Month: June 2006

So I’ve been thinking for me, what would constitute good or bad infill?

I walk all over Newburyport, especially the South End, and there are examples of infill everywhere. You can see the different additions and alterations that people have made over the years and centuries to different houses, and I for the most part, I like them, because they tell the story of the people who not only lived there, but who have lived in the City of Newburyport.

You can tell when someone needed a mudroom or often an addition on the back for a kitchen.

I know the house that I lived in when I first lived here had two additions put on sometime during its lifetime. One, a kitchen at the back and a sunroom that was put in on the North side of the house for some reason. Why a sunroom on the North side of a house who knows, except that that’s where they must have felt they had the most room.

And, it was a Victorian replica of a Greek Revival house, tin ceilings and all. I loved it.

And at one point in the neighborhood where I live bay windows must have been all the rage. There’s even a very old colonial with a bay window. For me it all adds to the “patina” of the City.

So when does infill, additions alterations become “bad” infill. Well quite aside from the density and added mass and bulk thing…I think for me infill crosses the line when it overwhelms or obliterates the story of the people who have gone before. No matter what their story was, good, bad or indifferent, it is still part of Newburyport’s story.

When the citizen’s of Newburyport fought so hard to save High Street, they wanted to keep the “patina” of the road and the shape of the road because it told the story of all the people who have come before us.

So I think that’s why in part I have such a visceral reaction when someone demolishes a home and puts a mega mansion up in its place. It seems to dishonor the past. Or when an addition to an existing home totally overwhelms the existing house and is out of character with the neighborhood, it seems to disrespect the people who have lived here before us.

It’s why (not to harp on this one more time, but to harp on this one more time) I have such difficulty with the Five Cents Savings Bank demolishing One Temple Street. It wiped out the story of all kinds of amazing human beings.

So I think that the emotional “trigger point” for me is when a project doesn’t add to Newburyport’s story, but demolishes or overpowers that story. Because I think every story, no matter how small or how big, is part of the whole. And it would be a good idea, in my mind, if each piece gradually added to what would ideally be the organic and intrinsic growth of our small city.

Mary Eaton
Newburyport

Well, it’s a good thing there is a disclaimer on the “Guidelines” page of the Newburyport Political Blog. Good grief.

I think that I’ve always said I’m on a learning curve here and that I will and have made lots of mistakes.

Well, a clarification on the “Special Permit” thing and the Towle Overlay District thing is in order. I’m pretty sure that I have this straight (zoning is very complicated.)

This is how I now understand it. The Towle Overlay District is an “Ordinance” not a “Special Permit.” It is an actual change to the Newburyport zoning laws. That is why it was voted on and passed by the Newburyport City Council. It is called (I believe) the “Towle Complex Redevelopment Overlay District” or TCROD – I’m just going to call it the “Towle Overlay District.”

I believe a formal application for a “Special Permit” needs to be filed in order to be able to apply the “Towle Overlay District.”

And when I wrote the post, it was my understanding that no formal application had yet been made.

The Towle Overlay District was created to help create the best possible project for the City of Newburyport. However, if the property was sold, the new buyer could build within the existing zoning laws, “by-right” and not use the Towle Overlay District at all. Hopefully that is never going to happen.

I very much hope that I got this clarification right.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

(Editor’s note: To make it easier to find the Newburyport Political Blog I have created a web address that will forward you to the main page of the blog. Hopefully it will be easy to remember. It is www.newburyportblog.com. I’ve also put the link at the side of the blog. More on this in a later post.)

There appears to be some confusion about my recent post on “Special Permits.” It is my understanding that some people might feel that I could have been implying that anyone could be granted a Special Permit by the Newburyport Planning Board, no problemo…

Well, that’s not what I was trying to say at all, so let me try and clarify here.

What I had in the back of my mind was the revision of the zoning ordinance that I keep calling the “Infill Ordinance,” that the Newburyport Planning Board is hoping to reintroduce to residents and the Newburyport City Council.

When it was introduce the last time it was not passed by the Newburyport City Council. I am very much in favor of this new revision or the “Infill Ordinance” and I would like to see it get passed by the Newburyport City Council this time around.

Last time, the revision to the ordinance concerned two family houses. Each side was allowed a 550 square foot addition before requiring a special permit.

As I understood it, this was to insure that developers didn’t take advantage of two family homes by building a large addition that was out of scale with the existing home and the neighborhood at large. The project on Water Street is an excellent example.

It was not meant to discourage your average homeowner from a reasonable addition or alteration.

However, I think that a lot of people understood the new amendment to the zoning law to mean that if you wanted to have an addition or alteration that was more than 550 square feet, you were not allowed to do so.

What I was trying to explain in the recent post was that for the average homeowner, who owned a two family house and wanted to build something larger than 550 square feet, that they could still do that. That going in front of the Newburyport Planning Board and discussing a special permit should not discourage people from going ahead with their plans. That the Newburyport Planning Board was very reasonable when it came to reasonable requests and there was no reason for your average resident to be intimidated.

And it is my opinion that he Newburyport Planning Board does not give every developer the “go ahead,” no questions asked — quite to the contrary. I feel that the Newburyport Planning Board is very conscientious when it comes to development in Newburyport, Massachusetts. After all it is the Newburyport Planning Board that has and is still trying to change the existing zoning laws to try and prevent inappropriate development in Newburyport from happening.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

I would like to thank the mystery person who puts the Agendas and Minutes (especially the Agendas and Minutes of the Newburyport Planning Board, the Newburyport Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) too) on the website of the City of Newburyport.

And also a big thank you to those people who make sure this wonderful mystery person gets those minutes and agendas.

It makes for a transparent process and an informed public (that is if they want to be informed.)

You can find the Minutes and Agendas by going to the website of the City of Newburyport (that link is on the side of the Newburyport Political Blog.) On the sidebar to the left on the City’s website press “Boards & Comm’s.” There is a a link that says “Newburyport Planning Board Meeting Minutes, Agendas & Public Hearing Notices.” Press on that link.

Then there will be folders for “Agendas,” “Minutes” and one for “Public Hearings.” Press the folder you are interested in. The Minutes or Agendas are listed by years. Press the year that you want. Then there will then be a list of documents. And press the document that you would like to see.

It is a wonderful way to be informed about what happened at a meeting if you are unable to be at the meeting itself.

My understanding is every attempt is made to put up the Agendas before the meetings take place. So, it is also a great way to find out what will be taking place at a Newburyport Planning Board meeting (or a ZBA meeting for that matter.) Especially if there is something that either might pertain to you personally or something that you may be concerned about.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

One of the things I like about blogging the Newburyport Political Blog is that I get to learn about a whole lot of stuff. Take this Special Permit thing. (See all sorts of earlier posts on “Special Permits.”) Who would have ever guessed that I would care about, much less be interested in a Special Permit? Come on, who cares? Special Permits?

Well, now I actually care about Special Permits of all things. Who knew?

Frankly, I thought if you wanted to build something and had to get a “Special Permit,” well, that was the “kiss of death.” Why bother even trying? Why bother going in front of all those scary boards and stuff. Why not just skip the whole thing?

What I’ve learned is those “boards” aren’t actually so scary. The Newburyport Planning Board (that’s where you go and get that Special Permit) isn’t made up of a bunch of zealots who will tear your head off if you go in front of them. No, the Newburyport Planning Board is made up of some very thoughtful, fair human beings (I might even go as far as saying as some of them might just be downright kind.) They are just regular folks who give an incredible amount of time and energy to the community and are not power hungry, control freaks.

Three of the members of the Newburyport Planning Board have actually sent in posts to the Newburyport Political Blog. And if you use the search box on the side of the blog, you can find them. (Put in “Newburyport Planning Board member.”)

One of the interesting tidbits I’ve learned about a Special Permit is that just because a Special Permit is granted, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it has been used.

Someone might get a Special Permit and then not use it right away. How about that one for weird?

For example, it is my understanding that no application has been formally filed for the Zoning Overlay for the Towle Property (see earlier post.) And this was a major Special Permit. This Special Permit for a Zoning Overlay was so special that it had to be passed by the Newburyport City Council. And they passed it too. Happily, no less.

So, this could mean that someone else could come in and buy that property and not use that Special Permit for the Towle Zoning Overlay at all.

Wow. I thought that one was really interesting.

Mary Eaton, Newburyport

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