tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post5062071805664027167..comments2021-12-12T09:07:17.657-05:00Comments on Stephanie's Town Meeting Experience: Perpetual motionsStephanie O'Keeffehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139345960579356043noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-6389731259133787582007-11-18T12:02:00.000-05:002007-11-18T12:02:00.000-05:00There's a fundamental question buried in the back-...There's a fundamental question buried in the back-and-forth here: just why do we have a Planning Board AND a Zoning Board of Appeals, that is, two separate boards?<BR/><BR/>My unstudied sense is that we have two boards because they have distinct and separate powers in Amherst. And, if I'm right about that, that separation of powers was breached in the ZBA membership's insistence on addressing these articles as a board, rather than as individual TM members or residents of the Town.<BR/><BR/>The other fundamental question buried in this discussion: just what is "consensus" in Amherst? To be practical about it, at some time in an extended debate, one person's consensus is another person's surrender. And at what point should some elusive notion of consensus give way to the need to come to a decision? In short, at what point do we have to say, "oh the hell with it, let's vote on this."<BR/><BR/>It should come as no surprise to anyone that I have a jaundiced eye at this point about criticisms of the public hearing process on these articles. Criticisms of process come in Amherst as sure as night follows day. <BR/><BR/>It's a little bit like the boy who cries wolf. Calls to refer articles back to boards come with almost every controversial issue in Amherst, and they seem to be coming from the Obstructionist Playbook in town.<BR/><BR/>That still leaves Town Meeting members like me stuck with the unenviable task of sorting out which complaints about process are legitimate and which are not. I would point out that we have a Planning Board with an almost entirely new membership from the one that existed, let's say, five years ago. I think that there's some significance in that. <BR/><BR/>So when Mr. Kusner says that "for whatever reason, PB didn't appreciate" the differences with ZBA "until recently", I am very skeptical about claims that the current PB membership was not listening. There's a time for listening, and a time for deciding, unless, of course, deciding is exactly the thing that you wish to avoid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-22169513483279415982007-11-18T12:01:00.000-05:002007-11-18T12:01:00.000-05:00A couple meetings ago, when the merits of a CPA ar...A couple meetings ago, when the merits of a CPA article seeking approval for the purchase of conservation land (land that had not previously been on the priority list for purchase until it was slated for development) was questioned, Rob Kusner took the floor to implore meeting members to "trust the experts" on this one. By experts, he meant the Conservation Director, the Conservation Commission and the state agency that had approved a grant that would help underwrite the purchase. Town Meeting took that leap of faith and approved the article with an overwhelming majority. When zoning articles come before us, however, especially ones attempting to fuel economic development, suddenly the "experts" are not worth trusting. Not the Planning Director; not the Planning Board; not the Town Manager, who was universally lauded during the hiring process for his prior experience and success in the area of economic development; not Allan Blair, a representative from The Western Massachusetts Economic Development Counsel; and, apparently, from the nature of the arguments related to the risk of flooding near The South East Street parcels that will soon be up for consideration, not our Town Engineer or Public Works Department either. Suddenly, instead of being implored to “trust the experts”, we are being chastised for being not “so careful”. What’s the reason behind the disparity here? Is it as simple an equation as Conservation=Good and Development=Bad? Or is there genuine concern about doing away with important safeguards in the community? If the latter is true, then I want to remind us of the fact that there is much more in this community than site lines and wildlife corridors that we need to be concerned about safeguarding. Our schools, our public safety, and our town services have all been suffering some serious erosion, and will continue to do so if we don’t take action on multiple fronts to address the causes and effects of our structural deficit. The zoning articles before us represent some modest, well thought out changes to the ways in which we regulate development in a few areas in town that have been very specifically targeted as being appropriate for certain kinds of development. The purpose of the articles is to increase opportunity for desperately needed revenue. Let’s not be “so careful” that we let that opportunity pass us by. The devil can only be in the details if we allow it to. Lets pass these measures and move on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-34045023609172805492007-11-17T19:28:00.000-05:002007-11-17T19:28:00.000-05:00While I am far from being a law expert, it is my u...While I am far from being a law expert, it is my understanding that “rights” as in the last phrase stricken from Article 12 (“by right”) are provided by our legislative laws. Although folks like to think that they have “rights” to all sorts of things, only those that are provided by our laws are “rights”. For example, the failed Equal Rights Amendment, (ERA) would have provided greater civil rights “by law” to broad swaths of our society. That said, I think that the language in Article 12 would have been appropriate as it was originally presented to TM, since those “rights” were circumscribed by the zoning laws as indicated in the article. It was suggested in TM that the phrase “by right” meant that they could do whatever they wanted. But the only rights we have are those that are provided by laws. If I am wrong, perhaps one of our lawyer-types could educate me on the proper definition of “rights”. Nonetheless, the change that was made to Article 12 was minimal. <BR/><BR/>I am still waiting for Mr. Kusner to explain the flaws in Article 12 that was so overwhelmingly supported by us careless TM members.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-43650340324237815582007-11-17T18:48:00.000-05:002007-11-17T18:48:00.000-05:00Dear readers,Abbie may have forgotton that I spoke...Dear readers,<BR/><BR/>Abbie may have forgotton that I spoke on behalf of Article 12 (as well as Artiicles 10 and 11), and I also helped to clarify a couple of points for members of Town Meeting; thus I assume her innuendi about "obfuscation and subterfuge" were directed elsewhere. Nevertheless - and especially with zoning - we must remember that "the devil is in the details"! Town Meeting deserves the opportunty to get these details right, as I think we did with Articles 10 and 11. But I also believe we all observed that there is considerable disagreement about how the details of Article 12 may be understood by members the ZBA or the PB or their staff in the Planning Department. <BR/><BR/>It's impossible for me to pinpoint each and every disagreement the ZBA and PB (and staff) may have on this, but to take an example, if one asks folks from these groups to explain the implications of the last sentence of section 5.070, there surely will be a divergence of opinion. (Recall that part of that sentence was deleted by a motion on the floor; the implications of that deletion were not vetted by Town Counsel, who also missed the fact that part of that sentence which remained in the PB motion was inconsistent with the other changes proposed by the PB.) There are also questions which the ZBA raised about the various subsections under 5.071, in particular 5.0714, which still need to be addressed.<BR/><BR/>As I wrote earlier, I think we can live with these grey areas for now, and I am satisfied with where Town Meeting wound up on Article 12, despite the many stumbles along they way. But (as I also wrote) I believe the PB and ZBA should get together and figure out what these sections really do mean, whether the language there reflects that, and if not, then agree to fix whatever remains to be fixed. <BR/><BR/>That's it - thanks for listening,<BR/><BR/>Rob Kusner<BR/><BR/>P.S. As I was editing this I saw that Jonathan has weighed in. Let me comment further (and with any luck, no more): My first reference to "serious flaws" referred to mistake in the last sentence of Section 5.070 in the PB version, which may have been repaired by the amendment on the floor. Admittedly that was a "detail" (see above for more on that) and whatever "serious problems" which remain may also be "details" - but the ZBA and PB<BR/>should get together and work those out.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16112492593968108330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-8597493590371258892007-11-17T18:36:00.000-05:002007-11-17T18:36:00.000-05:00Rob, you need to present at least a bit of evidenc...Rob, you need to present at least a bit of evidence to support your assertion that the article is "seriously flawed". The Planning Board does not believe the article is "seriously flawed". I can say that on behalf of the board, and not just in my own voice, because the board voted unanimously to support this article. The Select Board too (with your assenting vote) supported this article unanimously.<BR/><BR/>The ZBA disagreed with this article, and offered an amendment that would have removed most of what the Planning Board was trying to accomplish in the article. They're entitled to disagree, and they're entitled to try to amend the article. But the fact of their disagreement does not constitute proof that the article is "flawed". It just means that they don't agree that this is how we should regulate these accessory uses.<BR/><BR/>Your analogy between the way that Articles 11 and 12 were handled is tenuous. On Article 11, the ZBA supported the core premise of the article, and disagreed about a minor technical detail (who should be issuing the Special Permit). The Planning Board had no problem with making the minor technical change they requested, and we voted unanimously to do so.<BR/><BR/>The situation with Article 12 was completely different. One of the central points of the article was to allow accessory uses under an amendment to the permit for the principal use. The ZBA didn't agree, and wanted this changed. Essentially, the ZBA opposed the article, and the Planning Board supported it. There was no reasonable way to bridge this gap by tinkering with the language of the article, which is why the Planning Board decided to take no action and to bring the original article to Town Meeting for Town Meeting to decide.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-43894016499692177872007-11-17T13:51:00.000-05:002007-11-17T13:51:00.000-05:00What exactly remains in Article 12, which passed b...What exactly remains in Article 12, which passed by a large margine, that Mr. Kusner believes has serious flaws? Please outline them to the TM members who "were not very careful". Please, step up to the plate. Or is it possible that TM members were careful and they saw through the subterfuge and obfuscation presented by opponents of economic viability for the town of Amherst. To further delay reasonable changes in zoning is to delay generating new sources of revenue that our town desperately needs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-26098117267617704442007-11-17T13:32:00.000-05:002007-11-17T13:32:00.000-05:00Dear readers,I agree in principle with Jonathan OK...Dear readers,<BR/><BR/>I agree in principle with Jonathan OKeeffe's point about the problems with "on-the-floor" amendments to complex zoning articles. But he tells only part of the story. <BR/><BR/>Part of what's missing from his account is this: The core of the differences between the PB and the ZBA were not "last-minute" but in fact had emerged back in July, at the very fist meeting of the PB's zoning subcommittee. For whatever reason, the PB didn't adequately appreciate them until recently.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, a lesson can be learned from the way Article 11 was handled: The ZBA and the PB reached consensus on a motion under Article 11 when they met together with Gerry Weiss and me the night before Town Meeting; the result was a new motion by the PB which led to the near unanimous adoption of the various amendments to the zoning bylaw under Article 11. <BR/><BR/>The other missing part of the story is that the PB and ZBA also discussed Article 12 this Wednesday night, but were unable to reach consensus before<BR/>coming to Town Meeting. Jonathan was one of the PB members opposed to the change the ZBA sought; several folks (including Jonathan Tucker) made a good argument (at that meeting, and again on the floor of Town Meeting) for why the<BR/>ZBA version had flaws. <BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, the PB version of Article 12 *also* had serious flaws. When this emerged on the floor of Town Meeting, a reasonable move was made by Jim Smith: Refer the article back to the PB to repair those flaws (and possibly reach a consensus with the ZBA on how to deal more with carefully accessory uses). And even though the Select Board had unanimously supported the PB version of Article 12 originally, three of us were concerned enough about enacting flawed zoning regulations to vote to refer. Unfortunately Town Meeting was not so careful....<BR/><BR/>While I think we can live with the version that ultimately passed, it still has serious problems. The PB should review it carefully with the ZBA between now and the spring, and consider bringing back an amendment for the 2008 Annual<BR/>Town Meeting which would clarify the "grey" or "sloppy" areas which remain. <BR/><BR/>Rob Kusner<BR/>Select Board Vice-Honcho<BR/><BR/><BR/>Post Scriptum: The failure of the PB and its staff to catch the error which Jim Oldham and I brought to the Moderator (and which Jonathan Tucker acknowledged was "a serious oversight") should give us all pause. This leads me to repeat a remark I have made in this forum before: Because of the 2/3 margin needed to change a zoning bylaw, IT IS BETTER TO REFER BACK A FLAWED ZONING ARTICLE THAN TO ADOPT ONE - in fact, all it takes is the calling of a "special" STM (or the patience of waiting at most 6 months till the next "regular" TM) to get it right. I believe all Town Meeting members are thoughful and reasonable enough to agree with this general proposition. I also believe that Jonathan in particular could make a positive contribution here: Please help correct the flaws which may have been introduced with the adoption of Article 12 by bringing the ZBA and PB together ASAP to consder and propose any clarifiying amendments to that part of the zoning bylaw for the next TM.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16112492593968108330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-21087868764360167342007-11-17T12:29:00.000-05:002007-11-17T12:29:00.000-05:00The difference to a developer between getting a ma...The difference to a developer between getting a majority or even two-thirds of the Planning Board approval vs. the unanimous decision of the ZBA is like playing Russian roulette: One six shooter has three empty chambers and the other has five.... which would YOU prefer?Larry Kelleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02614645831526190536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-61099365825026130012007-11-17T10:56:00.000-05:002007-11-17T10:56:00.000-05:00Larry, I agree with your point about the importanc...Larry, I agree with your point about the importance of cooperation between the two boards. I think the ZBA has every right to participate in the drafting of these articles, and to express their opinions on them.<BR/><BR/>However, I don't agree with the sentiment expressed by some that the ZBA was somehow excluded from the process. These articles were drafted and analyzed in a very public process, with significant input at every stage from the public and from other town boards. The ZBA is welcome to express their input through this process, either as a board or as individuals. Given the ample opportunities for input at every stage, what troubles me is the last-minute nature of the objections, and in particular, the on-the-floor amendments to these already-complex articles.<BR/><BR/>Going forward, I hope that the ZBA can become engaged earlier in the process for future zoning articles. I think that the Planning Board will welcome this input, and this will help us achieve the type of consensus that you're seeking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-89818987863360125512007-11-17T08:35:00.000-05:002007-11-17T08:35:00.000-05:00"Most perplexing of all, there were two separate m..."Most perplexing of all, there were two separate motions to refer this back to the Planning Board. Why would this be referred back? Because not all the Town Meeting members could wrap their minds around the intricacies of the article."<BR/><BR/>I think a basis for the referral motions was that the ZBA wasn't sufficiently involved in the creation of this article. If there had been consensus between these two boards, the language of the article would have been more transparent. Anne Awad spoke eloquently to this point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-90508768572155766282007-11-16T23:51:00.000-05:002007-11-16T23:51:00.000-05:00Wow. Positive comments from Mr Morse. There's hope...Wow. Positive comments from Mr Morse. There's hope for us yet!<BR/><BR/>And I also agree his two points. <BR/><BR/>Debate on article 15 is guaranteed to be time-consuming, but I hope not nearly so confusing as last night.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-55331251834376011762007-11-16T21:56:00.000-05:002007-11-16T21:56:00.000-05:00Great synopsis, Stephanie! You must have had writ...Great synopsis, Stephanie! You must have had writer's cramp by the end of it all.<BR/><BR/>Rich, I agree on both counts.<BR/><BR/>And by the way - we should all take knitting lessons frm Rob Spence - that man can knit!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22213795.post-53237379111693506602007-11-16T20:38:00.000-05:002007-11-16T20:38:00.000-05:00I agree that last night had dispiriting aspects to...I agree that last night had dispiriting aspects to it, but there were two very encouraging highlights.<BR/><BR/>1) The outcomes of the votes, and most of them weren't close.<BR/><BR/>2) The clear voice of Mr. Weiss in taking a strong position in support.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com