What Timing…*Sigh*
Drinking Liberally is still on for tonight, but I’m just not going to make it. I messed up my back this weekend (I MUST be getting old, I’ve never done that before) and made it worse because I didn’t/couldn’t stop working, as it’s now January and I’m trying to get the new office cleaned, primed, and painted. (By the way, if you’re bored this week, please let me know if you like manual labor! 
).
Anyone who does go, please tell everyone (and tell all your local friends and neighbors) about the Deval Patrick event this weekend, Sunday, 5-6:15pm, at the Brewd Awakening Coffeehaus, 61 Market St. in downtown Lowell.
I’m off to go get some more ice for my back and supervise my amazing and loving parents who are helping me with the office today (thank goodness for them). Consider this another Open Thread
January 2nd, 2006 at 4:32 pm
More tax cuts for the rich are flying under the radar.
(excerpts from Globe editorial)
“The president’s chief ambition early in 2001 was to cut taxes deeply to soak up large budget surpluses. Yesterday, two sections of that law took effect, and will reduce taxes for the wealthiest Americans by about $27 billion over the next five years.
The tax cuts would repeal two provisions of a 1990 law, signed by the first President Bush, that made a start at restoring fiscal balance after the deficits of the Reagan years. These provisions limited the deductions and personal exemptions that high-income people could use to reduce their tax bills.
The changes are not to be confused with the alternative minimum tax, another part of federal tax law, which also sharply limited deductions for affluent Americans. Because it does not account for inflation, the AMT is about to hit people far lower on the income scale than those who will benefit most from the new tax cuts. A provision in the tax code that eased the impact of the AMT expired yesterday. The new tax cuts will provide a small break to people making about $150,000, but, according to the Urban Institute- Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington, more than half the $27 billion will go to the two-10ths of 1 percent of households with incomes above $1 million a year. These Americans already have received inordinate benefits from the tax cuts pushed through by the Republicans beginning in 2001. It’s not fair to the other 99.8 percent of taxpayers that the millionaires get more.
The tax cuts are taking effect a few weeks after Congress — worried about the burgeoning deficit yet planning to cut taxes even further — managed to agree on $39.7 billion in budget cuts to domestic spending programs.
Among those harmed would be poor people on Medicaid, who would have to spend more on copayments for medical treatment, and college students who would find the cost of loans increasing.”
January 3rd, 2006 at 10:03 am
JUst a few thoughts on this evenings agenda items (from the Lowell Sun):
“Among the motions, new City Councilor George Ramirez wants the manager to take the necessary steps to televise Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board meetings. Currently, only City Council and School Committee meetings are televised.”
Again, good idea, but merely a “kiss”…there has to be REAL reform on these boards.
Collectively, our boards do not serve the best interest of the residents of this city.
I’d like to see term limits on board members (these are not meant to be life long jobs),
Eliminate holdover appointments.
An abutters right to appeal & any of the board decisions CLEARLY posted (more easily accessible for the average human being)
Openings for board vacancies published in The Sun and online (CLEARLY posted).
I would propose that any new appointments, one of the primary requirements being, that no one shall serve if they are active builders/developers within this city. Furthermore, they should not be allowed to enter into service contracts with the city
(ie: towing, legal services, etc…)
City Councilor Edward “Bud” Caulfield also wants the city to investigate whether it would be feasible to purchase health insurance for city employees with other local towns, with an eye toward buying in bulk for reduced costs.
Again, GREAT idea! You folks saw it first here on Left in Lowell, (authored by myself) and proposed throughout
the election season (by my self). I am so thrilled to see that some of our
councilors were actually listening. Obviously, I could do anything with this (as I wasn’t elected), but I am glad to see that someone is
exploring this opportunity to save the taxpayers of this city money, instead of finding new ways to spend it.
Now, I’d like to see them take up centralizing supply procurement, forming a pool with surrounding cities and towns to lower
the costs of supply procurement. Hate to toot my own horn, but nobody else is going to do it for me! : )
“City Councilor Rodney Elliott has a couple motions addressing zoning and building issues. One would require site plan review for any development totaling more than 500 square feet. He also wants a report on the development proposed for the former Burbeck’s Ice Cream Stand.”
I have several thoughts on this issue…loopholes, loopholes, loopholes…they seem to POP up consistently. In referance to
two recent developments profiled in the Sun…3 units (houses) shoved onto VERY small lots. Neither of these projects warranted
a public hearing…why? New zoning? So, now with the new zoning in place, an abutters right to object or support has been taken away.
From my point of view, they just keep chipping away at our rights.
Loopholes….the SAME NAMES KEEP COMING UP! Why is that? Certain individuals by virtue of their associations have been given FREE
PASSES while many others have not been given the same consideration.
So, it’s OK for Guthrie’s assistant to build garbage, but not alright for
the average joe….HMMMMMMM…awfully suspect to me….
Furthermore, our esteemed Building Comm. also sits on the Planning Board in Westford where he resides and his son has been able to develop and build and raise flooding issues for abutters. My goodness, our sickness is infecting other towns!
My question is…have the conflicts been going on for so long, that no one realizes that their actions are wrong & destructive
and BARELY lEGAL
Many of these developers are not even Lowell residents. God forbid, someone tried to build garbage in their back yard..
You can bet, it probably would not happen.
When is it going to stop. When is ENOUGH ENOUGH!!! When is our council going to stand up and accept responsibility?
I propose a MORATORIUM on all residential development until DPD, the Boards, Legal Dept. and the City Council get their acts togther.
Any of the statutes/bylaws are open to interpretaion by the Boards.
What might have been the primary intent BECOMES directly the opposite outcome.
We find ourselves, after all legal appeals have run out and no one has ANY recourse, scrambling to change bylaws for the next time.
I do not think posting signs on properties to be developed (with approvals already in hand) would be effective. Really,
WHY BOTHER! After the fact, there is NOTHING any abutter could do.
As for the Burbecks ice cream stand development….
FYI…SIX stories, the zoning was changed from Commercial to “Institutional”
(just for the purpose of this development).
Apparently, with the institutional Zoning, there are NO setbacks required with God only knows what other exemptions.
So…SIX STORY building, FORTY UNITS with only 57 PARKING SPACES…AT the very least, whatever happened to the preposterous notion of
2.2 parking spaces per unit. I don’t know of anyone who has a .2 car…Do you?
This is already a pretty condensed area, no other parking opportunities and significant traffic issues. HAve trafiic studies
been done? ARe any of those units designated affordable housing? Or are they all market rate?
The police very rarely enforce parking bans in our neighborhoods…this development wouldn’t be any differant.
KUDOS to any abutter who chooses to appeal it. Land Court issues take 3-5 years to resolve.
On a lighter note, hope you all had Merry Christmas and I wish you all great health, wealth and happiness in the New Year!
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:40 am
Six stories and 40 units at the Burbecks ice cream stand? Surely, you are joking….
Right?
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:51 am
Absolutely not!
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:56 am
BY the way, the public hearing for the Burbecks bldg. project is this evening, 1/3. So, for an evening of abuse from the esteemed
Planning Board Chairman.
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:59 pm
There seems to be many ways that “they” can get around any restricitions that may be established. Builders not on boards? But there friends are equally complicit. And there are always land exchanges, such as the Clark Road property, where the approvals were granted to the previous owners, the land then sold, and developed by the politically-favored contractor.
It is difficult for any one person to gather the information necessary to put an end to these corrupt practices. If enough affected parties were able to band together, they may have enough ammunition to prompt a justice department investigation.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:21 pm
I have to reluctantly agree with you Waitil’..On the Clark Rd. property, as I understand it…the water on the property was drained
off for a month prior to a notice of intent being submitted to the Conservation Commission.
The water was discharged, no doubt, illegally into strom water drains..
I do think, ultimately, the practices will continue until there is JD investigation.
If one was to do a title/land search of many well known developers, board members, elected officials..one would find bits and pieces
of paper trails. However, the information is buried and one would have to be very well versed in that area of investigation.
The JD or any investigative body for that mattre, tends to only investigate if a good portion of the leg work is done for them.
Where would one begin?
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:48 pm
I can confirm KRS’s information on the Burbeck’s property. 6 stories, 40 units 56 parking
spaces. I know people from the neighborhood were at the first public hearing before the
planning board on 12/12 and the chairman was openly hostile to them! They told the developer
to come back with a proposal for 1 parking space per bedroom (current regulation is 3/4 cars
per bedroom) So I fully expect them to approve the special permit tonight. Because they are
not proposing ANY setback from the street it conforms to zoning and no ZBA review is needed so
it’s my understanding that if the special permit is approved tonight the next step would be
district court.
The initial design of the building sort of looks like the Commonwealth Hotel in Kenmore Sq
and would sit along the wooden fence on the park side of the property sort of facing
Walker St, not Pawtucket.
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:57 pm
I beleive the appeal should have to be filed in Superior Court. The District Courts are useless for this type of stuff.
From what I understand in speaking with a couple of folks over there, the planning board decision will be appealed.
January 3rd, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Does anyone have experience with the on-line bill payment to the city of Lowell? I received my tax bill with a notice of how to pay online, but when I went to the city site, the following was in the conditions.
“Signing up for this service is free and allows you to access, view, and pay your bills through a 3rd party Merchant.
Payment may be made directly from your checking or savings account by electronic check (ACH Transaction), or by credit card.
As the bill payer, you are responsible for any convenience fees assessed by the 3rd party Merchant for bill payment.”
It would appear that if you pay online, you may be subject to an undiscloses service charge from the third party. (Is this another city of Lowell sweetheart deals?).
Has anyone used this, and if so, was there a fee added to the bill?
January 3rd, 2006 at 5:33 pm
I am told, and I have not personally read this, that the development is limited in height
to TWICE
January 3rd, 2006 at 5:36 pm
What does this mean..”that the development is limited in height to TWICE”
January 3rd, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Sorry hit the wrong button.
As I was saying, in an Institutional Zone I am told the height of the new development is
limited to TWICE the height of the tallest abutter.
So to travel down a slippery slope. A 6 story condo complex goes in at Burbecks, across
Walker Street is a beautiful old home, next to the adult day care center that just moved to a
larger facility, then comes the old McDonald Gage property. So, what is to stop an
enterprising young connected developer from buying two or three of those properties and putting
up a 12 story condo complex? It would then be surrounded by a 6 story complex on one side
and a gas station and the University on the other side.
Then lets start creeping up Walker and Wilder streets.
January 3rd, 2006 at 7:13 pm
As for the Burbeck property, it was purchased in June ‘05 for $1,137,500 by a group of 3 people. It should be noted that the property is assessed at $221,000 in the latest assessment, although that assessment likely preceded the recent sale.
In August ‘05 Burbeck Falls, LLC was incorporated, and in September the property was sold for $1 to this corporation.
One of the principals of LLC also purchased 2 properties on upper Merrimack St. in October ‘05. This is the area where CM Cox has recently assumed will be the entryway to the new bridge over the Merrimack. There may be no relationship between the purchase and the bridge plan.
The lawyer for the Burbeck Falls, LLC (and other corporations with the same principal) is apparently the same one for many of the developments in the city in the past few years.
January 3rd, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Nice job this evening, KRS. It will be an interesting year, this 2006!
January 3rd, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Good Info Waitil’…That’s a very interesting issue with the “twice” the height issue! I spoke with Matt Coggins this evening
about the institutional zoning..apparently, this zoning implies just that.(what I orig. thougt) to health care, school, etc..
apparently done by UMASS.
Now, were you able to ascertain who is part of this group of “three” or is it a real estate trust.
On the properties at the head of Merrimack, are you referring to the apartment buildings?
The lawyer to whom you are referring, this wouldn’t happen to be the ever present Mr. Flood?
Thanks for watching this evening and thanks for the encouragement. I am out of practice speaking to anyone but 4 & 6 year olds. : )
And it is far easier to speak on the radio.
To the council’s credit and the CM’s credit this evening, they actually appeared attentive, many times not the case.
Also, I do beleive Jim’s “Cackles” (sp?) were raised this evening. I do know the process is not easy.
My main point is the glaring disparity between the intent of the law and the outcome and how it is applied.
January 3rd, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Good job KRS. I don’t agree with the motion, but I applaud your involvement. To me the notion of reviewing every project of 500 square feet or more is ridiculous. That would be a great way to grind everything to a halt. That is a site plan review for basically EVERY project in the city. I think that’s been found to be illegal by higher courts. Why have a zoning code if there is nothing you can do legally?
January 3rd, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Because the zoning code is arbitrary. The same standard is not applied to everyone. With the most recent issues that have
arisen.
Namely, the project that involved Joe Guthrie’s asst….this same type of project was proposed by a few other developers and
summarily shot down. The interpretaion of our codes is not uniform and extremely subjective to the whims of those that are
charged with enforcing them.
Again, the primary intent of our codes and our laws are good..But like a good game of “Operator”, the outcome is not neccesarily
in keeping with the intial intent
The time has come that this process has to be slowed down a bit. By no means, would it grind the process to a halt.
Thanks for the compliment Mike, we all don’t have to agree, just respect where each of us is coming from and we all meet
somewhere in the middle! (eventually) : )
January 3rd, 2006 at 10:49 pm
The three principals in the June ‘05 purchase can be found in the No. Middlesex deeds - public info, Espinola, Golden and Regan.
Atty Flood is correct.
No, not the apartments at the head of Merrimack (which would be on Pawtucket St., I think), but two building on upper Merrimack which may be currently used as doctor’s offices.
I don’t know about the twice the height issue, but the zoning code for institutional appears to have an 8 story limit.
There was an article in the paper tonight about a developer being penalized for working without a necessary permit. The developer is the ogre of the Rogers Hall area. Apparently someone over there is watching what he is up to.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Aaaaah Mainville….He was party to the project being dome by Gutjrie’s assistant.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:22 am
Pardon me…”He was party to the project being done by Guthrie’s assistant”
January 4th, 2006 at 9:41 am
I’ve looked up the upper Merrimack St. properties, and they are not in the “institutional” zone, but rather are multi-family houses. So I think you can scratch those from this discussion.
But on the Burbeck property, it appears that one of the group of 3 buyers (June ‘05 purchase from prior owner) is Golden, as in Rep. Thomas A. Golden, Jr. However, his name doesn’t get carried over in the August transfer of the property (for $1) to Burbeck Falls LLC. It would be interesting to know the background of the Dec ‘04 zoning change. The “institutional” zone extension to the Burbeck property was noted as a UMASS initiative in earlier discussion. Now why would UMASS have that interest?
January 4th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Mainville, by other names:
R.A.M. Homes, LLC
R.A.M. Contracting, LLC
R.A.M. Nesmith, LLC
RAPS Homes, LLC
Seneca Development, LLC
You may look for them in your neighborhood.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:28 am
I thought that “Golden” was familiar. He works out of United Estates Realty with McMahon..I don’t know specifically why UMASS
had interest in that property..I think that whole area is designated as Institutional (b/c of UMASS). I’d have to check the zoning maps to see
where that zone extends to..I am sure, Golden must have some stake in Burbeck LLC..why would one invest in a purchase &
receive no return..
January 4th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
And now United Estates Realty is no more!
January 4th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Thanks for the info K-R-S. Sometimes the problem in Lowell isn’t truly malintent, it is just that everyone are friends to one another. It is really hard to be objective when you know these people on a personal level.
January 4th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
I was mistaken on the twice the height in institutional zoning, it’s twice the height of the
nearest abutter OR 8 stories which ever is smaller.
The front man for Burbecks Falls LLC is Brian McGowan, one of the principals of Ten Men Inc.,
interesting that his name doesn’t appear in the sale!!! I was unaware that Rep Golden was
involved in this!!! Things are beginning to make sense.
Last night the PB approved the high rise special permit 6 stories, 39 units, 22, 1 bedroom and
17, 2 bedrooms, 56 parking spaces. Local neighbors filled the hearing room but only a couple
were allowed to speak, you can imagine the rest were less than pleased about that and made
their feelings known, but it appeared to be a done deal going in.
According to records I’ve seen there is an over $860K mortgage on the property so the
developer will want to get the project going as quickly as they can!
For those who many know abutters, the window of opportunity is closing for an appeal.
If I understand it correctly the window closes 14 days after the PB sumbits its vote
to the city clerks office. An appeal would slow the project by years and given the fact
they are carrying an 800K mortgage, perhaps give developers an incentive to work WITH the
neighborhood!
January 4th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Good Call, No One You Know…you have nailed! I have had many conversations with many of the folks concerned about this development.
My advise, APPEAL, APPEAL, APPEAL…You are exactly right, an appeal can hold this up for YEARS..I had suggested to the folks at the boat club to
work with the other abutters, to appeal the decision..both as a means of moral support, and ease the financial burden for legal
costs.
January 4th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
On another note, from an investment point, wouldn’t it have more sense to get all of the necessary approvals PRIOR to laying out
the cash for the property (Odd)..Also, what happened to United Estates? Have they morphed themselves into something else?
January 4th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
United Estates sold to ERA Morrison yesterday.
January 4th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
In case anyone wants to look up info on these players or their many “businesses”:
http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/corp/corpsearch/corpsearchinput.asp
Or search the deeds at:
http://www.lowelldeeds.com/
January 5th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
WaitTil…The corporate search engine is wonderful…Interesting to see who is who and where they fit. Particularly interesting were the corp. dissolved involuntarily by the courts.
January 6th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
On a different subject, the Lock Monsters may be leaving a void at the Tsongas arena. It appears that the city is going to try to salvage the team, or make alternate plans. But, how can anyone think to pay $3.5M to keep a team in the city when it is losing money each year. Bad investment!
The only hope of retaining the team would be if it went public, and enough people were able to put the money up, and provide the base of fan support for long term operations. The city itself should not subsidize or buy this, as that approach doesn’t foster the interest of the fan base.
Alternatively, the arena can substitute a mixture of events that would draw from a wider base for support. After all, there are only 40 home dates for hockey, and there is a lot of overhead in keeping the rink in shape.
Any recommendations from the Left!
January 6th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
I heard that idea offered up on WCAP this morning. I like the idea of the team going public.
I do not agree that the city should buy it or subsidize it. Though I know the city does subsidize it to a degree in the lease
agreement. Same goes with the Spinners.
Does Lowell have a Youth Hockey League? In the town where I grew up, hockey was huge. Does the HS have a hockey team? My apologies
if I am not in the “know” about hockey. : )
January 7th, 2006 at 9:50 am
The high school does have a hockey team, and with a winning record this year, although it usually does not play against the elite teams. I think their home games are at the Janas rink.
The youth hockey league is also at Janas, I believe. The Tsongas arena may be too expensive for games at this level. Although it may seem to make sense to use it, rather than leave it vacant, the cost of operation may exceed any reasonable fee that they could charge free admission games.
The secret in going public with the franchise is the creation of wide interest. If they sold 100,000 shares at $50, they could raise enough money to buy the team and provide some margin for operational losses. But, more importantly, if 5000 people bought these shares (an average $1000 investment), there would be 5000 people who would have a vested interest in the success of the team.
Manchester seems to be pretty successful with their team. Do they just have a better demographics for hockey, or do they have some organizational arrangement that fosters interest?
The easiest solution would be to let the team go, but once that is done, Lowell would not be in a position to get a team back.
January 7th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Unfortunately the Lock Monsters lost their best opportunity to build a fan base and put people
in the seats last season. They did not market the team to the Boston TV stations during the
NHL Lockout. If they had done that (spoon feeding them video clips of the game to get the
TV types interested) then the fan base would be there. As it is now I think the team, if
not sold and moved, will desolve.
The Spinners are another problem. The city turned down a chance to expand the ballpark to
accomidate more fans at the Weber’s expense by getting greedy on them. At some point the
Webers will have to make a move because they are maxed out in the potential income area.
Selling out the ballpark season after season the only way to raise additional capital is raise
ticket and concession prices.
January 7th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
waitil wondered at the success of the Manchester team.
Manchester has any number of tools that Lowell does not.
A successful TV station, a statewide newspaper, a well listened to radio affiliate,
a top notch airport, entertainment venues that attract “A” list bands.
Comparing Manchester to Lowell is like apples and oranges, if I were going to invest in sports
or entertainment enterprises it would be in Manchester, not Lowell.
January 7th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
I’m not a big fan on subsidizing sports either. I went to see a Riverhawks games with my family at an UMASS alumni event and we had alot of fun. Still our tickets were free, I think it was 12 dollars for an adult to see the game and 4 dollars for college students. I would spend 5, not 12 to go again. It seems hard to build up a fan base with the LockMonsters, when we already have the Riverhawks.T
he Tsongas always seems packed with concerts and children’s entertainment, maybe with the Lock Monsters leaving it opens up more time slots for that. I have to admit it was wonderful to be able to see “The Wiggles” just 5 minutes from my house instead of trudging into Boston.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
If I am correct in my recall, didn’t the Commonwealth subsidize the construction of Gillette Stadium? Remember back when the Pats were going to relocate to CT?
I would think Lowell would have to start looking at their venue attractions differantly. Obviously, steady revenue is not
forthcoming from Hockey.
There is a however, a larger potential in attracting a much wider range and varied types of entertainment.
My apologies for the lack of knowledge on the LHS hockey team. Obviously, my children are far younger and the Sports Page is not the
the first thing I look at when I look at the paper. : )
The verizon center has had some great shows! Whenever I hear I hear of some of the venues, I always question, why we do not have
those venues?
Going back….did anyone see the article about the Pawtucket St. project BURIED in the LOCAL section of the Sun today?
How can a sale “not be filed yet”. My bet, he still owns a portion of it…Chances are, the sale of his share will be filed very shortly.
I don’t think he anticipated this much scrutiny. I wonder if the Sun took a peek at this blog?????
January 7th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Oh, also…in regards to the last portion of the previous entry, I was referring to “Tip” Golden.
And my goodness….with so many of Lowell’s Finest Developing Property..one has to wonder why they needed to work less days per week as a police officer..( This of course, does not pertain to all…., just a few….)
January 7th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
The state did not subsidize the construction of Gillette Stadium. It was funded entirely with private money. The state spent money improving infrastructure along route one, and there may have been some additional money spent on the train station.
January 8th, 2006 at 7:52 am
Thanks for clarifying -b. I do recall a small brouha at that time, because the state was being asked to fund some “portion” of the project.
January 8th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
I saw the article on Pawtucket St as well and it raised more questions than it answered, like
how did they discharge the mortgage after selling their interest for $1 because at that
point the mortgage would have to be paid off? Golden’s name still appeared on the deed in the
sale to Burbeck Falls LLC for $1 so he had not “sold” his interest to his
partners. Then there was the quote by the PB Chairman that said he didn’t
know of Golden’s interest just assumed he was going to be the listing agent. If he didn’t
know of Golden’s interest why would he assume he was going to be the listing agent?
And if Golden got out of the project because he thought it would be too big for the area
why isn’t he stepping up to the plate now and opposing it?
January 8th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
All of these questions…also the part about taking more greenspace from Sheehy Park, paving it and the boat club could use that as a turnaround..\
If I’m not mistaken..isn’t that state property? Does PB chairman have jurisdiction over it?
Obviously, if there was a sale of the proerty, it would have been filed along time ago…The registry of Deeds is not THAT slow..
Perhaps Dick could weigh in on this. : )
From what I understand the neighbors are appealing the decision.
I know that someone was down on Friday to get an audio copy of the PB meeting, before it is destroyed.
Interestingly enough..according to reports..the sound quality on the tape is so poor, the mtg is barely audible. The lack of an
adequate audio system has apparently been an issue for some time & yet to be rectified. Doesn’t seem too difficult an issue to
remedy.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
The newspaper is making the issue the approval by the planning board. Golden is saying that his interest had concluded prior to that action, although there are questions about how and when that happened.
What is being overlooked is the extension of the institutional zone down Pawtucket street to include the Burbeck property. That was done in 2004, well before Golden was partner in the purchase of the property. It is this process that should be investigated.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Sheehy Park is city owned. The Vandenberg Park across the river is state owned.
(as in Vandenberg Air Force Base, he was a Lowell native)
If I understood the planning board proposal correctly the city would maintain ownership.
I’d love to hear that recording, it’s amazing what can be done with audio to clean up the
sound quality.
K-R-S do you still check your old campaign e-mail address?
January 8th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
I would agree regarding the process of extending the institiutional zoning. That had previously been valuable commercial space
and to change it over to institiutional…again very odd, but not out of character for the rezoning as they off loaded ALOT of
commercial property in that process.
I’ll have to check with Lynette on the tape thing.
Yes, I still check my old campaign email.
January 8th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
I think that Bill Martin was quoted in the article as saying they included the Burbeck’s
property into the Institutional Zone in anticipation of the University wanting it for dorms.
The article says the only other Instutitional area is around the North Campus.
An interesting side note, at the PB hearing opponents brought up the fact that the high number
of single bedroom units close to the University seems to indicate that there will be a lot of
students living in the condo and they fear it will become party central. The PB pooh poohed
it but the lawyer for the developer refused to agree to any restriction that would prevent that
from happening.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Has anyone seen the BIG banner that is currently hanging from Burbecks, advertising “rentals”? Brought to you by Ten Men Inc.
Is that sign advertising for that property or other properties TMI represent?
Would it be feasible to agree to those restrictions? I would think, if an individual owns a condo, there is nothing to stop the
owner from renting it out?
January 8th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
“…in anticipation of the University wanting it for dorms”
Yes, and who planted that seed?
January 8th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Yes, who indeed….??
Perhaps those higher up in our government who may have had some hints from Higher Ed, that they’d be seeking to expand?
January 8th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
BTW, thanks for clearing up the Sheehy Park question I had. : )
I was curious about that.
January 9th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
The banner for TMI has been hanging on the building all summer. At the PB hearing Atty Flood
refused to agree to language that would prevent the developer from renting units to college
kids if they can’t be sold.
January 9th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
That would ake sense on Flood’s part. If this were a stipulation, then it would have to have been part of a convenant attached
to the development. If this parcel was classified as institutional for the intent as “dormitory” housing..it would seem that
this development would defeat the purpose of zoning ordinance. So it would seem that this zoning ordinance was misapplied.
Mayor Matin was on WCAP this AM. To paraphrase what he said in regards to this issue, :The planning board could have done alot more
with this and had more latitude, but chose not to use it”. To that effect.