Death Row zoning decision

Jeff Bagg, town planner. ZBA Chair Tom Simpson, Hilda Greenbaum, Barbara Ford.

9:30 PM
The Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals shook off a constant chorus of complaints from nearby neighbors and unanimously approved a special permit for family practitioner Dr. Kate Atkinson to occupy a 16,000 square foot LEED certified building she plans to construct in a Professional Research Park on the outskirts of Amherst Woods, an upscale neighborhood where Dr. Atkinson also resides.

The $2.5 million building will add to Amherst's anemic commercial taxbase (currently under 10%) while keeping a vital service in town.
########Live Blogging########Live Blogging######

The Zoning Board of Appeals is like the Governor in that they decide if a business venture will live or die. Tonight they play that role to the hilt. Holding off their final decision about whether Dr. Kate Atkinson, a general practitioner in the endangered field of family medicine, can build a larger facility in her hometown, in an research park until this final meeting of 2010.

Starts 7:30 PM. (On time). No public comment tonight, just a discussion of the board.

Hilda Greenbaum is concerned about adding additional office space when there are currently vacancies in the stock of town commercial properties now. (And of course Ms. Greenbaum would know as she owns a fair amount of property in town.)

Also concerned that the second floor would, gasp, also be occupied by medical practitioners thus turning the building into a "medical center."

Dr. Kate could add one medical employee and house them in the upstairs location but they would be limited to only 22 hours of operation. Ms Greenbaum wants to know how that would be enforced--especially during flu season when that provider may be, God forbid, tempted to stay in the office and put in extra hours.

Tom Simpson and Jeff Bagg both respond that it would be the job of the building commissioner to enforce the hours of operation.

Dr Kate: I do a lot of work from home on the computer.

Building commissioner Bonnie Weeks: "I don't think the bylaw is greatly concerned with a once in a while thing--especially if an emergency. As long as they routinely keep track of their hours it should be easy to see if they remain complaint with the bylaw."

Dr. Kate: We have evening hours now and it's very quiet. Many incidents are handled over the phone.

Hilda: What if she has a weight watchers group after 7:00 PM?

Dr Kate: And that would be bad, why?

Jeff Bagg: Limits on number of people who can occupy that space via conditions.

Tom Simpson: We can limit number of days for after-hours usage in upstairs meeting room by condition. Say, once a month. We can limit use of exercise room to only employees of the practice.

Dr. Kate: Exercise room is only for employees.

Jeff Bagg likes the idea they are starting to talk about "conditions" rather than voting no.

8:25 They seem satisfied now with hours and use of the upstairs space (with conditions).
Next issue: Retention basin for storm water runoff. Hilda G. wants a fence to protect kids from falling in.

Tom Simpson on the issue of traffic: 13 patients per hour is their max so it's not going to be a huge increase.

Hilda Greenbaum: "If we turned it down due to traffic we would get laughed at."

Jeff Bagg: Traffic study confirms traffic will not see a major increase.

Hilda G: Can this practice support the overhead of that building? (worried that Dr. Kate will belly up and sell to someone else.)

Tom Simpson: That's not our concern.

Tom Simpson: Are we agreed the (medical) use is allowed and acceptable with conditions?

Other two members agree.

8:45 PM

Conditions: Exercise room only for employees. Limited number of full-time employees. If second floor is rented, the tenant must come back to Zoning Board for approval. Fence around the retention basin at least 24" high. 2nd floor meeting room can only be used for educational purposes. Limit of three full-time medical practitioners, total max of 120 hours per week. Permit expires on change of ownership or management.

Let the record show; and a response

On Dec 23, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Debbie Westmoreland wrote:

Dear Mr. Aronson:

Thank you for bringing your concerns about the minutes of the December 21st Amherst School Committee meeting to my attention. As you know, minutes are not a transcript; but rather require a synopsis of any discussion that takes place at the meeting. I always attempt to capture the primary concern of the speaker when summarizing public comments. I believe you read from a prepared statement at the meeting. If you are willing to provide a copy to me, the minutes can state that you requested after the meeting that your comments be attached to the record (rather than having me try again to summarize your statement).

I do feel the need to address your statement "If the synopsis provided happens to be a deliberate misrepresentation, then these minutes are as disingenuous as Ms. Woodland's proclamation of 22 September and make a mockery out of any public comments received during School Committee meetings." I consider my job as the keeper of the public records for the Amherst, Pelham and Amherst-Pelham School Committees to be one of the most important aspects of my position and would never deliberately misrepresent anything discussed at a meeting. In serving under four different Superintendents/Co-Superintendents, I have always remained impartial in the recording of minutes--attempting to ensure that all discussions are portrayed accurately. I agree wholeheartedly that public records must be accurate and am dismayed at your suggestion that I would deliberately misrepresent them. If you have concerns about my job performance in the future, I request that you bring them to the attention of the Superintendent.

Debbie

Debbie Westmoreland
Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent

On 12/23/10 11:35 AM, "Michael Aronson" wrote:

Dear Ms. Westmoreland,

I am not questioning the quality of your job performance. As you may note, I suggest that the speed at which I speak perhaps impaired your ability to hear all that I had to say. The sole request I have is for you to revise your notes to reflect what was said. Feel free to use the email sent yesterday to inform your minutes.

What I observe is that upon recording others' comments - especially those similar to that of Ms. Woodland that provide glowing assessments of the interim superintendent - there seems to be no limit on the detail provided. But as I noted in my comments, Ms. Woodland's comments are colored by both her conflict of interest and Ms. Geryk's failure to clarify the nature of those conflicts. The focus of my comments was an ethical breach and fiduciary irresponsibility, yet this is not reflected in the minutes. My concern is that comments critical of administrative practice are not being fully aired. That harms public welfare.

I understand that in the highly politicized environment inside the District at this time there is a lot of pressure - not the least of which is on you. The fact that the event I described occurred and is easily documented, clearly shows this.

Please do not interpret my comments as an attack on your integrity - which I do not question. Should I have offended you in any way please accept my apologies. My comments were not focused on the messenger.

I remain committed to being represented accurately in the minutes. Thank you for your efforts in this regard.

Best regards,

Michael Aronson

Fox News

Top story disparages Umass undergrads and boxed story under it praises them. Fair-and-balanced indeed.

So almost 30 years ago I learned to grab a cheap headline by simply attending the venerable Amherst Select Board Monday night meetings to use the 6:15 Question Period as a bully pulpit.

And over the years, there would almost always be one of the five who would make the mistake of engaging me--His Lordship Mr Weiss (a signatory on the anti-Gateway petition) once referred to it as my "target practice".

Princess Stephanie has permanently squelched that possibility--with help from the new Open Meeting Law regulations-- by enacting a policy of not discussing anything at Public Comment that has not already been published in advance on the agenda. But obviously, you can still grab a cheap headline--and if it happens to be a slow news week in Amherst...

Amherst Media, formerly ACTV, did recently reair John Fox's full 11 minute diatribe last Monday night (missing half of it during the live broadcast) that in public speaking terms equaled 'War and Peace'--although obviously he's way more interested in war.

And you can certainly tell from his opening remarks that he is indeed a Washington lawyer. Sucking up to the Select Board and praising ARA chair John Coull who just happens to be Princess Stephanie's dad. Kind of like when a lawyer says "With all due respect" right before ripping into opposing counsel.

Although he did make an error of fact saying the Select Board works for "virtually nothing." They actually get paid a whopping $300 per year. In his 7-page diatribe to the Planning Board, extensively cited in this Select Board appearance, Mr. Fox trashes student undergrads:

"To put this in context of future undergraduate housing on Old Frat Row: for every 100 students, 52 can be expected to engage in Binge Drinking, and 28 can be expected to engage in Frequent Heavy Binge Drinking. In the case of 500 students, nearly 250 would be Binge Drinkers, and 140 would be Frequent Heavy Binge Drinkers."

Obviously statistics can be used in many ways: some skinhead member of the KKK, for instance, could easily use statistics showing racial or ethnic minority groups are disproportionately represented in the state and federal prisons, thus the ARA should ban minorities from applying for any housing erected on the Gateway.

The good news is because of the work of Campus and Community Coalition to End High-Risk Drinking This number of "frequent heavy binge drinkers" is actually down 20% from five years ago.

And as I recently highlighted, because of the economic impact of the fine increase to $300 for alcohol, nuisance house, and noise violations (at CCC urging) the rowdy, noisy party houses around Amherst have diminished.

But these NIMBYs will continue to make noise--lot's of it. And in a sense, it's the taxpayers who will pay that penalty.



Part two of his diatribe

#################################
And as previously mentioned:
Disclaimer: Although I'm a longtime member of the ARA, Umass graduate, currently a Continuing Education student and 5th generation Amherst resident, I speak here, as I always do, strictly for myself (and for the hard-pressed taxpayers of this town) using that cherished American ideal known as the First Amendment.

Lemons to lemonade

The old landfill (capped and lined)

DPW chief Guilford Mooring opened up sealed Request For Proposal bids this morning at 11:00 for reuse of the Old Landfill on Old Farms Road. All four bids concerned solar panel farms which take advantage of the large open space and do not require employees on site, who may be put off but the whiff of methane.

Two years ago the town rejected the only bidder proposing a 2.5 megawatt solar energy farm due to low annual lease payments (under $20,000). Today's proposals are potentially far better because of state and federal incentives private companies can now utilize.

Benefits to the town include annual lease payments, hefty property tax payments since the landfill operation would be taxable, and a source of potentially cheap energy.

Although neighbors on Larkspur Drive will not doubt complain about anything getting approved near their exclusive enclave.

Let the record show

Ms. Debbie Westmoreland
Amherst Pelham Regional Schools
Dear Debbie,

I want to clarify the nature of my comments during the Amherst School Committee meeting of December 21. The minutes from the 12/21 meeting posted on the ARPS website characterize my comments with the following statement:

"Michael Aaronson, Amherst resident, requested that the School Committee carefully examine the contract between the current administration and UMass since someone who benefits from the contract made a statement at a School Committee meeting advocating that the current Superintendent be given the permanent position without a search."

I understand that I tend to speak quickly, so you may not have captured the intent of my comments. For that I apologize. However, the minutes as presented do not capture the tenor or complete facts of my comments.I began my comments citing verbatim from the minutes from the Regional Meeting of Sept. 22. Please note that I deliberately did not use Ms. Woodland's name in this citation.

I stated:(" ......., parent and UMass education professor, stated that she believes it is unwarranted and unwise to go forward with a Superintendent search and doing so would amount to a vote of no confidence in Ms. Geryk. She noted that she has worked with Superintendents across the state and Ms. Geryk has accomplished more in her seven months on the job than most new superintendents accomplish in three to five years. ")

I then read from the contract with Ms. Woodland that Ms. Geryk signed in July of 2010 - the first item from the "Specific activities to include" "coach the Superintendent in best practices related to leadership for curriculum instruction, and assessment (targeted reading list, online resources, one-on-one dialogue)"

I then questioned how Ms. Woodlands could possibly make her unqualified endorsement of Ms. Geryk when she was intimately aware of the nature of her personal contract signed just a few weeks prior to her comments (e.g. "coaching the superintendent," doing research for her on how to be a good superintendent,) On one hand she states she is as good as any superintendent in the state, on the other she is in need of a $96,000 contract that includes coaching in some of the basic functions of a Superintendent. I further question why the Interim Superintendent did not clarify that connection at the time of the meeting.

I then suggested that Woodland's remarks were disingenuous and that the whole incident including the contract suggested an ethical lapse that the Committee should consider when working with this administration.

I read the minutes of last night's meeting as selective at best. What they omit makes them inaccurate and misleading. While I am sure there are those who do not approve of declaring this unfortunate series of events, the fact is that I directly addressed my concerns and they are a part of the record.

That my comments are recorded in such a manner is unfortunate and should be corrected so that public comment is accurately reflected. If the synopsis provided happens to be a deliberate misrepresentation, then these minutes are as disingenuous as Ms. Woodland's proclamation of 22 September and make a mockery out of any public comments received during School Committee meetings.

Please let me know if it is necessary to return to the next Regional and Local meetings to rectify this misunderstanding of my comments. I would be happy to clarify my sentiments in more detail.

Kindly re-visit the minutes with the knowledge of what is provided here. Public records, in my judgement should be accurate.

Have a pleasant holiday break.

Sincerely,

Michael Aronson

(Kindly note my name is spelled with one "A")

ARPS School Committee meeting minutes from 12/21/10

My original background report

Above all else, do no harm

ZBA: Hilda Greenbaum, Tom Simpson, Barbara Ford, Building Commissioner Bonnie Weeks

Tonight the Zoning Board of Appeals continued the public hearing for folks to speak for or against Dr. Kate Atkinson relocating her successful family practice (with about 2,500 patients) from a 2,200 square foot building to a 12,000 square foot building she plans to construct in a Professional Research Park. The planning board has already voted in favor of a building going up. Now the only question is will that commercial building be allowed to house a medical practice.Dr. Kate Atkinson, family practitioner for 11 years and resident of Amherst Woods (neighbor to the NIMBYs)
Site is located between two existing commercial buildings and will be two floors as well.

Yeah, that too is one of those 'Only in Amherst' questions that should take no time at all, but in this case is taking hours on end. After two and half hours of testimony and discussion this evening the board closed the public comment portion but since the room had to be vacated by 10:00 PM continued the hearing to December 28 where they will render their decision, which requires a unanimous vote to pass.

The usual assortment of NIMBYs spoke against the good doctor, citing increased traffic. But a bevy of heavy hitters spoke in favor of Dr Kate: Former Town Moderator and land use planner Francesca Maltese, Barbara Shaffer Bacon who owns property nearby (with business partner Stan Rosenberg) Amherst Redevelopment Authority Chair John Coull and a handful of Town Meeting members who reminded the Zoning Board this concept already passed town meeting by a two-thirds vote.
Francesca Maltese
John Coull

Alan Powell, sidekick to BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) Mary Streeter, defended the very concept of NIMBY saying "Who else is going to defend your own backyard?" Maybe he should get a dog.Alan Powell. Proud to be a NIMBY

And former Amherst Wildwood Elementary School Principal Mark Prince was at least honest saying, "I oppose this because it's in my backyard."Mark Prince
Friendly locals indeed

Party house of the $emester

83 Morgan Circle

UPDATE: Monday 4/18, Patriots Day

So these bad boys have been good as of late. But better weather brings on the "Mean Season" for partying, thus time will tell (only about a month)

##########################################
Clearly the recent fine increase to $300 for the first offense for violating the town's noise or nuisance house bylaw (the maximum allowed by state law) has had a major impact. Hit them in the wallet and you get their undivided attention.

The vast majority of addresses ticketed in September and October learned their lesson and reigned in their rowdiness these past two months.

But naturally, there will always be "outliers". In this case we have 83 Morgan Circle, an address that garnered noise violations on four separate occasions, starting on September 18 with three and culminating on November 7 with two. And just to demonstrate the height of irresponsibility, three on October 1 and three more on October 2. Now that was an expensive weekend!

Their grand total for the semester: 11 tickets or $3,300 total.
Overall grand total for all locations: 176 tickets or $52,800 total.

Too bad APD could not set this up as an Enterprise Fund so that fines stay in the police budget since this four month amount alone could fund the addition of one more officer to our current strength, which is down 10 officers from ten years ago.

The raw statistics tell the story:

September: 21 Nuisance House, 44 Unlawful Noise or a total of 65
October: 13 Nuisance House, 53 Unlawful Noise or a total of 66

And here's where things get interesting:

November: 7 Nuisance House, 28 Unlawful Noise or a total of 35
December: 0 Nuisance House, 10 Unlawful Noise or a total of 10

Sure some of that is simply due to weather--a cops best friend. But certainly, the expensive tickets played a major role in bringing about such a dramatic decrease over the last two months.

A positive step in the march towards civility.