Councilors Raise Concerns About Conservation Commission Appointment Process
Photo: Amherst Media / YouTube
Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Town Council, October 20, 2025
This was a hybrid meeting held in Town Hall. It was recorded.
Present
Lynn Griesemer (President, District 2), Andy Steinberg, Mandi Jo Hanneke, and Ellisha Walker (at large), Cathy Schoen and Freke Ette (District 1), Pat DeAngelis (District 2), George Ryan and Hala Lord (District 3), Jennifer Taub (District 4), and Ana Devlin Gauthier and Bob Hegner (District 5).
Absent: Pam Rooney (District 4)
Staff: Paul Bockelman (Town Manager) and Athena O’Keeffe (Council Clerk)
Amid the controversy regarding the Town Manager’s failure to reappoint Alex Hoar for a second term on the Conservation Commission without giving a reason to the council, the public, or the applicant, four councilors abstained from approving his nomination of Kristina Smith to the Commission. No one disputed Smith’s qualifications, but the four were concerned about the treatment of Hoar and the process of appointments in general. Jennifer Taub, Cathy Schoen, Hala Lord, and Ellisha Walker abstained on the vote, which passed 8-0-4.
Ana Devlin Gauthier stated, “I believe that the appropriate way to express displeasure with the process would be to propose changes to the process, not abstaining on a vote. I would like to know who is responsible for the appointed committee handbook and what the process is for revisions in that document.” No one could answer her, but Griesemer said she would look into it. Devlin Gauthier continued, “This is the most qualified candidate I have ever seen apply for the Conservation Commission. I don’t think that we should let our frustrations with a separate process reflect on her appointment.”
Taub countered, “I think the nominee is qualified, but I don’t think she’s more qualified than the incumbent who is a wetlands expert who worked for Fish and Wildlife for 38 years. My concern is with process, but it’s also that there is a lot of innuendo and even impugning of character going around, and I feel like by remaining silent, I’m being complicit in allowing the innuendo to go unquestioned.” She quoted from Town Manager Paul Bockelman’s response sent to the members of the public who wrote protesting Hoar’s not being reappointed. Bockelman wrote, “Please understand that my sole motivation was to choose the best candidate and, more importantly, to ensure the Commission and its members function in a manner consistent with the Town’s standards and values and best protects the Town’s interests. After very careful consideration, and with respect for all who serve the Town, I determined that it is in the Town’s best interest to make this appointment. I do appreciate and sincerely thank Mr. Hoar for his service and the dedication of his valuable time.” Taub said she did not want to be in a position where she was seen to be okay with that statement.
In public comment, Maria Kopicki was more direct. She stated that Hoar applied for reappointment in June and was not granted an interview. “He was then summoned to the Town Manager’s office in September and told he would not be reappointed. He asked for reasons, but was told that there are reasons and that those reasons would be forthcoming. No reasons were given after he requested a second meeting, yet he continued to serve on the commission until a replacement could be found. He still hasn’t been told. There have been vague accusations and insinuations, and his character has been besmirched—a really horrible, unkind, and unprofessional process. You don’t treat volunteers this way; you don’t treat anyone this way. You guys are the supervisors of the Town Manager. Alex Hoar deserves a public apology.”
First Reading for ADU Bylaw
The proposed revised Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Bylaw put forth by the Planning Board and the Community Resources Committee (CRC) received its first reading before the Town Council. The town’s bylaw needed to conform with the state law, which mandates that ADUs of 900 square feet or less be allowed by right on any property that permits single-family homes. There are minimal restrictions that can be placed on these “protected ADUs,” and restrictions on things such as required parking, design, or owner-occupation are prohibited. Rented units will still be subject to rental registration and inspection and will need a parking plan and a trash pick-up plan.
The proposed bylaw also includes a “local ADU,” which can be up to 1,200 square feet, but requires that either the principal unit or the ADU must be owner-occupied. This second type of ADU allows people to build larger units and means that many of the already constructed units are not non-conforming. Rules for rental properties apply to rented local ADUs as well. Local ADUs may have a maximum of two parking spaces. The first ADU on a property may be approved by the Building Commissioner. If a second ADU is proposed, it will need a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Councilor Ana Devlin Gauthier objected to design standards in the local ADU provisions that require the ADU to be compatible with the principal dwelling. Mandi Jo Hanneke felt limiting the local ADU to only two additional parking spaces was too restrictive. Councilors were encouraged to send their thoughts on the bylaw proposal to Senior Planner Nate Malloy so that he can address them when the matter returns to the Council for a discussion and a vote in November.
Zoning Change Proposed for Main Street Parcels
Building Commissioner Rob Morra proposed changing the zoning for 229, 257, and 289 Main Street from General Residence (RG) to Neighborhood Business (BN). He explained that the impetus for the change is to allow the longstanding Amherst Inn to have eight guestrooms, rather than their current limit of five under the RG rules. He said that the fire department recently told the owners that they needed to install a sprinkler system because having five or more rooms required it. Morra stated that adding the sprinkler system was not financially feasible if there were only five guest rooms.
All three parcels are in the Dickinson Local Historical District. No external changes are planned for any of the buildings and no changes are anticipated for the other two sites. Most of the nearby properties are owner-occupied.
Abutters will need to be notified of the proposed change and the Planning Board and CRC will need to hold public hearings. Then the Town Council will need two readings before a vote. Morra worried that delaying the decision until the new council was seated in January would negatively impact the business. Hanneke worried that there would not be time to meet the needed deadlines and vote on the change this year, but Council President Lynn Griesemer thought that the Planning Board and CRC could hold their hearings in November, and the Council could discuss the proposed change on December 1 and 15.
The Council voted 11-0 to refer the proposed zoning change to the Planning Board.
Council Approves Reduction of One Parking Space at 151 Amity Street and Increased Payment In Lieu of Affordable Housing for Developers
The council voted unanimously to agree to the residents’ request to eliminate one parking space next to the driveway of the Marsh Condominiums at 151 Amity Street because cars parked close to the driveway obstruct the view of those exiting the five-unit complex. Hanneke thought that the minimum distance to the driveway should be more clearly specified, but Mooring had told the Town Services and Outreach (TSO) committee when it discussed the matter that minimum distances vary depending on the street. Both he and Police Chief Gabe Ting agreed to eliminating one space out of concern for safety.
Although he voted for this proposal, George Ryan said that he worried about it setting a precedent, because driveways for many properties on Amity Street have similarly challenged sight lines.
The Council also voted unanimously to increase the amount a developer would need to pay if they did not want to include the required affordable housing in their development. The existing Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw sets the amount as four times Median Family Income (MFI), but the town and the Affordable Housing Trust felt that amount did not adequately reflect the cost of constructing affordable housing. The CRC, Planning Board, and Housing Trust recommended that the amount be increased to five to eight times MFI per unit.
Ryan said he thought this amount was too high and would ensure that the provision would never get used. However, the purpose of the Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw is to encourage affordable units to be included in developments having 10 or more units and to discourage buying the way out. In fact, the provision has only been used once in the seven years that the bylaw has been in place—for the Roberts building at 55 South Pleasant that is being used to house Amherst College students.
Council Approves Electric Conduit that Is Already Built
As required by state law, the Council held a public hearing regarding an underground duct bank to service electric school bus charging at the middle school. However, Eversource representative Ryan Morich informed councilors that the duct was already installed. The schools wanted the work done before school started in the fall and hired a contractor. The DPW gave them a permit and dug up part of Chestnut Street. DPW Superintendent Mooring said that the regional school administration did not realize that the project needed to go through the Town Council, because the work was being done in a public way. He said that approving the project would mean that Eversource, rather than the schools, owned the duct.
Several councilors were frustrated that the work was done without coming to the council for approval first, as required. Devlin Gauthier suggested that if this happens in the future, the council should be notified in the agenda that the work has already been done. The project was approved 12-0.
Announcements and Resolutions
The Council unanimously passed a resolution supporting the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion’s Community Heart and Soul Project.
It also passed a resolution in support of increased public higher education funding, which proposed using $200 million of the over $2 billion raised from the Fair Share Act to compensate universities and colleges for federal cuts from the Trump administration. Schoen abstained because she was worried about loss of aid to K-12 education. Hanneke and Andy Steinberg also abstained.
Bockelman reported that the new (and former) Finance Director Sean Mangano began work this week. He will accompany Bockelman at the next Cuppa Joe, scheduled for Friday, November 14. There will be a presentation on Financial Indicators for FY27 at the next Town Council meeting on November 3 and a public forum on the budget on November 17. The Four Towns meeting is scheduled for Saturday, November 8 at the Middle School.
Anybody wanna guess how many times the Town Council advised but did not consent to a Town Manager nomination to a board/committee?
If you said ZERO, you win!
A review of the Town Council’s voting record since its inception showed that the Town Council has NEVER voted down a Town Manager nomination to a multiple-member body. In fact, there have only been five instances where their approval was not either by unanimous vote or by the consent agenda.
The appointment process is in desperate need of reform. One person controls the entire process with no actual checks, no standardization, and no sharing of who is being excluded from appointments or why.
I have 40 years experience in economic development, planning , tourism with 2 New York State counties and 2 towns in Massachusetts as well as 11 years experience as a councilman and deputy mayor in Irvington, New York. But yet this week, I was turned down for one of five resident seats on the upcoming Cherry Hill Golf Course Committee. I have now applied for 3 town committees with no success and no explanations. I understand many town committees require specific professional experience so I have avoided some of those such as the Fire/DPW Committee which require building experience. But that my resume cannot achieve a seat on a golf course committee?? BACKGROUND: Our town and School has over 45 lower board committees which probably comprises at least 250 resident seats. These 250 seats constantly require recruitment, interviews, considerations and appointments. It has to be a major time consumption effort to track terms of office, compliance with oaths of office, satisfying state qualification courses on and on. Or vacancies mid term for some boards. This must take hours and hours for the Town Manager’s Office and staff we know there are far more important tasks for this office to be working on. And now there are questions about transparency with a Conservation Commission appointment. PROPOSAL: Appointments to lower boards should be placed into a transparent process and housed away from a town manager’s office that has so many other critically important major projects and goals to be working on. It is a full time job for one or two people to manage 45 boards. Perhaps the League of Women Voters can oversee these appointments with town staff support. Or the Town Clerk’s Office which is where other towns process their appointments. But this process has to be transparent and neutral/ non-partisan. 45 boards is a tremendous number unlike any other town in our region or state.
It is also worth noting that when I was interviewed for a seat on the Cherry Hill Golf Course Committee I asked an elemental question of how many people actually used the course year over year. How many were one time or frequent users? No one had an answer and this included the Town Manager, Deputy Manager and Recreation Director.
Terence, I too, did not get appointed to the Cherry Hill study committee, but I knew when I applied I was wasting my—and the Manager’s—time. I have only lived across the street from the golf course for 51 of my 71 years here, was working in the Assessors’ Office when the Certified Letter arrived advising of its rights of first refusal under Ch. 61B thus on the front lines advocating for its purchase by the town.
. There was an agreement for a Newton developer to construct a very large development on beautiful but “wet” land, well north of the public sewer line. At a well-attended public meetings the potential developer was unwilling to make any accommodations to those present including the unwillingness to provide affordable units.
You are part of a growing longer list of very competent local residents who aren’t being put on committees because we may add froth to the discussion! We are actually known for discussing unintended consequences—a No No because then the favored project may fail rather than being improved.
And, while I have the “floor”: I was reminded by a former FinCom member of The Housing Impact Task Force Report, 1993 (on line). It needs to be brought up to date and studied carefully before any more zoning changes are introduced.
Well, of course Terence Masterson was rejected as a member of the Cherry Hill Committee. I’ll wager it is because he dared to ask a Question That Should Not Be Asked — at least in the view of Town Hall. Following in the footsteps of the late Larry Kelley, Mr. Masterson asked a question that was both obvious and that would help the Town to begin to understand the financial realities of Cherry Hill, a question that might allow the Town to come up with realistic plans to make the course less of a drain on Town finances, instead of allowing it to continue to stick its head ever deeper into the sand traps.
This inability — or perhaps refusal — to provide specific information about Town recreational facilities is nothing new. I was on the CPAC when the loud and continuous cry was “Not enough recreation fields in town!!” We asked for an inventory of fields so that we could better evaluate the request for a substantial sum to redo the Plum Brook fields. There was a lot of flustered stammering on the part of LSSE, and then came the explanation that they could not provide us with this information because it was written on Post-It notes scattered all over the office. In the end, $800,000 (plus interest) was spent to improve the fields, because it was determined that an irrigation system was necessary — rather an irony, given that the fields were surrounded by very wet ground.
The times I have recently driven by the Plum Brook fields, they have almost always been deserted, yet I believe that some in town still insist that there are not enough playing fields. Fifteen years after my time on the CPAC, I doubt that there is yet a comprehensive inventory of all town fields and their condition to lend credence to this claim (Town Hall is welcome to prove me wrong, if they can). But no matter: As we continue to see with the Jones Library project, if you really want something, the best way to get it is to loudly and continually claim that it is vitally necessary, and avoid at all costs any actual facts that might show that reality is otherwise.