Unveiling lacks alternative creative uses

I wish to commend Gazette reporter Scott Merzbach for his coverage of the Nov. 19 Zoom meeting in “Design options unveiled for former school property.” His summary of the alternative development “schemes” was helpful. However, as a longtime abutter to the former South Amherst School property, I feel it is important to provide context that was not addressed.

My family has been associated with this property since 1951, when my father, Bradlee E. Gage, purchased the Fred Adams land extending south of the old schoolhouse. At the town’s request, he later sold one acre — at a nominal price — to allow the school to expand and create outdoor space for students. I attended all four grades there and still live in our family home, with deep appreciation for the school and the historic South Amherst common.

Town documents over many decades clearly recognize the historic and protected nature of this site. The 1999 Historic and Cultural Resources map places it within a “Current Historic District.” The 2006 map designates the parcel as “permanently protected land,” and the 2007 conceptual land use map identifies it as “existing protected open space.” Current zoning — RN ARP (Neighborhood Residence and Aquifer Recharge Protection) — is likewise inconsistent with dense development. These long-standing designations conflict directly with the proposals discussed at the meeting.

While I appreciate the town’s commitment to expanding affordable housing, none of the proposals presented — including the preferred option of a 31,800-square-foot, three-story, 33-unit building — fit the character of the South Amherst common or the surrounding neighborhood. Transferring this historic property from public ownership to private development risks erasing the very qualities that make this area such a treasured part of our community.

As we consider alternatives for the site, I encourage the town to explore uses that would enhance community life without compromising the historic landscape. An early childhood education center combined with a senior drop-in center, for example, would serve two populations that would benefit greatly from shared space and intergenerational connection.

New England towns are fortunate to have preserved their historic commons. Amherst should continue that tradition by safeguarding this site and pursuing large-scale housing solutions in locations better suited to that purpose.

William Gage

Amherst