Hypocrite!

There I said it. Beat you to the punch. No, I couldn't make last night's meeting on the senior center so I missed the presentation of every option. Apologies for that, but I do what I can.

I have some thoughts on the Daily News article, but I'll save them for later as I've got a ton of work to do. Civil eyewitness accounts of the meeting would be most welcome.

Thanks.

Senior Center Meeting Tonight

I'll try to be there with my way overdue library book, but I've stated my piece. The gauntlet is thrown down for you folks who have real concerns about the plan.

6:30 p.m.

Plan Eh

First, let me commend friend/neighbor/councilor Ed Cameron for making such progress on the senior center. Just over a year into his first term, and we've got a site, schematics and a fund-raising effort underway. He didn't do it all himself, of course, but getting to this point was a political priority of his.

He's also done a fine job promoting the upcoming hearing, Tuesday night at the libary.

Now, I gotta say, I hate the stated favorite Plan E.

I wish I could publish the photo, but you'll have to make due with the chimps. But if you check yesterday's article on the Daily News or click on this PDF (page 3) you'll see what I'm talking about.

I still think the Senior Center would be better situated downtown, and I like the idea of including it as part of a mixed use parking garage, like the one the News reported on here.

But if that's not going happen I feel the senior center shouldn't completely dominate Cushing Park[ing lot.] I'd envisioned it taking perhaps one-third, maybe half of the parcel. But I I'd prefer to see half the park remain just that.

The planning director acknowledged the plan calls for more parking than might be necessary.

Planning Director Sean Sullivan also said that version, Plan E, "appears to
be the most user-friendly."

Plan E, one of six versions contained in a feasibility study available online, calls for 75 parking spaces, a drop-off area, access from three different streets and a landscape buffer between the structure and the neighboring residential streets, Sullivan said.

Sullivan said he believes 75 parking spaces would be "a maximum number" and likely all would only be used if a specific event was occurring. Sullivan said
he envisions 30 full spaces would be more typical on a regular day.

Perhaps the extra parking is a nod to residents who need someplace to stow their cars during a snow emergency, but I'm not sure such a thing will still be allowed.

As I stated earlier, tuck it in the corner of Washington and Kent, blend it into the neighborhood. Series E, as it stands, would fit better in Byfield, West Newbury or some other pastoral community.

I'll try to attend the Tuesday night hearing, 6:30 p.m. at the library. You should as well.

I'm probably infringing on some copyright, but

Keep the Trains

I'm completely on board (get it! train reference) with the Mary Baker Eaton and the Masked Preservationist campaign to blast the MBTA and elected officials with messages of support for the commuter rail (specifically the weekened commuter rail line.) Please click on one of the links and follow the directions.

The train service to Newburyport is pathetic, but at least it's there. I do like the city and chamber's plan to use the train as a source of tourists (i.e. business) but more personally, my family is able to get by on one car because the train is available to us. We should be empowering all people to drive less, not more.

Toppans Lane Question

I'm confused.

To be fair, this is a generally chronic condition. But it flared up last week when I read the news the the planning board rejected the proposed development off of Toppans Lane aka the Rindler Estate.

First, a few statements:

• I have no desire to see the property developed but I can't say it's development really affects me directly one way or the other. I had no idea the parcel existed until the project was submitted. (I'm sure this opens the door for some pokes about my being new to town.)
• While, I would prefer it stayed open. people do have a right to develop their property as laws allow.
• I'm not sure this would be the most effective use of CPA dollars (because it doesn't seem to be a high profile spot) but I'd be willing to hear talk about buying it.
• The only information I'm working with is what appeared in the Daily News, and the article was relatively brief. Also, it appears as if Katie Farrell didn't attend the meeting (same night as the council.) So she followed up with Dan Bowie sometime after the meeting. My point--the details I desire aren't available to me. I hope someone reads this and fills in the blanks.

Now, here is where my new bout of confusion erupts. Yes, it's great chest-thumping theater to have the planning board rejects a confrontational project. Those opposing the project feel their voices have been heard, and they're right. But rejection isn't as easy as it looks.

I had the pleasure of serving on the planning board of my previous town, and angry abutters regularly asked us to reject projects out of hand, even if they fit into town bylaws. Those abutters had every right to ask, and I couldn't blame them for preferring the lovely patch of woods abutting their property to a new gas station. But the law is the law, and it doesn't give the planning board much leeway.

Bottom line, if a planning board rejects a proposal it must give very precise reasons why. A board typically can't say the project is simply too dense (if the bylaws permit the density) or the designs of the home aren't suitable (again if the bylaws don't stipulate design.) If I'm correct, any rejection must be accompanied by a detailed list--chapter and verse--of where the project fell short.

But that's not even the worst of it. According to most subdivision laws, including ours, the detailed rejections effectively gives the proponent a punch list. They only need to fix what the board objected to and the proposal is good to go. From the city's bylaws, section 5:7. The board shall either approve, modify or ...

disapprove the plan, stating in detail wherein the plan does not conform to the rules and regulation ofthe Board or the recommendations of the Board of Health. Such disapproval SHALL be revoked if the plan is amended so that it conforms to the rules or regulations or recommendations. After a public hearing, the board SHALL approve the amended plan.

As the bylaws state, the board SHALL--not MAY--but SHALL approve the plan if all problems are fixed. This is why rejecting plans out of hand is so difficult. Boards can't just say no. First, they'll probably be sued. Second, if the board isn't very careful they're effectively giving a developer a To Do list and guaranteeing approval.

So why did the board reject the proposal? I'm still not sure. From the article...

NEWBURYPORT — The Planning Board unanimously rejected a proposal by Great Woods Post and Beam Co. to develop the Rindler estate off Toppans Lane.

Planning Board Chairman Dan Bowie said the board voted Monday to deny a request to continue a public hearing on the proposal, after the applicant did not present any further information or revisions to the initial plan filed in January.

Great Woods Post and Beam Co. filed an application requesting permission to build 20 single-family house lots on 11 acres of land. The property, which belongs to the Rindler family, extends back near the new medical center that is being built by Anna Jaques Hospital and abuts the hospital parking lot.

The move by the Planning Board this week effectively ended all discussion on that set of plans, but the developer could return with a new proposal, Bowie said, and indicated that would likely happen.

First, three months doesn't really strike me as a lot of time as a planning board, but so be it. But while the bylaws do allow the board to reject the plans if the "completeness and technical adequacy of the plans and supporting material" isn't adequate, is the proponent now in a position to rectify the short-coming and create an approvable project? (My related question has to do with a new proposal. I thought the proponent was prohibited from filing a new plan for at least a year. That's why developers often withdraw plans "without prejudice" if they know it's going to get rejected.)

Let's be clear. I don't know what happened. That's why I'm confused. I assume the board knows all this or it doesn't apply for some reason that's escaping me. I hope someone chimes in with a little more information so I can revert back to my regular state of confusion.

Senior Center Plan

Ed Cameron sent this notice along informing that public that these is the final design of the senior center and no further public input is required.

KIDDING!

Actually, Ed stressed these are DRAFTS and public comment is desired at the upcoming meeting on April 28, 6:30 p.m. at the Library.

My first impression. The senior center dominates the parcel more than I'd anticipated. I envisioned it being tucked further back into the Washington and Kent Street corners. But I don't have the best spatial forecasting ability.

Still, what's with the setback off the street? This is a classic Newburyport neighborhood with homes resting right upon the street. I think the senior center should match the configuration.

I actually thought of the senior center this week while reading in the Daily News about the mothballed luxury condo project behind the Towle building. It's a shame the building can't acquire one of these hafl built structures and convert it into a senior center. That would be the ideal spot, easy access to parking, the waterfront and many doctor's offices in the Towle building.

No doubt there are millions of rea$ons why that won't happen, but I'm allowed to recklessly opine.

Yard Sale is tomorrow

I know. I'm just updating with a cheap plug.

Thanks to those who keep checking in for fresh content. I promise to amp things up over the coming weeks. Life and work has been busy, plus my laptop is on the fritz. But I can't blame those factors for my silence.

Sometimes, I just feel the need to pipe down and listen. That's what I've been doing until my muse returns.

Well, excccuuuusssee us.

Newburyport's planning board gets a smack down from Cohassett Planning Board Chairman Alfred Moore. Apparently, that closer-to-perfection town is considering the installation of two wind turbines. This Wind Watch site ran an article from the Patriot Ledger .

Lori Langenhagen, who lives about a half-mile from the proposed site, brought up two problems – noise and flickering lights – that a turbine in Newburyport has been blamed for.

“This is not Newburyport,” Moore said. “This is Cohasset.”

Planning board Vice Chairman Stuart Ivimey said the Cohasset board has done much more research than was done in Newburyport.

There, he said, “they didn’t do much of any due diligence.”

So there you go.

Correction

Our neighborhood yard sale is next Saturday, not this Saturday. I'm a mess this month.

Kindred Spirits Passes On?

A reader confirmed what I thought I saw the other day: giant "For Lease" signs in the windows of the Kindred Spirits shop on Merrimac Street. I wrote about this struggling business a few months ago here . It appears--much to my shock--that the power of this blog has its limits.

Kindred Spirits web site still exists but I have to assume the business does not. Any news out there?

Food Drive Update

Pennies for Poverty: 2 Cents 4 Change, Inc. had a three-day food drive this past weekend at Shaw’s. More than $4,305 worth of food was collected for the five food pantries that serve Newburyport residents: Salvation Army, Community Service here in Newburyport, Our Neighbor’s Table, Community Action in Amesbury and Pettengill House in Salisbury.

Shaw’s put together $10 and $5 bags for people to simply pick up and pay for at the check out. Other people took the lists of needed items and spent the extra time shopping and donating so generously. In addition, $1,486.26 was donated to the 2 Cent Grants! One hundred percent of the money raised for the 2 Cent Grant Fund goes out in the form of grants to individuals or organizations that have new ideas that lift people in Newburyport out of poverty or for necessary services which are under funded due to the current economic crisis. Thank you to the “AJH Angel”, a nurse who donated two grocery carts of food. and to all who gave so generously!

One BLT, with a side of Syrah

I'll be honest. I wasn't a huge Taffy's fan back in the 1990s.

I know. I'm a yuppie. I know. I didn't appreciate "the real Newburyport."

I didn't dislike Taffy's. I just didn't think it was worth the march up State Street. I usually hit Angies, Fowle's and, if I wanted to spend an entire afternoon scoring an overpriced sandwich, the former Middle Street Foods.

Heck I probably hit the old Bergson's 10-times more than I hit Taffy's. (Other favorites include Foodees, Ciro's and the old salad bar at Teaberries.)

I just wanted to lay all that out on the table so I didn't come off as a major hypocrite in stating that I'm glad Taffy's is coming back. I'm always in the market for a lunch alternative, and I work so comfortably close to Taffy's now that I can see it becoming a regular haunt. I just hope they serve a decent cup of coffee.

Apparently, they'll be serving something else too. I just found out that someone--I'm unclear who exactly--is looking to open a wine bar somewhere behind Taffy's, probably in the building along Prince Place and across from the library. The liquor commission will take up the application tonight.

No details beyond that, but if I can wash a club sandwich down with a glass of David Bruce Syrah, I'll be a happy man.

Now, commence with the hurling of the yuppie-themed invectives.