There is a proposal to create a local historic district in Newburyport. If approved by a super-majority of city council (8 of 11 councilors), the proposal will become law and the second LHD will be ordained.

The first LHD was ordained in October 2007 and protects Fruit Street. Look at chapter 16 in our code of ordinances. This new proposal is for some 800 homes and businesses covering a much larger swath of downtown and peripheral areas.

The city’s local historic district study committee has convened many meetings about this second district. But only recently, as the proposal nears finality, has a line been drawn between residents favoring it and those opposed. Whenever such controversies occur, people email me.

A proponent passionately writes:

The architectural heritage of our city, is unique and irreplaceable, and deserves to be preserved both for the benefit of residents and the country at large. It is a historic gem, it is the city’s heritage and It should be protected. I am confident that the committee working on the LHD proposal has been open and reasonable in listening to and weighing city residents’ concerns and that the final guidelines will not create an undue burden on property owners in the district.

The passion is equivalent from an opponent:

Although it may have good intentions, I do not feel it is needed and is a bit of overkill to protect the history and charm of our wonderful city of Newburyport. Most citizens of our city realize the value of maintaining their homes in the spirit preserving historical architectural features etc. There is not a need for another layer of approval to restore a home.

Pressed for a stance during the at-large councilor debates last fall, I wrote that I supported the LHD proposal — and I noted in subsequent interviews that a proposal is just that and has the ability to change. Change has already occurred with the study committee adding language about protecting trees and rights of way, not only the home. I have mixed feelings about these amendments and I’ll argue those points whenever it reaches the council.

At age 17 I served in a volunteer capacity on a municipal subcommittee charged with identifying whether my town should sell a historical school building or if we could reuse it, and if so, for some other purpose. I sat on this board for about a year and historical preservation was ingrained into me. It’s something I believe in.

I also believe that the neighborhood you move into is as important, if not more important, than the actual structure you decide to live inside. A local historic district protects that neighborhood. That’s its primary intent, hence a historic district and not a historic home. While you as a property owner may be conscientious, who’s to say your neighbor is too? The LHD protects your neighbors’ houses so that your property values increase.

I am inquiring into the viability of the city offering tax freezes to property owners when/if exterior rehabilitation is conducted on a home in the LHD, considering the cost of rehab materials may be more costly. But that’s something, even if not approved immediately, can be amended to the law afterwards.

Please continue emailing me your thoughts on LHD creation. Constituent relations are important to me. But if you need to know my perspective, I continue to support it.

-- Thanks for reading my blog! I also encourage you to sign up for my email newsletter to receive monthly updates from my council desk. If the above article inspires you to add a comment, you may do so by visiting LHD and Me. Thanks!

I photographed this in 2007 and shared it on Flickr.

Did the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission learn nothing from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation severing its ties with Planned Parenthood, only to reverse that decision days later?

There are countless examples in recent history when internet uprisings about corporate decisions caused crisis communications teams to rethink their actions. Remember the 2008 battle between Motrin and mommybloggers? How about the 2009 backlash from that Domino’s Pizza video?

City, state, and federal lawmakers have signed petitions in opposition to the NRC’s relicensing process for the Seabrook Station nuclear power plant — including a unanimous resolution approved by the Newburyport City Council this month — yet the federal agency is explicit that they do not care.

“We value such input and carefully consider it,” says NRC Region 1 spokesman Neil Sheehan in this longer story in the Daily News. “In the end, the NRC’s decisions are based on evaluations of whether nuclear power plants can continue to operate safely, (which is) consistent with our mission.”

In other words, the agency admits public input about safety concerns is secondary to safety evaluations by industry experts.

Komen, Motrin, and Domino’s reversed their actions when they realized people cared.

Does the federal government not care?

The kicker is in a quotation I found two months ago by Ho Nieh, the chief of staff to NRC Commissioner William Ostendorff. Nieh said, “I’ve been with the agency for 15 years, and I view the NRC as being a bunch of apolitical nerds outside the beltway doing nuclear issues.”

Shame on them.

-- Thanks for reading my blog! I also encourage you to sign up for my email newsletter to receive monthly updates from my council desk. If the above article inspires you to add a comment, you may do so by visiting Shame on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Thanks!

The Newburyport City Council meets again on Monday, February 13 in the council chamber on the first floor of city hall. If there is anything on the agenda that strikes your interest to speak to the council about, sign your name on the hanging sheet before the meeting starts at 7:30.

You’ll see my name is attached to three orders. Two of the orders are resolutions involving energy efficiency, and the third involves surplus Water Department land which will likely be referred to committee for discussion.

Newburyport City Council agenda for February 13, 2012

You’ll notice a committee report section of documents. This is a new city council rule we adopted. If any standing committee intends to remove something from committee for council voting, that item’s documents must be part of the agenda so councilors aren’t scratching their heads.

-- Thanks for reading my blog! I also encourage you to sign up for my email newsletter to receive monthly updates from my council desk. If the above article inspires you to add a comment, you may do so by visiting City Council Agenda for February 13. Thanks!

City Planner Andrew Port recently emailed me a list of reasons why rezoning the Swofford parcels from residential to business use makes sustainable sense. I share these reasons below:

1. The Woodman Realty Trust will convey 20 acres of property to the City to be preserved as open space.

2. Tropic Star will give $15,000 to the City for maintenance and protection of that land either by the City or the Essex County Greenbelt Association.

3. The Woodman Realty Trust will incorporate a deed restriction for future use of land sold to Tropic Star, meaning none of the following commercial uses will ever be allowed: motor vehicle sales, motor vehicle repair, gas/service stations, fast food/carry-out food stores.

4. Tropic Star’s pharmacy and bank would face the street designed with “New England vernacular” architecture, and parking would be located in the rear of those buildings.

5. Tropic Star will give $50,000 to the City to use for affordable housing (or repairing Noble Street sidewalks, as the mayor recently proposed), whichever the mayor and city council prefer.

6. Tropic Star will pay 100% of costs associated with improving Storey Avenue safety, capacity, and access including a center left-turn lane (a traffic mitigation measure recommended by MassDOT in its “complete streets” program, and recommended by the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission, our traffic consultant). Tropic Star will also pay for the cost of permitting and adding bicycle lanes on Storey Avenue (if width is available).

7. Tropic Star will pay 100% of costs associated with restriping crosswalks and markings on Noble Street to make safe pedestrian crossings.

8. Tropic Star will allow cross-easements for vehicular access to and from the adjacent Low Street properties if desired by the City. (This is beneficial to the City and adjacent properties as it will improve circulation between parking lots in the area, thus decreasing the amount of traffic sent only onto Storey Ave and Low Street as presently).

9. The City receives increased tax revenue, as retail generates more income than single family homes.

10. The zoning of those parcels will be consistent with adjacent parcels on Storey Avenue.

These benefits will only occur if rezoning occurs. They are spelled out in a tripartite agreement signed last year and by subsequent covenants and amendments to that agreement.

If the city council votes to not approve rezoning, then be aware Tropic Star will “continue to pursue a CVS development on the Woodman parcel,” per an email from their attorney.

Be aware such a proposal would occur outside the tripartite agreement. Thus, the Swofford homes would remain intact but they’d abut a “strip mall” layout due to less total land development so the parking would be in front of, and not behind, the building. There also wouldn’t be Storey Avenue reconstruction paid by private wallets.

Andrew Port informs me that Tropic Star’s business plan is to own the property long-term and lease to CVS as a tenant. The more land they can own is a direct translation to the more incentive to invest in their property and maintain its value and appearance — which I presume everyone wants.

After reviewing the facts (which I lay out in the real story on Storey Avenue) I feel the benefits of approving rezoning outweigh the negatives of not approving rezoning; and as such, I am prepared to vote affirmatively when the item comes out of committee.

P.S. I recognize some people don’t want a CVS to be built. But it will likely be built, one way or another, unless the Planning Board or other commissions have a reason to deny their site plans. So, why shouldn’t it be built with the above list of benefits built-in?

P.P.S. I was tired of being labeled as undecided, so I’ve taken a stance.

These are my thoughts. I’d enjoy reading yours.

-- Thanks for reading my blog! I also encourage you to sign up for my email newsletter to receive monthly updates from my council desk. If the above article inspires you to add a comment, you may do so by visiting 10 Benefits to Rezone Storey Avenue. Thanks!

In exchange for $2.5 million in June 2011, the Eleanor Woodman Realty Trust sold land and related improvements at 79 Storey Avenue and 79R Storey Avenue to Tropic Star Development LLC for construction of a drive-through pharmacy.

This is fact. As long as the details of their agreement are in order, Tropic Star has the ability to construct a pharmacy on the Woodman property today.

They’re holding off on that development — because there are two adjacent residential lots, owned today by Gerald and Doris Swofford. The Swoffords are willing to sell those lots to Tropic Star in exchange for a different sum of money. But commercial construction cannot occur on the Swofford parcels without the city council approving a zoning change from residential to business.

This zoning change, in the form of an ordinance sponsored by Ward 5 Councilor Brian Derrivan last fall, is what will allegedly come before the full council on February 13. Last November, I voted in opposition to the ordinance; and the next day, I filed a motion to reconsider. I wanted to hear more facts beyond the minutes’ worth of discussion prior to that vote.

The discussion began on the seventh day of December and continued over the course of several more public hearings. Residents and developers, along with municipal policy experts, shared their thoughts and presented facts about the proposed construction of a drive-through CVS (on the Woodman property) and a bank (on the Swofford property), along with detailed schematics on parking and access to wetlands behind.

The tripartite agreement spells out the legal relationships between the Woodman trust, Tropic Star, and the City.

The Daily News has written many articles and published many letters to the editor about this issue.

It’s now up to the city council.

I am officially undecided how I will vote — but here’s the kicker:

If I vote to approve the zoning change, the developer will pay for reconstruction of Storey Avenue (presuming the state Department of Transportation concurs with the recommendation of the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission) which will benefit everyone.

If I vote to not approve the zoning change, the CVS may still be built on the Woodman property that is already in the requisite business zone. There is no requirement for Tropic Star to pay for any Storey Avenue reconstruction in this scenario.

And, regardless of the zoning change, the Planning Board will have the final say on architecture, traffic studies, etc. Even if the council says yes, the Planning Board could conceivably vote it down. If the MassDOT does not okay the reconstruction, that could be a reason for the Board to say no.

One week ago, I was leaning toward voting no.

I am now leaning toward voting yes.

Do you understand why?

-- Thanks for reading my blog! I also encourage you to sign up for my email newsletter to receive monthly updates from my council desk. If the above article inspires you to add a comment, you may do so by visiting The Real Story on Storey Avenue. Thanks!

The Newburyport City Council meets next on January 30, 2012, and here is the agenda:

Newburyport City Council Agenda: January 30, 2012

Please note the Seabrook relicensing resolution has since been updated, which you can read here.

The agenda is fairly light and I anticipate more discussion during the committee reports than everything preceding.

-- Thanks for reading my blog! I also encourage you to sign up for my email newsletter to receive monthly updates from my council desk. If the above article inspires you to add a comment, you may do so by visiting City Council Agenda for January 30. Thanks!