Distinguishing Between Cemetery Fields VS. Knights Fields on the upcoming Ballot

I think it is important to distinguish properly between Public owned lands (i.e., Cemetery Fields) vs.  privately owned lands (i.e. Knight's fields), and the choices that the voters will face on the March Ballot. I am personally hopeful that some sort of agreement can be reached so that the fields and cemetery can co-exist at Cemetery Fields.

Because Mr. Knight has unfortunately used the Amherst Patch's  Cemetery Fields blog as a platform to push his own articles which will appear on the March ballot, I feel I must respond to his bringing up of his Petitions A and B. Voting for these is NOT in the best interest of Amherst. Why? Every step of the way, our neighborhood has been in agreement with SOME non-commercial fields on Mr Knight's land. Just not to the extent he has been proposing for the past 2 years. Yet he has had no interest in working with us or the town boards in reducing the number of fields that he wants on his land nor his pursuit to make this a commercial property (i.e., a money making venture) , which is why as a neighborhood (including Stearns Rd, Veterans Rd, and across the river) we drafted Petition C, a much more reasonable approach that includes ALL properties in the residential rural areas as potential sites for non-commercial fields.

We feel this would compliment Cemetery Fields (town owned) playing fields and not put the stress of too many fields at 1 location on any one residential neighborhood. Why? Because it would allow the potential for more playing fields on privately owned lands in Amherst, so I am unclear why Mr. Knight keeps saying that Option C will end any potential for new fields on private land. The opposite could not be more true. I encourage you to read it and Mr. Knight's petitions as well as ours : http://amherstnh.gov/2014-zoning-changes/ .

Petitions A and B are Mr. Knight's final attempt to get a commercial playing and function complex on the land he purchased that was formerly known as the controversial Brewster's Fields property on Stearns Road.

As a background to the filing of his petitions: Mr. Knight was turned down by all 3 boards in Amherst: the ZBA, the Planning Board, and the Board of Selectmen. At the ZBA after many months of hearings, Mr. Knight’s variance request (to change the land’s zoning to commercial zoning) was turned down primarily due to the intensity of his proposed use, due to the number of fields (8) and activities that he was seeking, and the resulting incompatibility within the rural/residential Neighborhood. They of course factored in the parking, traffic, noise, etc as well. He then went before the Planning Board with the exact same site plan, again a plan which at times would utilize the majority of the land with an 8 fields complex. The PB ruled, in short, that again, it was too intense of use in a residential neighborhood, and that it's use appeared that it would be commercial-like in nature, not appropriate in a residential area. During this time, Amherst's Board of Selectmen also voted NOT to enter into a contract with Mr Knight for the exclusive right to rent his fields. Why? They felt they did not want to get into another fields renting predicament as the town is currently in with the Cemetery Fields.

Mr. Knight’s Petition A would remove the “non-commercial” language out of the R/R 4.3(A)(8) ordinance which allows non-commercial sports and recreation uses on private lands. It also seeks to repeal all the conditions; i.e. setbacks, lighting, non-primary use and so forth. Here is that zoning ordinance in its current form, which was voted on in a 3 to 1 margin at the ballot by the voters in Amherst in 1995 as it provided reasonable restrictions on allowable uses of private lands in the R/R districts:

8. Non-commercial sports and recreation uses, subject to obtaining Planning Board site approval, which shall
provide at minimum for applicable:

a. Setbacks,
b. Buffers,
c. Sanitary facilities,

d. Parking,
e. Mitigation of traffic impact, and
f. Adequate provision of emergency services, and subject to determination by the Planning Board of the following:

Such use shall not be the primary use of the lot;
i. Such use shall be non-commercial in nature;
iii. Deleted (3-6-04); D
iv. Deleted (3-6-04);
iv.
v. Such use shall be compatible with existing neighborhood uses;
vi. Such use complies with the spirit and letter of Section 3.1, Nuisance Provision; and
vii. No permanent buildings shall be permitted as part of such use, except for sheds to the extent necessary for storage of equipment for such use.

Mr. Knight’s petition B seeks to create a new Sports/ recreation/function zone…for HIS property, Amherst Country Club and Buckmeadow Golf Club. The problem with this is that he did not consult with either privately owned golf course yet has out their lands on the ballot. It should be noted, that both golf courses were grandfathered in as they were in existence prior to the 1995 ordinance., and do NOT need a zoning change. This petition seeks therefore, to only benefit the land owned by Mr. Knight.