News

Newburyport: Clam shack hearing continued; broken tape recorder to blame

By Stephen Tait
Staff Writer
Published: April 23, 2008

NEWBURYPORT — It was, as resident Harvey Beit said, a historic evening at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting last night during a hearing to discuss the city's last remaining riverfront clam shack.

First, members of two of Newburyport's most historic clamming families — the Thurlows and the MacBurnies — attended the meeting to discuss, one against and one for, a proposal to make the clam shack a single-family home.

And then, the second of the historic occurrences is that the meeting had to be stopped nearly three hours in because a recorder the ZBA was using to record the meeting failed. Now, the meeting will continue June 10, which will mark at least the sixth meeting on the subject.

"It is the longest hearing I've ever heard of," Beit said after the announcement of the broken tape recorder. Beit, a former attorney known for his long orations at city meetings, then joked: "I must have broken it."

Ed Ramsdell, the chairman of the ZBA, apologized to an exasperated audience of at least two dozen people for forcing the meeting to be continued.

"I can't tell you how embarrassed I am by this," he said. "What can you do?"

The hearing is just the latest in a contentious proposal for 269 Water St. by Mark Roland to make the structure into a single-family house.

The shack, built in 1920, is 948-square-foot structure that sits almost directly over the Merrimack River. It is the only remaining shanty of at least a dozen that once lined Water Street that were used to shuck clams by local clam diggers in a neighborhood called Joppa.

Roland wants to build a shower and kitchen in the home to make it livable. But the building inspector denied a building permit, and the ZBA has denied both a special permit and a variance. Roland had appealed those decisions — one to land court — and the hearing last night stems from filing discrepancies and is a reset of hearings in March.

Robert Brennan, Roland's attorney, took about 50 minutes to address the board, using at least a half dozen displays, numerous letters from city officials and other documents to explain why his client deserved to live in the clam shack and addressing "misinformation" from previous meetings.

"There was a lot of muddying of the waters," he said of previous meetings in which emotions flared. "There was a lot of misinformation, either intentional or unintentionally put before the board."

Much of Brennan's time, however, aimed at putting to bed fears of inadequate safety at the location, which he facetiously dubbed "dead man's corner." Safety at the area was a specific point of contention brought up by opponents during previous hearings.

Brennan said according to police reports dating back six years — when they first started collecting such data — there has been only one accident recorded in that area, involving a person driving drunk. Other neighbors contested that many accidents occur there and it continues to be an "accident waiting to happen."

Duncan MacBurnie said he's seen accidents there, including cars that go over the seawall, but they "did not make the police roster because of who it was."

Brennan, citing danger issues, also said that out of the allowed uses for that land — including a school, nursery, church and others — a single-family home is the one that is the least busy. He also said statements about the curve being "blind" are just untrue and produced photographs to help illustrate the point.

Roland's attorney also said the home will, through a deed restriction often cherished by Historical Commissions, ensure the property remains forever the way it looks now. He also said Roland has put $150,000 into the restoration of the clam shack and that without it, it would be lost like the others.

"To preserve historic structure, they need to be used," he said. "This is an important project. It is a structure that should be preserved."

Five people attending the meeting spoke in favor of the project, and 72 people signed a petition in favor of Roland's request. John Morris, a Water Street resident, spoke in favor.

"I think what (Roland) is doing is a clear benefit for everyone in Newburyport," he said. "People should rally around him."

Bruce Thurlow, whose father and grandfather owned the shack during clamming days and sold it to Roland, said he supported the proposal. He said his father, Nestor, sold it to Roland even though Beit wanted to buy it, too: "My father didn't favor Mr. Beit, no offense."

"This place just has so much history," Thurlow said.

But before the night was ended, many also spoke in opposition.

Ward 1 City Councilor Larry McCavitt, who has fought the plan from the beginning, questioned two main issues: whether Roland even owns the land since it is historical public land and also tidelands, which are highly protected; and also if the meetings are even legit.

McCavitt argues the city owns the land and cites public documentation to that matter. He also called into question the manner in which the meeting was "reset," as Ramsdell had characterized it. McCavitt said the ZBA already voted down the requests and, by law, Roland must wait at least two years to bring another request.

"I believe this hearing is a nonentity," the councilor said. "I see no reason to change these findings."

Others, such as Marlboro Street resident Bill Abbott, a former chairman of the ZBA, said an approval of the requests would not likely be held up in court and that it would be a "complete disregard to our zoning ordinances."

"This is a grossly undersized and unsafe lot," he said.

At least six people stood to oppose the proposal before the meeting abruptly ended and was voted to continue. At least three others in the audience had raised their hands to oppose Roland's requests.

The meeting was being taped because the board was down to a minimum of five members. Under city law, a board member must hear all evidence of a hearing to vote on an issue. But a meeting may be taped or videotaped and then viewed or heard by the member to count as hearing evidence.