CRC Nominates Two For Planning Board Posts

Report On The Special Meeting Of The Community Resources Committee, June 2, 2022

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

This was a special meeting of the Community Resources Committee to interview candidates for two open positions on the Planning Board.

Present
Mandi Jo Hanneke (Chair, at large), Pat DeAngelis (District 2), Jennifer Taub (District 3), Pam Rooney (District 4), Shalini Bahl-Milne (District 5)

Applicants For two open positions on the Planning Board were Bruce Coldham and Karin Winter. John Gilbert, previously listed as a candidate, has withdrawn because of a conflict he has with the scheduled meeting time of the Planning Board.

Summary
Candidates had received the eight interview questions in advance. Questions were alternated among the two candidates and candidates were allotted three minutes to answer each question. Candidates had previously submitted statements of interest that provided a summary of relevant experience and reasons for applying. Coldham’s statement can be found here. Winter’s statement can be found here.

Following the interviews, the CRC discussed the potential appointment of the two candidates. Committee chair Mandi Jo Hanneke raised a concern that while the applicant pool had been deemed sufficient at the CRC meeting of May 12, when there were three candidates for two open positions, the current situation might lead people to question whether the search had been sufficiently rigorous. She asked the committee to consider keeping the search open and calling for additional applicants. Pam Rooney, Jennifer Taub, and Pat DeAngelis responded that both applicants had shown themselves to be excellent candidates who would be welcome and valuable additions to the Planning Board. They emphasized Coldham’s considerable experience and leadership in planning matters and Winter’s previous work in education as well as her fresh perspective. Hanneke and Shalini Bahl-Milne acknowledged the strong potential of both candidates, but expressed concern that the Planning Board, being composed of mostly recent appointments, needed experienced members right now, and for that reason it might be worthwhile to keep the process open and attempt to recruit additional experienced candidates. After considerable discussion the CRC voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend to the Town Council that both Coldham and Winter be appointed to the Planning Board for terms of three years, effective June 30, 2022.

The Interviews
Prior to the commencement of the interviews both candidates disclosed that they have worked previously with each other and both praised each other in their subsequent interview comments. The questions and a brief summary of the candidates’ responses follow.

1. What experience do you bring to the PB that will make it successful?

Coldham: Served previously on the Planning Board from 1997 to 2003 and was cofounder of the Comprehensive Plan Committee. He has 50 years of experience as a professional architect, during which he made many appearances before planning boards. He was a pioneer in the design of net zero energy buildings and a national leader in the design of living buildings. He has impressive experience in matters currently regarded as timely, such as environmental consciousness, stewardship, and green buildings. He also served on the Local Historic District Commission (LHDC). Coldham regards himself as a good listener and says that he was effective as a motion generator the last time he was on the Planning Board and that, in general, he works well with groups such as these civic bodies.

Winter: Noted that she is not an expert and that although there is a need for expert advice, the Planning Board has to deal with many different things and needs people who have had a broad range of experiences, are good listeners, and can take in the big picture. She cited her long career as a teacher, and would bring the listening and communication skills that effective pedagogy requires. She has an appreciation for different perspectives, has lived in many different countries and communities, and is open to new possibilities and new perspectives.

2. Tell us about an experience you’ve had collaborating with a group — particularly where the ideas conflicted or where the outcome was controversial.

Winter: As a newbie to town government, she served on the LHDC and at its very first meeting had to deal with the contentious Amherst Media application to build their new headquarters in an historic neighborhood. She said that while she was clearly over her head, she was able to rely on the experienced members of the commission and found the courage to ask questions and get all the information that the commission needed. This was challenging when so many of those involved were passionate. She said that they took the time to keep asking for more information and clarification and in the end ended up with a very good outcome.

Coldham: Has been involved for a long time in the development of cohousing communities and still lives in the Pine Street cohousing community. He noted that one of the underlying principles in that community is to strive for consensus. He was chair for five years of the Northeast Sustainable Energy Directors Group during a very difficult time. He is president of the North Amherst Community Farm and has helped organize a very effective group decision process there. And he also cited the Amherst Media application as an example of achieving a good outcome amidst controversy and acrimony. 

3. How can you help the Planning Board achieve the goals of the Master Plan?

Coldham: Was involved in developing a previous iteration of the Master Plan. He said the Planning Board should play a role in determining the fate of the non-selected site for the elementary school. He thought the Planning Board might have played a more active role in the process for the abandoned Eruptor project in North Amherst. He said it is the Planning Board’s role to figure out how to condition approvals in the most effective way, consistent with the objectives set out in the Master Plan, and that the board sets a tone and can lead an applicant in a more positive direction, inducing applicants to do the right thing. He said there needs to be more attention to the parts of the Master Plan that involve open space and community development..

Winter: Said that it is clear that the Master Plan is a product of a lot of input from a lot of different people. A big question is, how do we implement it within the financial constraints that face the town? She agreed with Coldham that the Planning Board could work more closely with applicants so that they do the right thing. 

4. Please describe the considerations and objectives you’ll use in considering proposed revisions to the zoning bylaw.

Winter: Stated that rules and regulations are important. They bring structure and security to governing. We can’t reinvent the wheel every time someone has an issue with a regulation. Of course no regulation is perfect, but if you’re going to change or make exceptions, you need to be careful. One way to address this is to remind ourselves and the applicant of the spirit of the regulation..

Coldham: Noted that regulations are blunt instruments so there need to be avenues for appeal. This gives us feedback for how our regulations are working and for addressing anomalies that might not have come under consideration when they were promulgated. He thinks that we should not shy away from considering exceptions and special cases. To do so diminishes the potential guidance that the Planning Board can give. He concluded that bylaws should be adjudicated by a well-supported deliberative body and the Planning Board ought to be such a body.

5: What’s your opinion of waivers, exceptions, dimensional permits in the zoning bylaw. When should they be used and when should they not be used?

Coldham: He generally favors waivers. Waivers are a way of looking at the board’s discretionary power and saying that under certain conditions we should allow something that generally might not be allowed. Including the powers mentioned in the question sharpens the blunt instrument nature of regulations and requirements. Such was the case in the past when the town dealt with parking. When considering a waiver, however, the board should be mindful not to use it as a spontaneous redrafting of a bylaw.

Winter: Agreed with everything that Coldham said. 

6.What is your approach to incorporating public input into decision making?

Winter:  Emphasized that she would not only welcome public input but would actively solicit it. Public input makes more of the unknown visible and this leads to better decisions. She noted that when she watches other committee meetings she always learns something from the public input. She concluded by saying that Amherst is a special place and thatthere will always be lots of public input here — and that’s a good thing.

Coldham: Said he is also a big fan of public input. He said that he can recall a couple of times during his previous service on the Planning Board when public input was not constructive, but those were really the exceptions. In the case of the Amherst Media project, he recalled that the first meeting must have had 50 people there. The Town Room was packed and everybody had something unique to say, and from that the LHDC was able to synthesize four major themes for how the Amherst Media applicants could improve their project and move forward. The public input had a substantial impact on the project and its ultimate approval.

7. What else would you like us to know about you and about what makes you a strong candidate for the Planning Board?

Coldham: He stressed that he has considerable experience working with town staff on important parts of the current bylaw.

Winter: Admitted that there is a lot she would need to learn to serve effectively and that it’s a steep learning curve. But she is confident that she is up to the challenge and welcomes the opportunity. She has been in leadership and administrative positions elsewhere and could bring that to the job.

8. Can you confirm that you have time to commit to meetings, hearings and site visits?

Both candidates confirmed that they could.

CRC Discussion
Disclosures:

DeAngilis disclosed that she is a long time acquaintance of Coldham and used his firm (but not Coldham himself) for the energy retrofit of her home.

Taub disclosed that she served previously on the LHDC with both candidates.

Each of the members of the CRC offered comments praising both candidates, and most of the discussion was devoted to a consideration of whether the candidacy pool was  sufficient.

Hanneke noted that when the CRC determined that the pool was sufficient (on May 12), there were three candidates for two positions. And that in spite of purposeful outreach, no additional candidates were found. She asked whether, given the small size of the pool, the search should  remain open, and noted that the committee had the option of filling both positions, neither, or just one, while continuing the search to fill the second.

Rooney said that the two candidates before them were great and that she felt that they should be appointed and that the CRC should not hold up the process to broaden the pool.

Taub observed that she had served with both of the candidates on the LHDC and judged them as excellent. She said that while she would prefer to have more applicants than the available spaces, she believed that the town would be well served by these candidates.

Bahl-Milne said that “looking at the current board, there do not appear to be a lot of experienced people on it’ and said that it would be better if CRC had a pool with more experienced candidates.

But both Taub and Rooney disputed the assertion that the current board lacks experience. They went on to review the experience of each of the current members, and argued that experience and expertise on the board have not been an issue and need not be a deciding factor in the decision before them.

DeAngelis commented that both candidates bring excellent assets to the board, but applicant pools need to be more diverse.

Taub observed that both candidates clearly understand that the Planning Board requires a lot of work and are able to make the commitment to do that work. “Maybe the reason why we’re not getting many candidates for these positions is because the Planning Board is so much work. We have two great candidates who understand what’s involved and can make the commitment to do it,”she said.

Rooney noted that Winter has previously served as an associate member of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and that this entails considerable technical knowledge. In fact, she said that Winter might have better preparation about the zoning bylaws than most people do when they are first appointed to the Planning Board.

In the end, Hanneke moved that the CRC recommend  that both candidates be approved for three-year terms to the Planning Board beginning June 30, 2022. The vote passed unanimously (5-0) and the recommendation will be taken up by the Town Council, likely at their next meeting, which is on June 6.