(10/18/07)  The Select Board met Monday, October 15^th at 6:30 p.m. at Town Hall.  Gerry Weiss, Hwei-Ling Greeney, Rob Kusner, Anne Awad and Alisa Brewer were present, as was Town Manager Larry Shaffer.  Judith Arcamo took the minutes.

Announcements

Mr. Weiss read a letter from the East Longmeadow Select Board praising the Amherst Fire Department and thanking them for their assistance in fighting a recent bad fire at a complex called Bluebird Estates.

Mr. Weiss made several announcements:  Town Meeting starts Monday, November 5th;  the Warrant Review Meeting will be Thursday, October 25th at 7:00 p.m. at the Middle School auditorium; the Bus Tour for Town Meeting members to become familiarized with warrant sites will be held Saturday, October 27th, leaving at 1:00 p.m. from the Middle School parking lot and taking approximately two hours; a Zoning Orientation Meeting to give Town Meeting members an overview of the zoning process will be held Thursday, November 1st at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Room at Town Hall; meetings to gather public input on the Town’s open space and recreation plan will be held Monday, October 22nd from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the North Congregational Church Parish Hall, and Thursday, November 1st from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Munson Library.

Mr. Shaffer introduced and praised Judith Arcamo, a relatively recent addition to the staff in the Town Manager’s and Select Board offices, and said she would be assisting with Town Meeting.

Ms. Brewer asked if a joint meeting had been scheduled with the Library Trustees to elect someone to fill a vacancy on the Library Trustee Board.  Mr. Weiss said it would take place at the October 29th Select Board Meeting, and that interested candidates should submit applications to Library Director Bonnie Isman, copies of which would be made available to the Select Board.

Public Comment (6:36)

Joanne Lind submitted a letter to the Select Board and said she would like it to go out over their names.  She said it expressed concern about increasing reports that an attack on Iran was imminent, and that attached to the letter was Town Meeting’s 2006 resolution opposing war with that country.  She said the letter would be sent to Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator John Kerry and Congressman John Olver.  Mr. Weiss thanked her and said that the Select Board would read it and put discussion of the topic on the next week’s agenda.

Vladimir Morales expressed concern about the need for signs warning motorists to go slow and watch out for children on Gatehouse Road.  He asked about the process for requesting such signs.  Ms. Greeney said it would be helpful if he submitted is concerns in writing, but Mr. Kusner said he thought this verbal request was sufficient, and that there was precedent for getting signs placed quickly when needed.  Mr. Weiss said the question would be looked into, and that someone would be in touch with Mr. Morales about it.

Bill Elsasser talked about a traffic calming technique he had seen in a magazine , whereby a straight street in Amsterdam was made curvy, like the famous San Francisco street, and had parking spaces and play areas in the islands between the curves.  Mr. Weiss said it sounded like an interesting idea.

Special Municipal Employee Status for CPAC (6:49)

Peter Jessop, Chair of the Community Preservation Act Committee (CPAC,) requested Special Municipal Employee status for that body, and said that one of its members was a substitute teacher in the public schools and required that status in order to continue to serve the committee.  Mr. Weiss and Ms. Awad noted that this was a good reason for the request, and the vote to grant SME to CPAC was unanimous.

Liaison Assignments (6:51)

Ms. Greeney talked about the committee list she and Mr. Kusner had created, which notes each one’s active or dormant status, and who makes the appointments to each.  She suggested that the members read it and be prepared to discuss it at the next meeting, along with their preferences for which committees they wish to serve as liaison.  Ms. Brewer noted that she the Board also intended to have a discussion about the roles of committee liaisons, and Mr. Weiss said that that would also be part of the discussion on this topic at the next meeting.

Article 4: Property Tax Exemptions for Veterans’ Organizations (7:00)

Mr. Shaffer noted that he is a member of the VFW, and would not be taking part in the discussion.

Principal Assessor David Burgess explained that in order to keep the VFW and American Legion buildings exempt from property taxes, Town Meeting needed to raise the amount of tax exempt value that is granted to veterans’ organizations.  He said that State law mandates a minimum $200,000 exemption, and said that he had assumed that the local option clauses allowing higher exemption amounts had already been adopted by the Town, but that they had not, which he said meant that those buildings should have been but were not taxed for the amount exceeding $200,000 of assessed property value. 

Language of the article and the State law to which it referred were not available to the audience, but there were apparently two optional clauses for different exemption amounts, and Mr. Burgess said he recommended the one for the higher amount, because with the value of the buildings increasing, it would be necessary to raise the exemption amount again in the near future if the smaller amount were to be adopted. 

After some discussion and further explanation, including the fact that the properties could not be retroactively taxed even if the Town were to want to do that, the Select Board’s vote to recommend Article 4 was unanimous.

Special Liquor Licenses and Committee Appointments (7:06)

Special liquor licenses were unanimously approved for events at UMass and Amherst College. 

Ms. Awad recommended the appointment of John Thibbitts to the 250th Anniversary Celebration Committee.  The appointment was approved in a unanimous vote.  There was also talk about possibly expanding the number of people on that committee, but no action was taken and the Select Board will wait for a request from that committee’s chair.

Ms. Awad recommended the appointment of Vernon Francisco to the Committee on Homelessness.  The appointment was approved in a unanimous vote.

Ms. Awad recommended the appointment of Joan Hansen to the Committee on Homelessness.  The appointment was approved in a unanimous vote.

Ms. Awad recommended the appointment of Stanley Maron to the Committee on Homelessness.  The appointment was approved in a unanimous vote.

Ms. Awad recommended the appointment of Tracey Levy to the Committee on Homelessness.  The appointment was approved in a unanimous vote.

Ms. Awad recommended the appointment of Reika Simula [spelling unconfirmed] to the Committee on Homelessness.  The appointment was approved in a unanimous vote.

There was discussion about staggering the terms of the appointments to this new committee, and it was decided that some would be three year terms, and others would be two-year terms.

Ms. Awad recommended the appointment of Denise Barberet as the Planning Board’s representative to CPAC.  The appointment was approved in a unanimous vote.

Ms. Awad recommended the appointment of Stan Ziomek as the LSSE representative to CPAC.  The appointment was approved with a vote of 4 in favor, 1 abstention, and Mr. Kusner abstained without comment.

Ms. Awad recommended the appointment of Julie Jones to the Nyeri, Kenya Sister City Committee.  The appointment was approved in a unanimous vote.

Article 9 – Fair Trade Resolution (7:16)

Yuri Friman introduced a couple of members of the Amherst Fair Trade Partnership and talked about how fairly-traded goods promote social justice and economic opportunities for food and craft producers in the southern hemisphere who primarily sell their goods to consumers in the northern hemisphere.  He talked about requirements for being certified as “fair trade” such as:  utilizing sustainable farming practices, with incentives for organic farming; formation of farm cooperatives; and forbidding forced or child labor.  He said the fair trade movement promotes access to importers, citing Dean’s Beans as an example.  He talked about Media, Pennsylvania being the first Fair Trade town in the U.S., and the opportunity for Amherst to be the first in the State and fourth in the U.S., and talked about the positive press coverage and fair trade tourism that could result.  He talked about the Partnership’s recent efforts collaborating with the Art Walk Block Party and having a table at the Farmers’ Market.  He said they had worked with the Amherst Cinema to get a nationally acclaimed fair trade film, “Black Gold,” shown there, and said that would happen on Saturday, October 20th.  He talked about the potential to put Amherst at the forefront of the fair trade movement and the group’s goal to then create a Massachusetts Fair Trade Partnership.  He said Amherst could help empower farmers and lift them out of poverty while boosting the town’s own economic vitality and desirability.

Mr. Kusner noted that some local businesses were not on a list of fair trade vendors provided by Mr. Friman, and wondered if promoting fair trade might come at the expense of promoting local farms and local businesses who don’t sell fair trade items.

Mr. Friman said that there were a couple of local coffee places not on the fair trade list, and said they were already popular and unlikely to be impacted by fair trade promotion.  He said that emphasis on local purchasing and responsible purchasing is part of the ethos of the fair trade movement.  Ms. Brewer noted that Mr. Friman had brought his proposal to those promoting the “buy local” effort as well, and that it was appreciated.

Mr. Weiss said that the resolution called for three different elements:  to encourage the Town Manager to do fair trade purchasing for the Town where possible; to encourage the Select Board to engage in ongoing promotion of fair trade purchasing and product use to the community; and to encourage the Select Board to consider the future creation of a Town committee dedicated to fair trade. 

There was discussion about the Select Board traditionally not taking a position on articles or portions of articles which seek to advise itself.  The sense of the body was that that was not a problem, and that Town Meeting wants to know the Select Board’s feelings on such articles. 

There was discussion about the statutory requirements for Town purchasing, which had been given much attention in recent “buy local” discussions, and whether or not the resolution might compel the Town Manager in some way.

Mr. Shaffer thanked Mr. Friman for reviewing the article language with him early, and said that he endorses it as written.  He talked about how the Town Manager’s ability to enter into contracts is granted by the Town Government Act and can’t be encumbered.  He said that it was appropriate for the Select Board to make and deliberate on policy and said that he will encourage them to speak on policy in a clearer and more focused way.  He said that if encouraging fair trade purchasing was their policy, then he would take that into account, but noted that as a practical matter, the Town had little opportunity to purchase items like coffee and chocolate, which are the primary fair trade items on Mr. Friman’s list.

Ms. Greeney said she wanted to disclose that she had worked with Mr. Friman on the Art Walk Block party.  She said she endorsed the idea of the resolution and the general spirit of being conscious about the origins and production of one’s purchases, and cited her past work as a sweat shop auditor. 

Ms. Brewer said that the second part of the resolution – ongoing encouragement of fair trade purchasing to the community by the Select Board – seemed to be the most practical, due to the Town Manager’s purchasing requirements and said that forming the fair trade committee in the future might not be necessary.

Mr. Weiss said that the petition was particularly well-written, and that Town Counsel agreed and had no concerns about it.  Mr. Friman said that the partnership had made great effort to coordinate with the various groups who might be or feel impacted by it, and got their input beforehand. 

The vote to recommend the article was unanimous.

Article 5 – Capital – Mark’s Meadow Portable Classrooms (7:43)

School Committee Chair Andy Churchill talked about the Mark’s Meadow Elementary School: that it’s the former lab school for the UMass School of Education; that it has 10 classrooms for seven grades, which requires an annual decision about which grades will get two classes; that the kindergarten typically gets one class, requiring the overflow of kindergarten students to go to other schools.  He said the portable classroom purchase had been a placeholder in the capital budget.

Mr. Weiss explained for the benefit of viewers that a placeholder means that the money has been put aside for that purpose.  He talked about the Joint Capital Planning Committee’s (JCPC’s) intention to bundle the cost of this project into a larger borrowing amount at some point. 

There was discussion about why this wasn’t brought forward in the spring, and that there had been some intention to do so, but that with the tight budget and the lack of immediate need for these units at that point, it was decided that it would wait until fall.  There was also discussion about how a recent vote by JCPC to recommend this had occurred at a meeting that had not been posted, and so the vote needs to happen again.  Ms. Greeney was concerned about voting to recommend this article at this meeting, as she is a new JCPC member and hadn’t been at the unposted meeting, and wasn’t familiar with the discussion details.  Others made the points that the unposted meeting was to reaffirm JCPC’s earlier votes to support this, and that it was already part of the approved 5-year capital plan. 

Mr. Kusner and Ms. Brewer both offered detailed disclosures of their employment ties to UMass, which owns the building, and to Mark’s Meadow, through their respective children’s past and current attendance there. 

With some further discussion of the intent to bundle this into a larger borrowing amount, the vote to recommend the article was 4 in favor, 1 abstention, with Ms. Greeney abstaining. 

The meeting took a brief recess at 8:00.

Zoning Bylaw – Zoning Map – College/South East Streets (8:06)

The article in question was called Article 11 on the agenda, but there was discussion about reordering the zoning articles.  Planning Director Jonathan Tucker said that they were arranged in the same order used for the public hearing schedule – from most critical first, to more complex next, to more controversial last.  Mr. Weiss said he agreed with the concept, but not the determination of which was most controversial.  Planning Board Chair Aaron Hayden said that he felt the current order of simplest to most complicated was the best one, and provided a sense of one leading into the next.

There was significant discussion about the status of pending zoning petition articles and whether or not they had the required signatures, and if so, how they would be incorporated into the warrant.  Details about the process and how long it takes to schedule public hearings on zoning articles, and the now-past Select Board deadline for accepting petition articles were all discussed. 

Vince O’Connor is a petitioner on the zoning articles in question but insisted that they not be identified as his, but rather as coming from the Coalition for Sustainable Neighborhoods.  He assured the Select Board that sufficient signatures were submitted and would be certified by the Town Clerk’s office.  He said that if it was appropriate to have a different petition article by another petitioner on the warrant at this late date, then it was appropriate to have these zoning petition articles as well, and said that the situation is the result of the Select Board not having voted to formally close the warrant at their deadline date.  He said that he encouraged the Board to reorder the zoning articles, and put the University Drive one first because he believes it faces little opposition, and said that Town Meeting should be able to agree on that one before dealing with ones he considers to be more controversial. 

It was agreed that, assuming the required signatures were in place, if one petition could still be included on the warrant, then all of them could. 

Ms. Greeney said that it “boggles (her) mind” that they might be considering where to place Mr. O’Connor’s petitions on the warrant when they were not in front of the Select Board.   

Mr. Tucker responded to questions about the scheduling process required for posting and holding public hearings, which he said takes a couple of weeks and would begin as soon as the petitions with certified signatures are received by the Planning Department from the Town Clerk.  Mr. Hayden said that the zoning subcommittee had been doing preliminary research on proposed changes and holding public meetings in advance of the public hearings to better inform the Planning Board and the community.  He said they would be unable to do that with these at such a late date, but said that some details of the petitions had been considered in meetings on related articles.  

Mr. Kusner said he had communicated with Mr. Weiss and Mr. Shaffer about reordering the articles, and that he had thought that that would be done.  He was clearly frustrated by the situation and spoke sharply to Ms. Greeney when she interrupted him to ask why reordering was being considered.  He said he had spent several hours working on this matter, and asked that he may “have the privilege of reading the order.”

Mr. Kusner went through his reordering proposal, which without knowing what articles had what numbers, was not meaningful to those watching the proceedings.  For the record, his proposal was to arrange them in the following sequence, using their original numbers:  12, 13, 14, 15, 10, 11 and 16.

In response to Ms. Greeney’s question about why, he spoke about being a representative to the zoning subcommittee and taking part in many of its meetings; of how one of the articles was previously defeated at Town Meeting and referred back to the Planning Board; that while that article seems simple on paper it is actually the most complex and controversial; and that because the completion of the Master Plan is near, it is important to get this article right and to address it responsibly.   He said he hoped the Select Board would discuss but not decide on that article at this meeting, and noted that one of the petition articles seeks to modify that article’s proposal, so he wants that near the end.  He said that his proposal for the final zoning article is because that one has had the least discussion and hasn’t had a public hearing yet.  He said the one about a research and development overlay seems to be fairly well-supported and said that although it is complex, it would be good for Town Meeting to start with a success.  He said he apologized if this reordering process was complicated and said it “could have been done clerically,” and that he was sorry that had not been done.

Ms. Awad said that she agreed with Mr. Kusner’s suggested ordering.  She said that she is also a representative to the zoning subcommittee, and agreed that the College Street/South East Street article is complex, and called it “a tremendous opportunity for the town.”  She said she also agreed that it was better for Town Meeting to start off with the expected successful passage of the University Drive research and development overlay article before tackling the College Street/South East Street article.

Mr. Weiss said he had spoken with Mr. Kusner about his preferred ordering, and that he (Mr. Weiss) had agreed with it, and was sorry it wasn’t done.

Mr. Hayden provided a brief introduction to the College Street/South East Street article, saying that most of the Select Board members had been to public meetings and public hearings on the matter.  He said the article seeks to connect seven parcels south of that intersection and to rezone them from Residential to Village Center-Business and Commercial.  He said that that would help to take advantage of the 23,000 vehicle trips that go through there every day.  He said the proposal would put Commercial rather than Residential zoning along the highway, and would shift from Commercial to Residential by Colonial Village as one proceeds down South East Street.  He said that much discussion of the issue at public meetings and public hearings has focused on the parcel to the south of Auto Express.  He said the original proposal had to been to rezone the parcel to Commercial, which was the request of the property owner, but that after discussions with the Coalition for Sustainable Neighborhoods, the Zoning Subcommittee and Planning Board decided to change the recommendation for that parcel to Village Center-Business.  He said there is currently a rental house on the parcel.  He noted that the intersection is about 300 years old, and that much of its location and traffic elements are beyond anyone’s control, and said that it reflects the way King George had originally felt that the town should be arranged as much as it reflects more contemporary ideas.  He said “this proposal captures that coincidence, captures the opportunity that this corner presents.”

Mr. Kusner said he wanted to discuss but not decide on the article tonight.  He also said that while parts of the intersection are 300 years old, other parts date to the late 19th century, and said that that was due to the presence of railroads as well as streams, wet areas and other natural features of the area, which he said he hoped to hear more about.

Ms. Greeney suggested putting off this discussion until the Coalition’s alternative proposal for the same intersection is available for side-by-side comparison. 

Ms. Brewer talked about the public hearing process not having yet occurred on the article, because the petitions were only newly viable, and said the articles need to go through that process in order for her to feel comfortable that the public had had its chance to participate before the Select Board takes a position.  She said that it was problematic that the petition articles have been planned since August and that their signatures were only submitted that day.  She said the process doesn’t work if deadlines are not followed, and said that if there had not been the delay in submitting the signatures, a side-by-side comparison of the articles would have been possible.

Mr. Kusner said that the issue of the intersection had come before Town Meeting and Town staff before, and suggested that the Board concentrate on physical facts of the matter independent of petition details.  He said that these physical details were the ones the originally inspired him, Mr. Weiss and Ms. Awad to get involved with the zoning subcommittee.  He said that as commissioners of sewer and water, and as keepers of the public way, they had the responsibility to understand such features – “the facts on the ground” – and that such details might inform them about how to proceed.

Mr. Tucker said that a similar article had come to the 2006 Annual Town Meeting and had received majority support, but not the 2/3 majority needed to pass.  He said there was concern at that time about whether a wide section of South East Street south of College Street was part of the historic common.  He said that the Historical Commission had since contracted with an outside consultant to study the historic common and that the question was specifically asked about this area of concern.  He said that the conclusion was that neither that area nor an area north of it were ever part of the common, and were only the right-of-way.  He said the only area that was a common is that currently still identified as such. 

Mr. Tucker said that another concern at the 2006 Town Meeting was about infrastructure needs for that area, including sidewalks, bus stops and bike facilities.  He said that a sidewalk is already in the plans from College Street to Colonial Village, and is part of the budget for an upcoming fiscal year.  He said it had not been constructed earlier because the Department of Public Works (DPW) didn’t have enough labor or time to do the project earlier, and hence funds had not previously been requested.  He said that there are wetlands in that area, constraining the ability to widen the road for bike lanes.  He said that streetscape elements one would expect in a village center, such as bus pull-offs, benches, lighting, street trees, and the like, are ordinarily required of the developer during the permitting process as a condition of approval of their proposal.  He said there had been discussion about needing a coherent design of the whole area for the public way, and he said that that was an issue that the planning staff and relevant boards could handle.  He said the other issue was about whether the storm drains in the area were sufficient to handle surface run-off and Fearing Brook issues, and he said that Town Engineer Jason Skeels would address those topics.

Mr. Kusner said that the 1860 map Mr. Tucker provided indicates the existence of Fearing Brook and at least another brook at that intersection, as well as additional streams on the East Common.

Mr. Skeels said that Fearing Brook enters and runs through a culvert in the area and that invasive knotweed sometimes blocks the grate and overflows the fail-safe drain and requires frequent maintenance.  He said that other brooks are “piped” and run under College Street and behind various businesses in that area, and he mentioned different pipe sizes for the flow and discharge.

Mr. Kusner said that it was interesting to note that the elevations of the pipe inlets and outlets were near the same levels, and said that when levels in the Fort River are near flood stage, there could be no outflow. 

Mr. Skeels said that it is a very level area, and said that capacity in normal times is sufficient, but that “floods are floods.”  He talked about how new development in that area requires construction of measures to deal with its impact on flood water and drainage at hundred-year storm standards, and talked about detention ponds, replicated wetlands, and underground storage pipes created on various parcels in recent years.  He said that there was a flooding situation a couple years ago that was caused by a 12-foot 2”x8” timber and a large build-up of garbage and debris behind it, which severely clogged a pipe.  He said some people’s concerns about this area are the result of maintenance issues, not flooding issues.

Mr. Weiss said the key issue is:  if there is increased development in that area resulting in less permeable surface, where would the run-off water go?  Mr. Skeels said that it would be the same as with any new development: developers would be required to increase their detention storage and infiltration into the ground to correspond to their increase in impervious surface.  He reiterated his examples about storage pipes and other retention options.  Mr. Weiss asked who is responsible for installing such systems.  Mr. Skeels said “The developer is always held responsible to make up for their increase in impervious surface,” and said that the plans go through the Planning Board and/or the Conservation Commission, depending on jurisdiction, and he then reviews them. 

Mr. Kusner said there were several drains on properties adjacent to the ones in question which flow into the public drainage system.  He asked about the potential that increased impervious surfaces would cause increased flow into the public system, and whether the Fort River might flood the road during a big storm and present public safety issues that might create financial obligations for the Town. 

Mr. Skeels said he had not looked at the flood stage elevations before the meeting, but that the Town had come close to flood stage over the last ten years and hadn’t had any problems.  He said that older development didn’t have such detention requirements and can discharge directly into the public system.  He said “That’s why any new development is made to jump through such high hurdles and quantify and qualify all their off-site flow.”  He said that was all he could speak to without further consideration of the flood stage elevations.

Mr. Kusner noted the frequency of buses passing through the area and said there are no bus stops, and asked about the cost of creating them.  Mr. Skeels said it would cost around $5,000 to put a bus pull-off on a narrow road like College Street, and that it would be much simpler and cheaper to do on the wider South East Street.  Mr. Skeels said the Town often makes it be the developers’ responsibility to put in a bus stop and rearrange sidewalks as part of their development projects.

Mr. O’Connor said that although new development must create detention basins, he said that Auto Express located part of its basin on a neighboring residential property, which he termed “unfortunate.”  He said that the current standards of handling 6 ½ to 7 inches of water per 24-hour period for flood stage will need to increase due to global warming, and said that “if we build to that standard, we’re underbuilding.”  He said that a Colonial Village resident had reported water close to the complex’s back stairs during significant rain storms, and said the complex is in a low area and that another building had flooded because of the blockage to the Town drain.  He said there needs to be concern about water entering ground floor apartments as well as the ground floors “of some of the businesses that we invite to this area.”  He said he didn’t know how to address that concern, but that the standards are out of date.

Mr. Skeels talked about the design standards using a 100-year system of statistical probability, and said that it is continually updated and accounts for current and past situations.  Mr. O’Connor said he was referring to the wetlands standards enforced by the Conservation Commission. 

Mr. Shaffer said that over the past few months, he and staff had been discussing the relative merits of contract zoning.  He said that contract zoning asks that the beneficiary of “upzoning” directly pay for some or all of the infrastructure needs anticipated relative to the rezoning.  He said that he and the staff were unanimous in their agreement that contract zoning is not the most appropriate method for funding public improvements.  He said that it requires speculating about the nature of the future use of the property and what the infrastructure needs would be at that future time, and said that the revenues collected at the time of the rezoning might not meet the needs of the infrastructure change once development occurs.   He said the Town’s current method for dealing with such needs during the site plan review process is “completely satisfactory and proven.”  He said that it lets the Town meet its infrastructure needs at the time project is proposed, and that the needs are specific to the proposal.  He said he has not worked with contract zoning but has worked with impact fees, which he said have the same problem of anticipating future needs and costs.  Also, he said such arrangements make it a public responsibility to do the infrastructure upgrade, whereas the current system makes it the developer’s responsibility to bear those costs at the time of the development. 

Molly Turner said that she was bothered by the process. She said that the Town Commercial Relations Committee (TCRC) was invited to have a joint meeting with the zoning subcommittee.  She said that that gave business and economic development representatives “the ear of the Planning Board,” while she said those concerned about the environment, conservation and climate protection were only represented in an informal and unorganized fashion.  She asked why such concerns didn’t get equal standing and representation.  She said that she appreciated the data and information from the DPW, but that it was not their job to look out for conservation and environmental issues, and noted that environmental concerns are important to many in the community.

Mr. Hayden said he wasn’t sure if he should be angry or simply respond.  He said it was incorrect to portray conservation interests as having been excluded from the meetings, which he said were public and open to all.  He said that he takes pride in his colleagues on the Planning Board, that they are thoughtful and have many interests, and said they engaged in much discussion about flooding and conservation issues on this topic.  He said that planning is about how resources can best be used to serve the town.  He said TCRC was invited because this was primarily a business issue, but that people from other viewpoints were vocal participants.  He said the Planning Board’s charge is to do what is best for Amherst, and said that includes commercial interests as well as the preservation of natural resources.  He said it was necessary to get away from “scary details” such as the possibility of flooding from giant pipes under roads.  He said the area in question is wet and flat and sensitive to salt or spills, and that the Planning Board understands that, and that “it is very much part of our consideration.”

Mr. Tucker talked about the maps showing different elevations of buildings and outflow pipes, and other elements of the area’s topography.  In response to Mr. O’Connor’s earlier point about the Auto Express drainage system being located on an adjacent parcel, Mr. Tucker said that those parcels are owned by the same person, as are five of the seven proposed for rezoning, which he said makes the property lines disappear and allows much greater flexibility for locating such storage equipment.  Mr. Tucker also mentioned that before he was a planning professional, he was an environmental professional and does pay attention to such matters.

Mr. Kusner talked more about the flood stage elevations and contours and how high the water was for Hurricane Bob in 1991, and suggested that the information might help to explain why the Town’s storm drain system doesn’t work well.  He also said that the entire area is a big sponge, and that after development, it becomes a wrapped sponge.

Mr. Weiss suggested that further discussion on the matter wait for the petitions from the Coalition for Sustainable Neighborhoods.

Ms. Brewer asked about the technicalities of the Select Board relaying the petitions to the Planning Board once the signatures are certified.  Mr. Shaffer said that a sufficient number of signatures had been certified, and that he would relay the petition articles to the Planning Board. 

Decision to continue the meeting (9:25)

Due to the time, Mr. Weiss invoked the new tradition of requiring a vote of the Select Board in order to continue beyond 9:30.  Mr. Kusner said that a formal vote was not necessary, and that the Chair could just ask if there were any objections.  Ms. Awad said that the heat in the room was getting to her, and suggested that they triage any additional topics.

There was much discussion about how to insert the three Coalition petitions into the warrant, as well as the petition submitted by Larry Kelley.  They considered options other than signing the warrant that night; whether they could sign the warrant without the physical inclusion of the petitions; and whether Town Counsel might need to approve petition language. 

Mr. Shaffer said that such matters emphasize the need for deadlines.  He said those deadlines are carefully created to account for all the process elements that need to occur internally within Town Hall, and that 11th hour changes can lead to unintended mistakes. 

As discussion continued about warrant language and article arrangement, Ms. Awad left the meeting just after 9:30 p.m.  Eventually, the three zoning petition articles and Mr. Kelley’s petition about reconsidering the effluent fee waiver for UMass were inserted into the reordering of the articles.  The agreed upon reordering was:  the old 12 became the new 10, the old 13 became the new 11, the old 14 became the new 12, the old 15 became the new 13, Coalition article 3 became the new 14, the old 10 became the new 15, the old 11 became the new 16, the Coalition article 2 became the new 17, the old 16 became the new 18, Coalition article 1 became 19, and Mr. Kelley’s article became 20. 

The vote to sign the warrant with that reordering was 4 in favor and 1 absent, with Ms. Awad having left the meeting. 

The meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m. 

The next regular meeting of the Select Board will be held Monday, October 22nd at 6:30 p.m.  In the meantime, the Select Board will meet Friday, October 19th at 4:00 p.m. to discuss budget policy guidelines; and will meet to share preliminary budget information for FY09, first in a joint meeting with the Finance Committee, School Committee and Library Trustees on Saturday, October 20th at noon, followed by a meeting with the Select Boards and Finance Committees from Leverett, Pelham and Shutesbury at 2:00 p.m.  All meetings will take place in the Town Room at Town Hall.

-- Stephanie O’Keeffe