The Town of Amherst missed a unique opportunity to take a positive step in the area of providing affordable housing when the ZBA ejected the petition of Cambridge Associates for a variance from the “over 55” age requirements for an apartment complex on land it owns between Juniper Drive and North Street.

It must be kept in mind that the proposed project could be developed without a variance if it was to be rented exclusively to people over the age of 55.  However, by requesting the variance, the developers had also hoped to address the demonstrated (by the Town’s own statistics) needs to provide more affordable housing for those in the 18-29 age bracket.

As was their right, several abutters voiced a number of concerns at the meeting ranging from the environmental impact of the proposed development to the effect it would have on local property values.

In response, Cambridge Associates clearly demonstrated their proposed project would be the least intrusive, preserving more natural vegetation, providing wider buffers and better protecting any sensitive soils on the site than alternative forms of development.  Moreover, the site specific required for the project would ensure any changes in drainage would not affect surrounding properties.

As to the issue of property values, it seemed that the idea of apartments conjured up visions of run-down, three-decker tenements.  In point of fact, the proposed architecture for, and landscaping around, the units is more apt to resemble that of Atherton Common than then “typical” urban apartments, including several in the immediate area.

Moreover, this site contains the old school bus parking lot, probably Amherst’s worst eye sore, which would be greatly enhanced from and aesthetic perspective if this project were approved.

On-site management and a careful evaluation of the track record of previous developments of any of the principals of Cambridge Associates should eliminate fears that once completed, the site would be allowed to deteriorate.

Finally, the findings of an independent real estate appraiser who surveyed the area was presented suggesting that the project would most likely enhance, not diminish, local property values.

Yet another criticism concerned the “kind of people” who would live in the proposed apartments.

Personally, I suspect that they would cut across the demographic scale: some seniors, some young couples, some in-between … some married, some single … some white-collar, some blue-collar and some retired workers … some who’d become actively involved in town affairs, some who wouldn’t … some with children, some without.  Perhaps they might be our parents or children ,,, or perhaps people from Milford, Nashua or even Massachusetts.

Sounds pretty threatening … mush like the profile of many of our present residents when they moved to Amherst.

To each citizen concern, the petitioners responded positively, in many cases offering to meet with abutters throughout the balance of the planning and development process, to use their input in writing the covenants for the property, and to minimize, if at all possible, any impact the project might have on their properties.

For years, Amherst has articulated a concern for more affordable housing in its master plan and it has recently reemphasized this issue in the welfare section of its annual report.  Yet, when responsible proposals are presented by developers to address this crying need, the NIMBY (“not in my back yard”), no-growth advocates of the town’s snob-zoning policies seem to win out every time.

The Amherst ZBA had it within its power to take a leadership, albeit controversial role, in correcting this de facto policy.  Rather, their deliberations boiled down to “let the courts decide” … snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

Amherst’s enclave mentality must end.  If as a town, we fail to act responsibly, be assured that the court will ultimately take up the gauntlet of the ZBA’s challenge and likely throw out all our zoning, possibly opening the entire town up to a period of uncontrolled growth …  not to mention other possible courses of State and Federal legal action to which Amherst might be exposed.

Affordable housing does not have to be a liability.  Rather, it can be a valuable asset to a community.

It can provide housing for a wider cross-section of people, it can help to broaden our tax base, it can be well-built and well-maintained, and it can be developed so as to be acceptable across the town (clustering it in one locale won’t fly as the citizens of Yonkers recently discovered).

I urge the ZBA to assert the leadership role which the community has a right to expect from it and reconsider its myopic decision …  and I urge the citizens of the town to stand behind them in visible support of more affordable housing within Amherst.