Zoning amendment for big Arsenal Yards rooftop sign
jboc...@rcn.com
FYI, last week I sent the following letter to WatertownNews (it has yet to be published) about the proposed Arsenal Yards rooftop overlooking the river and park. Whatever your views on this, it’s time to let your City Councilors know. They are already receiving letters in support of the sign. (Please feel free to pass this along to people who may not be on this email group and to groups in other parts of town.) ---
Our City Council will soon vote on a proposal to allow a large, illuminated sign for Arsenal Yards – effectively a glowing billboard with ten-foot tall letters – to shine from atop the 130-foot high-rise tower looming over the Charles River, its park and paths. The proposal was written by the developer of Arsenal Yards. If the proposal passes, the Planning Board will be poised to give the developer a permit for the sign. Allowing the amendment and the sign would be a tragic mistake.
The path of the Charles River through Watertown is widely known as a rare urban gem. The state-owned Charles River Reservation in Watertown is equal in size to about 63% of all city-owned parks and playgrounds, comprising about 40% of all publicly owned open space in town. The City’s Comprehensive Plan calls it “the primary scenic resource” and “the most notable resource” in Watertown, saying its presence “offers a significant number of scenic and historic landscapes ... considered to be of paramount importance to area residents, including views to and from the river.” That Plan set a goal to “improve the environmental integrity of the Charles River while enhancing its recreational, cultural, and educational values for the community.” The City’s Open Space Plan said the river is the foremost of only three areas in town that “provide a suitable habitat for fish, birds and other animals …. the most significant wildlife corridor in Watertown that supports both fish migration and bird migration through the region.” That Plan described the stretch of river including Little Greenough as “a pastoral experience available in few other urban centers.” Our Community Preservation Plan found there is too little green open space accessible to the public in Watertown, and at its community forum, “open space was the top priority expressed by participants.”
Our city’s planning staff recommended in favor of the zoning amendment. They acknowledge that the sign will contribute to light pollution but accept the developer’s claim that it “would not be visible to any extent” from either Greenough Boulevard or the river. The developer stated that “obscured view” of the sign (presumably meaning light shining through trees even when they are in leaf) will be visible from all along Little Greenough and part of North Beacon Street. They do not mention the visibility of the sign from the river itself or from the parkland on the opposite bank.
The staff also seemed favorably impressed with photos of other shining roof signs offered by the developer as “precedents.” If you track down where these glowing “precedent” signs – Domino Sugars, Schuylkill Yards, Converse, Whoop and Puma – are, although they may be not far from rivers as the crow flies, they are in industrial areas, dense urban areas, and/or surrounded by other high-rises or parking lots. The placement of these other signs is in fact a warning for what a bad idea this sign would be at the “primary scenic resource,” “most notable resource,” and “most significant wildlife corridor” in Watertown. And as these precedent signs make clear, while the proposal features an “Arsenal Yards” sign today, there is nothing in the amendment that would prevent a “Chipotle” sign tomorrow.
We residents and our City government are all stewards of the river and its park, caretakers for ourselves, our children and future generations. Our predecessors once allowed the river to be used freely as a public sewer for private industrial wastes. We should know better than to repeat their mistake. We should not squander our common wealth for the benefit of a few.
If you agree, I urge you to write to your District City Councilor and the At-Large Councilors, at citycou...@watertown-ma.gov, to express your view and ask to hear back from them. It’s not yet known when the City Council will vote on this amendment, but it’s unlikely we’ll get much advance warning, so it’s important to act now.
Sincerely,
Jon Bockian
Donald Roy Lessard
On Sep 11, 2022, at 10:17 AM, jboc...@rcn.com wrote:
FYI, last week I sent the following letter to WatertownNews (it has yet to be published) about the proposed Arsenal Yards rooftop overlooking the river and park. Whatever your views on this, it’s time to let your City Councilors know. They are already receiving letters in support of the sign. (Please feel free to pass this along to people who may not be on this email group and to groups in other parts of town.) ---Our City Council will soon vote on a proposal to allow a large, illuminated sign for Arsenal Yards – effectively a glowing billboard with ten-foot tall letters – to shine from atop the 130-foot high-rise tower looming over the Charles River, its park and paths. The proposal was written by the developer of Arsenal Yards. If the proposal passes, the Planning Board will be poised to give the developer a permit for the sign. Allowing the amendment and the sign would be a tragic mistake.
The path of the Charles River through Watertown is widely known as a rare urban gem. The state-owned Charles River Reservation in Watertown is equal in size to about 63% of all city-owned parks and playgrounds, comprising about 40% of all publicly owned open space in town. The City’s Comprehensive Plan calls it “the primary scenic resource” and “the most notable resource” in Watertown, saying its presence “offers a significant number of scenic and historic landscapes ... considered to be of paramount importance to area residents, including views to and from the river.” That Plan set a goal to “improve the environmental integrity of the Charles River while enhancing its recreational, cultural, and educational values for the community.” The City’s Open Space Plan said the river is the foremost of only three areas in town that “provide a suitable habitat for fish, birds and other animals …. the most significant wildlife corridorin Watertown that supports both fish migration and bird migration through the region.” That Plan described the stretch of river including Little Greenough as “a pastoral experience available in few other urban centers.” Our Community Preservation Plan found there is too little green open space accessible to the public in Watertown, and at its community forum, “open space was the top priority expressed by participants.”
Our city’s planning staff recommended in favor of the zoning amendment. They acknowledge that the sign will contribute to light pollution but accept the developer’s claim that it “would not be visible to any extent” from either Greenough Boulevard or the river. The developer stated that “obscured view” of the sign (presumably meaning light shining through trees even when they are in leaf) will be visible from all along Little Greenough and part of North Beacon Street. They do not mention the visibility of the sign from the river itself or from the parkland on the opposite bank.
The staff also seemed favorably impressed with photos of other shining roof signs offered by the developer as “precedents.” If you track down where these glowing “precedent” signs – Domino Sugars, Schuylkill Yards, Converse, Whoop and Puma – are, although they may be not far from rivers as the crow flies, they are in industrial areas, dense urban areas, and/or surrounded by other high-rises or parking lots. The placement of these other signs is in fact a warning for what a bad idea this sign would be at the “primary scenic resource,” “most notable resource,” and “most significant wildlife corridor” in Watertown. And as these precedent signs make clear, while the proposal features an “Arsenal Yards” sign today, there is nothing in the amendment that would prevent a “Chipotle” sign tomorrow.
We residents and our City government are all stewards of the river and its park, caretakers for ourselves, our children and future generations. Our predecessors once allowed the river to be used freely as a public sewer for private industrial wastes. We should know better than to repeat their mistake. We should not squander our common wealth for the benefit of a few.
If you agree, I urge you to write to your District City Councilor and the At-Large Councilors, at citycou...@watertown-ma.gov, to express your view and ask to hear back from them. It’s not yet known when the City Council will vote on this amendment, but it’s unlikely we’ll get much advance warning, so it’s important to act now.
Sincerely,Jon Bockian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Friends of the Watertown Riverfront" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fotwr+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fotwr/001401d8c5e9%2446203f80%24d260be80%24%40rcn.com.
Karin
On Sep 11, 2022, at 10:17 AM, jboc...@rcn.com wrote:
--
Diane Crowley
I just sent an email to my Town Councilor, Lisa Feltner and to
Councilor at Large, Tony Palomba. I hope we are able to keep out the
sign for Arsenal Yards and any other businesses who would like to
follow suit. I agree that we need to protect our green areas from
light pollution.
Thank you again for alerting me to this issue.
Sincerely,
Diane Crowley
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 11:58 AM 'Dave MartinA' via ccgwatertown
<ccgwat...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jon & All,
>
> Thanks for the update and sharing of information to us all. I am starting to draft up a letter to the City Councilors. But first, I am starting an outline. Much of it comes from your ideas, others are mine.
>
> There are probably more issues that need to be presented that I missed. Maybe others out here can add to my outline below. That way we can be sure that our letters are as comprehensive as possible:
>
> 1. Boylston Properties "branding" of Watertown.
>
> 2. Historic zoning change to allow signs facing Charles River.
>
> 3. Visibility of sign from non Mass Pike locations. It will be visible from part of North Beacon St.
>
> 4. Lack of projections showing visibility of sign from all locations during times deciduous trees are bare.
>
> 5. Lack of Planning Dept/Board analysis justified and weighed fairly against the Comprehensive Plan.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Dave Martin
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ccgwatertown" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ccgwatertown...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ccgwatertown/001401d8c5e9%2446203f80%24d260be80%24%40rcn.com.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ccgwatertown" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ccgwatertown...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ccgwatertown/3E7086F28A0D4408B56A66EB2DC195A3%40davealice.
jboc...@rcn.com
Dave Martin asked me to post on this listserv his letter below to the city councilors.
Jon
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave MartinA
Cc: Lisa Feltner ; John Airasian ; apal...@watertown-ma.gov ; cb...@watertown-ma.gov ; jga...@watertown-ma.gov ; ngar...@watertown-ma.gov ; vpicc...@watertown-ma.gov ; ei...@watertown-ma.gov
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 12:18 PM
Subject: Boylston Building G Sign Proposal: Request Delay Of Vote Until After Leaves Have Fallen
Dear Council President Sideris,
I am against the Boylston Properties Building G sign proposal but that is not the purpose of this email.
In this email, I am requesting that you postpone the vote for this proposal until after the leaves have fallen. Yesterday, Sept 5, I took a walk down North Beacon, up Little Greenough, over the Arsenal St bridge, west down Soldier's Field, then looped back over the North Beacon Bridge. I took pictures from different vantage points along the way.
Very disturbing to me was the visibility of Building G -- and the proposed sign -- many points along the way, barely being blocked by deciduous trees. I saw the visibility study provided by Boylston. It is incomplete and even deceptive since it does not address the 5-6 months of the year when there is no foliage. The photos I took were from various vantage points by park benches on both sides of the river. They can be used for future reference if so desired.
This vote has historic ramifications. Never before has any signage been allowed to be posted facing the public park lands over the Charles River. All the facts must be present for you, and all City Councilors, to vote with confidence that you have made the right decision.
Please wait until the leaves have fallen so Building G can be observed as it would appear during a critical time of the year. Boylston presented their case as the signage being minimally visible outside of the Mass Pike. During the fall, winter, and early spring times, this will clearly not be the case.
Sincerely With Thanks,
Dave (and Alice) Martin
North Beacon St.
P.S. I am cc'ing this message to the other councilors as well. Hopefully they would agree that a delay would be the proper way to address such a sensitive issue.
jboc...@rcn.com
This is terrific news and at the same time, this episode exemplifies a serious problem that hasn’t gone away.
Congratulations to all of us who took the time to write to our City Councilors and Watertown News and saved Greenough Boulevard. Thanks to Dave Martin for sharing the photos that prove how visible the proposed sign would have been from Greenough; to those Councilors who got the message out that they would vote against the sign amendment; and to Charlie Breitrose for running a medium for public participation. As to a word of appreciation for Boylston Properties for finally reading the room and retracting the proposal (for the moment), it must be noted that had the amendment been defeated at Council, it couldn’t be reconsidered for two years.
Regardless of how this amendment may be revised in the future, of how much the language is tightened up, how much the smell of spot zoning is laundered, or what criteria are added to guide the discretion of the Planning Board (the Planning Board that unanimously recommended approval of this amendment), there should never be a sign facing Greenough Boulevard.
The ongoing, chronic problem this episode highlights is the philosophy and method of operation of our planning department. How could our city planners have been so out of touch with public opinion and our best interests as to have recommended this sign amendment? How could they have so blatantly ignored the policies and recommendations of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Plan? Why should we bother with a new Comprehensive Plan when the planning department so flagrantly ignores the plan we already have? Why should the city spend millions to acquire additional public green space (which deserves our support) if this is the way the department treats the unique green space we already have? How could the department have been so willing to sacrifice the precious resource of our riverfront for the benefit of one property, however large? It is now George Proakis’ department and up to him to set it on a better course.
(This comment has also been sent to the Watertown News.)
Jon
From: Kathy Santoian <ksan...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 7:53 AM
To: Family Ryan <jsnm...@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Bockian <jboc...@rcn.com>; Friends of the Watertown River <fo...@googlegroups.com>; Concerned Citizens Group <ccgwat...@googlegroups.com>; Riverside Neighbors <riverside-neighb...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Request For Delay Of Building G Sign Vote
I agree. We need to remain vigilant.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 22, 2022, at 9:46 PM, Family Ryan <jsnm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
I just saw a notice in Watertownmanews stating that: Arsenal Yards Pulls Request for Illuminated Sign on Tower
Great news today, but from the statements in the article, McQuillan and Boston Properties may submit a similar application for a lighted sign some time in the future. We need to keep a careful eye on this development!
- Sarah Ryan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Riverside Neighborhood Watertown" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to riverside-neighborhood...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/riverside-neighborhood-watertown/004701d8c7a3%24fdb2cda0%24f91868e0%24%40rcn.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ccgwatertown" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ccgwatertown...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ccgwatertown/A407C021-EDAE-457C-BE37-A34921FE140A%40gmail.com.
Diane Crowley
Yards had withdrawn it's request for the 10 foot high sign!!!!!
Thank you, Jonathan for bringing this issue to my attention and
rallying the citizens of Watertown!
Diane Crowley
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fotwr+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fotwr/001e01d8cf57%24edd95fa0%24c98c1ee0%24%40rcn.com.
Anne Benaquist
Anne B.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 23, 2022, at 10:40 AM, Diane Crowley <dian...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Received an email from Councilor Tony Palomba saying that Arsenal
Susan Klaw
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/riverside-neighborhood-watertown/001e01d8cf57%24edd95fa0%24c98c1ee0%24%40rcn.com.
Jon Bockian
On Sep 23, 2022, at 11:11 AM, Joseph Levendusky <jleve...@earthlink.net> wrote:
"The ongoing, chronic problem this episode highlights is the philosophy and method of operation of our planning department. How could our city planners have been so out of touch with public opinion and our best interests as to have recommended this sign amendment? How could they have so blatantly ignored the policies and recommendations of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Plan?”This hits the nail right on the head, Jon. We need a committee to meet with the new manager, Mr. Proakis, and press this very question. And it needs to happen very soon. Strike while the iron is hot. These backroom deals have got to be made a thing of the past.
Amanda Peacock
On Sep 23, 2022, at 10:22 AM, <jboc...@rcn.com> <jboc...@rcn.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/riverside-neighborhood-watertown/001e01d8cf57%24edd95fa0%24c98c1ee0%24%40rcn.com.
Karin
On Sep 23, 2022, at 11:36 AM, Amanda Peacock <amanda....@gmail.com> wrote:
Overjoyed with this news and your words are right on, Jon.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Friends of the Watertown Riverfront" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fotwr+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fotwr/48CE4D8A-D9B2-4E9D-A966-B10DAD77DF6A%40gmail.com.
barbara R
On Sep 23, 2022, at 12:07 PM, Karin <kro...@rcn.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fotwr/DAAD0F31-C246-4FC4-8F34-50EFB989598F%40rcn.com.