Opinion: Bylaw Change To Allow Approval Of Site Plan Review With Simple Majority Goes Too Far

The Town Council, and especially At Large Councilor Mandi Jo Hanneke, Chair of the Community Resources Committee (CRC), have expressed a desire to rewrite the Town’s Zoning Bylaw. It is true that the current Bylaw contains some confusing and conflicting parts, but if the Council’s vote on August 10 is any indication, there may be weaker checks and balances governing future development in town.

At Monday’s Special Council Meeting, the Council voted to reduce the number of votes required on the Planning Board to approve a Site Plan Review to a simple majority from the current requirement of two-thirds.  A two-thirds vote was necessary to amend the bylaw and the vote was 9-4-0.

Prior to that vote, Cathy Schoen (District 1) had proposed that a minimum of four votes be required, because if only four Planning Board members were present at a meeting (a quorum) and one abstained on a vote, two votes could pass a Site Plan Review.  That motion failed by a vote of 4-9-0 with Schoen,  Alisa Brewer (At Large), Dorothy Pam (District 3) and Darcy DuMont (District 5) voting in favor.

Even though, projects under Site Plan Review are those whose use is permitted by the zoning, the review process very often points out shortcomings in both the plan and design.  It is natural for developers to want to fit more building into a site and to build as cheaply as possible to maximize their profit. Through the Site Plan Review, they are sometimes required to reorient the building, improve the design, or adjust the size. In my year of observing Planning Board meetings, I have seen this process at work. Although the review can take several Planning Board meetings, the careful scrutiny usually results in a much better project (see the plans for Center East Commons as an example ). In the past year, none of the15 Site Plan Reviews brought before the Planning Board received less than five positive votes.

If one were suspicious, one could envision a situation where a developer could arrange a vote when three Planning Board members who opposed a plan were not in attendance. But even if this scenario never occured, as Planning Director Chris Brestrup said, “Three votes just sounds like too few.”  Sarah Swartz (District 1) was the dissenting vote when the CRC recommended this amendment to the bylaw. She preferred a minimum of four votes, yet she voted against Schoen’s amendment in the Council meeting and then voted against the Bylaw change.

Speaking in support of the change, Evan Ross (District 4) said that the current two-thirds requirement makes Amherst seem anti-business.  But the new Bylaw goes too far. Any proposal of merit should be able to garner four votes from the Planning Board, a board that in general favors development. With this Bylaw amendment and what may follow in the fully revised Zoning Bylaw, the Town may be ceding to developers its ability to influence what is built in our midst.

Maura Keene is an obstetrician-gynecologist at Bay State Health Systems. Her four children are graduates of the Amherst schools. She has lived in Amherst since 1982.