AMHERST — Projects brought before the Planning Board for site plan review can be approved with a simple majority vote rather than a supermajority under a rules change approved by the Town Council this week.
The vote in favor of the change came despite objections raised by two Planning Board members, Janet McGowan and Michael Birtwistle, who submitted a minority report advocating for preserving the traditional two-thirds majority, or short of that requiring a minimum of four members to vote in favor of projects. Special permits still require a two-majority vote.
The Planning Board majority advocating for the change for site plan reviews notes that when the membership on the board was reduced from nine to seven in the town charter March 2018, at least five members still had to vote in favor of a project for it to be approved. That requirement of at least five favorable votes makes the approval of site plans more difficult than in the past.
“The voting requirement for site plan review in Amherst is perceived to be out of sync with the requirements of many other towns and cities across the state which require only a majority vote of board members participating and voting to approve a site plan review application,” planners wrote in a memo.
District 1 Councilor Cathy Schoen proposed an amendment to require at least four Planning Board members to vote in favor of approved projects, but this was defeated in a 9-4 vote when she was only joined by At Large Councilor Alisa Brewer, District 3 Councilor Dorothy Pam and District 5 Councilor Darcy DuMont
“Making decisions by fewer and fewer people in town for things that affect the whole town doesn’t feel like the way we want to go,” Schoen said.
Reducing the threshold for approval is a trend that also concerns former Planning Board member Denise Barberet.
“If a project is of benefit for the town as a whole, rather than just the individual who stands to profit from it, it should be a supermajority of the board who approves it, and there should be buy-in, as they call it, from those who have to live with it,” Barberet said.
The division on this topic illustrates some of the tension that has existed on the Planning Board, which also showed up during the Aug. 5 meeting when outgoing Chairwoman Christine Gray-Mullen, who is stepping off the panel, recommended to her five colleagues that member Douglas Marshall be named interim chairman. Though he has been a member only for a few months, Gray-Mullen credited Marshall with exemplary leadership and knowledge.
The idea, Gray-Mullen said, was to have Marshall work with Planning Director Christine Brestrup in preparing agendas and information for the board.
But McGowan said she couldn’t support that.
“This is a violation of the Open Meeting Law to be voting on an interim chair without any sort of notice,” McGowan said.
Birtwistle said Vice Chairman Jack Jemsek serves in absence of a chairperson, and there was no need for another interim.
Gray-Mullen said it seemed “destructive” to the committee to not even vote on an interim chairperson.
“I hope we don’t regret it,” Gray-Mullen said. “This is not teamwork, and I’m really sad this is the way I’m ending my year as chair.”
“As chair, I was just trying to leave you in good hands,” Gray-Mullen added. “Don’t leave yourself without a leader.”
Jemsek said he would be willing to be the interim though expressed disappointment that the topic was creating controversy. “I feel discord here, I don’t like that feel within a board,” Jemsek said.
A reorganization of the Planning Board is planned when a full complement of members is appointed by the Town Council. In addition to Gray-Mullen, David Levenstein has already left the board and Birtwistle’s term expires at the end of August.
Scott Merzbach can be reached at smerzbach@gazettenet.com.
