Sustainable Amherst

This week Town Meeting will be discussion and hopefully passing Article 17 – Village Center rezoning.  Here are our views on this important legislation.

The problem is sprawl:  unplanned, uncontrolled development that spreads out into areas outside of town and village centers.

• Loss of agricultural land, habitat, rural character
• Over-dependence on the automobile, large carbon footprint
• Unplanned incursion of students into family neighborhoods
• Costly extension of sewer lines and other town services to low-density areas
• Lack of workforce and middle-income housing

How to fight sprawl:  promote a planned, controlled, and higher-density mix of housing and businesses in town and village centers, to protect open space in the rest of town.  This is what the community has said it wanted for years, and it was codified in the Master Plan.

Article 17 fights sprawl and protects open space by promoting environmentally sensible densification of housing and businesses in village centers where people can live, work, and access public transportation.

The alternative to Article 17 is the current hodgepodge.  The North Amherst triangle today is a largely unattractive, unplanned mix of old gas stations, street-side parking lots, student rental houses, grandfathered light industrial uses, and so on.  We can do better, and as the South Amherst village center develops, we want to avoid this there, too.

Article 17 uses “form-based code” for better control over how these village centers look and work, not just what types of uses are allowed.  The new zoning focuses on making the overall design of the village centers more walkable, liveable, connected, and coherent.  This includes the design of streetscapes, buildings, site layouts, open spaces, walking and biking lanes, and how these things are connected.  Large apartment buildings are discouraged by having to face a higher level of scrutiny from the ZBA.  Parking lots are placed out of sight.  Mixed-use commercial and residential development appealing to a variety of residents is encouraged.

Article 17 provides a blueprint for good planning of residential units, in a diverse mix.  This is important because many of our current housing problems come from a LACK of planning.  For example, the design of the Townhouse apartments in North Amherst provides large numbers of uniform, small units and interior courtyards – a recipe for large, uncontrolled gatherings of young people.  Article 17 would require a mix of 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom unit types.  This is designed to encourage the diverse mix of housing types and residents (families, retirees, town employees, students, etc.) needed for both responsible behavior and a socially and economically vital village center.

Article 17 increases costs to developers up front in exchange for greater clarity about what types of development will be approved if they follow the rules.  The article does not approve any particular development.  What it does do, though, is lay out the rules in advance for what types of developments are likely to be approved and what types are going to have a hard time.  The town is better able to control the appearance, environmental footprint, and livability of these existing village centers, while builders have some assurance that if they spend money up front on planning and materials to meet these more-specific town standards they will be able to move forward.

The “solar farm” proposed for the old landfill next to Amherst Woods is generating fierce opposition from some neighbors. And discussion about developing a “Gateway” corridor — a residential-retail project — connecting UMass and downtown has faced vocal objections from nearby residents.

It’s easy to dismiss this opposition as selfish Not-In-My-BackYard NIMBYism, but the truth is, none of us likes to bear the brunt of change. It’s natural to be a NIMBY.

There’s an inherent fairness question whenever one group is asked to make a change for the benefit of the larger community. But the answer is not to avoid any change at all, for fear of hurting someone. The answer is to get as clear as possible about (1) why we need to change, (2) what the actual costs and benefits will be, and (3) how risk will be apportioned.

Change happens. We all feel a sense of loss when we lose what’s comfortable and familiar. We certainly need to assess the risks and costs of change, but we also need to realize that if we do nothing to improve our local revenues, we are opting for change nonetheless. It is simply the change that comes from repeatedly cutting away at our town’s quality of life, leaving ourselves at the mercy of state and national trends that are beyond our control.

We’ve already cut $7 million out of our town services in the past few years. The library held a barbecue fundraiser to keep Friday service hours. We closed an elementary school to keep from wiping out arts and music. And we’re all driving around potholes and wondering where the money will come from to fix them.

The solar farm and Gateway are big, game-changing projects that offer us the opportunity to take control of our financial destiny for years into the future. They do so by leveraging our green values and college-town resources.

But they have to be done right. We would love to see neighbors of these projects take the approach of “How can we make this work?” rather than “This has to stop at all costs.” We began to see this approach at the Gateway visioning sessions last week; we hope this constructive engagement continues.

On the solar farm, let’s approach the questions carefully and fully. Landfill neighbors want greater clarity on the actual, net revenues that will be generated by the solar farm; we agree that the best possible financial information should be provided to Town Meeting.

One neighbor compared the solar farm to a nuclear power plant, saying there’s a small risk of a catastrophic event. Let’s lose the hyperbole but answer the valid questions about the likelihood of an accidental breach of the landfill cap, how catastrophic such a breach would be, and, as one homeowner put it, “Who’s going to help me if there’s a leak and my property value goes to zero?”

Town Meeting should hear how these risks will be assessed and what the ultimate approval process will be. But then Town Meeting should vote Yes to let negotiations proceed on a project plan that will still need to face regulatory scrutiny.

Finally, we need to be as clear-eyed about the “devil we know” as we are imaginative about the “devil we don’t”. Gateway neighbors live in a college town with lots of college students. Solar farm neighbors live next to an old dump now. These proposals shouldn’t be weighed against a pristine world without these pre-existing conditions.

Under the right circumstances, we’re all NIMBYs. But let’s work to avoid the hyperbole and collaborate on solutions that help our town while not unfairly penalizing single households. By putting ourselves in our neighbors’ shoes, we can make sure we get the best answers possible to key questions of cost, benefit, risk, and fairness, as we work to secure a more stable fiscal future for us all.