Member defends work of Planning Board

By DENISE BARBERET

Published on August 29, 2008

On Aug. 15, the Amherst Bulletin published an editorial column about the Planning Board's recent public hearing on New England Environmental's proposed office buildings on Research Drive. This editorial was written by individuals who did not attend the hearing and who did not see it on videotape, since ACTV did not tape that night; thus, they were not fully apprised of all the facts of the matter.

By presenting partial and inaccurate information, and by implying that discussion and disagreement among board members amounts to typically-Amherst impediments to economic development, the writers misrepresent the actions of Planning Board members who were doing their job as it should be done, and disparage them in a very personal and public attack.

Mr. Suarez is characterized as attempting to delay the project's approval and of failing to note the irony of his seemingly business-hostile attitude. But his motion to continue the public hearing arose from his concern - expressed as well by members of the public - that an otherwise very well-conceived and "green" plan seemed to contain an unnecessarily large number of parking spaces.

His concern is both valid and conscientious, and he has every right to put it forth thoughtful and respectful deliberation. But our discussions of this matter, and that of the fate of the private sidewalk on the property in question, are labeled by the writers of this editorial as "excessive scrutiny." This is an unfair and partisan characterization of matters of great concern to neighborhood residents, and a potential deterrent to other residents who might one day wish to express their own concerns in public. And while such discussions may seem excessive to some, those who must live with the results of our decisions have a right to expect our full attention to what they wish to say.

But while editorial writers are free to express their own subjective opinions, it is another matter entirely when they misrepresent and disparage board members' actions based on incomplete and false information.

Both Susan Pynchon and I expressed concern that we had not had time to read and digest information on a complex legal matter received late in the morning of the day of the hearing. This e-mail consists of a string of correspondence that only begins to make sense when you read it bottom to top, and even then the matter is so confusing and frankly just bizarre that it requires careful reading to tease out exactly what is being discussed.

For very important reasons, legal advice from Town Counsel is transmitted to Planning Board members without interpretation from planning staff, and thus requires that recipients have sufficient time to read and re-read the information presented. This is why both Ms. Pynchon and I said that we needed more time, and why I commented that to vote without having fully read this e-mail would be irresponsible. Yet we are now being disparaged in print for not having dropped everything and read a complex memo transmitted to us at the last minute by planning staff.

A public hearing is exactly that: a time for the matter to be heard in public and for all interested parties to provide information and have their concerns and opinions heard. It is also a time for the Planning Board to discuss the evidence before them thoroughly and objectively. Applicants should not expect nor be lead to expect that their project will receive automatic approval on that very night, no matter how wonderful the plan.

And members of the board should not be pressured or bullied into rubberstamping a project by being told dissent, debate, and a desire for more information imply a hostility to business. The Planning Board makes decisions that other people will have to live with. This is not an easy undertaking, and it is made harder still when it is willfully misrepresented in the press.

Denise Barberet is a member of the Amherst Planning Board.