Category Archives: Zoning

Zoning and city planning that effects the types of building in Newburyport, MA

Newburyport, High Street and Development

I’m really disturbed by this new “infill” project at 325 High Street. This isn’t just any old street, (not that any of our streets are really “any old street”) but this is High Street, the “Grand Dame of Newburyport,” the amazing gateway to our small, historic city.

One of the things that concerns me is that as small properties in the Northend and Southend of Newburyport gradually get “eaten up,” what’s left for developers to make money on in Newburyport’s historic district is High Street.

There is a tremendous amount of land behind those gorgeous houses that are on the “Ridge” side of the street. 325 High Street is an excellent example. So is the Wheelwright House (again, I have no idea what is happening with that property.)

It would be incredibly ironic if having fought MassHighway so hard for the beauty and historic character of High Street, only to have it be marred by developers. Ouch.

Not to sound like a broken record here, but this sort of thing was something very much on the mind of former Planning Director, Nick Cracknell. And he was working on solutions to this dilemma. Like putting a zoning overlay on the front part of the “Ridge” (the area on High Street between State and Lime Street) to protect people from building in front of those beautiful houses. (You know, as a City we can still do that one.)

I’ve talked to people about putting on deed restrictions on their High Street properties. Some have actually done so. Others want the option of being able to sell to developers, because they know that that’s how they are going to make the most money.

Again, things felt a lot safer when Nick Cracknell was around, because at least I trusted him to come up with thoughtful and sometimes, to me, astounding solutions to what often seemed to me to be unsolvable dilemmas.

And frankly, I don’t think any of the alternatives (shown on the Undertoad Blog) are in anyway acceptable. Not even the one that shows the potential use of the new cluster zoning law, because it’s still a version of urban sprawl on High Street. Good grief.

And when I read that a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals was the seller, let’s just say that my blood pressure went way, way up. There is the New Yorker in me that just wants to shake my finger and go “honey, you should know better.”

So what do we do? Hope that Mayor John Moak comes up with a new planning director who can negotiate with developers, and architects and lawyers for the overall good of the city. We had one of those and he’s gone.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

Newburyport, Chain Stores and Local Businesses

Hi Mary,

I just thought I’d bring you up-to-date on my research concerning the impact chain stores have on communities and why local business ownership needs our support.

As you know, I became interested in the issue when Nantucket recently adopted a “Formula Store” ordinance. I have discovered, Nantucket is not unique. In fact, communities all over the country, in the mountains, by the seaside, in the Mid-west, have adopted similar zoning regulations. Some of these efforts have been in response to a proposed “big box” development project, such as a Wal Mart or Home Depot. Other efforts were born out of the desire by local business owners and residents to maintain the neighborhood character of their business district, as is the case in Nantucket.

I’ve spoken to a couple of people in town who hold community policy roles. By and large; folks are in a “wait and see” mode. However, they do concede they have a more than passing interest in the Nantucket ordinance and are open to learning more. So in the spirit of self-education and openness, I’d like to offer the following list of benefits most frequently cited for supporting local businesses and limiting chain stores. I hope you and your audience find it informative.

Why support local businesses?

1) Local Character and Prosperity
In an increasingly homogenized world, communities that preserve their one-of-a-kind businesses and distinctive character have an economic advantage.

2) Community Well-Being
Locally owned businesses build strong communities by sustaining vibrant town centers, linking neighbors in a web of economic and social relationships, and contributing to local causes.

3) Local Decision-Making
Local ownership ensures that important decisions are made
locally by people who live in the community and who will feel the impacts of those decisions.

4) Keeping Dollars in the Local Economy
Compared to chain stores, locally owned businesses recycle a
much larger share of their revenue back into the local economy, enriching the whole community.

5) Job and Wages
Locally owned businesses create more jobs locally and, in some sectors, provide better wages and benefits than chains do.

6) Public Benefits and Costs
Local stores in town centers require comparatively little infrastructure and make more efficient use of public services relative to big box stores and strip shopping malls.

7) Environmental Sustainability
Local stores help to sustain vibrant, compact, walkable town centers-which in turn are essential to reducing sprawl, automobile use, habitat loss, and air and water pollution.

8) Product Diversity
A multitude of small businesses, each selecting products based, not on a national sales plan, but on their own interests and the needs of their local customers, guarantees a much broader range of product choices.

Allyson Lawless, Newburyport

Newburyport, The Power Group

I feel very angry at what Harvey Beit way back in March 2006 in a Letter to the Editor in the Newburyport Daily News called the “power group.”

Harvey Beit never identified who was in the “power group” in his Letter to the Editor. But I imagine that Mr. Beit was talking about folks like Jonathan Woodman, Bill O’Flaherty, Terry Jones, some of the people who were the most out spoken, strident and openly critical of our former Planning Director, Nick Cracknell.

(What makes things so difficult is that we are a rather small community, and I know all these folks. And on a day to day basis, I like them.)

Ok, I’ll admit it, if you weren’t on Nick Cracknell’s wave length, he could be kind of “difficult” to deal with. Mr. Cracknell could be so focused on whatever projects were at hand that it could take a bit of doing to get him to focus on or possibly see other possibilities.

However, that being said, what worries me is that the “power group” could do whatever they can to either eradicate or undermine many of the planning policies that have been enacted in the last 4 years under Nick Cracknell’s guidance.

The “site plan review” is one that comes to mind. When the Newburyport Five Cents Savings Bank wanted to expand, the “site plan review” was seen not as the possibility of a dialogue with informed and caring citizens, but an obstacle and a nuisance.

Of course time is money, and this “site plan review” thing, along with the “demolition delay” thing, was just plain inconvenient. Never mind the integrity of an historic town.

I sat through those hearings, that particular “site plan review,” and I was appalled by the disdain and contempt with which the “power group” treated the proceedings and the people connected with them.

And I think that it is unfortunate that the “power group” basically ignored so much of the input of a very intelligent and informed community.

I would hope that the business community would not support the present plan for the “strip mall” proposed by developer Scott Morrow for 81-83 Storey Avenue. If they do endorse it, I would be dismayed. This is exactly the kind of project that the “site plan review” is so appropriate for (and believe me it was very appropriate for One Temple Street — the Five Cents Savings Bank project, too.)

I would hope that the desire for “tax base at any cost” would not cloud the business community’s (or the Mayor’s) judgement, and that they would be supportive of the Newburyport Planning Board and the Newburyport Zoning Board of Appeals. And that the business community would not undermine this very important ordinance, one that is in place to try and ensure an appropriate quality of life for everybody in Newburyport, Massachusetts.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

Further Clarification on the 40B Project and the ZBA

Dear Mary,

Having just read your item on our conversation I would like to make a slight addition just so that no one is mislead about the strict legal possibilities as compared with past experience and probabilities.

You and I knew just what we were saying as we talked and I would like those persons not in that conversation with us to also be clear on this.

Past experience with significant projects, 40B (1 in Newburyport) and others is that they tend to take time involving multiple hearing dates. Both for continuances while the applicant sorts out external events that arise. And then multiple hearing dates for presentations pro and con plus questions by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and often the referral of data to specialists supporting the ZBA’s analysis.

Also, because of the complexity that usually accompanies significant projects, the hearing date where volumes of substantive presentations are expected are usually assigned to meetings devoted to that single application.

That reflects past experience and probability, however, the legal reality, although remote for significant projects, is that at any scheduled hearing for a particular application the ZBA could receive presentations, public comment, ask questions, undertake deliberation and even a vote, if the ZBA so desired.

Legally public notice for these hearings, once the hearing has originally been opened, is the continuation date set by the ZBA at the currently scheduled hearing date. There are no further “published” legal notices as the law presumes that if you are interested you are there or at least are aware.

These are the legal possibilities, not the probabilities, but I don’t want anyone to misconstrue what “could” occur and somehow lose an opportunity to hear or be heard about a particular application.

The ZBA is not about “gotcha too bad,” it is about open public process, but there are some underlying legal rules under which the ZBA functions that need to be understood.

I’m sorry if this muddies the waters that had a moment of apparent clarity but I wouldn’t want anyone to become overly complacent relative to any proceeding where their possible interests are involved.

If there are other questions as to procedures or particular hearings the Newburyport Office of Planning and Development can help or refer.

The Low Street project that you mentioned has requested and received a number of continuances as they have dealt with external events. At the ZBA meeting of April 25 they requested a further 2-month continuance to permit them to proceed with certain meetings with various city entities.

The ZBA granted a 2-week continuance and requested that a representative appear at the meeting of May 10 (delayed from the 9th because of the special election) to provide further detail in support of the continuance request.

Regards,

Ed Ramsdell, Newburyport

(Editor’s note: Ed Ramsdell is the chair of the Newburyport Zoning Board of Appeals.)

ZBA and Woodman 40B Project

I got a chance to talk briefly with Ed Ramdsell the chair of the Newburyport Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) about the 40B Project on Low Street on the Woodman Property.

What Mr. Ramdsell told me was that the 40B project would be on the ZBA agenda often, but that did not mean that anything significant would happen at any particular meeting.

Mr. Ramdsell also told me that because the 40B Low Street project is so complicated that whole ZBA meetings would be devoted to that project only.

Since this is such an important issue for so many people in Newburyport, Massachusetts, Ed Ramdsell said that the ZBA would make sure to let media outlets know when something of significance was going to happen.

One of the things I learned early on as an activist is that people get “meeting fatigue,” so it’s really important to know which meetings are significant. And I really appreciate that Mr. Ramdsell will let the community know which meetings are important to go to.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

Newburyport, Waterfront West

In response to Ben Laing’s post, I do not have a Ph.D. in zoning or planning and development, a real amateur here, but as I understand it, the zoning overlay for Waterfront West is to provide the City of Newburyport with some protection for that area.

My understanding is that Waterfront West is the area west of State Street that contains such things as the Fitness Factory and Michael’s Harborside.

The goal is to try and make sure that the land is developed properly and matches the rest of the City of Newburyport, using State Street as the model.

And I think a lot of people in Newburyport share Mr. Laing’s unease about Stephen Karp. (That’s why we need to keep Nick Cracknell as Newburyport’s Planning Director–see earlier post.)

Newburyport, Massachusetts, the Infill Ordinance

No matter who ends up running in the special election for the Ward 1 Council seat, it raises the question of what I call the “Infill Ordinance,” although that is not its specific title.

I went down to the Newbuyrport Planning Office to get a copy of the Infill Ordinance, which is really a revision of a zoning law, and Nick Cracknell, Newburyport’s Planning Director, happened to be there and gave me a crash course in Newburyport zoning. What I came away with was that zoning in Newburyport, Massachusetts is very complicated and I’m sure glad that we have experts. I think I quipped to the person who was scheduled to meet Mr. Cracknell that I was “getting a Ph.D.”

(And btw, I was so busy trying to learn about the complex zoning laws around this one particular issue that I didn’t get a chance to ask a lot of the questions I wanted to ask, like “what the heck is going on?” My golden opportunity and rats, I missed it.)

I have not gone back and looked at all the periodicals to research why this particular amendment to the zoning law was voted down, but what I remember (and if I’m wrong, please email me or call me or send in a post and please let me know) is that the objection was that it infringed on people’s property rights and that it discriminated against a very small portion of the population–those who owned two family homes.

While I was getting my crash course in Newburyport zoning, I could actually see how one could come to those conclusions.

BUT, I think the purpose of the this particular zoning amendment was not to make it difficult for your average homeowner who wants to expand their kitchen, master bedroom or whatever. It was to address developers who are buying two family homes in Newburyport’s Historic District (btw this is very different from a Local Historic District) and building in a manner that is not in keeping with the community.

As I understand it, the Newburyport Zoning Board of Appeals and the Newburyport Planning Board are very sympathetic to homeowners who need to expand in a reasonable way and they don’t want to be swamped with a huge amount of applications.

And what the City of Newburyport does want, is to be able to have a chance to have a dialogue with a developer who wants to radically change the look of a property, to make sure that there could be the most constructive solution possible.

An example would be the project in my own neighborhood (see earlier post.) The proposal that the developer came up with did not conform to the zoning laws. This gave both the City of Newburyport and the neighborhood a chance to have a dialogue with the developer. The developer made money and the neighborhood was happy. My understanding is that this particular zoning amendment would give the citizens of Newburyport the same opportunity when a developer comes into their neighborhood.

For me this would be an example of “smart growth.” I don’t know if the Mayor and the Newburyport City Council would like to revisit this issue, but I still think it is enormously important to how Newburyport’s Historic District will evolve over the years.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

Newburyport, Massachusetts, Development Happens

In response to Ben Laing’s posting (nice to have you as a guest blogger, Mr. Laing), my point of view is that development happens. I am a big proponent of “controlled development” or “smart growth.”

A good example of this is the Russell Terrace project. There is an article in yesterday’s Newburyport Daily News on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 on the Russell Terrace subdivision. The project is described as “the largest new housing proposal currently in the works.” (Now I sure hope that people from Russell Terrace and the Open Space Committee are going to help me out here, because I’ll admit, I just don’t begin to know all the details.)

The developer is Norbert Carey. For you out there who don’t live in Newburyport or have just recently moved here, on the controversy scale of 1-10 Norbert Carey would probably rate a 15, possibly a 25. We are talking major history here. The background on Norbert Carey would warrant a number of posts.

(What I am beginning to find is that many of the readers of the Newburyport Political Blog have moved here fairly recently and don’t know about the controversy surrounding Cherry Hill or the Access Road. Maybe there can be a few posts explaining those stories.)

Fortunately, fortunately because of the Newburyport Planning Board and the Newburyport Planning Director, yes, you guessed it, Nick Cracknell, and lots of other concerned citizens, we have a zoning ordinance that prevents the Russell Terrace project from becoming another Cherry Hill. The Newburyport Daily News writes that “The new cluster zoning law, called open space residential development, was designed to avoid large subdivisions such as the Cherry Hill project.

The new homes will be built on a cul-de-sac on about 8 acres of the 43-acre property. The remaining 35 acres, which include wetlands and abut other underdeveloped farmland, will be preserved as conservation land and protected by a land trust, under the special permit requirements.”

This is what I call “smart growth.” Thank goodness for the farsighted Newburyport Planning Board and Nicholas Cracknell, Newburyport’s Planning Director and all the other people on various city boards and committees and other involved citizens who contributed to the creation of this new zoning law.

But, obviously there are still problems–traffic, adjacent wetlands and animal habitat. I do not know the details, but there are plenty of people out there who do. So please, feel free to become a guest blogger on the Newburyport Political Blog.

It seems to me that, as I said in another post, Newburyport has become a very desirable place to live and people will move here and build, or live in places that have been built for them. As I see it, the trick is to find the right balance so that Newburyport continues to remain a place that we as residents can be proud to live in. This is a very complicated task. And as I’ve said over and over again, I think we are incredibly lucky to have people like Doug Locy and the Newburyport Planning Board and Newburyport’s Planning Director Nicholas Cracknell whose job it is to help us find solutions to those very complicated issues.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

Newburyport Political Blog Picked Up by Planetizen.com

The Newburyport Political Blog has been picked up by Planetizen.com thanks to Ron Martino. Thank you Mr. Martino.

This is huge, really, really huge. As Ron Martino wrote me in an email (I don’t think Mr. Martino would mind if I quoted him, even though I haven’t checked it out with him,) “This means the NPB is a national player in the planning world, [albeit a junior one :-).]”

I knew eventually people around the country would start to read the Newburyport Political Blog, but I didn’t think it would be this soon. So, Wow!

We are in the section called “Under the Radar.” The entire website (each posting) is being picked up and re-posted on Planetizen.com. Planetizen is serious stuff folks.

Planetizen is a major Planning and Development website. The Newburyport Political Blog is floating around there (Yiddish and all) with major, I mean really major, national and even international organizations (architects, city planning organizations, major newspapers, major universities–go look.)

So what is being discussed on the Newburyport Political Blog is already being read by national and international players. What we as a community in Newburyport, Massachusetts do matters. The world is watching. This is not just about Newburyport anymore.

There are so many important planning and development issues that will continue to present themselves to our city. For example, two major properties on the “Ridge”, the area along High Street in the South End of Newburyport where the large mansions are built, have been sold (the Wheelwright House being one of them.) Developers can now build in front of those mansions, the zoning laws allow it.

One of the things that the Newburyport Planning Office has been thinking about is a “zoning overlay” just for the area in front of those mansions. This would be to prevent developers from building on the lower part of the “Ridge.” It is hard for me to believe that once most people understand that this is an issue, that they would not support this kind of “overlay district.”

Newburyport, Massachusetts has one of the best and brightest city planners in Nicholas Cracknell. Nick Cracknell understands the unbelievably complicated issues around planning and development in Newburyport, such as the need for an “zoning overlay” for the “Ridge.”

I would hope, if Ron Martino is right that the Newburyport Political Blog is now a national player in the planning world ( although a junior one), that we can continue to advocate for “smart grow.” I would hate, as major players are watching us, to make the mistake of letting Mr. Cracknell go.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

Newburyport Massachusetts, a Possible Design Review Board for the City

In today’s Newburyport Daily News, February 16, 2006, Douglas Locy, the Chairman of the Planning Board, writes in a Letter to the Editor that Newburyport may now get a chance to have a Design Review Board (DRB.) Both the Newburyport Planning Board and Newburyport’s Planning Director, Nick Cracknell, have been actively working towards this goal for a couple of years.

Mayor John Moak met with the Newburyport Planning Board and suggested that a DRB be created to advise them. Now with Mayor Moak’s support, Mr. Locy says that a “zoning amendment to create a DRB could be submitted to the City Council and open to public hearing by this April. This proposed five-member DRB would likely consist of a registered architect, a landscape architect, a developer, a member of the Historical Commission and a member of either the Planning Board or ZBA (Zoning Board of Appeals).”

I think this is a very positive development and it would be a great for the City of Newburyport if a DRB could be implemented.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

Newburyport, Massachusetts, Why the Towle Property is Good for Newburyport

In response to Ben Laing’s post, (and I think many people have the same questions that Mr. Laing does) it is my own opinion that a community is “organic,” it can either grow or die. Newburyport saw a “death” in the 1950’s and 1960’s and a “rebirth” started to take place with Urban Development in the “1970’s.”

Newburyport, Massachusetts has become a very desirable place to live and people have and will continue to move here, buy property and build. As a city we cannot stop people from building on their own private property. However, as a city we can advocate for “smart growth” and ask for something in return to make Newburyport a better place to live. One of the reasons I admire Nick Cracknell so much is that he has taken a very proactive approach in negotiating with developers and creating a “win-win” situation. For me the Towle Complex Redevelopment Overlay District is an excellent example.

The First Republic Corporation of America bought what was the old Towle building and has developed it in recent years. The property had been badly dilapidated and had become an eyesore instead of a piece of property that the people of Newburyport could be proud of. It is also a waterfront property and the developer, who wants to make money, would like to build luxury waterfront condominiums. That is the developer’s right, because the developer owns the property.

What the Newburyport Planning Office and the Newburyport Planning Board did was to create an “overlay district” to make it easier for the developer to do some things in return for some good things for the City of Newburyport. The developer will create a public access to the water, restore an important historic building, keep open space, make improvements to Cashman Park, create affordable housing, preserve the view of the Merrimack River from Tyng Street.

So, yes, Ben Laing is correct, this will put strain on city resources. However, the Towle development would have put strains on the city’s resources regardless. This way, the average citizen of Newburyport can once again be proud of the Towle property, as well as have the privilege of enjoying public access to the Merrimack River, along with the many other items mentioned above.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

Newburyport City Council, February 13, 2006

Last night the Newburyport City Council unanimously passed the Towle Complex Redevelopment Overlay District in the first reading.

The Newburyport City Councilors expressed appreciation for all the hard work done by the Newburyport Planning Board, the developer, First Republic Corp. of America, and the Newburyport Planning Office. The city councilors seemed to have a sense of relief and even delight about this overlay district project.

(In a quick response to the earlier post by Ron Martino, this is an excellent example of a developer working with the City of Newburyport for a win-win situation. The developer won the trust of the City of Newburyport by addressing historic preservation issues (the developer will restores a 315-year-old home on the property), open space and public access concerns, as well as the issue of affordable housing. In return the developer will get the chance to build luxury waterfront condominiums. This is also an excellent example of combining the old with the new. Any thoughtful development takes time both on the part of the developer and the City of Newburyport. As far as I’m concerned, there should be no short cuts in regards to good sound development for the City of Newburyport. The long-term consequences for the City of Newburyport are just too important.)

The Newburyport City Council also took the NRA Water Front survey out of its two committees and voted to included it in the Newburyport City Census.

Two nice Valentine presents for the City of Newburyport.

The Newburyport City Council made sure the City Clerk’s office was temporarily well staffed and the staff adequately compensated. They also began to address how to start looking for a new City Clerk all over again. The issue of the Newburyport City Council finding a new City Clerk to replace Mayor John Moak has been discussed at length in The Undertoad, the Newburyport Daily News, and the Newburyport Current. The ongoing “saga” will most probably be further reported on. Unfortunately, The Undertoad is not online and only paid subscribers can read the Newburyport Daily News online. However, the Newburyport Current can be found at www.townonline.com/newburyport.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

Zoning and Planning in Newburyport, Massachusetts

In the Newburyport Daily News, Tuesday, February 7, 2006, there is an article on “the developer’s plan to build new condominiums and renovate existing buildings on the property behind the Towle building.”

The City of Newburyport has worked with the developer for nearly a year to work out a compromise that benefits the City. “The property owners will renovate existing historic homes on the property and preserve the view of the Merrimack River from Tyng Street by keep all buildings out of that sight
line.” They will also “incorporate open space and public access, including extension of city harborwalk.”

This is made possible by a “zoning overlay.”

Mayor John Moak is quoted as saying, “Not being an expert in zoning, it seemed like a good approach.”

It is a great approach and has been used successfully since Nick Cracknell’s arrival as Planning Director to save a number of projects from really inappropriate design.

Addressing zoning issues like the Towle project is an unbelievably complicated and time-consuming process. I am glad John Moak admits that he is not “an expert in zoning, ” but he has a Planning Director who is.

I hope John Moak examines this project in detail and understands the intricacy and negotiations that have gone on to make it a possibility (the Towle project needs to be passed by the Newburyport City Council.) I hope he also realizes that the Towle project and the other very successful zoning overlays would never have taken place without the guidance and expertise of Newburyport’s Planning Director, Nicholas Cracknell.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport