Ok, here’s how I am understanding things.

A “Special Permit” is supposed to benefit the neighbors and residents in general in Newburyport, Massachusetts. (See earlier post on Special Permits.)

And a Special Permit, as I understand it, means that an applicant comes in front of the Newburyport Planning Board to make sure that the project doesn’t “mess up” the City.

So, for this new revisiting of what I am calling the “Infill Ordinance” (the revision of section IXb of the zoning code) wouldn’t it be better to have an early rather than later “trigger point” where people come in for that initial “informal chat” with the Newburyport Planning Board to “test the waters” and make sure everything is A-Ok, as a way of protecting our historic municipality?

That would not preclude a project from taking place and having a “formal” application happen. It would just insure a layer of protection for the historic and intrinsic value of the City of Newburyport in general. To make sure that the project is “compatible in mass, scale or character with the surrounding neighborhood” (from earlier post on Definition of Infill.)

If the proposed application was just fine, then I am supposing that a Special Permit would then be formally granted in a timely manner. If the application was questionable, then the Newburyport Planning Board and the abutters and neighbors could have a discussion on what would be acceptable and appropriate for them and for the City of Newburyport in general.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

Hi Mary,

Thank you for the discussion you are having regarding “in-fill” in Newburyport. The thoughts and ideas about this issue, as perceived from all sides, are interesting and are an important debate that is crucial to the future character of the city.

I would urge your readership to attend the upcoming Planning Board and City Council meetings and public hearings that are discussing amendments to Section IXb of the city zoning code. During these public deliberations, at which time the public has every opportunity to participate in the process, crucial elements to that section of code will be adjusted in ways that directly relate to the “in-fill” concerns that are addressed in some of your articles.

If I may, I would like to make one point about Special Permits (SP). While the definitions you have astutely researched are a great basis for the understanding of what a SP is, we can more directly look at our own Newburyport Zoning Code which establishes the criteria that must be met in order for a SP to be approved by either the Planning Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals, (depending on what the SP application is requesting determines who the SP application is heard by). These criteria are well defined within our zoning code and map out exactly what the Special Permit Granting Authorities, (SPGA), must base their decisions on.

Just a quick clarification. In your latest posting the statement is made that, “…a SP is an opportunity to come and chat informally with the Planning Board about making a project more beneficial…”

Actually, the SP process is the FORMAL process through which an applicant comes before the Board and the public to gain a SP for their project, whatever it might be. During this formal process the public has the opportunity to discuss their concerns at length and to hear the deliberations of the Board in direct relation to the submitted application. The “informal” or pre-application process is just what its name denotes. It’s a prospective applicant’s “testing the waters”, if you will, with his/her ideas for a project.

At that time the applicant usually has preliminary plans and is trying to gain very early input from the Board as to whether they should take the next steps, which involve both money and time, in the design phases of their projects. The Planning Board does usually hear public input during these informal discussions and so your point is well taken that these are very important arenas in which the neighbors and others can express their thoughts. The SP process itself however, is a very formal process once an application has been accepted by a Board.

Again, thank you for raising these points and concerns with process and the general future of the city. These are important discussions and I enjoy reading comments from all sides on these issues.

Sincerely,
John Skibbee
(Planning Board member)

(Editor’s note: The formal name, “Section IXb of the city zoning code” is what I have been referring to informally in various posts as the “infill ordinance.” And a very big thank you to John Skibbee of the Newburyport Planning Board.)

From the emails I’ve gotten, the post on the “positive” aspects of infill has really, really upset a whole lot of folks (including me.) Since I had a “heads-up” on this post, I did some research on “Special Permits” which made me feel a whole lot better. I was going to post it tomorrow, but since there seems to be so much distress out there in web-land, I thought it might be a good idea to post it today. So here it is.

================

This is a learning curve on my part. I have been very unclear on exactly what a “Special Permit” issued by the Planning Board might be.

I found the “Universal Glossary Of Land Use Terms And Phrases” by the Land Use Law Center at Pace University School Of Law. That web link is:

http://www.nymir.org/zoning/Glossary.html.

You can also find the “Glossary of Land Use Terms” under “Helpful Links” at the side of the main page of the Newburyport Political Blog.

I figured that the Law Center at Pace University School of Law would probably know what they were talking about. At the very least, give me some guidance about planning and development stuff, including what a “Special Permit” would be.

This what the website has to say:

“Special Use Permit: Special uses are allowed in zoning districts, but only upon the issuance of a special use permit subject to conditions designed to protect surrounding properties and the neighborhood from any possible negative impacts of the permitted use. Also called conditional use permit, special exception permit, and special permit.”

I did check with a member of the Newburyport Planning Board who confirmed that Special Permits are to benefit the abutters and the neighbors.

I think this is a good thing. In fact I think this is a great thing. And now I understand that when people say that “6-C” is a good thing, what they are talking about a “Special Permit.”

So therefore, a Special Permit to build in front of an extremely historic home like 347 High Street, for example, would not benefit either the abutters or the neighbors or even the City of Newburyport as a whole.

So a special permit is an opportunity to come and chat informally with the Newburport Planning Board about making a project more beneficial to the neighbors and to the residents of the City of Newburyport than it would be under the existing zoning laws.

And if a Special Permit is granted, as I understand it, then the applicant does not have to come in front of the Newburyport Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a variance, if that would have been a necessary step. (“Variance: This is a form of administrative relief that allows property to be used in a way that does not comply with the literal requirements of the zoning ordinance.”…. Pace University School Of Law again.)

So this helps me to understand the planning and development stuff a little bit better.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

After reading today’s post about the positive benefits of infill I felt compelled to dispute a few of the claims:

1. “When it preserves open space by diverting new construction to small city lots, rather than on unused “suburban” land.”

This sounds great, but the problem people have with this is that it isn’t one home that is being diverted to a smaller city lot, it’s either multiple units or multiple buildings.

2. “In already dense neighborhoods where the new structure fits in with the character of the neighborhood in terms of building separation and mass.”

The key to this statement is “already dense neighborhoods”. By shoehorning in more houses in neighborhoods that are already packed, it harms the neighborhood and the city in general. It increases the parking and traffic problems, and begins to erode whatever buffers neighbors have between them, such as backyards.

3. “When it increases the value of the land to the city or the owner by increasing the number of units on it while still fitting into the character and look of the neighborhood.”

Increasing the value of land to the city and increasing the amount of money that goes into the pocket of the owner by allowing a number of units to be built where there was previously only one is not a positive. First, whatever increased income the city may get is already spent on new services for the new homes and residents (schools, water, trash, etc. etc.) That has been the philosophy of Newburyport for years now, promises of new developments that will bring more money to the city. The reality is that taxes continue to go up, services continue to go down, and development is running wild all over the city. Clearly this doesn’t work. As for the owner, everyone is entitled to make money, and you can’t fault them for that, however, that doesn’t mean it is good for the city to allow an owner to convert a single family home into a huge mess of condo’s or what have you. In regards to the “Character of the neighborhood”, please, take a look at the huge monstrosities on Plummer Avenue, the new plans for High Street, or any of the other major infill projects around town. They don’t fit, they stick out. The true value to this city was it’s small town feel, its character and beauty, all of which are slowly destroyed with each new infill project.

4. “When it permits the building of affordable housing because smaller lot size might be reflected in lower costs.”

Smaller lot size is not reflected with lower costs. A look at any of the infill projects will show you that the prices of those new homes aren’t significantly cheaper than any other existing house for sale. They may be made into condos, however, the price still isn’t really any lower than any other condo in town. These infill projects aren’t affordable housing, unless they are sold at a price that people can afford, not a price that is slightly lower than market value. Infill isn’t going to solve this city’s affordable housing problems unless you force the developers to sell the homes at affordable prices, but no developer is going to sell at those prices unless they can make it up by selling more units at market value. So rather than creating a solution, it creates a problem, and the city will never reach its percentage goal for affordable housing if we trade one affordable unit for a dozen at market price. Claiming that the smaller lot size is going to result in a cheaper home is simply not true and everyone in Newburyport knows that.

Benjamin Laing, Newburyport

Infill is the concept of utilizing for building or similar development purposes, those lots and small parcels of land within the developed areas of the City and surrounded by older neighborhood growth.

In-fill is the development of small open spaces in a manner that is compatible in mass, scale or character with the surrounding neighborhood.

In all instances, infill addresses those lots that already have sufficient City services immediately available to them.

Infill is “positive”:

1) When it preserves open space by diverting new construction to small city lots, rather than on unused “suburban” land.

2) In already dense neighborhoods where the new structure fits in with the character of the neighborhood in terms of building separation and mass.

3) When it increases the value of the land to the city or the owner by increasing the number of units on it while still fitting into the character and look of the neighborhood.

4) When it permits the building of affordable housing because smaller lot size might be reflected in lower costs.

Sue Grolnic, Bonnie Sontag
Newburyport Planning Board

Mary,

I would like to correct one comment you made in the June 11 posting titled “Newburyport, The Infill Ordinance”. You stated:
“The revision would have limited how big an addition one could make to a two family home.” The rest of your sentence should have read “without applying to the Planning Board for a Special Permit.”

The Planning Board does not want to restrict unconditionally property owners’ rights to build extensions to their homes. The Planning Board wants to ensure that extensions beyond a certain size get discussed and approved in a public forum, which the Special Permit process provides. Part of the challenge in crafting the amendment to this IX-B zoning ordinance is determining what’s the appropriate number, percentage or ratio to use to trigger an application to the Planning Board.

I want to say one more time: it is not the intent of the Planning Board to arbitrarily or unconditionally limit extensions and additions to residential structures or uses. It’s fine to refer to the IX-B zoning ordinance as the “infill ordinance”. I also hope that residents will learn more about the positive aspects of “infill” so that they can make informed decisions about what they want for our neighborhoods and community…but as you often state yourself Mary, that’s the topic of another posting!

Thank you,
Bonnie Sontag
Newburyport Planning Board member

(Editor’s note: A very big “thank you” to Bonnie Sontag of the Newburyport Planning Board.)

I am fascinated by the maps that are available on the Web.

I learned a tremendous amount by looking at the wetlands map from Marlene Schroeder in yesterday’s post.

I also continue to be intrigued by the City of Newburyport’s GIS map, http://gis.nbpt.us (see earlier post.)

You can drag your mouse and make a square around the area of Newburyport that you would like to see and then it zooms and makes a close-up.

Or you can put in the number and street name and get the property.

For example if you put 325 High, you can see the property that Jim Mellett of Marlin Properties bought. To be fair to everyone, the house that is proposed to be demolished is a 1978 ranch, not exactly an historic dwelling. But, you can see on the map that without that piece of property there would be no way Mr. Mellett could ever have done the infill project he is now proposing. (See the Undertoad Blog for details.)

If you put in 75 High, you can see the Wheelwright property. You can get a sense of how large a parcel of land it is. The lot extends all the way back to Greenleaf Street (which becomes Brown Street) and the cemetery.

(Again, I have no idea what is happening to that property, but from the map, one can imagine that developers could do all sorts of things, unfortunately. You can also get a sense of how much land there still is behind the “Ridge,” the area on the upper side of High Street from State Street to about Lime Street. Not to mention in front of the Ridge!)

There are also other kinds of maps online. The links are at:
http://www.mass.gov/mgis/mapping.htm

There are maps for:

Open Space
Wetlands
Priority and Estimated Habitats-Endangered Species
Biodiversity Days Maps
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Community Preservation Viewer
An aerial map in color
An aerial map in black and white

At the bottom there is a link that says “MassGIS recommends these other online mapping sites!” And there are some very interesting maps on there too.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport