriums in town: one to freeze downtown development and the other to freeze solar arrays. Amherst has rules and regulations in place that were thoughtfully developed, and I, at least, feel that moratoriums should be considered a “nuclear option” and used only when absolutely necessary.

Lastly, I and other Planning Board members see the need for continued growth in clean energy. The Massachusetts 2050 Roadmap to Decarbonization calls for in-state solar capacity to accelerate from the roughly 400 megawatts (MW) installed per year over the past six years to more than 600 MW installed each year by 2030. An 18-month moratorium on any ground-mount solar project larger than an acre in Amherst would freeze clean energy’s growth right at the time when we need it to take off.

We can do two things at once. We can and must keep growing solar to reduce our climate pollution and we can be conscientious about how, where and when that solar goes.

Town staff are exploring how to go about funding and structuring a comprehensive solar study, and the Planning Board has initiated conversations around a solar-specific bylaw. I am confident that by working together, we can continue to make progress towards Amherst’s goal of powering itself with 100 percent renewable energy in a way that satisfies most residents.

Johanna Neumann has lived in Amherst since 2011. She has been an advocate and organizer around environmental issues for 20 years and is currently the senior director of Environment America’s campaign for 100 percent renewable energy. She is in her first term as a member of Amherst’s Planning Board. This statement has not been approved by the board.

CVS option for a parking garage should not be ruled out

By Nick Grabbe

Opponents of a parking garage on Town-owned land behind the CVS store talk as if they believe that the Town Council is about to decide to put one there. In fact, a “yes” vote on the proposed “overlay” zoning would be merely the first step in the decision-making process.

They say they don’t think a decision should be rushed. In fact, this zoning change was first brought up last spring, and speculation about using this town-owned site for a parking garage has been going on for several decades.

Residents of North Prospect Street say a parking garage would be incompatible with their historic district. But plantings can minimize the visual impact. And the current vista of a crumbling parking lot doesn’t exactly say “historic district,” does it?

These residents like the convenience of living on the edge of a commercial district but are outraged at the prospect of something designed to improve the commercial district. They are not the ones who need a parking garage, because they can easily walk downtown. And people who say they want businesses downtown that sell everyday items should not oppose things that make it easier to attract enough customers to come here to support those businesses.

So they don’t want to have a parking garage built across from their homes? Of course they don’t! No one wants to see development outside their front doors. Their voices have been heard, and they’ll be heard again, but now the Town Council must make a decision next Monday based on what’s in the best interests of all the residents of Amherst. “Our job is to take the community-wide view,” said Council President Lynn Griesemer.

I don’t know whether Town-ow ed land just north of the CVS lot is the best site for a second parking garage, but I don’t think it should be ruled out. And I’m willing to consider the opinion that we don’t need another garage at all. But all a two-thirds vote on the Town Council for “overlay” zoning would do is make a garage there possible.

I know a former town official who has studied the parking issue for many years, and he thinks the Town-owned land just north of the CVS lot is the most centrally located of the possible garage sites and is the most useful in terms of revitalizing adjacent properties. It could be the most accessible with some traffic modifications, it would provide the biggest net gain of spaces, and it is the most easily, affordably and efficiently developed, he says. And this may be the only site where a private developer would be willing to finance the construction and operation of a garage.

There are, of course, serious questions that need to be answered about the CVS site. Would access from North Pleasant Street cause traffic backups? How would egress onto narrow North Prospect Street work? How would it be financed and run? How big would it be? How would public safety be assured inside the garage?

And what are the advantages and disadvantages of having a garage there as opposed to other possible sites, such as just west of the Amherst Cinema? Is adding tiers to the Boltwood Walk garage structurally impossible? And will the Jones Library’s renovation and expansion project, combined with the Drake music and entertainment venue at the former High Horse site, dramatically increase the demand for parking?

Some opponents of the zoning article want to close off consideration of a parking garage at the CVS site before the debate over siting has begun. Some of them maintain that the decision should be delayed until the new Town Council is seated. Councilor Darcy Dumont invoked her right to delay a vote without saying why a delay was needed.

Some garage opponents have used overheated rhetoric, comparing the Town Council to “Mayor Daley’s Chicago” and referring to a parking garage as an “invasive species.” Dorothy Pam has acted more like a community organizer than a Town Councilor by whipping up the neighborhood and calling votes on zoning articles that have been around for months a “coup” and an “emergency.”

Among the opponents addressing the Town Council, only Meg Gage made the more reasoned argument that a “yes” vote on the CVS zoning article might create “momentum” toward siting a garage there.

The average Amherst homeowner has seen a $400 increase in property taxes this year. A major reason is that commercial property has not increased in value as much as residential property has. If we don’t want tax increases of this magnitude to continue, we should pay attention to the well-being of business owners. Chamber of Commerce Director Claudia Pazmany said that every day she gets complaints about inability to find parking spaces in downtown Amherst.

This zoning change the Council is about to vote on is just the start of the process. A developer would have to make a concrete proposal for a parking garage and be willing to finance it and abide by the conditions of the zoning bylaw. The developer would have to address the concerns of the North Prospect residents, as well as those of CVS’s landlord, St. Brigid’s and the Jones Library.

I remember the fierce debates over the Boltwood Walk garage in the 1990s, including multiple Town Meeting votes, referendums and court challenges. The debate over a second garage could be just as contentious. Let’s let it begin.

It’s crunch time on Town Council and tempers are flaring

By Sarah Marshall

A new Town Council will be sworn in less than five weeks from now, meaning that the current Council has little time in which to conclude any business it does not wish to refer, or pass on, to its successor. And given the holidays, time is even shorter. Council is thus squeezing in extra meetings in an effort to bring some projects, particularly revisions to several zoning bylaws, to a conclusion. Some Councilors and members of the public are very unhappy with this schedule and/or with the proposals, as was made clear at the Town Council meeting this past Monday.

Town-owned lot proposed as a site for a parking garage

This blog has avoided zoning issues in part because of the daunting complexity and jargon that make coverage a challenge, but we feel compelled to write about them now because of the huge investment that town staff, elected officials, volunteers, and residents have made this year on debating, critiquing, researching, refining, and discussing the arcane rules that determine so much of the look and feel of our town, as well as the political impacts of the zoning efforts.

First, a quick overview. Revisions to four zoning bylaws are on the table, three of which are causing heartburn: the definition of a “mixed-use” building, an “overlay” that would permit a parking garage to be built on the Town-owned lot next to the CVS lot between North Pleasant and North Prospect Streets, and parking requirements for new constructions outside the Central Business District. All proposed zoning bylaws must be “read” twice during Town Council meetings, at which point they can be voted on. This past Monday, the first readings of these proposed bylaws occurred; the second will occur on Monday, Dec. 6.

Second, some highlights of public comment. Many residents have been closely following the development of these bylaws, which has occurred over this past year in numerous public meetings of the Town Council, the Council’s Community Resources Committee, and the Planning Board. Residents of District 3, in particular, feel threatened by the potential for a parking garage on the east side of North Prospect St., opposite a local historic district. In fact, District 3 residents were asked by one of their Councilors, Dorothy Pam, to lodge comments in opposition to what she termed a “Thanksgiving coup.” I listened to much of the public comment and heard accusations of “shenanigans to make sure that you can avoid having representative government,” a “rush to judgment,” a “lack of process,” and “disenfranchising voters.” Some commenters opined that the current Council, as a lame duck, is wrong to undertake any action that is not an emergency and should let the incoming Council make the decisions. (This last comment reminds me strongly of Sen. Mitch McConnell’s excuse for refusing to give Supreme Court-nominee Merrick Garland a hearing in advance of the 2016 presidential election.) Others claimed that the process short-cut provisions of state law or our town charter.

Presumably, similar comments had already been received by email, because Council President Lynn Griesemer opened the readings of discussions of the proposed zoning bylaws with what seemed a prepared statement. My transcript of her remarks follows:

There is no bylaw that we are voting on to approve tonight. All bylaws require two readings. This is the first reading for all four that appear on the agenda, even the one we’ve seen twice before, and all we’re doing is extending the date again.

However, before moving on, I’d like to share a few observations that are reflective and supportive of our town government today, tomorrow, and long into the future. They in no way reflect how I, as one of 13 Councilors, will vote on any bylaw.

We’ve heard several comments prior to this evening and tonight regarding a desire to delay any further action on zoning amendments, in fact, all actions, until the next Council is seated. These comments include various stated reasons:

This is a lame duck Council and we should not do anything for the remainder of our term.
The public has spoken through the election, thus creating a mandate.
There has been insufficient time, research, and consideration given to these zoning articles.
And, finally, that we have not honored various state laws, charter requirements, and rules of procedure.

Regarding point one, does that mean that all Councilors only serve for one year and 10 months and that no legislative action should take place between an election and the seating of the next Council? This is not what the voters wanted when they voted for the Charter – they wanted a year-round government. If we are not going to take action now then we should have stopped taking at least certain actions last winter when we started lining all of these zoning articles up. The first ones we discussed were way back in December of 2020; the Planning staff came to us on February 22, 2021. In addition to that, since November 2, we have taken or are scheduled to take many important votes – on the budget guidelines, on establishing the CRESS and DEI Departments, on evaluating the Town Manager, and setting Town Manager goals for the coming year – most of which the next Council can change. We have a job to do, and refusing to take timely action is not in the best interests of the community.

Regarding point two, the creation of a mandate. Occasionally, we see a true sea change that might prompt us to take the extraordinary step of delaying action. However, the argument that “the people have spoken” seems to me requires some close examination. We have elected six outstanding new Councilors – that vote was confirmed just this past week. And, while it is true that two of the Councilors who have advocated to rezone the CVS parking lot were not reelected, they were defeated by a total of 50 votes and lost in one in each of their two precincts. Other incumbents, though not all, who were reelected or unopposed, to the best of my knowledge did not campaign for or against zoning changes. And the chair of the CRC committee, who argued and voted for the zoning changes in CRC, received the second highest number of votes in her town-wide election.

It is quite possible that residents in different neighborhoods hold different views on this issue. For example, the residents who do not live downtown are the ones most likely to need and use a garage. That’s OK. Our job is to take the community-wide view.

Regarding the concern of insufficient time, research, and consideration, I refer you to the second attachment to the Future Agenda Items [page 8 in this document] that is in your packet. It is the step-by-step process for each bylaw under consideration and includes the date of each step starting with the initial referral. Two of the bylaws – Mixed-use and Parking and Access (related loosely in this case as Apartment Definitions) – [were] presented in a list in February of 2021. They were referred by this Council for hearings by the Planning Board and CRC on June 28, 2021; the rezoning of the CVS parking lot was introduced to the Town Council on May 24 [and] was referred to the Planning Board and CRC for hearings. Each has been developed, vetted, and legally reviewed – including the involvement of our professional and well-qualified planning staff, Planning Board hearings, in three instances heard and reheard by CRC, and reviewed by the Town’s attorney. We do not lack information and turning back the clock at this point would be a disservice to the many residents and staff who’ve brought us to this point. We need to do our work and vote YES or NO, and move on.

Finally, in the process of bringing these bylaws forward all state laws, the Charter, Council Rules of Procedure, and practices of the relevant bodies have been followed. Having said that I encourage the Town Planning staff to seek comments on the Planning Board reports and repost them in time for our next meeting. My request to all of us and to the residents is let’s agree to disagree; but we do not want to compromise democracy in the City known as the Town of Amherst based upon which side of the issues we fall on.

In my view, the current workload for Town Council and staff, while heavy and unwelcome, is not surprising at the end of a legislative session. (And as some have suggested, the charter could be amended so that a new Council is seated promptly after election results are certified, shortening the lame-duck session and moving it away from the holiday season.) Public hearings, readings, and votes must occur within windows of time set by law. Referring the current zoning proposals to late January or beyond would require the clocks to be re-set, launching new hearings, readings, reports, etc. and demanding yet more time from staff, Council, and residents.

To be sure, Councilors are not happy to have five-hour meetings on a routine basis, let alone extra meetings during the holiday season, as some complaints and sharp exchanges suggested. At the end of Monday’s meeting, Councilor Cathy Schoen, for instance, protested against the length of meetings, only to be challenged by Councilors Griesemer and De Angelis to assist by making her own comments briefer. Councilor De Angelis asked councilors in general to limit their comments to what is most important and not to say the same thing six times for emphasis. Councilor Pam noted that the lengthy meetings and interference with the holidays discourage potential candidates for Council.

Councilor De Angelis then deplored the “attitude” held by some councilors against other councilors as well as things said and done against Councilors Ryan and Ross. She said that, while she did not always agree with their views, neither George Ryan or Evan Ross deserved the treatment they were getting from some councilors and members of the public.