Patience Wears Thin At Fifth Consecutive Weekly Town Council Meeting

Report On The Meeting Of The Amherst Town Council, November 29, 2021

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded. The recording can be viewed here. 

Highlights

• Extensive public comments offered on proposed zoning amendments
• Council president expresses frustration with criticism of council process regarding zoning
• First readings of four zoning amendments presented
• Preliminary design shown for roundabout at Pomeroy Village
• East side parking eliminated on Kendrick Place
• Councilors criticize each other regarding the length of meetings and treatment of fellow councilors

Present: All councilors in attendance, except for Shalini Bahl-Milne (District 5), who was out of the country and did not have internet service. 

Staff: Paul Bockelman (Town Manager) and Athena O’Keeffe (Clerk of the Council)

Public Comment Substantially In Opposition To Parking Garage
Almost all comments from the public concerned the four zoning amendments to be discussed at this meeting. The rezoning of the town parking lot behind CVS in order to permit construction of a parking garage drew the most reaction. Sixty-nine residents were in the audience, and 18 spoke during the public comment period, which lasted almost 90 minutes.

Harry Peltz asked why there was such a rush to revise zoning. He noted that Councilors George Ryan (District 3) and Evan Ross (District 4) originally presented residents with plans for a three-story parking garage in the area next to the CVS lot, on North Prospect Street. He said it has now morphed into a four-story structure with a height of up to 50 feet, and added that there was no study of alternative locations.

Bob Abramms, who said he has lived on North Prospect Street for 20 years and was dialing in from Guatemala, was dismayed at how the proposed rezoning is being done. He said that large trucks making deliveries block traffic on the street now. There is no room for additional traffic. He said that a parking garage at the site only makes sense if tenants  of the large buildings downtown with no parking buy long-term spaces, but this would not provide parking for visitors to downtown.

Myra Ross said she agrees with previous speakers, but as chair of the Disability Access Advisory Committee, she encourages the town to hire consultants who plan intersections for blind people, especially with regard to the planned roundabout at Pomeroy Lane.

Suzannah Muspratt lamented the lack of an assessment of community impacts of the proposed amendments. She said pieces of amendments are being proposed without understanding how they go together. 

Gina Etheridge said she moved to Amherst from Los Angeles about two years ago and has been following town government. She said the council is no longer “acting wisely and prudently.”

Rani Parker noted the declining use of the lot behind CVS lot since 2015, according to parking studies.. She added that the parking studies by consultants Nelson/Nygaard in 2016 and 2019 make no mention of a parking garage as part of a management plan. She urged councilors to read the reports, which were not included in their packets. “The report actually says that Amherst has a surplus of 1,200 spaces at peak demand.”

Kate Trost of Dana Street contended that the quality of downtown neighborhoods is an important part of Amherst, and that the town should be moving toward a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly downtown. She said the downtown is now unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists, and that she can always find places to park. What is needed is signage and parking maps. She also asked why extra money was spent on the Boltwood Garage to enable extra stories to be built, and then it has not even been considered as a site for additional parking.

Ira Bryck spoke against a parking garage and also against the proposed mixed-use building bylaw. He said that little effort was made to make downtown a place to convene. 

Ken Rosenthal pointed out that the current councilors were elected three years ago and began their terms 27 days later, and said that it is important for new councilors, too, to be seated after a reasonable time period. In the meantime, he said, the council should act only on matters of great emergency. He also urged the council to allow members of the public to see who is present at its meetings.

Others speaking against the proposed zoning changes included Priscilla White, Patrick Meagher, Barbara Pearson, Janet Keller, Jennifer Taub, Gabor Lukacs, and Anne Massey. Amy Scharff noted that some of the councilors pushing the zoning changes were voted out of office. Jay Silverstein said he felt residents were being hoodwinked by the council and Planning Board. The parking garages being held up as prototypes, for example, were in non-residential areas of Greenfield, Boston, and Cambridge. He felt that businesses were treated more favorably than residents.

Karin Winter thought that a valuable piece of downtown property like the parcel being considered for a zoning overlay should be used for small shops, not a parking garage.She suggested that patrons of downtown performance venues could be served by a shuttle bus from an outlying lot. 

Bob Pam said it may turn out that we need a garage, but first we need more information on how many spots are needed. He added that it sounds like the parking garage was designed for one bidder, which, he said, is “never a good idea.”

Sharon Povenelli, co-owner of AJ Hastings, said that the Nelson/Nygard study counted public and private parking in determining the adequacy of parking downtown. She said that businesses need “destination parking” where people from out of town can find it. BID director Gabrielle Gould admitted that there is currently no parking problem, and that the recommended improvements such as signage have not yet been implemented. But, she said, a parking garage is “a look to the future.” With the construction  of a new library, new performance spaces, new restaurants, new retail businesses, and new outdoor dining, there will be an increased demand for parking.

On another matter, Planning Board member Janet McGowan protested that the Planning Board Reports to the Town Council on the zoning changes were submitted after being reviewed only by the Planning Board chair. There had not even been time for other board members to comment. Pam Rooney agreed that Planning Board members should be allowed to give input on reports submitted by the Board to the council. Kitty Axelson-Berry said she was concerned that Town Hall staff are not able to keep up with the work required by all these proposals and their other work, and have time to advise and plan for the future.

Meg Gage reminded the council about a suggestion that she and Michael Greenebaum made shortly after the new government was in place that the council could appoint residents to research topics that the council and staff did not have time for (see e.g., here and here). Ad hoc committees could look into, for instance, solar bylaws in other towns or how other college towns increase revenue. No effort has yet been made to use the expertise of town residents on matters facing the council, they said.

Griesemer Expresses Exasperation About Opposition To Voting On Zoning Amendments
Council President Lynn Griesemer (District 2) began the discussion of four proposed zoning amendments with a six-minute speech to councilors and the audience justifying the council’s accelerated deliberations. Her remarks follow:

“There is no bylaw that we are voting on to approve tonight. All bylaws require two readings and this is the first reading for all four bylaws that appear on the agenda.

However, before moving on, I would like to share some observations that are reflective 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 have heard several comments prior to this meeting and tonight regarding a desire to delay any further actions on zoning amendments, in fact all actions until the next council is seated. These comments include various stated reasons:

1. This is a lame duck council, and we should do nothing for the remainder of our term
2. The public has spoken through the election, thus creating a mandate
3. There has been insufficient time, research, and consideration given to these zoning articles
4. And finally, we have not honored various state laws, charter requirements, and rules and procedures.
   

Regarding point 1, does that mean that all councilors only serve one year and 10 months, and that no legislative action should take place between the 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 action last winter when we started lining all these zoning articles up. In addition, since November 2 we have taken, or are scheduled to take, several other 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 following year. Refusing to take timely action is not in the best interest of the community.

Regarding point 2, 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 requires some closer examination. We have elected six outstanding new councilors. And while it is true that two of the councilors who have advocated to rezone the CVS lot were not reelected, they were defeated by a total of 50 votes. 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 possible that residents in different parts of towns have different interests. For instance, those who do not live downtown are most likely to need and use a garage. That’s okay. Our job is to take the community-wide view.

Regarding the issue of insufficient time and consideration, I refer you to the second attachment to the future agenda items document in your packet https://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/59173/13b-Future-Agenda-Items-through-2021-with-adjusted-Attachments-as-of-11-29-2021-AM . It is the step-by-step process for each bylaw under consideration and includes the date of each step starting with the initial referral. Each has been carefully reviewed, including by our professional planning staff, Planning Board hearings, in three instances heard and reheard by the 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. We need to do our work and vote yes or no and move on.

Finally, in bringing these proposals forward, all state laws, the charter, council rules and procedures, and procedures of relevant bodies have been followed. Having said that, I encourage the planning staff to solicit comments on the planning board reports and repost them in time for the next meeting. 

My request to all of us, including 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 on what side of the issues we fall on.”

Griesemer also encouraged the Planning Department to solicit comments from Planning Board members to augment  reports submitted “on its behalf.” Alisa Brewer (At large) added that reports should include the names of all the board members, not just the chair.

Article 14: Extending Temporary Zoning Implemented During The Pandemic
Building Commissioner Rob Morra pointed out that the bylaw allowing additional outdoor dining and temporary structures that permitted businesses to operate with increased safety during the pandemic was due to expire at the end of the year. The Planning Board and Planning Department recommends that the measures be extended until December 31, 2022. He said that there has been a lot of positive feedback on the changes and expedited approval. Cathy Schoen (District 1) suggested that some of these changes be made permanent.

Article 3: Mixed-use Buildings
There was considerably more controversy over the discussion of changes to the mixed-use building bylaw. Currently, there are few stipulations for mixed-use buildings regarding the size of dwelling units or the amount and location of nonresidential space required. The proposed changes were presented by Senior Planner Nate Malloy. According to the proposal, no more than 70% of the gross floor area of the ground floor should be residential unless the permit granting authority (Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals) allows some of the nonresidential areas to be located on other floors or in other buildings on the same parcel. The street-facing area should be “predominantly commercial.” Enclosed parking should be at the rear of the building. Also, no more than 50% of the units should have the same number of bedrooms, unless all units are affordable.

This proposal went through several changes over the 10 months it has been under discussion. The first iteration required 60% of the ground floor to be nonresidential. This was reduced to 50%, then 40%, and finally to 30%. It was this provision that drew the most criticism from councilors. Schoen and Dorothy Pam (District 3) thought the 30% was too little to promote new businesses in town. But Ross was certain in his belief that this line of thinking was a “field of dreams,” and added that the town “cannot make businesses magically appear.” Brewer pointed out that many of the small shops lost through recent construction survived by paying below market-rate rents and probably would not be viable otherwise.

Mandi Jo Hanneke (at large) pointed to a market demand study done by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission in 2018 at the request of Amherst’s then-Economic Development director. She said, “The study determined that there was [demand for an additional] 39,000 square feet total in town (in all of Amherst) of retail space. Since that study was done, about 22,000 to 27,000 square feet has been added or permitted, including 22,000 square feet of retail at North Square in the Mill District. That leaves 17,000 square feet of retail demand. That’s what the study says. 11 East Pleasant Street is 17,500 square feet. If the percentage we’re talking about goes up to 100%, there is no more demand in town once that building is built. Thirty percent of 17,000 is 5,000 square feet. We only need three of those buildings to meet the demand. If three of those buildings are built after we hopefully pass this bylaw, we’ll have met the 2018 retail demand study at 30%. If we go up to 70%, we’re done with one building. We can argue about percentages, but I look at this and say, this is a good place to start, because that 17,000 remaining is throughout the entire town.”

Rezoning The Town Parking Lot Behind CVS As A Parking Facility Overlay District
Malloy reviewed this proposal, which would permit only a parking garage to be built in this residential zone, not any other structure. He estimated that a garage that is 40 feet high and set back 15 feet from the lot line on North Prospect Street could accommodate 270 parking spaces with 90% lot coverage. In response to criticism that no other sites for a parking garage were considered, Planning Board Chair Doug Marshall confirmed that the planning staff and the Planning Board were only asked to evaluate this one site by the council.

Ross claimed that this site has been studied for decades, and Ryan added that a parking garage there would create destination parking to help increase retail downtown. Pam countered that there was no way to make a parking garage compatible with the surrounding local historic district. She said that the reason a garage hasn’t been built there, despite decades of study, is that it is a bad spot.

Sarah Swartz (District 1) voiced her frustration. She said that when eliminating parking from the North Common was discussed, many on the council spoke of decreasing the need for cars downtown, but now the same councilors are saying that we have a desperate need for a parking garage. She pointed out the hypocrisy of these arguments and made a plea for people to be honest about their motives.

Article 7: Parking And Access Bylaw
Discussion of this proposed bylaw began at 10:45 p.m. Planner Maureen Pollock made the presentation. Instead of the required two spaces per residential unit in the current bylaw, the Planning Department has proposed a more flexible guideline which takes into account factors such as proximity to downtown and public transportation, and opportunities like shared parking. Low-income and senior housing might also require fewer parking spaces. 

Because the time was late, there was minimal discussion of this proposed bylaw change. The first reading will be continued early in the December 6 council meeting. It will not be voted on until at least December 13.

Initial Designs For Roundabout At Pomeroy Village
Superintendent of Public Works Guilford Mooring presented a progress report on designing the roundabout at Pomeroy Village.

I

He said he has been working with the abutting landowners to minimize the effect on their property. The design will result in the Slobody property on the northwest corner losing one parking space and the loss of a small slice of land from the Hess property. He said the owners of the Hess station (now Speedway) were happy to be gaining a sidewalk in front of the property. Flashing beacons will be placed on the grass belt between Mission Cantina and the road. Only one utility pole will need to be moved in the proposed design.

Mooring said he has not yet consulted with the Disability Access Advisory Committee and the Transportation Advisory Committee, but will do so soon. He will bring the design back to the council when it is 75% completed.

Parking On Kendrick Place
Kendrick Place is the narrow dead end street just to the west of downtown. Currently, parking is allowed on both sides of the street, but the width of the road does not allow two-way traffic if cars are parked on both sides. Also waste haulers and delivery trucks cannot access the street with the current parking arrangement. 

The DPW and Town Services and Outreach Committee are advocating limiting parking to the west side of the street which would result in the loss of 13 total spaces.

The council approved the plan 12-0-0. The DPW will begin posting the appropriate no parking signs after getting clearance from Dig Safe.

Complaints About Length Of Council Meetings
Schoen expressed dismay that council meetings routinely last until nearly midnight. She thought that there was an understanding to try to end by 10 p.m., and said she had been approached by a newly elected councilor who was worried about the length of meetings. She asked, “What are we doing to ourselves and to staff?” and suggested that the council should try to end at 10 and continue remaining discussion to the next meeting.

But Griesmer replied, ”I have to turn it back to you to keep control of your time.”

Pam agreed with Schoen’s criticism, saying, “I think we should make a motion that unless there is an emergency, which there was not, we should not destroy a holiday season like this again. There was no need for this. We have to assure new members that we’re not going to do this again.” The council is meeting for eight Mondays in a row during  November and December, before the new council is seated.

This prompted a rejoinder from Pat DeAngelis (District 2), who said, “I’m sorry to take time right now. Cathy [Schoen], you’re talking about limiting meetings and yet you won’t limit yourself. I’m tired of people saying that we don’t need to do this, that we can end at 10. That’s not true… I’m [also] concerned about the kind of attitude that some councilors have shown toward [some] other councilors. It’s a hell of a loss that we are losing six councilors; two weren’t reelected and four are not continuing. And I’m really tired of [people] beating up on George [Ryan] and Evan [Ross]. I don’t always agree with them, but they don’t deserve this treatment from the council and from the community. We need to respect each other and ourselves and not say the same thing six times.”

With that remark, the meeting adjourned. The council will meet again on December 6 at 6:30, beginning with the State of the Town address.