Neumann Not Recommended For Reappointment To Planning Board 

A special meeting of the Community Resources Committee (CRC) was held over Zoom to interview candidates for the Planning Board. That recording can be viewed here. 

The committee unanimously recommended that Frederic Hartwell and Jesse Mager be appointed to the Planning Board beginning July 1. In a split vote of 2-3, the committee declined to recommend a second term for Johanna Neumann. The CRC recommendations will be voted on by the entire council at its June 26 meeting. There are three pending vacancies on the Planning Board, so one position will still be open if the council upholds the CRC recommendations. Current members Thom Long and Andrew MacDougall did not apply for reappointment.

The CRC held interviews for the vacancies on Monday, June 12. CRC members took turns asking questions of the three candidates. All candidates were asked the same eight questions after which committee members were permitted to ask follow-up questions.

Hartwell served over six years on the Planning Board in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and said that he knows how the board operates and is very familiar with the Zoning Bylaw. He expressed surprise that there is no longer a Zoning Subcommittee of the Planning Board. In answering questions about the role of the Planning Board in advancing the Master Plan, Hartwell said that “we are stewards of the land” and that, “Amherst has a lot of attributes that could easily be threatened by current developments in the market. I have lived in Amherst for over 50 years and I bring a sense of history. This would be my major focus on the board.” A landlord for more than fifty years, he thinks that the town can increase housing without decreasing the livability of neighborhoods. Hartwell is a retired electrician who has served on state and national commissions developing electrical-related regulations and determining electrical codes.

In response to a question about  how he would incorporate public comment into his decision making, Hartwell said residents often bring up arguments that he has not anticipated, although they must be considered in relation to the personal interests of the commenter. 

Mager is a biology professor at UMass who has not previously served in town government but has studied some architecture and urban planning in the past. He has lived in Amherst for 16 years and has taken an interest in the many discussions about development projects in town. He wants the town to remain “vibrant and fantastic.” In describing a collaborative experience, he said he chairs a diverse 13-member committee that regulates animal research at the university.  “The reason I stay in the role is that it requires the ability to manage and navigate very diverse opinions, when people have very strong feelings about it, and I’ve learned I have a fairly good aptitude at balancing their opinions,” he said. “There’s almost always a way forward that won’t leave people feeling like they were totally dismissed.” He cited being able to think outside of the box as a special strength. . 

Neumann said she wants to build on the experience she has gained since joining the Planning Board three years ago. She said it is important to evaluate proposed zoning changes in light of input from the Planning Department, the Master Plan, the need for housing, potential revenue, and public comment. As an organizer around environmental issues, she said, she evaluates “everything” through a climate lens. In describing a collaborative experience, she cited the Planning Board’s rejection of a past proposal for a one-year moratorium on large solar developments while a solar bylaw was developed. She told the committee, “On the one side, people felt strongly that we need to grow clean energy. On the other side, there was concern that moving forward without a solar bylaw in place would disrupt beautiful open spaces and viewscapes.” She considered the discussion to be a respectful dialogue that focused on substance and the process to be a clear one. The Planning Board was split, she said, but agreed to disagree and then move on.

In regard to granting waivers and exceptions, Neumann said it is important to consider the purpose of a request for a waiver and the ramifications of it not being granted. She explained, “I’ve been struck by how often [the waivers] are not to thwart the intent of the Zoning Bylaw, but to make something happen. For example, some of the big buildings downtown needed a couple more feet [in height] to put some equipment on the roof.”

CRC Discusses Candidates
Committee members said they were impressed with Hartwell’s experience, and Pam Rooney (District 4) said she was thrilled that he wants to return to the board. They agreed that although Mager has little experience in planning, his active interest in urban planning and his committee experience would be an asset to the board, whose current members are fairly experienced..  

Neumann’s reappointment was more controversial. CRC member Pat DeAngelis (District 2) contended that Neumann mischaracterized the proposed solar moratorium, which DeAngelis  co-sponsored, and explained that the moratorium was not against solar development, as Neumann suggested, but rather about slowing it down until a bylaw could be developed, as had been requested by the chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) at the time. (The ZBA has responsibility for approving solar projects.) Also, DeAngelis said, the moratorium had been about preserving forested lands, not open space. CRC member Shalini Bahl-Milne (District 5) stood up for Neumann saying that she thought that DeAngelis was misinterpreting Neumann’s position. She asked for the interview process to be reopened so that Neumann could clarify her statements. The other CRC members objected to reopening the interviews. 

In the follow-up question part of the interview, CRC member Jennifer Taub (District 3) asked Neumann to elaborate on what she meant in her Statement of Interest when she wrote, “I have deliberated on and voted for projects that increase housing near our downtown and UMass, including projects in neighborhoods often averse to change.” Neumann said she was referring to large downtown apartment buildings as well as private dorms on Olympia Drive, but Taub pointed out in the CRC deliberations that Neumann’s  language about “neighborhoods averse to change” was divisive, that the buildings she was referring to were not even in neighborhoods. Objections to those buildings had come from residents all over town.

Rooney said she has listened to many Planning Board meetings and has noted that Neumann tends to give proposals carte blanche, without offering suggestions or criticisms. 

The vote on approving Neumann was 2-3, with Mandi Jo Hanneke (at large) and Bahl-Milne voting yes, and Rooney, Taub, and DeAngelis voting no.