Should ‘Goliath-ville’ Be Allowed?
Should Goliath-ville be permitted on the Amherst Gun Club Property?
A real-life tale of might against right.
In 2007, a well-financed Goliath proposed to build Goliath-ville on the former Gun Club property on Maple Road, but Goliath needed the Amherst Town Board to rezone the property to have its wish granted. Goliath claimed, and still claims, that Goliath-ville is a mixed-use project consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and having no adverse impacts.
The Neighborhood on the south side of Maple Road is the “David” in this saga. Neighborhood-David says that Goliath-ville is not really a mixed-use project but a commercial giant composed of high-density housing attached to a 275,000-square-foot commercial project. The Neighborhood says that the Gun Club property is not one of Amherst’s Comprehensive Plan’s 17 possible mixed-use sites surrounding the UB north campus and that Goliath-ville is not consistent with that Plan. Armed with a slingshot loaded with a supermajority rock, the Neighborhood seemed poised to slay Goliath-ville. But, alas, this is a 21st century tale and Goliath’s weapons are plentiful and powerful. Goliath has snatched the supermajority rock from the Neighborhood’s slingshot with a revised Goliath-ville plan. The revised plan contains a 100-foot green-space perimeter to insulate Goliath-ville from Neighborhood-David. Goliath’s revised plan may make Goliath the only adjacent neighbor who can petition for a supermajority vote to object to Goliath-ville. How very unfortunate! Goliath’s revised plan demonstrates that its rezoning request will rise or fall, not on the merits of its rezoning claims, but on whether it commands a 4-vote majority on the Amherst Town Board to approve Goliath-ville’s rezoning. The political landscape, with Neighborhood-David standing with a slingshot empty of the supermajority, now focuses on the WHO of the Amherst Town Board. WHO stands with the Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood?
Council members Daniel Ward and Deborah Bruch Bucki have demonstrated their intent to stand with the Neighborhood. Residents have always been able to rely on Council member Ward to side with neighborhoods in battles against negative-impact commercial development. Similarly, Councilwoman Bucki has voted consistently with neighbors on projects inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilwoman Shelly Schratz and Supervisor Satish Mohan appear to be carrying two of Goliath’s re-zoning votes. The Neighborhood knows that Schratz and Mohan appear to want Goliath-ville on the Gun Club property in spite of Goliath’s meritless claims. It remains to be seen whether an ethics opinion will prevent Supervisor Mohan from casting a vote on the rezoning request.
Neighborhood-David’s fate may rest with the three new Board members. Councilman Barry Weinstein seems unlikely to side with the Neighborhood. Councilman Weinstein might vote “no” to the Goliath-ville rezoning request because it is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan. Dr. Weinstein has made it clear if Benderson doesn’t clean the lead contamination to the EPA resdential standard and there is a danger to the health of the resisdent his vote will be a solid NO.
Remaining are new Council members, Mark Manna, a Democrat, and Guy Marlette, a Republican. Both had 2007 campaign material touting their concern for Amherst’s homeowners and neighborhoods, yet but both seem to be “weighing” the Goliath’s claims about Goliath-ville rezoning. Do Manna and Marlette recognize the meritlessness of Goliath’s rezoning request? Will they acknowledge the reality that if Goliath-ville is permitted on the Gun Club property, the Neighborhood’s home values will plummet and the quality of life for the Neighborhood’s residents will be diminished?
If campaign promises are to be believed, Manna and Marlette will vote “no” to the rezoning. Ah, but there’s the rub; those were campaign promises to get elected! The real question is: Will Manna and Marlette stand for might or right?
John Thompson Says:January 31st, 2008 at 6:55 am
Has anyone heard anything about the Town of Amherst investigating the possible lead contamination of the Audubon golf course? The 8th hole runs along behind the ending berm of the former shooting club that is the proposed site for the Amherst Town Centre development. Sometimes golfers would get “rained” on by lead pellets that overshot the gun club. That happened once to me. Town officials knew about this but apparently did nothing. I have contacted town and county officials and state agencies but have not gotten any appreciable response. My concern is that golfers are playing on contaminated ground and also that the lead contamination is getting into the water system. There is a large pond on the other side of the 8th hole fairway. Why have town officials not responded (at least publicly) to a potential health problem? If the area is contaminated, will the town face a large expense to clean it up? Should the shooting club and/or Benderson be responsible for the golf course cleanup?
Tom Says:January 31st, 2008 at 8:53 am
This is terrible what Benderson did. I hope on that fact alone that the Amherst Council Members turns this project down. Does Benderson think that rules do not apply to them? Amherst Council Members now is your chance to show them they should follow rules just like everybody else has to.
Kate Says:January 31st, 2008 at 10:21 am
This is a real test for the new board members. Will they continue the pattern of being in the pocket of the developers, like past members? Or will they stand up for the people who have truly invested in Amherst, the homeowners and neighbors who pay taxes, maintain our homes, shop, work and send our kids to school in Amherst. The quality of life in the neighborhoods is a critical component to the quality of life in the town as a whole. I will be watching very carefully to see who is really representing the neighborhoods when this rezoning comes up for a vote.
Me Says:January 31st, 2008 at 6:38 pm
It appears that the changes Benderson is making to the rezoning should require
1. a change in their Brownfield Cleanup Program application/investigation/remediation plan, etc. indicating the new use of the property (i.e. Commercial and community facility-”Park”vs. strictly commercial). New standards for lead, etc. remediation should be approved by the DEC prior to the rezone since the “park area” will need unrestricted cleanup standards vs. commercial standards as people will potentially come in contact with soil and residual contaminants in groundwater/runoff, etc. as they use a “park”.
2. a new action by the town board: the rezone application has changed and a new rezone application should be submitted with a new EIS and public hearing(s). A “park” in conjunction with other aspects of the development introduces new effects which may necessitate new conditions on a rezone.
3. At the least, a supplemental EIS and review is required to inform all on changes which have been made and their potential impacts.
To leave any of these out would add to reasons to challenge a decision to rezone by the town board.