Cowls Memo to Conservation Comm

7/30/2019 Cowls Memo to Conservation Comm

1/4

To: Members of the Amherst Conservation Commission

From: Cinda Jones

Date: 5/22/2013

Re: Town Meeting Article 43 (Eminent Domain taking), and ROFR Consideration

This memo will outline a few of the reasons why the Amherst Conservation Commission should opposeTown Meeting Article 43, a petition article asking that the town invoke the seldom used power of eminentdomain. The points in this memo also recommend against the Town using its Chapter 61 Right of FirstRefusal on the subject parcel.

1. The Town of Amherst and Cowls have a generations-long relationship and partnership basedon mutual respect for conservation and development objectives. We share maps andinformation about conservation priorities and development opportunities. Just a few pastexamples of the Town and Cowls working together include Cowls providing land around Atkins

Reservoir for watershed conservation; Cowls selling the town its Market Hill Road WaterTreatment Plant parcel; Cowls selling an Agricultural PreservationRestriction on its Meadow Street land that was identified as a townpriority for conservation; Cowls allowing miles of town recreational trailsover its timberland.

The Town of Amherst map to the right shows in grey Cowls timberland; ingreen Town of Amherst Conservation land; and in blue Town of Amherst

watershed land. Missing is town recreation land (likeCherry Hill Golf Course) which even further connects ourparcels together. Over the years, the Town of Amherst has

prioritized parcels it wants to conserve in order to expandits existing contiguous conservation land base and protectits watershed. The Parcel targeted by Article 43 does not rank high as aconservation priority of the town, or of local land trusts. It has no Natural Heritagebubbles or any endangered species or rationale for protection other than its a largecontiguous parcel of forest land. Of the 600 acres Cowls owns in North Amherst(map of Cowls land to left), its the least worthy for conservation.

2. Conservation Groups Will Not Be Interested in this Site. This parcel is notecologically unique; its development potential and cost to acquire are high; and its acres gained


2/4

for dollars to acquire are low. Much larger tracts nearby, with higher conservation value, (such asCowls 1,300 acre Pelham Hills parcel) can be bought for comparable money as 150 developableacres in Cushman.

The Petition Article asks the town for 30% ($1,200,000) of the funding required and says thatthe additional 70% will come from other sources. The targeted funding amount is insufficient toreach Landmarks $6,500,000 offer, therefore passing Article 43 would potentially put significantfinancial liability on the town. Moreover, the list of conservation funders identified on the Save

Cushman list of donors to approach are conservation partners of Cowls -- many of whompartnered in the recent protection of the Paul C Jones Working Forest a 3,486 acre ConservationRestriction the largest parcel of land the state has ever protected.

To reiterate a point made above, 96% more land (3,486 of the highest conservation priority acresmanifesting in a conserved a mountain range), have been protected within sight of the Cushmanparcel for just 27% more money than it would cost to take the 150 acre Landmark property.

Asking past and future conservation partners of Cowls to fund petitioners confiscatory EminentDomain Takings of 150 acres from Cowls is not likely to be considered favorably. Its not in theseorganizations best interests to act against Cowls when it could jeopardize several already-identified, much larger and more desirable future conservation projects. Conservationorganizations as a rule only participate in land conservation projects when theres willing seller.By definition Eminent Domain means the seller is NOT willing.

3. The Town of Amherst has Actively Assisted and Planned forthe Development of this Site. When Stan Ziomek was theDepartment of Public Works director in Amherst, he negotiatedthe town buying the water treatment site property (large pinkstructure on photo to right) from Cowls. In addition tomonetary payment for the land, the town stubbed a futuresubdivision road entrance and led utility hook ups to Cowlsland to the southwest of the water treatment facility in order tofacilitate future development of this parcel. Development ofthis parcel has obviously been in the long term plans of thetown.

4. Salamander Habitat will be respected by Landmark even though Yellow Spotted Salamandersarent threatened, nor endangered, nor legally/environmentally protected in any way.

Landmark understands that the town loves its salamanders and has agreed to study and respectthe integrity of salamander habitat, and build away from Henry Street.

5. Landmark isnt going away if this site does. The second most desirable and viable location fora student housing development is Cowls 150 acres around Cherry Hill Golf Course. Landmarkhas expressed interest in several parcels of Cowls land. With Cowls, Landmark determined thatthe Cushman site was most appropriate and least environmentally impactful of all otherpossibilities. If the Cushman property is taken off the table by the town or for any other reason,the Pulpit Hill location will be pursued next. The town ranks the Pulpit Hill site higher than theCushman site as a conservation priority. Of the four Cowls-owned large parcels identified in #1above, the Cushman site is the only one in a Village Center circle and on town water and sewer.Its also the only site, identified as developable that doesnt have natural heritage areas, aquifer


3/4

tributary status, or any significant connecting town conservation parcels. Of all the developmentoptions available, the Cushman Center parcel is the most reasonable.

6. Article 43 is not legally defensible. Town Meeting Article 43 proposes that the Town seize byEminent Domain a Conservation Restriction on W.D. Cowls private property for the express

purpose of stopping a residential subdivision to house students. There is a "public purpose"requirement for Eminent Domain takings. Massachusetts court cases have blocked eminentdomain takings done by town meetings to block housing projects. Stopping development

projects has been determined in courts not to qualify as a public purpose. Stopping the Retreatstudent housing project has been clearly expressed in video and writing as the reason forpetitioners Article 43.

7. Amherst already owns or has protected a third of the town. This map to theright shows that Amherst has already permanently protected 27.3% of its landbase a whopping 4,849.5 acres out of a total of 17,762 in town. With all thedemand we face for affordable, senior, family, and student housing, isnt it time

to allow something to be built somewhere?

8. A huge percentage of Amherst remains forested. Themaster plan map to the left clearly shows in dark green allthe forested land in Amherst. 7,591 out of 17,765 acres areforested Proving, despite what project opponents claim,the Retreat parcel is absolutely notthe last forested parcelin North Amherst.

9. Where can we build? The 2005 Town of Amherst map ofdevelopable land to the rightdemonstrates there arent alot of choices left for places that can be developed. Andthere are no ideal sites. All the easy sites and sites inclose proximity to UMass are already built. The belowmap to the left demonstrates that 33.5% of Amherst isalready developed.

10.The newest developmentproposal is always too farout of town,and the people who live in the last

subdivision protest the next. When Barry Roberts dad,

Ev Roberts wanted to buy the downtown Amherst blockthats now restaurants and stores (including Souper Bowl

and Food for Thought books), the First National Bank of Amherst would notloan him the money because the president said That location is too far out of townand its not a

good investment. So Ev bought it with cash. When Pufton Village was built on what was oncepart of the Swartz Family Farm land, everyone said it was too far away from UMass. Time andpopulation growth change perspective.

11.Landmarks Cushman site achieves a major Master Plan goal -to push future development inside the Village Center Circles and

on town Water and Sewer systems.

This map shows the Retreat site is within the and mile from CushmanVillage Center circle targeted. Its equidistant to UMass as Cowls Road inNorth Amherst, another VC site on the bus route - one where a majority ofTown Meeting members feel development should occur. Note: There is a


4/4

star at the Salamander Crossing indicating that this is a special place identified by people at the focus

groups. Landmark respects this wish and will work to avoid this area with its development.

In conclusion, it should be pointed out that there is conservation opportunity in development.

A conservation-minded development could be encouraged with allowed density built on the smallestfootprint possible. All undeveloped land beyond the footprint of the Retreat could be potentially donatedto the town as permanently protected open space. At a time when Cushman Common is growing smaller

and less easy to access through traffic, this project could benefit the Community of Cushman and thetowns conservation goals by providing a very large parcel of public land for recreation, gatherings, andevents. The salamander area could be owned by the town and served by the Hitchcock Center for theEnvironment.

Please help permanently protect a majority of this parcel by enabling a smart conservation subdivisionon the rest. We dont have to buy every acre to protect it permanently.

Thanks for your consideration of these points.

Sincerely,

Cinda Jones9th Generation and President

Documents

Cowls Memo to Conservation Comm