(12/3/07) The Select Board met Wednesday, November 28th at 6:30 p.m. in the Middle School music room, prior to Town Meeting. Gerry Weiss, Anne Awad, Alisa Brewer, Hwei-Ling Greeney and Rob Kusner were present, as was Town Manager Larry Shaffer.
Ms. Awad said that Mr. Kusner had requested swapping the months she and he would be serving as Vice Chair. She said that she was scheduled to be Vice Chair in December, and Mr. Kusner was scheduled to fill that role in March, but she said that March would be difficult for him. She said it was OK with her, but that she wanted to check with the rest of the Select Board first. Mr. Kusner had not yet arrived at the meeting. Mr. Weiss, Ms. Greeney and Ms. Brewer all indicated that the switch was acceptable to them.
Mr. Weiss talked about the petition letter that had been submitted to the Select Board by Joanne Lind of McClellan Street, encouraging Representative John Olver and Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to work to prevent a U.S. attack on Iran. He thanked the petitioners for writing it and said it was something he would be pushing if he were not on the Select Board. He said that the Select Board needs to feel confident with the language of such a letter before signing it, and said the letter’s message needs too get out because he said “the war drums are beating and the saber-rattling is happening,” and that it was his opinion that our representatives in Congress need to be pushed “to stand up against another invasion.”
There was a long discussion among Select Board members and Ms. Lind regarding various elements of the letter’s language. Receiving particular attention was whether to specifically reference the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s anti-Semitic statements. Mr. Weiss spoke in favor of doing so, while Ms. Lind suggested that the term “anti-Semitism” might be too provocative, and preferred a more general reference to “rantings.” Ms. Awad said that Mr. Ahmadinejad had also made derogatory statements about homosexuals and others, and rather than including every such category, a more general reference might be better, and Ms. Greeney concurred. Mr. Kusner suggested the word “rhetoric” replace “rantings,” in order to maintain a diplomatic tone. All agreed. After additional discussion of details and procedures for signing, the Select Board voted unanimously to send the letter as amended to Representative Olver, Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry. Ms. Lind also suggested attaching the Town Meeting resolution from fall 2006.
Article 18 – Petition for Rezoning on Sunderland Road (6:50)
Planning Director Jonathan Tucker said that the property owner of the land near the Sunderland border which was formerly home to the Bioshelters aquaculture business was seeking to rezone the parcel to allow for condominiums. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Board had held a public hearing where many concerns and questions about the proposal were raised, but could not be addressed because the property owner was not able to attend. He said the Planning Board voted to recommend that the article before referred back so that it could be given more attention, and he said the property owner was agreeable to that recommendation.
The Select Board voted unanimously to recommend referring Article 18 back to the Planning Board.
Article 1 of the Special Town Meeting – PRP Office Uses
Mr. Tucker said that Article 1 is a compromise article combining the former articles 13 and 14, which had been initiated by the Planning Board and the Coalition for Sustainable Neighborhoods respectively. He said that the Planning Board was seeking to better organize office uses in the Zoning Bylaw and to allow offices who see clients principally by appointment to locate in the Professional Research Park district with Site Plan Review approval. He said that Article 13 had included allowing the use in the Light Industrial zone as well, but that because there is so little Light Industrial property in town, it was felt that it should be saved for more intensive uses, and said that that proposed change was removed from Article 1. He said that motion A of Article 1 increases protections for neighborhoods abutting non-residential properties in all zones, in matters of parking, traffic routing, lighting and buffering. He said that motion 2 is a minor change to the dimensional table to allow for greater setbacks in the PRP zone. He said that motion C contains the bulk of the Planning Board’s intent. He said it seeks to put the office uses into a single section with three categories: busy offices, such as banks; low-visitation, by-appointment offices; and no-visitation offices, where the only people on-site are employees. He said that the Planning Board and the Coalition for Sustainable Neighborhoods both recommend the article.
Mr. Weiss sought clarification on the Light Industrial issue, and asked if it were true that banks and real estate offices were not currently allowed in the LI district, and would not be allowed if Article 1 passes.
Mr. Tucker said that under current language, banks, real estate offices, and low-visitation professional offices all fall under the same use category, and that it accounts for nearly every office in town. He said the other current use category – no-visitation offices – would include offices such as corporate headquarters and telephone banks, and said there is little in that use category. He said that Article 1 would break the low-visitation offices out from the current high-visitation busy offices, and allow them to be regulated separately. He said hat Article 13 had included the proposal that such low-visitation offices go from being not allowed in the LI district to being allowed by Special Permit, but that that was removed from the compromise article, and so the LI situation would stay the same as it is now: such offices would continue to be not allowed there.
Mr. Kusner said that such a change could be offered at a future Town Meeting. He asked about the proposed change allowing such low-visitation offices in the Village Center-Residence district by Special Permit, which he said would be relevant for the articles seeking to rezone the College Street/South East Street intersection.
Mr. Tucker said that such offices are not currently allowed in the Village Center-Residence district, but would be allowed by Special Permit if motion C of Article 1 passes “intact.” He said that in that district, it would be required that such offices be limited to three employees, rather than five, due to parking concerns.
Louis Greenbaum said that he intended to seek to refer motion C back to the Planning Board. He said it was detrimental to existing businesses. He said he has owned a building in the LI district for 35 years and said it is currently the only operational building in an LI zone. He said it has long been a successful incubator for businesses run by UMass science faculty, and that it is a mixed-use building of which few are aware. He said that with the new uses made allowable and the amount of vacant commercial space in town that it was important to make such opportunities available for existing businesses and not just new organizations that might now be attracted to Amherst. He said that he wanted motion C referred back so that the Planning Board would revise the article to make it “more equitable,” and said that he couldn’t imagine why that body had made a “discriminatory,” “inhibiting” and “disadvantageous choice” to not allow such uses in the LI district.
Hilda Greenbaum said that a zoning change passed earlier at Town Meeting had prohibited accessory manufacturing uses in residential mixed-use buildings, and that unless the Greenbaums’ building is grandfathered, they will have lost that use, so they want to be included in the new allowances of motion C.
Mr. Kusner asked whether motion C might be divided so that some of its elements may be preserved rather than referred back or rejected. Mr. Greenbaum said he was told by the Moderator that motion C could not be divided.
Mr. Weiss asked where the change was made to remove the Light Industrial zone from the proposed change. Mr. Tucker said it originated with the Zoning Subcommittee and came up during the Planning Board’s public hearing on the issue. Mr. Tucker reiterated his earlier point about there being so little LI zoning and not wanting to use it up with regular office uses.
Ms. Awad asked if the Planning Board was aware of the implications to the Greenbaum’s LI property when it made is decision.
Planning Board member (and this reporter’s husband) Jonathan O’Keeffe said that the Planning Board had previously supported including the Light Industrial district in the proposed change, and had done so when the issue was brought to Town Meeting in spring of 2006. He said that in the process of compromising and creating a proposal that would be acceptable to all, the change to Light Industrial was removed. He said that the intent was to take a measured approach to the change, and said that last year there had been concerns raised about traffic and other issues affecting the LI zone. He said that allowing office uses by appointment would require the ensuing traffic be routed through residential streets, and that that was a potential concern, and said it made the Planning Board reluctant to bundle the LI zone into to the proposal. He said that he was sympathetic to the Greenbaums’ concerns and said he felt it would be “entirely appropriate” for the Planning Board to consider a new article for the spring focusing on the LI zone. He said that referring motion C back would “undo” the current efforts, and would not address the current LI situation. He said that the Planning Board Chair is already looking at ways to deal with this in the spring.
Mr. Shaffer said he supports Article 1 and praised the Planning Board and the Coalition for Sustainable Neighborhoods for creating an “excellent zoning article.” He said he is sensitive to the Greenbaums’ concerns, and said that he has significant experience with mill restorations and said that once there is no viable use available for a property, blight can result. He said he would be happy to craft a Zoning Bylaw amendment for the spring that would encourage viability for the Greenbaums’ building.
Ms. Brewer asked what the effect would be on the Greenbaums’ property until such a change is made next spring if Article 1 were to pass now. Mr. O’Keeffe said there would be no change, and that nothing new would be either allowed or disallowed there.
Mr. Kusner suggested that there could be a competitive effect by allowing the change in other districts.
Ms. Awad said she was concerned that about trusting the Planning Board and Select Board to address this issue “in good faith” in the spring, and said that Article 1 could pass now and a spring article might fail. Regarding the issues of traffic concerns, she said that had been an issue among those who opposed the change for the Professional Research Parks, but not for the Light Industrial zone.
Mr. Tucker said that if the Greenbaums’ building were not currently zoned as Light Industrial, it could not be made such today, because zoning prohibits drawing traffic through a residential area for an industrial use. He said that the building is about 130 years old, and has been zoned LI for about 30 years. He said that any change would impact traffic patterns on the surrounding residential streets.
Ms. Greenbaum said there had never been complaints about the UPS trucks, semi-trailers and school busses that currently access the property or have done so in the past, and said she doubted a few cars going to a professional office would of greater concern.
Mr. Weiss said he thought proceeding with a good-faith agreement for the spring would accomplish more than referring the whole motion back to the Planning Board.
Mr. Kusner suggested changing the proposal for allowing such uses in the Professional Research Park district to Special Permit instead of Site Plan Review, to address concerns of competitive disadvantage.
Mr. O’Keeffe said he felt that that change would be outside the scope of the proposal. He said that when the Planning Board considered the low-visitation office use for the Village Center-Residential and Professional Research Park districts, they considered the question of how appropriate that use was for each area, and made their recommendations accordingly. He said that Site Plan Review means that the use is considered normal and expected rather than exceptional for that area, and said that the low-visitation office use is logically considered to be normal and expected in the PRP zone. He said he could not speak for the Planning Board, but that he strongly opposes making such substantive changes on the floor of Town Meeting because he said it “subverts the process” by not bringing such proposals to public hearings.
Ms. Brewer moved to recommend motion A. The Select Board’s vote in support was unanimous. Ms. Brewer moved to recommend motion B. The Select Board’s vote in support was unanimous. Mr. Kusner moved to recommend amending motion C to Special Permit approval in the Professional Research Parks, instead of Site Plan Review. No one seconded the motion. Ms. Brewer moved to recommend motion C. The vote was 3 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 abstention, with Ms. Awad voting to oppose and Mr. Kusner abstaining from the vote.
Mr. Shaffer said that if motion C passes, he will bring the Light Industrial issue to the Planning Board “with equal vigor.”
Mr. Kusner said it seemed “outrageous” to him that motion C was indivisible.
Ms. Awad said she trusted the Planning Board and the Select Board to bring back the article, but that she didn’t “trust that it is best to deal with it in isolation,” and said she thought the situation should have been “fixed” before it was brought to Town Meeting.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Board Chair intends to look at the whole Light Industrial zone, rather than taking a parcel-by-parcel approach.
Article 19 – Proposed Rezoning of Main, Dickinson and High Streets (7:41)
Charles Traitor of the Coalition for Sustainable Neighborhoods said that the process of review on the proposed changes is not yet complete, and that the desire is to have all concerns addressed. He said he is eager to have the article referred back to the Planning Board, and that the Planning Board also supports that recommendation.
The Select Board’s vote to recommend referring Article 19 back to the Planning Board was unanimous.
Ms. Awad moved to proclaim December 10th “Human Rights Day.” The vote to approve the proclamation was unanimous.
The meeting adjourned at 7:42. The next Select Board meeting was scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on Monday, December 3rd. Because Town Meeting would be completed on November 28th, the Select Board will have its regular meeting in the Town Room at Town Hall.
-- Stephanie O’Keeffe
