Chain Bridge

Chain Bridge

Friday, May 26, 2017

Important Holiday Schedule Information for Trash and Recycling Disposal and Yard Waste Facility

May 26, 2017
Important Holiday Schedule Information for Trash and Recycling Disposal and Yard Waste Facility
Newburyport – Due to the Memorial Day Holiday, trash and recycling pick-up will be delayed by one day, all week. Residents with Monday pick-up will have pick-up on Tuesday, residents who typically have Tuesday pick-up will have pick-up on Wednesday, and so on. Friday residents will have pick-up on Saturday. The only exception is the downtown area which will remain on Friday.
The Municipal Yard Waste Facility on Crow Lane will NOT be affected by the Memorial Day Holiday.  It will be open on Tuesday, May 30 as usual. The Yard Waste Facility is open Tuesdays through Saturdays, 7:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Residents may buy a sticker which gives them access to the Yard Waste Facility through the first weekend in December.
The June drop-off day for recyclables will take place on Saturday, June 3. The July drop-off will be postponed until the second Saturday of the month, July 8. This is held at the Crow Lane Recycle Center, off Low Street, between 8 a.m. and 12 p.m. Residents may bring anything with a cord or batteries, appliances, anything metal, rechargeable batteries, fluorescent bulbs, mercury items, white packing Styrofoam, tires, bicycles, motor oil, and antifreeze.
Our next household hazardous waste day will take place on Saturday, Sept. 23 for disposal of household paints and chemicals. That will be located at the Department of Public Services on Perry Way. There will also be a household hazardous waste day in Amesbury, for residents and non-residents, on Saturday, June 3. See the City of Amesbury website or call 978-388-8116.
The FY 2017-2018 Health Department brochure which includes the yearly trash and recycling calendar will be mailed to each household in June. If you do not receive it, call us or view it on line at . 
If you need any additional information please call the Health Department at 978-465-4410 or Mello Disposal at 978-352-8581.  

Thursday, May 25, 2017

School Project about Hale Street by Zack Hogan

Every two years the seniors in the Honors Civics class at Newburyport High School are asked to study a local issue of their choosing. They interview their councilor and meet with city officials to learn about their chosen topic. 

This video was created by Zack Hogan for his project. It is about the need for a sidewalk on Hale Street. With his permission I thought I would share it with you. 


City Council Packet for Tuesday

Read more:

Hale Street Update

Painting Crosswalks City wide has started.

The Department of Public Services staff and our pavement marking contractor Markings Inc. have started to paint long lines and crosswalks city wide. The work will be performed mostly during the evening hours Monday – Thursday.
There may be some noise and traffic interruptions during the operation at each location. This work usually only takes 10-15 minutes at each location and we will have a city representative and / or police detail on-site to answer any questions of concerns.
If you have any questions or concerns, please call the Department of Public Services at 978-465-4463, Extension 1701. Thank you for your patience and understanding during this important yearly roadway maintenance program.

Friday, May 12, 2017

Excerpts from the Historical Commissions April 26th Meeting

1690 House Preservation Restriction

The members discussed the letters concerning the 1690 House written by a member of the
public, the Preservation Trust and the Building Department. Lisa Mead agreed the developer had
not provided an itemized list of elements being removed from the structure, but said emails were
sent to the Preservation Trust indicating certain items would be available. This requirement was
a part of the special permit and is an issue to be considered by the Planning Board. The only
issue within the purview of the Historical Commission is the preservation restriction.

The Massachusetts Historical Commission has stated it would consider holding
preservation restrictions on the interiors of structures, even when a structure is privately owned.
It is not yet known if the MHC would hold a restriction on the 1690 House given the degree to
which the historic features have been removed.

Attorney Mead said her client has offered $25,000 to be placed in a fund for historic
preservation projects in the city and has committed to installing interpretive signage at the Towle
property. She amended the draft preservation restriction to include the requirement the roof,
roofline, form, foundation, exposed beams and brick arches in basement shall not be changed.
This requirement would be in addition to the preservation of the windows and shutters that was
already a part of the document.

The Commission members described the changes they would like to be made to the
structure. The doors and window surrounds must be painted. The style of the door is not
accurate for the period of the house. Carriage lights should be added. The chimneystacks from
the basement to the top of the chimney, along with the fireboxes, should be added to the
restriction. The vents in roof should be wrapped to match the color of the roof shingles and the
vents from the house should be painted the color of the house. The surrounds on the new
windows are too wide. This is particularly noticeable on the façade that faces the Towle
building, where the new windows are adjacent to the two windows that were preserved. The
width of the surrounds on all of the new windows on this façade and the Merrimac Street facade
must be reduced. The style of the windows is not consistent throughout the structure; some are
four over four while others are two over two. The original windows were narrower than the
replacement windows. Attorney Mead said the applicant would replace the windows only if the
installed ones are not consistent with those specified on the plans approved in 2007.
 It was revealed at the meeting that while the three sets of pocket shutters referenced in
the preservation restriction have been restored, they are not in place. The Commission members
wish these to be reinstalled as originally positioned.

The language of the restriction shall be changed to indicate the preservation of the
included interior features shall be required rather than recommended. A revised preservation
restriction will be submitted to the Commission for further review at its May 10 meeting.
 Mark Bilodeau commented the developer made certain promises that were not kept.
He said when he suggested the sum of $25,000 be considered in the negotiated settlement he did
not realize the 1690 House was a part of a larger condominium complex. He now thinks the
amount should be higher.

Excerpts from the Historical Commissions April 12th Meeting Notes

1690 House Preservation Restriction

Jim Bone started the discussion by saying the loss of architectural features from the 1690 House
was not caused by a lack of zoning enforcement. Andy Port said the policy of the Planning
Office now is to recommend to the Planning Board or Zoning Board that a condition be made
requiring the preservation restriction to be in place before a building permit shall be issued.

Lisa Mead represented the applicant and reviewed the history of the project.
She said in 2007 the project was approved and the decision of the Zoning Board was that the
1690 House would be reconstructed using the rehabilitation standards of the Secretary of the
Interior, not the preservation standards. The house was to be converted to a duplex at that time
and the plans included the complete replacement of the entry door and sidelights. The stairs and
wall paneling were to be saved, but the ceilings and floors were to be removed. The project was
put on hold and in July 2015 a special permit was issued that required the applicant to review the

interior features of the structure with the City and its representative, the Preservation Trust, and
for the Trust to be notified when elements were to be removed. At the walkthrough the project
manager said the stairs, floors, windows and interior shutters would be retained. The stairs and
floorboards were to be removed. Attorney Mead said while the applicant made a commitment to
preserve certain features, it was not a requirement of any permit. She said the exposed beams
and the brick arches in the basement would be added to the preservation restriction. As
remuneration the applicant would provide $10,000 towards the updating of the Historic Structure
Survey or two projects at the Cushing House.

The meeting was opened to comments from the public. Stephanie Niketic, 93 High
Street, said the law required that the significant historic features of the 1690 House be preserved
and did not indicate this was to apply to exterior features only. Tom Kolterjahn, 64 Federal
Street, distributed photographs of some of the features that have been lost. He said former NHC
chair Linda Smiley clearly indicated in a 2007 letter to the Massachusetts Historical Commission
the features that were to be retained. He added that the beams would not have been exposed in a
house of this period.

The Commission members said that at this time focus should be placed on the steps the
applicant might take to compensate for the removal of the historic features of the building
because very little is left to added to the preservation restriction. A recreation of the interior
features would not provide a meaningful benefit to the general public. The City would hold a
30-year restriction if the MHC declines to hold a restriction on a structure that has been altered.
Mark Bilodeau said $10,000 would not be adequate for the amount of damage that has been done
and he would recommend the amount be $25,000. Malcolm Carnwath said he is concerned that
when a developer profits from destroying an antique it encourages others to do the same.
Stephen Dodge suggested interpretive signage could be added that includes historic images of
the 1690 House and its place in the context of the Towle complex. Eric Ekman of Berkeley
Investments said he would be happy to provide signage and would submit a design for review
and approval by the Commission.

Ned McGrath moved to consider an offer, the amount of which the developer would
propose in writing, to establish funding for a project that would address the need for historic
preservation in the city and to review a revised preservation restriction submitted by the
developer. Stephen Dodge seconded motion. The motion was approved by a 3-2 vote, with
Malcolm Carnwath and Mark Bilodeau voting against it.