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?
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
Nice, informative summary Ari, thanks.
The thanks are owed back your way for continual thought crunching on this and other issues.
Ari – This should change the whole discussion. Did I miss something, or was it widely known that the Woodman property could be developed commercially now?
I can’t speak for anyone else but this was confirmed to me in a series of emails from the planning director. It was apparently mentioned by Tropic Star at a recent hearing.
The 2.5 million is conditional and has not been transacted at least as the Tripartite Agreement states. That amount is in a purchase and sale agreement condtional to the city re-zoning.
In other words, poor Eleanor ain’t got it yet!
Yes and no. The purchase and sale agreement is an exhibit within the tripartite agreement, but was signed prior to it. I note #15 in the p&s which is specific to the buyer’s rights regarding the Swofford parcels, including, “the failure to satisfy anyone of the which shall give the BUYER, at its option, the right to rescind this Agreement.”
In other words, as I interpret this, Tropic Star has the right to not pay the $2.5 million if the Swofford parcels are not rezoned; but they may also choose to continue with the development without the Swofford parcels.
Our issue continues to be, and we request, regardless of how you vote, that the traffic issues and the gateway to Newburyport be addressed by the city. The traffic patterns remain very problematic (and may still be an issue if DOT does not approve changes by Tropic Star). Please address the traffic patterns at Low St. and Woodman. Make it safe for pedestrians, as well as cars. And all the signs are ugly and do not give a positive impression of how lovely Newburyport is. Just as an example – look at the new 95 signs – huge and ugly! Thanks (in advance) for addressing these issues!
Thanks. You raise three issues.
First: Traffic on Low Street is partially due to Storey Avenue, and that stretch is managed by the state. The city can request improvements but the state holds the upper hand.
Second: Woodman Street, today, is not an accepted right of way by the city. I’m not up to speed, pun unintended, on the history; but I am aware of a desire to change this designation. Until Woodman is an accepted way, it’s hard for the city to have the upper hand.
Third: I agree on the signage being out of control, but again this is a state issue. There is a small movement among some city officials and others, initially spearheaded by Planning Board member Jim McCarthy, to address this — at all gateways.
Dearest Ari,
This is a mighty big can ‘o worms that’s been opened. I hope you will keep discussions going. And when and if it comes to a vote, I hope the vote is NO! The traffic has gotten worse, it is downright dangerous on Storey Ave. Adding another CVS and whatnot will add to the hazard. I work at Panera and getting in and out of their driveway, one takes their lives in their hands! Imagine the potential traffic nightmares to come with more traffic! PLEASE VOTE NO, NO NO!
Kathy Heywood
Thanks for commenting, but you’re not following my logic. If I vote no and a CVS is built anyway but without the road reconstruction that they would pay for if I vote yes, then why should I vote no?
Ari. Thank you for your informative narrative, and I understand about the Woodman’s previous agreement with the developer. When things start to become more convoluted sometimes it makes sense to step back and ask the basic question. Is this something the citizens of NBPT need and does the benefit outweigh the negative effect of the additional traffic and congestion? If the answer is no then why make it easier for the developer to build at this site. Vote no and have Tropic Star make their case to the Planning Board. Why re-zone the area to commercial, it is already too dense.Thanks for your discussion.
But, Ted, Tropic Star needs to make their case to the Planning Board regardless. Whether they choose to build on one parcel or several parcels, the PB remains the only board to okay the construction and to make contingency demands. Also, don’t forget the Conservation Commission will also need to weigh in, and maybe the Historical Commission and Zoning Board too. These meetings will include public hearings all the way.
Whichever way the council votes, the development may still occur; so why not insist the developer do their traffic studies, fix the state highway, and give the city open space in the process?
Ari
The reasoning for your yes vote makes a lot of sense and I agree. That area needs traffic work and to get the developer to put in $$ makes sense. And I agree that the planning board has a lot to say about what actually goes in and how it looks-this is a planning board issue, conservation etc. The fact is this area is commercial and it is almost spot zoning to leave the parcels in question residential.Then if you start to look at the relatively adjacent parcel(on Low) being considered for 185 residential units there are more traffic issues. So to get the state involved sooner than later would be a good thing.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Scott. Whatever happens or does not happen with a proposed residential unit down the street — is down the street and is more vague than the proposed pharmacy/bank. Talking about the two in the same sentence is emotional, and I get that; but the Planning Board can only respond to site plans of the now, not what-if plans of the future.
Ari –
Your overview and analysis of the consequences of “yes” or “no” votes appear well reasoned. The City has more leverage and receives financial support for essential traffic improvements if the Council approves the rezoning from residential to commercial of two specific lots. The Planning Board can add conditions for any future approval of a specific site plan during their review.
My concern relates to the need for a general upgrading of the standards for commercial zoning along the Storey Avenue and Low Street commercial district, and other commercial districts. Roughly 65% to 70% of Newburyport visitors enter the City via Route 113.
The City could amend the zoning ordinances: to require landscaping proximate to public streets; to require that the first row of commercial buildings be close to the street landscaping; to require most parking to side or rear of buildings, not in front of them; to ban stand-alone illuminated signage…..
The existing businesses and their pre-existing signs would be grandfathered, and allowed to continue as built.
Over time, the commercial gateways to Newburyport would be more aesthetic and more in keeping with the historic and beautiful city that Newburyport largely is. Instead of just adding to the existing commercial business zones, why not upgrade standards in these zones, so over time, the gateways to our city are more attractive?
There are many appointed and elected city officials who would like to improve the gateways on 113, 1, and Scotland Road. This would include signage and lane striping, but landscaping and architecture standards too. But that’s a separate discussion, not specific to the rezoning issue at hand.
Ari–Thanks for your good work in this matter. I particularly liked the comments of Ted Jones and Bill Harris.
Thanks for popping by, Bill.
Ari,
I look this issue from a 50,000 foot level and from the prospective of our kids and future generations. Perhaps this is too idealistic but would they (and us) be better off with yet another pharmacy, large paved parking lot and 185 residential units – YIKES, (build it and they will come.)…or more open space. I would suggest making it as difficult as possible for this sort of development to happen. I am sure there are plenty of other much more worthy project that we can all spend our time on. This includes the developers, planners, construction workers etc.
Talk about a massive opportunity to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Not building here and preserving the open space is a great opportunity to Reduce. If CVS really wants to put in yet another pharmacy in the area they should take an existing entity and reuse it – think the hat factory in Amesbury (nice reuse project). I suppose we could even work Recycle in here to the extent they recycle whatever they possibly can during their build out.
Don’t let traffic and parking issues be bundled in. It should be addressed as a separate issue. If you take a 50,000 foot, longer term and perhaps idealistic point of view I think you will see why your gut told you initially to vote no on this one.
You want 50,000 feet, Jeff? Consider this: If the rezoning is not approved, then a pharmacy will be proposed in a site plan and will likely be approved by the Planning Board barring anything we don’t know about that plan today.
But if the CVS goes out of business in three years, the B-1 zone allows it to be a used car business, for instance. Is that a sustainable action the city council wants to take by denying rezoning? Because if we allow the rezoning, a deed restriction would prevent certain commercial uses such as used car sales.
That’s 50,000 feet.
Ari,
First I forgot to mention in my prior post that your voting in opposition to the ordinance in order hear more facts beyond the minutes’ worth of discussion prior to that vote was a commendable move…I commend you.
I also see your point I think…If I have it right it is something like, Vote yes and we get a new CVS and vast parking and a bank and even more pavement and more parking area. But eliminate other less desirable businesses such as a used car lot and story ave get reconstructed. Vote No, and you still get the CVS but no bank and less pavement but Story Ave reconstruction and also no ability to restrict other not so desirable businesses in the future…
Ari, did I get that right? If so, then I would say your vote is clear. Vote NO.
I would trade the possibility of a less desirable business entering the space for a certainty of less land being paved and making the project less desirable for the developer. Perhaps he will find a more worthy project to focus on. And isn’t this farm and woodland being paved? Even more reason for a NO vote.
Ted Jones ask the 50,000 foot question, “When things start to become more convoluted sometimes it makes sense to step back and ask the basic question. Is this something the citizens of NBPT need and does the benefit outweigh the negative effect of the additional traffic and congestion? If the answer is no then why make it easier for the developer to build at this site.” Of course the other big negative effect is the paving over of farm and woodlands.
It is of course comforting to note that the developer still has some hurtles to overcome – Conservation Commission, Historical Commission, Zoning Board etc. But why stop there are there other steps that could be taken to protect this open space? Can we threaten put up a bill board near by with a picture showing the farm and woodland that was paved over and as ask people to do their shopping elsewhere? It wont be a big thing to ask as you could throw a chunk of asphalt and hit two other pharmacies, not to mention two other banks.
As recently as yesterday, the developer informs me that “it would continue to pursue a CVS development on the Woodman Parcel even if the rezoning does not pass.”
Why would I vote no to rezone, again?
You refer to Ted’s quote, “Is this something the citizens of NBPT need and does the benefit outweigh the negative effect of the additional traffic and congestion?”
I respectfully respond that the business is coming whether the citizens need it or not. I say let the market decide if it is successful or not. And, I’d rather the property have deed restrictions and I’d also rather a private company protect taxpayers by paying for Route 113 reconstruction. But both of those actions can only occur if the adjacent Swofford parcels are rezoned.
The benefits of rezoning outweigh the benefits of not rezoning.
So, that’s it? No hope? there goes more open space, more wooded land. If this was 1995 I might have said, ehh oh well pave on, let the free market decide if the businesses succeed. But alas it is not. We are smarter now. I think we are all coming to understand that in 5, 10, (or even right now for many of us) we are going to treasure open space, especially farm land more and more and asphalt less and less.
As for ” the business is coming whether the citizens need it or not” Really? I saw just a handful of what I still consider misguided citizens (but that is another story) block a hotel that would have brought year round business along with a wealth of other benefits to downtown. If they can do that then stopping this development of farm and wood land should be layup.
As for Route 113 reconstruction, tackle that as a separate issue. How about asking the local businesses that are already there if they would pitch in for it? They would certainly benefit from the reconstruction. In fact I bet Rite Aid and Walgreens would flip the bill if it meant helping to keep CVS out. While you are at it how about a quick letter (or letter writing campaign) to CVS telling them that paving farmland to put up a CVS flies in the face of the CVS Caremark’s Environmental and Climate Change Policy. (read more here: http://info.cvscaremark.com/our-company/corporate-responsibility/environment/our-carbon-footprint).
It’s funny how I always see the same names wherever I go when it comes to Newburyport. Ari, you’ve done a nice job presenting the facts in an easy to understand manner (I noticed today’s NBPT News quoted Katy presenting the facts in a similar manner). I’m not sure why it was never presented this way before because it makes a pretty compelling case that there isn’t much of a choice here. Others bring up some good points, but if it’s a simple yes or no vote on the issues, and you can’t earmark the proposal with Bill’s beautification clauses, then I guess one would be shooting themselves in the foot by voting against.
The Planning Board could require certain earmarks, but that’s not the job of the City Council. That’s another fact. Let’s let the council be the council.
Dearest Ari,
I am asking you to vote NO on rezoning for this CVS project.
Thank you,
Kathy Heywood
Ari,
I commend you for providing a platform for reasoned online debate on this complex issue. Having read it all and listened to the last Council hearing, I stand with Tom Jones and the other “no” votes for the following compelling reasons:
- A yes vote will definitely bring denser commercial development, more traffic, more asphalt; a no vote will delay and give us time for a better solution to the many traffic problems in that area
- I don’t agree that Tropic Star will go ahead anyway. Business climate is shaky and they may go where there is less opposition and less expensive contributions required.
- State promises of road enhancement don’t make me feel warm and fuzzy. Remember “High Street not a Highway”? What about suicide middle lanes?
- The environmental concern speaks strongly. Paving over farms is forever.
Not to take the CVS deal at this point would be a large loss to the City. The land to be deeded to the city alone would be reason enough for a yes vote. Beyond the land alone is controling that piece. Not getting it opens it for development either as an extention of Sea Port Village project or some other project.
One question I can’t seem to get an answer to on Sea Port, does the City have first refusal on that land now that the court case on the price is settled? If not ,why not as it appears to still be taxed at 61A rate.
{ 1 trackback }