Category Archives: Planning and Development

Planning and Development, Newburyport, MA, urban planning, the design, construction and organization of Newburyport’s urban spaces, architecture and activities.

Newburyport, What We Can Do About In-fill

You asked what can be done to protect neighborhoods from over development and projects out of scale and character with the existing neighborhood? Well, first a foremost we need to amend the current zoning laws.

During the 1970’s when the City adopted residential zoning, it made all the old city multi- family. To the west of High Street was zoned two family (R2) and to the east of High Street was zoned three or more family (R3). This blanket zoning is at the root of all the in-fill projects we’re seeing. It actually encourages and makes it very easy for developers to fill in our neighborhoods.

During 2005 the Planning Board began to write amendments to the existing zoning laws. All zoning amendments must conform to MA State Statutes and they must be approved by a two third majority of the City Council.

The City Council passed an amendment (6-C) to the R2 and R3 zoning laws, which requires “site plan review” of any proposed in-fill project intended for the front, back or side yard of an existing house. Site plan review includes a public hearing before the Planning Board where the public can participate.

Unfortunately, the City Council blocked a similar and very important amendment to part of the R3 zoning laws.

This specific amendment is called IXB-3. It addresses half houses or two family houses built on non-conforming lots. A non-conforming lot is either too small overall, or has insufficient frontage, and therefore does not fit into the City’s zoning code.

R3 half houses built on non-conforming lots are popular with developers because these houses are unregulated. The result has been that huge additions have been built onto such homes, additions that dwarf the other independently owned half-house, and appear totally out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. An example of such a huge IXB-3 addition is near the foot of Forester Street.

The Planning Board is presently writing a new IXB-3 that will limit the size of such additions unless a special permit is granted. A special permit is given, or not given, after a public hearing process, during which neighbors have the opportunity to question, comment or object. Presently a neighbor of a IXB-3 house has no right to protest any huge addition or even to know it will be built before it is already under construction.

So in response to your question “What now?” We would encourage people to contact members of the Newburyport City Council. Let them know that you would like them to encourage, support and vote in favor of the IXB-3 zoning amendment.

Nick Cracknell championed this amendment in 2005. In his absence let’s see what we can do to get IXB-3 approved – this time around.

Mary Haslinger, Newburyport
Allyson Lawless, Newburyport

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, Neighborhoods and Developers, What Now?

This is what I wonder. What happens now when a developer wants to start a project in a neighborhood? The infill project at 325 High Street, proposed by Jim Mellett of Marlin Properties, for example. If neighbors are unhappy with a proposed project, whom do they go to?

Before, the people of Newburyport, Massachusetts could turn to the Planning Director, Nick Cracknell. He would give them the information they needed, and help them negotiate with the developer for one of those great “Cracknell win-win” situations.

Now developers, architects and lawyers might not have like this process (I’m sure some did,) but it really, really helped the people whose lives were effected.

My own opinion is that the Newburyport Planning Board at the moment is very trustworthy. But it is my understanding that the Planning Board and the Newburyport Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) relied on Nick Cracknell to help them with the myriad of projects that came before the city. I don’t know if these boards, and they are volunteer boards, simply have the time and sometimes the expertise to help everyone that needs helping.

Personally I think that as citizens we’ve been spoiled. It seems to me that before Nick Cracknell arrived as Planning Director, when a project came before these boards, if the neighbors complained, the project didn’t happen and if there were no complaints the project was a go. (This may be simplistic, but it seems as if that was the case.)

In our project, in our neighborhood (see previous post,) in a “pre-Cracknell era” the project as it was originally proposed never would have happened, because the neighborhood was unanimous in feeling that we just didn’t like it. But we had Mr. Cracknell to give us information and act as a go-between between the neighbors and the developer.

What probably would have happened in a “pre-Cracknell era” is that as neighbors we would have killed the project. And then the developer would have come back with something else, which he could have worked within the zoning codes. But the project would have been much less appropriate and much, much worse (many examples of that in Newburyport, Massachusetts.)

So who is here to help your average citizen figure out what to do and help them negotiate with developers when they arrive in their back yard, so to speak?

Everyone tells me that Julie LaBlanche, in the Planning Office is great. I’ve only met her once. I’ve never worked with her on a project. But when people ask me whom to turn to (the alleged in-fill project at 30 Marlborough Street for example) I always suggest that they call Julie (The Planning Office phone number is 978-465-4400.)

But people really feel at a loss. And if anyone has any ideas, please let us all know. I for one don’t want to go back to the “pre-Cracknell” way of doing things. As a citizen I’ve learned too much. I know now that it is possible to help your average resident get a “win-win” situation when a developer shows up in their neighborhood.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

(Editor’s note: Spelling correction, it’s Julie LaBranche, not Julie LaBlanche who is the City Planner in the Newburyport Planning Office.)

Newburyport, An Experience With a Neighborhood Design Review

Ulrika Gerth did two terrific articles on “design review” for the Newburyport Current. I think I’ve finally calmed down enough after reading those articles to actually be able to write about the subject.

On a personal note, our neighborhood had an experience where “design review” became really important. (This was in the good old days of the once Planning Director, Nick Cracknell.)

We had a developer who wanted to redo a garage into a one family home.

The neighborhood was unanimous in feeling that the first design did not work. We were also unanimous in the feeling that the second design did not work as well.

Luckily, Nick Cracknell was still around and I got in touch with him ASAP. It turned out that the project was not within the zoning codes, so we as a neighborhood had the luxury of having a whole lot of say in what could actually go there. (Because, we had the luxury of killing the project if the developer didn’t work with us.)

(I did talk to a number of people about what would happen if we actually did kill the project, and the overwhelming advice was, “don’t,” because the developer would come back with something else, and he’d come back angry. Very good advice. I’m definitely passing that one on.)

As neighbors we were very specific about what we wanted, it was down to earth, common sense stuff. And yes it was Nick Cracknell who took an hour or so and drove around Newburyport looking at houses with the developer. And he and the developer came back to the neighbors with a “tweak” for the second design, which made the all the difference. And as a result (I have no idea if the developer was happy) the final house looks very nice. Something I believe the neighborhood is proud of.

(Nick Cracknell also made sure that a brick sidewalk got thrown into the deal as well as a very nice looking driveway.)

So this turned out to be an impromptu neighborhood “design review.” But thank goodness we had the opportunity, otherwise, no offense to the developer, but good grief, it wouldn’t have looked so good. And it wouldn’t have been as easy, btw, (that’s just my opinion…I think it would be the rest of the neighborhood’s opinion as well) for the house to sell.

As a result of an experience in my own backyard, so to speak, I’ve become an extra big fan of “design review” for the city of Newburyport, Massachusetts.

Am I for a balanced design review for projects in the city? You bettcha. One that includes a member of the planning board, the historical commission, and the Planning Director – oh, yes.

Do I like the idea of having a design review board made up of developers and architects, and the developer gets to pick which architect and developer he or she would like? Not on your life.

No offense (and I think this has been said before,) but what a recipe for complete disaster.

And do I think that the fight over a design review board, should it exist and who will be on it, is really, really important? Yup. And do I trust the present Newburyport Planning Board to do the right thing? Yes, I most certainly do.

And I would really, really like (what wishful thinking this is) is for developers and architects and the mayor just to stay out of the Newburyport Planning Board’s way, thank you very, very much. Wouldn’t that be a nice one. Wow.

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

Lack of Expansion Towards the South End of Newburyport

Hi,

As a South End Newburyport resident, I have often hoped to see more development moving toward the South End of Newburyport along Water Street. I have noticed however, that there seems to be an imaginary line drawn at Federal Street, perhaps due to zoning, which prevents any restaurant from moving any further south beyond this area.

My mother and grandparents grew up in Newburyport, and being in my 40’s, I have seen the tremendous growth of the 70’s, 80’s and even the 90’s. During this last decade, however, the growth seems to have slowed to a snails pace, especially in the area south of Federal Street, all the way to the Newbury line.

I recall the days when we had local establishments in the South End such as Tony Baker’s Market, and Chargrises Deli (sp?) along Water Street, as well as the Richdale up on High Street. We had the Sportsmans Lodge out on Plum Island as well as the Beachcomber.

Can you tell me why there is such a lack of any restaurant type of establishment down our end of the City? I can understand the desire to keep the neighborhood/residential feel to that end of town, but I think that could be accomplished while at the same time adding some sort of local restaurant similar to 10 Center Street or the Grog.

Also, can you tell me why there does not seem to be much interest in continuing to develop the waterfront further East (South) of the Starboard Galley? I had heard at one time that the waterfront development was going to continue all along the coast beyond the waste treatment plant and right up to the seawall. Has that idea died in committee?

Finally, can you tell me if there are any plans or if any developer has purchased the land yet previously occupied by the Beachcomber? That was such a great, eclectic place to go, and the location seems ideal for something similar to take it’s place.

Thank you for any information you can provide or please pass this on to anyone who can provide some information to me.

David A. Perocchi, 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

Newburyport, A Sense of Unease

I have this sense of unease in a “post Cracknell world.”

I read about the pre-application site plan review for the proposed project on 81-83 Storey Avenue in the Undertoad Blog (Lots of information in that post on the project along with a picture of the submitted conceptual drawings -which to me are very unnerving) and the Newburyport Daily News.

I’m glad and not surprised to read that the Planning Board was not overly impressed — no “letter of support.” Thank goodness we now have the “site plan review” in place. Whew.

(For the “power group” as Harvey Beit has referred to them — this is why we need the “site plan review,” get it.)

I read on the Undertoad Blog about our “friendly” developer, Bernie Christopher, who has violated the special permit granted him by the Newburyport Planning Board for 52 Ferry Road. Lovely.

I think about the flooding that has occurred around where Mr. Moak is now thinking of allowing the 40B project to go ahead on Low Street and shudder.

And I hear rumors of the possibility of a large piece of “infill” property at 30 Malborough Street that has reportedly been sold to a developer (there’s already a dumpster there.) The property is right across from Mayor John Moak and extends all the way back a block to the street behind it. Reportedly Mr. Bill O’Flaherty has been seen walking the property. Once I wouldn’t have cared about a rumor like that, now it makes me feel ill.

I don’t know what the status of the Wheelwright property on High Street is. I’m feeling gloomy today. I’m not optimistic.

In a “Cracknell world” I would have know that the Planning Director would have been right “on top” of the proposed 81-83 Storey Avenue project. He already had a solution to the 40B Low Street project. And I would be calling him ASAP about the property on Marlborough Street. And he was already negotiating for the city concerning the Wheelwright property on High Street.

The city feels un-moored to me, and I don’t think it’s just because of all the rain and the flooding.

I am glad that the Undertoad Blog is reporting (with pictures) all these proposed projects and violations by developers. It helps to have an informed public.

But there is just so much stuff and it just seems so overwhelming. And I would imagine that the Newburyport Planning Board and the Newburyport Zoning Board of Appeals must feel a great deal of weight.

To juggle all these things would take the energy and drive of our former Planning Director.

And it still begs the question, either Mayor John Moak just doesn’t get it, or equally as bad, he just doesn’t care.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

Putting on an Activist’s Hat

Hi Mary,

You mentioned you might be ready to put on your activist hat. I’ve just dusted off mine, and am wondering what one issue could we rally around that would speak to the overall problem, and in some way demonstrate how the majority feels about the direction of our city. There seems to be plenty of people writing about their concerns about over development, the erosion of our city’s character and the void left by Nick Cracknell’s removal.

What do you think of this idea? Recently, the citizens of Nantucket voted for the adoption of a Formula Store Article which essentially sets aside a percentage of their downtown area to be chain store free.

This type of initiative has several appealing aspects. One, it speaks to the desire to maintain the character of our downtown area. Two, it supports the valuable efforts and contributions of our local businesses. Three, it focuses on a single issue that many folks of different persuasions could get behind. I have in mind the person who wrote about the Hummer citing downtown, the young man who wrote about selling out the city and the Around the North Shore blogger who is monitoring the Tracy Street development.

I’m not proposing a love fest here, but surely there’s just so much grousing we can do. At some point I feel I need to take some positive action to dispel this feeling of helplessness.

So with this post I’m taking my first action. My next action will be to drop a letter in the mail to the woman who started the initiative in Nantucket. I’m going to ask her:

a) How did she get the initiative started?
b) Who wrote the bylaw?
c) Who in state government did she contact to help her through the process?
d) How many people worked on the initiative and what roles did they play?

My final action for today is to invite you and anyone else who would like to help with this initiative to contact me. My email address is: alawless@comcast.net. Please put in the subject line “I want to help,” that way my spam control won’t delete your message.

” The art of living is always to make a good thing out of a bad thing.” E.F. Schumacher, economist (1911-1977)

Allyson Lawless, Newburyport

Newburyport, The Clipper City Rail Trail

The City of Newburyport has scheduled a public meeting on Thursday, May 18, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at Newburyport City Hall to discuss preliminary plans for the design of Newburyport’s Clipper City Rail Trail along the old rail corridor owned by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA).

In 2005, the City secured a 99-year license from the MBTA to establish a rail trail along this corridor from the commuter rail station to the Merrimack River.

Envisioned first over 30 years ago and referenced most recently in the 2001 Master Plan, 2003 Waterfront Strategic Plan, and 2005 Open Space Plan, the Clipper City Rail Trail has been a priority for the City for many years.

The multi-use pathway will provide an attractive and convenient off-road corridor for residents to walk, run, or bicycle for both recreation and non-motorized transportation purposes.

Establishing the rail trail will discourage dumping and other undesirable activities that tend to occur on abandoned land.

Play equipment and seating areas will be installed along certain portions of the trail. As a new and substantial public space, the trail corridor will provide an expansion of the recreational opportunities available to the community.

The Newburyport Rail Trail will connect the train station to the North End neighborhood and Cashman Park. Eventually, the trail will connect with the downtown’s waterfront and a larger regional network.

Using state, federal, and private grants, the City has recently hired Vollmer Associates, a landscape architecture and engineering firm, for the design phase of this mile-plus trail.

The City hopes to complete the design during 2006, depending upon the review timeframe of the Massachusetts Highway Department. To date, $1.344 million in federal and state construction funding is programmed for this project in the five-year Regional Transportation Improvement Program.

Newburyport’s Planning Office can be contacted for more information.
Please contact Geordie Vining, Senior Project Manager at the Office of Planning & Development, 978.465.4400.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

(Editor’s Note: This was sent in by the Newburyport Planning Office as a press release. It has been “tweaked” slightly to make it easier to read on the Newburyport Political Blog. And I would like to thank Geordie Vining very much for keeping us all informed.)

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, 40B Housing, the Woodman Property

I think I may have finally calmed down enough to comment on Mayor John Moak’s decision to go ahead with a 40B housing project on the Woodman property on Low Street in Newburyport. The property is across the street from the shopping plaza that contains Shaws.

Where to even begin.

A) Newburyport’s Planning Office, under the leadership of Nick Cracknell (now axed by Mayor John Moak) had come up with a solution. 10 dwellings that would include affordable housing, a compromise between a huge development and open space. Yet another one of the many Nick Craknell win-win situations.

B) Mayor John Moak throws out that solution in favor of a 40B housing project. Paired down from, 150 to 100 units, we think.

C) This decision takes place without the Planning Director being part of the decision making process (The Undertoad Blog, April 14, 2006.) Talk about hubris.

D) This not only shows an incredibly lack of respect and contempt (The Undertoad Blog, April 2006) for soon to be gone Planning Director, Nick Cracknell, but it also shows an incredible lack of respect and contempt for all the boards and committees that helped make this very thoughtful compromise a possibility.

E) The realtor involved is Dick Sullivan, former mayor and major Moak supporter, part of the “good old boy” network (The Undertoad Blog, April 14,2006.) My feeling is that it is always a good thing to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. The fact that this has the “who cares about anyone else, I’m taking care of my own, thank you very much,” thing written all over it, drives me absolutely nuts.

F) What in the world is this 150-100 unit project going to do to this particular area? This is huge folks. How about the traffic in that area, which is congested already. The burden on the new Low Street sewer system that’s just been put into place. And no, I don’t buy this empty-nester thing. Obviously families will move into a complex like the one proposed. One can only imagine how that will affect our school system.

G) I feel utterly helpless and wonder if it will ever be possible to get through to Mayor John Moak. Well, now I’ve worked myself into such a state again over this particular issue, that I’m going to stop writing this particular blog post for now. And I’m going to try and calm down and maybe try and address this issue at a later date.

H) And no, I do not think that Mayor John Moak has any time to “turn it around,” thank you very much. I think this is just one more large, very large nail in John Moak’s political coffin.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

Newburyport, Development and Greed

I have this horrible feeling, having gotten a phone call from a developer (see earlier post) that developers actually are reading this blog to get information about Newburyport.

I figured it would basically be a local readership, but apparently not. According to the email I received, I am apparently “reaching the masses.” This is not necessarily a good thing.

So I was thinking, Ok, what if I was a developer and I was reading the Newburyport Political Blog, what would it sound like from their point of view.

Well, we have Mr. Karp as a landlord, not exactly small potatoes, so that must mean it’s a pretty good place to invest in. They were picking up that I wasn’t exactly too happy with the mayor from a policy point of view. And if you read the Newburyport Political Blog, there is a lot of chit, chat about how the mayor sure does sound like he is pro-developer. And we have a very pro-active, pro “smart growth” planning director who’s been fired.

When I think about the Newburyport Political Blog from that perspective, Newburyport must sound like a developer’s playground. No wonder there was a (most probably a lot more than one) developer from out of state sniffing around our small, historic, seaport city. Makes me feel sort of ill.

This brings me to the subject of greed. How many people in Newburyport are there out there, if a Target came to town, if they could make mucho money, would jump at it, integrity of Newburyport be damned. Of course it would be called tax base first, being fiscally conservative, Newburyport’s best interest at heart, jobs for one and for all.

Money, lots and lots of money, does very strange things to folks. We’ve all seen it happen again and again. Yes?

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

Newburyport, Developers

On Thursday (yesterday) someone called me asking me about property around Storey Avenue. I kept asking, “Why are you calling me?” “Why are you calling me?” And after I stopped saying that for about 10 times, because I really could not imagine why in the world they wanted to talk to me, they told me it was because of the “wealth of information” on the Newburyport Political Blog.

Later Thursday evening after I received an email from them and checked out their website, it turned out that this was a commercial real estate broker, and they happen to specialize in large chain stores. This is not exactly who I thought the readership of the Newburyport Political Blog would be.

(Note to developers, for goodness sakes do not call me for information. It makes me very angry and I am completely weirded out.)

However, after I stopped saying “why are you calling me?” “why are you calling me?” I finally said, “Good grief, the person you want to talk to is our Planning Director, Nick Cracknell. He has knowledge and information, not me. And leave an ASAP message with the Planning Office.”

And when I called the Planning Office to give them a “heads-up”, Mr. Cracknell was in and already talking to them. Thank goodness.

The barbarians are at the gates folks, to use Jim Roy’s phrase, and Mr. Cracknell is on his way out.

From what I could make out these people wanted information about our mayor, John Moak, basically just how receptive he would be to their company. (Why they were calling me is a mystery.) In particular they kept talking about the Woodman property.

No I never want to talk to these people again. But if you are reading the Newburyport Political Blog, this is not Stamford Connecticut, and no we do not want anything like a Target down on Storey Avenue. Good grief. And you know what, I have every confidence, that our mayor John Moak and the entire Newburyport City Council would agree.

This is Newburyport, Massachusetts. We want to keep the historic and natural integrity of our small New England city. We have a Walmart in Seabrook, New Hampshire. We do not want anything close to that here.

So, thank goodness Nick Cracknell was around. But heads-up folks, if these folks are calling me a blogger, with a baby blog no less, who else are they trying to get in touch with. And how many others are out there like them who may be thinking the same thing?

The goal of the Newburyport Political Blog is not exactly to help developers, especially those who aren’t interested in “smart growth.” So, leave us alone. Stay in Stamford, Connecticut. Go away. We do not want you here. At least I don’t.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

Newburyport, Design Review

I’m obsessing here. I’m obsessing about Mayor John Moak’s remark in the Newburyport Daily News, April 11, 2006, about Newburyport’s planning process, “Things need to move along faster and not get bogged down in design.”

Well this remark addresses is one of my concerns about this administration. Nick Cracknell, as Newburyport’s Planning Director would review projects that came before the Planning Board to make sure that they adhered to the Newburyport Master Plan. In my mind, this was a great thing. Better to err on the side super safe than have a laissez faire approach to what happens building wise in Newburyport, Massachusetts.

Now there has been some talk in the wind that Mayor Moak would like a design review board made up of just architects and landscape architects. The in the wind part is that there would be a group, and out of the group the mayor would choose which ones would review which project and then the person who has the project reviewed would pay the reviewers. Now this is in the wind, but it’s in the wind, floating around enough to have some credence.

If there is any truth to any of this, let’s just say, I’m worried.

Because this would give architects and developers a green light and no check and balances, and there would be absolutely no advocacy for “smart growth.”

And this approach would be completely at odds with the Planning Board’s approach of having a balanced Design Review Board, one that includes a member of the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), a member of the Historical Commission and including the Planning Director would also work for me. This version of the Design Review Board would have the Newburyport Master Plan as its guide. This is a good thing. Not only is this a good thing, this is a very, very good thing.

Yes, this approach might “bog” down the design process, but it would also help insure the integrity of Newburyport, Massachusetts, something I believe its citizens want in a major way.

The Design Review Board will come up for a public hearing in front of the Planning Board and I believe it will also have to be voted on by the Newburyport City Council.

I’m hoping that the whole issue of design review will be addressed in the Newburyport Current or discussed in the interview that Mr. Ryan had with Newburyport’s departing Planning Director Nick Cracknell. And I’ll have some more facts. That way either I can relax and breath a sigh of relief or obsess some more.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

Newburyport, Massachusetts, Doug Locy on Nick Cracknell

I believe April 7th was an unfortunate day for future of our City. When I arrived at the Planning Office that Friday morning to sign some letters I saw Nick Cracknell just after he had been told by the Mayor that he would not be reappointed. Although I kind of expected this from the Mayor based on his apparent commitment to those who supported his campaign, I had hoped that maybe reason would have prevailed and he would have reappointed Nick. Recognizing the knowledge and expertise that Nick provides and the City’s many pending development plans you would think the Mayor could have managed to have resolved whatever differences remained. But that was not the case. Some folks, mostly developers I assume, will applaud this decision but I believe the Mayor has done the people of Newburyport a great disservice. He’s removed a dedicated and visionary leader of a progressive Planning Office who only had our City’s best interest in mind. When I had questioned Nick about his future plans he said he had not seriously considered them to date. I guess he felt that whatever problem Mayor Moak had with him might have been resolved during his three month trial period. On Friday morning Nick’s only concern that he expressed to me was the impact this might have on his staff, and how to best transition the significant workload to his successor, whoever that might be.

Some people I’ve been told felt Nick had too great an influence on the Planning Board and its decisions. If that’s true it’s only because the Planning Board and Nick Cracknell had shared a common purpose; to insure that proposed applications that come before our Board comply with city zoning and our rules and regulations and are consistent with the intent of the City’s Master Plan; and to ensure that all zoning amendments we might draft and propose to the City Council are based upon recommendations of the Master Plan, Best Practices and public comment. Only then do we represent the City’s best interest. The Planning Board will continue to follow that purpose. Mayor Moak may have goals that are more directed at faster execution and preserving private property rights. These are reasonable and honorable objectives but must be considered within the context of delivering a quality product. In that regard we will continue to work with applicants to achieve an outcome that benefits not just the applicant but also the City and fulfills our obligation to preserve the historic and natural character of its neighborhoods. As a voluntary and independent Board we are very willing to work with any Mayor and his or her administration. However, this Board, like Mr. Cracknell, will not sacrifice its integrity or its obligation to act in the best interest of the community.

Doug Locy, Newburyport

(Editor’s note: Doug Locy is the Chair of the Newburyport Planning Board. It is a great honor for the Newburyport Political Blog to have a post by Mr. Locy. I extend my own admiration and gratitude to the Newburyport Planning Board for its integrity and diligent hard work, and hope that the people of Newburyport, Massachusetts will do everything they can to support it.)

Newburyport, That Other Big Appointment

Let’s obsess about Nick Cracknell, Newburyport’s City Planner for a moment.

There is a month before Mr. Cracknell’s extension expires. If Mayor John Moak is going to fire him, does he already have a suitable nominee in place? One who is already up to speed on the unbelievable amount of projects that are being dealt with by the Newburyport Planning Office? One that the people of Newburyport, Massachusetts will be pleased with? One that won’t cost the City of Newburyport, Massachusetts any delays and waste the city’s time and money?

If Mayor John Moak does not reappoint Nick Cracknell there will be almost no hope or just downright no hope at all of getting anything done. Things are bad now, with the response of the people of Newburyport to his axing of Mary Lou Supple and the unsuccessful nomination of Byron Matthews as her replacement. As I’ve said before this will be “bubkes” (Yiddish for “nothing”) compared to the axing of Nick Cracknell.

The boards and committees that Nick Cracknell works with wouldn’t exactly feel conciliatory or deferential towards Mayor Moak. The people of Newburyport would torment him.

The people of Newburyport would definitely want the Newburyport City Council, if Nick Cracknell was actually reappointed, to pass the nomination on both the first and second readings.

There was one “progressive” City Councilor (the only “progressive” City Councilor) who voted for Byron Matthews. This surprised me. Surprised a lot of people. Quite out of character. Won’t be forgotten.

I would imagine, as I’ve said before, that if Nick Cracknell’s name actually does come before the Newburyport City Council (what a happy day that would be,) that the citizens of Newburyport, Massachusetts will be typing away at their emails and picking up their phones.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

A Big Thank You to the Newburyport City Council

I thought the Newburyport City Council was incredibly courageous on Monday night, March 27, 2006, not to accept Byron Matthews, Mayor John Moak’s appointment for the Newburyport Redevelopment Authority board on the first reading. Wow. Good for them.

I am glad we have checks and balances in our city government and that someone is listening to what the people of Newburyport have to say. And they are saying it in a very loud way.

I am a little flabbergasted that Mayor John Moak would even think of submitting Byron Matthews name again (the Newburyport Daily News, March 28, 2006.) Even on a federal level, it’s understood that when an appointment is turned down, the appointee is not proposed one more time. “No” is a complete sentence.

And a lack of ”politicking” on the mayor’s part is not the reason that Byron Matthews was turned down. I am just amazed that Mayor John Moak does not realize that. In fact, I find that to be a little scary.

“Politicking” after this fiasco would be to sit down with the Newburyport Redevelopment Authority, as requested by its chair, Janet Marcus, instead of ignoring them and not even bothering to reply to their letter. Finding out what they would recommend. It certainly wouldn’t hurt to sit down with all the City Councilors, to meet them face to face and ask for their input as well. And then after having all that information, when finally coming up with a “thoughtful” nomination, then contacting each of the Newburyport City Councilors, thank them for their input, and discuss the decision that has been made.

One could call this “politicking,” or one could call it simple courtesy, respect and common sense. Politics is about people.

I can tell you, right now however, what many would recommend, and that would be to reappoint Mary Lou Supple. There is nothing more powerful than acknowledging mistakes that have been made and a sincere “I am sorry.”

I would also like to thank Ben Laing for his post on March 28, 2006 on short-term solutions at the expense of the character and integrity of Newburyport, Massachusetts. I think he articulated what many people are thinking and feeling.

And one of my concerns, with Ben Laing’s post in mind, is that obviously Byron Matthews is a very strong influence on John Moak. This last appointment and how it has been handled demonstrates that there is no doubt about that.

And I think the points on planning and development or lack thereof made by Tom Ryan the editor of the Undertoad (see earlier post,) during the Byron Matthew’s administration, should give us all pause.

These are definitely at odds with the kind of “smart growth” that Nick Cracknell has been advocating for and working towards for the last four years. All I can say is keep up the loud noise on the Nick Cracknell front. The Newburyport City Council cannot help us on this one, but let’s not give up trying.

From my point of view there appears to be no wise men that John Moak is listening to. However, there is something to be said for the “squeaky wheel.” Folks, we better squeak a whole lot.

(Editor’s note: I have been reminded that the Newburyport City Council approves the appointment of the Newburyport City Planner. If Nick Cracknell does get reappointed by Mayor John Moak, I would imagine that there would be very heavy lobbying on the part of the citizens of Newburyport, Massachusetts to have that appointment approved by the Newburyport City Council.)

Mary Eaton, Newburyport