Master plan wrapping up, or is it?

By Nick Grabbe
Staff Writer

Published on September 28, 2007

Amherst's master plan, designed to be a roadmap for the town's future, is chugging to its finish line four months late and without a consensus on whether consensus has been achieved.

"Some people think it's close to being done, while others think it needs major revision," said Amherst Senior Planner Niels la Cour, who has worked with the 30-member Comprehensive Planning Committee for 18 months. "I think it's close to being done. We've run a great public process, and all our ideals are reflected in the plan."

The "key directions" in the draft plan include:

n balancing land preservation with more intensive development in certain areas;

n encouraging vibrancy in the downtown and village centers;

n enhancing town-gown relations;

n maintaining the town's existing charm and character;

n and promoting an ethic of sustainability.

But lurking amid the 242 "strategies" are proposals that could be controversial, such as making it easier to build two-family houses and accessory apartments. Some people could object to the absence of proposals frequently suggested in the public process, such as a pedestrian mall downtown.

There's no question that the committee made a heroic effort to solicit ideas from the public. More than 500 people participated in "idea-gathering" sessions last October, and about 80 people participated last spring in "work groups" to hammer out strategies. Last summer more than 650 people responded to a survey of community attitudes.

On Thursday night, after the Bulletin went to press, members of the public were invited to an official unveiling of the plan, although it has been accessible in great detail on the town's Web site (amherstma.gov). A display about the plan is currently up in the Jones Library's main reading room.

One criticism of the plan is that it's too long, but la Cour said its length is typical of those in other municipalities.

"You don't sit down and read a plan like a novel," he said.

"You check out the summary, which lays out the major policy goals. It's more a reference piece, providing a framework for discussion."

The committee received public feedback Thursday night, and plans to incorporate it into the final version.

At its meeting Tuesday, it faced the sensitive question of what to do about Town Meeting. The committee voted to make a report to Town Meeting this fall, but not to seek its endorsement or even prompt an extensive discussion.

Whether it will succeed in keeping the plan from blowing up into a major debate remains to be seen.

Town Meeting, comprising 150 to 200 people on most nights when it convenes, is Amherst's legislative body and serves as a check on what town officials and committee members want to do. Politically, it's very important.

Legally, it has no official role in the master plan, which must be ratified by the Planning Board.

Committee member James Oldham favored getting Town Meeting's reaction to the plan.

"We should engage them, explain it to them, and hopefully they'll endorse it," he said.

"If they don't, it's up to us and the Planning Board to deal with that. It will allow Amherst to own the plan, and without it Amherst can't make the same claim."

Some people who believe Town Meeting should have a bigger role in reviewing the plan are talking about collecting the signatures necessary to force a special session on the details, said committee member Alan Root.

But the committee voted 8-5 to present a report only.

"I'm not sure what an endorsement means; it doesn't mean we'll listen to everything they say," said member Marilyn Blaustein.

Oldham said he was interested more in getting Town Meeting's collective sense rather than in getting feedback from members. Town Meeting members have already had ample opportunity to weigh in on the plan, he said.

The plan is not intended to banish conflict from the process, la Cour said.

"In some instances, you'll have part of a site that's ideal for affordable housing, and other parts of the site are best for conservation land," he said. "You'll always have some internal tension in a plan. That's just natural."