Archipelago Presents Conservation Commission with Revised Plan for Atkins Corner

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Conservation Commission, June 11, 2025

The meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

Present
Michele Labbe (chair),  Andy Guidera, Rachel Loeffler, Jason Dorney, Alex Hoar, and Bruce Stedman

Staff: Erin Jaque (Wetlands Administrator), David Ziomek (Conservation Director, Assistant Town Manager)

Archipelago Investments returned to the Conservation Commission for a third time for continuation of a hearing on their proposal for a mixed-use residential development at Atkins Corner, portions of which are located within the buffer zone bordering vegetated wetlands. The proposed work includes construction of three mixed-use residential structures with associated parking, stormwater remediation, and landscaping.  

At their May 14 meeting, the Conservation Commission took a dim view of the original proposal, which included construction of a parking area and driveway with semi-permeable pavers in the 50-foot “no work” buffer area and alteration of 80% of the 50 to 100-foot buffer area, even though only 20% alteration is allowed by the bylaw.  They were encouraged to come back with an improved plan.

On May 28, at their second meeting with the Conservation Commission, Archipelago proposed that the area designated as wetlands should not be so designated. Their representative, Kyle Wilson, stated that the wetlands are the result of stormwater drainage from adjacent developments and that the Archipelago project plans improve the situation by diverting the drainage toward Bay Road and West Street. 

Prior to that meeting wetlands scientist Ward Smith visited the site to re-certify the wetlands boundary. He added two flags that slightly extend the area.  Archipelago was encouraged to come back with a plan that addressed the wetlands encroachment. Smith and Wetlands Administrator Erin Jaque returned to the site last week and confirmed the delineation of wetland boundaries.

At this third meeting, Archipelago asserted that the project should be classified as a redevelopment project on severely degraded land. These designations would allow them to expand their work beyond the permitted 20% allowed in the 50 to 100-foot buffer zone. The revised plan would entail the following changes from the original plan:

1. Removal of lead and arsenic contaminated soil up to the tree line

2. Shift one of the buildings and the parking lot/ roadway slightly to the north in the northwest parcel

3. Expand work to 89% of the 50-100% buffer zone (where only 20% is allowed)

4.  Eliminate the westernmost parking bay in the southeast parcel and add a bay in the southernmost part of this parcel

5. Decrease the number of residential parking spaces to 129, which is fewer than the number of residential units (140) in the project.

Jacque clarified that it is the commission’s and not the developer’s decision to determine whether the project is classified as redevelopment. The commissioners did not discuss or vote on whether they could support such reclassification.

Commissioners Michelle Labbe and Jason Dorney seemed open to considering mitigation options as part of a revised plan, but Alex Hoar warned that allowing invasion of the 50-foot buffer would set a dangerous precedent, especially with so many proposals involving wetlands on the horizon.

The commission did not arrive at a determination for Archipelago’s request for specifying what mitigation the commission would seek or even whether mitigation was an option for allowing encroachment into the buffer zone. The hearing was continued to the commission’s June 25 meeting.

Public Comment was decidedly opposed to the revised plan.

Public Comment
Carol McNeary of Applewood noted that she had just walked the wetlands under consideration and observed that they are filled with life. She observed that this is a fraught time for those who expect the government to uphold laws, and that is what she is asking of the Conservation Commission—to uphold the laws that protect our wetlands. She added that she can’t see how the term woonerf applies to what Archipelago is proposing, which appears to be a one-way parking lot rather than a shared multi-use path.

Caiping Yao said that she lives just steps away from the wetland buffer zone.  She spoke to the importance of buffer zones and argued that by allowing construction within the buffer zone, we increase the risk of flooding and damage to our roads and to an fragile and irreplaceable ecosystem.  She pointed out that these buffer zones are there for a reason. They filter the pollutants in storm water before they reach the sensitive wetland ecosystems. They prevent flooding by absorbing excess rainwater. They support wildlife. “So, by allowing construction in the buffer zone, we are removing a critical defense system that nature has put in place. We risk increased flooding in our neighborhood. We risk damage to our roads”, she said.

Sherry Wilson, who lives in Upper Orchard, thanked the commissioners for studying this application thoroughly and asked them to reject Archipelago’s request to build so close to wetlands. She said, “Even their revisions are too much!  The wetlands exist now, regardless of their history and origin, and they must be protected and the project seems much too large for an area containing so much wetland.”

Maria Kopicki of Country Corners Road pointed out that the revised plan reduces parking from what is already inadequate. Impact to the 50 to 100-foot buffer zone is actually increased under the revised plan, from 80% to 89%, when the maximum allowed by law is only 20%. She said, “The removal of soil, plants, and animals from 50% of the buffer zone will negatively impact the ecosystem and have unknown effects on pollution uptake. The proposed mitigation of plantings does not replace the lost wetlands. The proposed mitigation measures do not comport with the Massachusetts Inland Wetland Replacement Guidelines. These guidelines also call for a detailed habitat evaluation when more than 5,000 square feet of bordered vegetated wetlands are affected or when the installation of structures that prevent animal movement are present. Both conditions apply to this project, with well over 50,000 square feet affected, and a chain-link fence proposed.”

She continued, “Notably, the plans to adopt this area as a village center always anticipated that the wetlands would limit the size of the project. The Atkins Corner Working Group of 2002 stated that ‘existing wetland systems dissect the site and will be a major constraint on the size, extent, and type of any new village center development’. It seems to me that the sooner that this project bows to the realities of the site and the town’s bylaws and is scaled back, the sooner a truly viable plan can get underway.”

Lisa Juris of MacIntosh Drive stated that the revised site plan still doesn’t respect the town’s wetland bylaw. She advocated for remediating arsenic in the soil over time as has been happening for decades and that granting a waiver to encroach on the buffer zone is a slippery slope. She underscored that under the revised plan the  0-50 foot no-work zone remains violated. In addition, the 50 to 100-foot buffer zone would be overdeveloped with 89% impacted. The proposed mitigation measures, such as plantings, are inadequate and do not meet the town’s wetland replacement standards, and furthermore, the claim that these impacts are temporary is misleading.

Elaine Elias of Autumn Lane concurred with all who spoke before her adding “we have always looked forward to a village center here, and this is not that.”

The commission also received eight written public comments, one of which was co-signed by 140 neighbors and all of which opposed (among other things) the revised proposal’s encroachment into the wetland buffer zone.  Those comments can be found here.