Meetings this week

There are some important meetings going on this week, some of them at the same time, but oh well.

There's City Council tonight and both a parking garage report and update on the sewer plant tomorrow night.

Tonight's City Council meeting should be interesting, if only for the fact that they will probably be discussing the appointment of John Morris to the Redevelopment Authority.

I was going to do a story for last week's Current about this, but signals were crossed and it never got done.

Suffice it to say that the property Morris owns on Water St. could not be split up due to zoning regulations -and the Zoning Board of Appeals back then (1997) would not grant a variance - so he bought the whole parcel from the Trust that administers Joseph Hale's will, under a quitclaim deed.

The deed granted the Hale people a perpetual right and easement to maintain the part of Hale Park that is next to the parcel where Morris and his family live and also granted the Trust the option to buy back that part of the property for $500 at any time until Feb. 25, 2017.

The current Zoning Board of Appeals in May approved a non-conforming use variance that created a lot that does not conform to the zoning there, which is agricultural/conservation according to the Planning Office.

That zoning requires a minimum lot size of 130,000 sq. feet there. Even left alone, it's nothing like that size.

That is their function but boy, the ZBA sure seems to love giving up stuff on the river. At least it's for a park.

Oh - and the Trust had to grant Morris a 10-foot strip of land along the revised property line so the 2-story garage would be in compliance for setback from the new lot.

From all the records I could find, Morris has been paying taxes on the full parcel all this time.

Doesn't seem like such a good deal to me, except that the value of the property has gone up substantially - but then I assume so have his taxes.

And that's the scoop. Not much of a scoop.

Blah blah blah

So here is the story from the Daily News about the NRA appointee.

Here's my view about him building - whatever - that blocks the view of the river from his neighbors.

Did anyone see the movie "Friends With Money?"

In that movie, one of the characters and her husband are adding a second floor onto their house, which is somewhere in the hills of California. She's all gung-ho about it because they'll have a bedroom with a view - until the neighbors start giving her the cold shoulder.

When she confronts one of them, the woman points to the addition and says something like, "What? Did you think we would be able to see through it?"

I'm kind of surprised that someone who grew up here would be so insensitive, seeing as how the city (meaning natives) strikes me as being very supportive of its own.

He had the right to do it, I don't dispute that (being not privvy to all the circumstances), but what does it say about him as a neighbor and a member of a community?

Me, me ... and me again.

I'm not sure what this means

This morning, someone sent me a memo from Newburyport Development about parking for tenants of one of its properties on the waterfront (after the Waterfront Trust begins charging for its spaces).

It almost sounds as if ND has made some kind of deal with the city/the Redevelopment Authority to allow its tenants to park for free in the NRA lots on days when the rest of us have to pay (Fridays, weekends and during Yankee Homecoming).

We encourage you to continue to use the municipal parking lots that are free just beyond this area and on the other side of Market Landing Park. Understanding that the city does charge on Fridays during the summer and during Yankee Homecoming, the parking attendant has agreed to allow cars to park at no charge if they enter the parking lots either before 8:00 am (for the west lot) and 9:00 am (for the east lot).

Oh, so the NRA lots are "municipal parking lots" now? I'm not being snotty; I really want to know. Because on the east lot, there's this huge sign telling everyone that the lot is owned by the Newburyport Redevelopment Authority (which admittedly is a quasi-governmental entity) and the NRA keeps the revenue generated from the parking fees.

Did employees in City Hall get a similar communication, I wonder? And isn't there some kind of an ordinance to the effect that businesses more than 500 feet or something from a municipal lot have to provide their own parking?

I was looking this up when I got distracted by something else ... next post, peeps.

And the "parking attendant?" Is that the company that the NRA contracts to collect the parking fees ...? Nowhere in the whole thing are the words "Redevelopment Authority."

The memo goes on to say that parking by tenants in front of Newburyport Lighting and the Chamber of Commerce is verboten as those spaces are for customers.

Mayor's appointee to NRA

OK, so I'm back after a morning of running all over creation. I'm getting very tan.

I got the agenda for Monday's City Council meeting, and right away something jumped out at me:

The first reading of the appointment of John G. Morris to the Newburyport Redevelopment Authority, or NRA as we all refer to it.

No, this isn't John "Jack" Morris, the director of health. I don't think he lives in the city and this here John Morris lives on Water St.

Anyway, I was intrigued by his letter to Mayor John Moak, which is included in the agenda packet.

"Dear John," it starts out, "It was a pleasure speaking with you last week about the NRA and its plans for the waterfront."

In the next paragraph:

"I would like to work with the members of the NRA to move forward with their plans to begin the next phase of the design which was recently presented by the Cecil Group at the Firehouse. After al these years it is refreshing to see that the project is gaining tangible positive momentum."

And so on and so forth.

"Tangible positive momentum?" Was he at that meeting at the Firehouse? Did he not hear the multiple protestations about what a teeny, tiny step this was?

Anyway - this is just for your information. Could be contentious.