What the ...? How things change - what I wrote first is correct

I was just told that Mayor Donna Holaday is not re-appointing Sean Sullivan as the Planning Director! After she told me prior to her election that she would! ... And in fact, he is already gone (he was supposed to finish out the week but he left early)! And yikes! He's not even on the city website anymore!

I can't reach the mayor but I have a call in to her. Geordie Vining is the Acting Director.

No Planning Director until May, I am told.

Too bad; I really liked Sean Sullivan.

More to come ...

I found my spine re: the Planning Director

OK, so duh, I was reminded that the Planning Director position is co-terminus with the sitting mayor ... and as I was speaking with Donna Holaday on another matter a bit ago, I asked her about Nick Cracknell.

But I want to give James Shanley equal opportunity to answer so I'm waiting for a call back from him.

Oh, OK, I'll tell you that Holaday said that although she felt Cracknell is an "incredibly talented visionary," she would retain Sean Sullivan because Cracknell would be a very controversial appointment.

She said she consulted with people both within City Hall and without to see what they thought of the job Sullivan is doing, and she heard "nothing but wonderful things."

I'll let you know as soon as I hear from Shanley.

But doesn't this make you think twice about the issue of taking the City Marshal and Fire Chief positions out of civil service? Sullivan has only been in the Planning Dept. for one year, come January ... city officials should be very careful about this civil service issue and make sure those positions don't serve "at the pleasure" of the sitting mayor, should they be taken out of civil service.

And I agree with Tom Salemi that appointments to key boards should not be solely at the discretion of the mayor.

I have a feeling that, whoever is elected, there is going to be some "spring cleaning"of boards and committees ... or did I say that already?

Brown Square update

I wrote a bit for today's Current about Brown Square, but I don't see it online.

Since I raved earlier this week about the Planning Office applying for $80,000 in CPA funds ("What's this $80,000 for, a gold-plated drinking fountain?"), I thought I should point out the error of my words.

The project has been scaled back by about $150,000, to $352,000.

The dept. needs the $80,000 to secure matching funds from the state ($101,808). The city has already received $106,909 through donations and is eligible for a 56 percent matching grant on that.

The new budget will allow for upgrading the area around the statue of William Lloyd Garrison, installing a central pathway, two small plazas and brick perimeter sidewalk; and new trees and historic interpretive signage.

The current timeline includes advertising and bidding the project this summer and implementing the construction phase in late fall or early 2010.

Without the CPA funding and the state grants that can be leveraged with that funding, Vining writes that the two plazas – one of which will incorporate the monuments to veterans – may have to be eliminated from the project.

The CPC has received $1.438 million in requests for FY2009, will meet with applicants on four evenings and prepare recommendations for appropriation to the City Council in June.

This explains everything

As I was driving up Rte. 1 today, and there was the (still) turbine, I was reminded of a conversation I had with someone in the planning office.

We were talking about why the turbine was not spinning, as I reported the other day.

"So much for not being able to see it," I said. "I can see it from Plum Island!"

"I don't believe anyone ever said you wouldn't be able to see it," the person responded.

I then said that there was discussion before ZBA about how the trees would block it from being seen ...

"Well they do block it from being seen from downtown ... because the ridge blocks it from view ..." (or words to that effect).

Oh, so now I see.

It didn't matter who else could see it as long as it couldn't be seen from downtown.

What a joke.

Humph

Boy, The P. Preservationist has been going bonkers over there ... I'm really glad Tom Salemi pointed this site out to me (and others).

In this post from March 1, P.P. lists projects that have been, or will be, submitted in consideration for CPA funds. I'll re-print his/her list:

Heritage House - Energy Upgrades - WinnCompanies - $500,000 - Housing
Municipal Affordable Housing - Trust Planning Office - $50,000 -Housing
Newburyport Housing Rehabilitation - Planning Office - $200,000 - Housing
National Register Signage Project - Jerry Mullins - $3,150.00 - Historical
Newburyport Front Range Light - Lighthouse Society - $98,000 - Historical
John Bromfield Brick Sidewalk Fund - Jerry Mullins - $100,000 - Historical
City Hall Project, Accessibility, Phase II - Planning Office - $35,000 - Historical
Brown Square Renovation Proj. - Planning Office - $80,000 - Historical
Clipper City Rail Trail Project - Planning Office - $75,000 - Recreational
Common Pasture Public Access - Planning Office - $50,000 - Open Space
Open Space Fund Open Space Committee - $75,000 - Open Space
Gravestone Restoration Project - City Improvement Society - $25,000 - Historical
Oak Hill Cemetery - Proprietors of Oak Hill - $38,500 - Historical
St. Anna’s Chapel Restoration - St. Paul’s Church - $89,750 - Historical
Masonic Building Restoration - Masonic Temple Assoc. - $18,600 - Historical

Ummm ... does anything stick out like a sore thumb? Well, yeah, because I made it bold ...

Didn't the city get $500,000 in grants for renovations at Brown Square? What's this $80,000 for, a gold-plated drinking fountain?

You know, it seems to me that for $500,000, the city could perk up the park (where nobody goes) AND foot the $300,000 bill to bury the wires.

But maybe that's just me.

Caught up at City Hall

So I went to the Water Commission meeting because of the Little Village on the River deal (it's baaaack - and I still can't get the name straight), then dropped in on the Budget & Finance/Public Utilities meeting in council chambers ... came out of that and there was this big old group of people lurking in the hall ... so just had to go back in for the Planning Board meeting.

Ed Cameron made me do it.

Well, I asked him if it was important enough for me to stay, and he said he thought so ... so in I went. At the time, I didn't even know it was a Planning Board meeting/public hearing!

The meeting was mostly all about this proposed subdivision on Toppans Lane. Which, you know, being the crack reporter that I am, I was only vaguely aware of.

Personally, I don't think subdivisions belong in city neighborhoods, and apparently a lot of people agree with me.

Sadly, the spiel by the developers took so long that I had to leave before residents got a chance to air their grievances. But there was a lot of muttering going on in that hallway and in the room, before the meeting commenced.

But what it boils down to is a 22-lot subdivision with 20 new homes and two existing houses, on the Rindler "almost 11 acre" property, which is still owned by a Rindler family trust, said the attorney for the developer.

It's a really strange property - it's shaped like a horseshoe (another property down the middle). I did not know there was that much open space left in that area, except for the old gravel pit.

There seems to be a lot of challenges attached to the whole scheme, not the least of which was the negative attitude coming off the Planning Board chairman, Dan Bowie.

I do believe that the developer, Great Woods Post and Beam, once owned that property at 8 Ocean Ave. that I blogged about last weekend ... yes, yes it did ... (checked on the appraisal system).

Speaking of checking, check out this post on The Newburyport Blog, from July 27, 2006, relating to this developer.

There was an awful lot of talk tonight about taking out old stand trees. The Tree Committee will not be pleased.

New planning director

Oh ... and someone named Sean Sullivan has been hired to be the new planning director. Read about it here, from the Daily News.

The Council approved the appointment in one reading, which was an unusual move. Councillor Greg Earls questioned it, saying that in the past the public had the opportunity to question and/or comment such a high-level appointment.

But the Council isn't meeting again for 5 weeks, and the position is somewhat time sensitive (although not so much as when former director Nancy Colbert came on board).

Nancy Colbert

A story I was writing for Globe North about Nancy Colbert's departure from our planning dept. was killed, so I'll tell you some interesting tidbits she told me while I was interviewing her:

She's recently engaged to be married.

She was not looking for another job; a friend pointed out the town administrator in Boylston because the friend knew that administration was Nancy's ultimate goal.

She's having knee surgery right before Thanksgiving, before she takes up her duties in Boylston.

Moak said he hopes to have someone that's "ready to commit" to take the position by Nov. 15 (Colbert's last day will be Nov. 21.)

On a related note - Was it in the daily that Mary Lattime, city treasurer/collector, is retiring at the end of the job?

The case for the stadium

The high school needs an athletic field, or we can forget about athletics at the high school. What a shame that would be, given The Clippers' success on the football field.

What city of this size does not have an athletic field? I'm sure you guys will come up with some.

OK, it's old and crumbling - but it means something to the city. It was really famous when it was built, as I reported here last year for the Current:

World War Memorial Stadium was built 70 years ago as part of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) created by President Franklin Roosevelt. The WPA gave more than 3.5 million boys and men work during World War II. Newburyport’s stadium was one of the more famous projects in the state – it cost $150,000 to build. It will cost $1.5 million to renovate.

I know people love the idea of and want this bike path, but who is going to maintain it? The city can't maintain its existing parks and recreation areas.

Should money from taxes be used? It's all money from taxes, except for what the RESTORE group has raised from private sources.

That being said, it would be a shame if this planned bike trail network from Boston ended somewhere south of here instead of at the border of New Hampshire.

The 'historic' debate continues

It's Thursday, and as usual, I went down to Gloucester to visit me mum.

My mother lives in a Victorian-era house, and my youngest sister is about to move into one, at the end of next month.

My sister was most dismayed by the 'changes' that were made to the house they are buying in Malden, but let's face it, had it been an 'unrestored Victorian,' they would not have been able to afford it.

They plan on doing a lot of tearing out of 1970s-era paneling, bizarre kitchen modifications, and hope to be able to restore exterior trim that was removed.

She had hoped to be able to live in a historic house and now she's about to get her wish come true.

So it was with particular interest that I read this story (and, of course, accompanying comments) in today's Daily News.

In a nutshell, people bought house described below, agreed to conditions of a special permit, then gutted the house to the frame.

The special permit was granted for a so-called 6C development to build two residential structures on one lot. As part of the permit granted by the Planning Board, officials called for the preservation of certain aspects of the existing home, a 2,064-square-foot Greek revival built in 1900 ...

Granting the special permit took several months, [Planning Director Nancy] Colbert said, and included participation from several boards, including the Historical Commission. The owner of the home or representatives were involved in each step along the way, Colbert and [Planning Board Chairman Daniel] Bowie said.

If these people did not want to maintain a historic home, why did they buy one? Could it be because they also get to build a second home on the same lot?

Why did the Planning Office spend considerable time coming up with a special permit, especially one that allows 2 homes on one lot? Aren't we all about open space around here?

Why are there no fines associated with this "flagrant" disregard for the special permit?

So ... months of time and no fine? What a waste of taxpayers' money. Save your outrage, Planning Board and Historical Commission, for your own decisions.

Spiffing Brown Square

Brown Square. I don't know what to say about the city's plan to beautify Brown Square, that small-ish plot of land (.6 acre, according to me) across from City Hall.

How about this? In June 2006, I wrote a story for the Current about The Friends of Brown Square, a group that had organized to raise funds to --- you know, beautify Brown Square.

Friends of Brown Square is an effort started by (Kerry) Cargill to restore and beautify the park, which is one of Newburyport’s oldest open spaces. Still in its infancy, the informal Friends group that currently numbers about a dozen has a plan in hand, Cargill says. The plan includes bricking the walks, leveling the grass, removing dead limbs, and getting the bushes around the war monuments under control.

Some history:
A quarter century after Moses Brown’s death in 1827, his home had become a boarding house. Subsequently it became an inn, then was renamed the Brown Square Hotel in 1880 following the death of Brown’s daughter and heir. The Garrison Inn opened on July 2, 1923 after the property changed hands.

City Hall was built on the square in 1851, and the statue of (native and abolitionist William Lloyd) Garrison was presented to the city in 1893.

There is a mention of the community group here, in this story in today's Current, by Alyson Aiello.

I am going to assume the Friends were unable to raise any money for this project, but it would be nice if this was made clear.

Thanks, Ari

A hearty "thank you" to Ari Herzog for covering, and reporting on, the planning & development subcommittee meeting Tuesday night at which they discussed (but apparently came to no conclusions about) the location of a senior citizens center.

I guess the Daily News felt it was more important to send a reporter to the clam shack meeting. That, of course, was terminated after 3 hours because the device recording the hearing stopped working.

It's a good thing that we have so many reporter types roaming about who are able to fill in the holes. *cough, cough* Sorry, got something stuck in my craw.

Another fight over an "iconic" building

Things are getting hot in the issue of the one remaining clam shack in town and one man's right to make it into a home. As in, does he have the right?

The Daily News is right on it and this issue continues the battle between the Mayor and Ward 1 City Councillor Larry McCavitt, which was escalated a month or so ago when the Mayor called McCavitt "a bully" because he was trying to get folks to adhere to state laws regarding Commonwealth waterways (that's my take on it anyway).

The Mayor kind of backtracked to me and said he felt McCavitt was trying to force his views down everyone's throat (which he also says in today's DN story). But I notice that the tag "bully" is still being bandied about.

McCavitt, by the way, was involved in writing or at least re-writing Chapter 91 law regarding public waterways. So he's not an expert or anything.

I don't know who this Roland guy is or why the Mayor is taking such an intense interest in the matter. He got the city's legal advisor, Kopelman and Paige, to render an opinion (dated Sept. 18, 2007), which says:

"Without a court decree, Roland's claim of title by adverse possession is not record title and does not constitute proof of ownership ... Since Roland cannot even prove that he has any right of record to even enter onto the Property, let alone establish good title to the Property, it is difficult to see what hardship, if any, Roland would suffer were he not allowed to convert the summer cottage into a year-round single family residence ... it is my opinion that the ZBA may properly find that Roland is not entitled to a variance."

What the heck? We got REAL problems in this city and we're wasting time and money on this after a legal opinion has already been obtained? Unless Roland came up with some real proof that he owns the property, which it does not seem that he did, why not tell him to come back when he does have the proof?

And what's with all these meetings the Mayor has with special interests?

McCavitt says the new hearings are the result of a "secret" meeting in which Mayor John Moak and a city solicitor met with Roland and his attorney. He said the meeting was designed to find a way to get the matter back before the board.

First Moak raised a ruckus by proposing a private meeting between the City Council and Stephen Karp, now a major property owner in the downtown.

But I think even before that, he was meeting with marina owners to discuss matters relating to proposed new mooring regulations. Private marinas, if I recall correctly, rent the majority of the city's moorings in the river.

Moak said a taxpayer came to him who didn't believe he received a fair shake at the hearing because of filing errors. The mayor said since he is not an attorney and stays neutral in such cases, he called in the city solicitor to help make a determination, which was to have new hearings.

Can a person who can't even prove he owns a property really tie up city government like this? Seems he can - the hearings start at 7:30 p.m. tomorrow in council chambers.