June 21, 2001

‘Smart Growth’ redux
Proposed bylaw goes up for another council vote Thursday night
Amesbury News - By JOEL BECK

Assuming that the full Municipal Council will be intact this Thursday night, it appears that the proposed Smart Housing Growth bylaw will be adopted.

Last month the bylaw, which is designed to ensure that housing growth occurs in an orderly and cost-effective manner, appeared to be dead in the water when it failed to garner the six votes it needed from the council. The 5-3 vote in favor of the ordinance fell one vote short of passing, with District 6 Councilor Tracey Brown, a sponsor of the ordinance, absent from the meeting.

Councilor At Large Tom Iacobucci managed to revive the ordinance, and the council will vote on it once again on Thursday. Those in favor of its passage, namely Iacobucci and Town Planner Nick Cracknell, who spearheaded it, are cautiously optimistic that with a full council, the bylaw will be adopted. Iacobucci said not only is it important that the bylaw is accepted, but that all nine councilors see eye to eye on the matter.

" I think that the most positive thing that can happen for Amesbury is that we have a unanimous vote, " Iacobucci said. " I believe that all the issues and concerns that have been raised over the last eight months were resolved and taken care of in the work negotiations that went into this process. "

Cracknell agreed that having full support of the entire council would be ideal, but also admitted that it may not be realistic. He said he has already spoken with councilors Joe Faro and Leonard Johnson, both of whom voted against it the first time around. Johnson said he had been concerned about a possible sunset clause within the bylaw that would limit the amount of time the bylaw would be in effect. Faro said he didn’t care for a section within the bylaw that indicates homes would be eligible for building permits based on a points system.

Cracknell conceded that even if there is still dissention among the councilor on Thursday, he believes the important issue for the town is that there are six votes to adopt the bylaw.

" We’re going to do the best we can to get unanimity on this, but it becomes inefficient to always try and get it, " Cracknell said. " What’s important for the community is to have it adopted, and if we need to make revisions down the road to clarify things, we’re certainly willing to do that and always have been. "

It appears, however, that if the Smart Growth bylaw is adopted it will be without the full support of the council. Faro said he remains unconvinced the bylaw offers the best scenario for Amesbury. He called the proposal as written confusing and misleading.

" I really think it’s a bad ordinance. I really think it’s written terribly, " Faro said. " You can put nice label on a skunk and call it a rose, but it’s still a skunk. "

Faro reiterated his concern for the points system within the ordinance, saying it just doesn’t make sense.
" The points system is broken down into 16 or 17 different categories and everyone of them has 11 or 12 different footnotes, " Faro said. " You read all the footnotes to any one of these things and it looks like there’s another layer of bureaucracy or several layers of bureaucracy that you’ve got to go through.

" I don’t see this as smart or good for growth. "

Cracknell said that after more than eight months of work on this ordinance, including two public hearings before the Municipal Council, the time has passed to do any tweaking or fine tuning. Now, he said, is the time to make it happen.

" We’ve had an eight-month planning process, " Cracknell said. " There has certainly been ample opportunity to participate in major revisions. It’s very difficult to do them at this point in time. "

In the end, Cracknell still maintains that if the bylaw goes into effect, it would provide the best possible scenario for Amesbury’s growth, keeping the character and tradition of its natural environment.

" From the world of planning, there’s no question that the inefficiency of large-lot developments alter the rural countryside into what’s generally considered expensive and land consumptive housing developments that bear no resemblance to the community, " Cracknell said. " What we’re trying to do is have development that respects the rural village character of our community and encourage development within our village center. "