Arts at the Armory - Support Needed for March 4 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting

[fefie.livejournal.com]

Arts at the Armory is seeking changes to its existing Special Permit to allow daytime use of the building for its programs and special events in the performance hall and the cafe - including concurrent events. The meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 4 at 6 PM in the Aldermanic Chambers, 2nd Floor of Somerville City Hall located at 93 Highland Avenue.

If the Zoning Board of Appeals grants our request, it would allow us to host matinee performances for theater, dance and music as well as offer open studios, lectures, conferences and other events of community interest in the performance hall and cafe.

Your support is needed at this meeting! If you cannot attend, please send an e-mail of support to the Zoning Board of Appeals in care of Madeleine Masters at mmasters@somervillema.gov.

Questions?
Contact Debra McLaughlin or Susan Fiedler at 617.718.2191 or email us at info@artsatthearmory.org

Comments

[ron_newman]

Please, everyone, write in to support this. Without it, Actors' Shakespeare Project cannot perform any of the nine matinees of Coriolanus that are scheduled over the next five weeks. Many young children and senior citizens cannot easily attend evening performances.

The Special Permit change will also allow the Armory to fully participate in Somerville Open Studios as an exhibition hall for local artists.

[fefie.livejournal.com]

I should add that the ZBA needs to have email comments in hand on 4 March. Not sure what time the deadline is exactly but I'd guess by mid- or late afternoon.

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

Who in the world is opposing this and why?

[fefie.livejournal.com]

A handful of neighbors are opposing it.

[ron_newman]

This report from last month's Licensing Board hearing, and the comments to that post, may be helpful in answering that question.

[prunesnprisms.livejournal.com]

Probably, neighbors who think it's going to be loud.

It's not the request itself, it's the attitude that people oppose...

[turil.livejournal.com]

People are upset because the attitude of the people at the Armory seems so elitist. As if they are better than the neighbors. There was a lengthy mediation process in which everyone agreed to start off slowly, to see how things were going for the neighbors, and to build trust with the people who's lives are directly affected by the place, but before the place has even officially opened, they are saying that they want to blow off their agreement from the mediation process and just do whatever the hell they want, because they know they can get away with it.

I, personally, support most of the things they want to do. But having now personally seen the attitude they gave the neighbors, I can easily see why they are making enemies of people who they'd be far better off having on their side.

Re: It's not the request itself, it's the attitude that people oppose...

[ron_newman]

But I don't see how adding a few 2pm matinees has any bad effect on neighbors.

[turil.livejournal.com]

Not really, more that the neighbors just want to be treated respectfully, and don't trust the Armory folks now that they are looking to break the deal they made with the neighbors a while back.

Re: It's not the request itself, it's the attitude that people oppose...

[turil.livejournal.com]

As I said, it's not the request itself, it's the attitude that people oppose...

Understandable.

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

If I were a neighbor I would be against it, if this was not part of the deal.

Re: It's not the request itself, it's the attitude that people oppose...

[fefie.livejournal.com]

"but before the place has even officially opened, they are saying that they want to blow off their agreement from the mediation process and just do whatever the hell they want, because they know they can get away with it."

It's true that someone described the process that way at the meeting last night. But as someone who has also been involved in this process since the start and a neighbor of the Armory, I don't see it that way. There have been a handful of folks (some in the neighborhood, some not) who have been against the project from the start and have used any means necessary to obstruct the progress. While there are legitimate issues that need watchful attention (parking, noise, etc.) these folks feel the Armory has a hidden agenda to evolve into a nightclub, thus they operate from that point of view at every step of the way.

As I see it, the "blowing off" as you described it, is a matter of Arts at the Armory attempting to be flexible in the evolving face of reality setting in for the building's viability. As you saw at the meeting last night, there are some abutters who are very concerned but offered suggestions of how to slowly integrate the daytime use of the performance hall (for Actors Shakespeare Project matinees, Somerville Open Studios etc.).

Incidentally, the Armory is gorgeous inside! They've done a tremendous job renovating the place. The performance hall is a real jewel and will be a tremendous asset to the community once the dust settles....

[tt02144.livejournal.com]

As someone who is not a neighbor and has only followed this issue marginally I have to agree that it seems odd that they would so soon request to change the agreement which they signed in 'good faith'. It does at least have the appearance of a hidden agenda, or as you said, simply an elitist attitude. I have seen too many developments in this city ignore signed agreements with no repurcussion from the city. The agreement was certainly agreed to by all parties for good reason. I also think that last year when they were found illegally installing cooking equipment in their cafe (also against their agreement) they did themselves a huge disservice. If they truly want this space to be what they've described and not some type of nightclub, and they want the support of the community, they need to learn to play by the rules just like the rest of us. And by the way, for direct abutters, a 'few' matinees will almost certainly eventually become lots of matinees and other daytime uses, creating primarily parking issues for the neighbors, as well as the possiblity of noise.

[ron_newman]

It can never become a nightclub because the closing time remains unchanged (10 pm Sunday-Wednesday, 11 pm Thursday-Saturday), and this would remain true even if the property were sold to a new owner. Nightclubs aren't known for matinee performances in any event. In addition, the owner can apply only for a beer and wine license, never for a full liquor license.

A lot of soundproofing work has gone on, with the intent that no noise whatsoever should escape the building into the surrounding neighborhood.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_meej_/]

I've gotta ask - why, if this condition is in place, did the ASP schedule nine matinees?

This isn't to say I'm opposed to daytime performances there - it seems like a fine idea - but it's hard to accept as an argument when it's a situation the ASP stepped into knowingly. And it speaks to an apparent assumption that with enough pressure, the conditions don't mean anything. Which makes most of the other "reassurances" of the conditions ring a little hollow...

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

Well, the non-noise-related issues make more sense to be as objections in this case than the noise. After all, whatever daytime noise there is won't be as annoying as nighttime, right? And it does seem like a ton of mitigation has been done.

I'm also confused by things being scheduled without the permit and agree with the commenter above that that in itself is not an argument. But I'm also unclear on how being open for matinees makes it more like a nightclub. However, having been to meetings for various variances, I know how neighbors can get, and frankly, a lot of the time, I feel like the Powers That Be pretty much ignore us, so I'd imagine those neighbors might feel similarly.

(OTOH, my last experience involved something that *nobody* at the meeting except the developer was in favor of, but the Alderman presumably went and voted for it anyway since it's happening.)

Re: It's not the request itself, it's the attitude that people oppose...

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

If they've already given the go-ahead to the Shakespeare group about doing matinees, such that, if the ZBA doesn't allow it, the ZBA is screwing the ASP, then that sounds like bad faith with the neighbors.

I Hope it all works out

[vonelftinhaus.livejournal.com]

I really do, every party is happy enough. We must be happy for the work done thus far and that the neighbors are respected and the armory can at least in respect to its surroundings perform successful activities.

Of course the alternative could of been knocking it down and turning it into a huge CONDO complex!

[ron_newman]

Alderman vote for changes in the zoning ordinance and map, but they don't vote on special permits or variances. Those are the purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals, with some advice from the Planning Board.

Re: I Hope it all works out

[ron_newman]

Which would benefit nobody except one developer and a few residents who move in. So I'd really like to see the arts center succeed both artistically and financially, even if that success requires tweaking the original agreement a bit.

I live as close to the Somerville Theatre as many of these neighbors do to the Armory, and there's no way I can tell which days the theatre is having matinee shows.

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

Yes, this.

Was this a misrepresentation on the ZB's part, or a misunderstanding on the Armory management's part, or did the Armory management misrepresent the situation to the ASP in hope of creating an emergency?

Re: It's not the request itself, it's the attitude that people oppose...

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

It's bad faith with the neighbors and bad faith with the Zoning Board.

At best, it's horribly shoddy mismanagement. Unless there was some misrepresentation by the Zoning Board, the Arts at the Armory people need to fix their own mistakes without roping random Somervillians into manufactured "emergencies".

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

OP, could you please answer the questions about why the ASP scheduled performances for times that weren't included in the Armory's existing Special Permit?

Several people have asked this, and you haven't responded.

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

Hmm. A few years back when I lived on Highland, I seem to recall a variance for a building project proposal near my home going to the aldermen after the zoning board of appeals basically ignored the concerns of everyone involved, both builders and neighbors alike. So I'm not sure you're correct that the aldermen don't ever vote on such things.

My experience at the time with that other project was that the bureaucrats involved had basically made up their minds in advance; one of them even told me outright, before public comment began, what the decision was going to be and what their criteria were, and it had nothing to do with anything either the builder or the neighbors cared about. (Specifically, I was told that if it had a brick facade it would be approved, and if not it would not, and that the board did not care about the size or parking concerns likely to be raised by the neighbors.) So, I have no trust of the zoning boards in this town to listen to anything anyone says in public comment.

[ron_newman]

Which project was this? (I'm trying to picture where a new building is on Highland Avenue.) And what did the aldermen do?

Re: It's not the request itself, it's the attitude that people oppose...

[turil.livejournal.com]

Having talked to several of the community members about this, it really is the attitude that they are bothered by, not the specific requests. It seems as if the Community center is starting out being sort of anti-community. How about asking the community what it wants, rather than telling the community what the Armory wants? And how about respecting people who have concerns rather than being defensive or dismissive of them?

I was completely supportive of the whole project, and used to live right behind the place, but after hearing the response that was given to the few people who had some concerns about the changes to the agreement, and seeing these generally supportive people walk out feeling attacked by the Armory folks, I have to say I'm wondering if I should be concerned, too, about how community minded the community center really is...

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

The project got shot down after the mayor (Dorothy Kelly Gay at the time) apparently got involved when she heard how upset the neighbors were. The variance got denied, and the building never got built, thank goodness.

What was striking to me was that the neighbors had some very legitimate concerns, namely the size of the building, its appearance not fitting in with the character of the neighborhood (it was going to look like a big white borg cube in the middle of a neighborhood of clapboard victorians), the submitted plans having some major problems which ensured that the completed building would not be what was being approved (there were staircases that went nowhere, for example), and parking (the neighborhood already had a real problem and they were proposing a building that would make it much worse). But, all the bureaucrats cared about was brick, brick, brick. If they got their brick, the builder would get his permit. (Fortunately, I don't think he ever figured this out.) But NOBODY wanted brick but the bureaucrats. The builder didn't want to use it, and the neighbors didn't want another brick monstrosity. It was just a complete disconnect between what the neighbors wanted, and what the city cared about.

I will admit, a few of the neighbors were being irrational. They complained so bitterly about anything the builder proposed that he finally asked them what on earth they would in fact not object to him putting on the land, and they didn't actually have an answer. I understand that city employees see people like that every day and consequently learn to take some neighbor objections with a grain of salt. However, many of us, myself included, were prepared to give our blessing to a smaller, more decorous version of the project with more realistic parking space, and said so, but the city employees didn't seem to care what we had to say.

[ron_newman]

Thanks for your reply. Where were they planning to build this, and what would they have had to tear down?

[fefie.livejournal.com]

I'm not here on DSLJ all the time. I don't know the answer to the question (I'm not a member of ASP). I have emailed Arts at the Armory at the address in the original post (under "Questions?"). Perhaps others here have emailed them or ASP too.(Personally, I doubt it was an evil plot, maybe it was a comms breakdown.) Wouldn't be surprised if it comes up at the ZBA hearing tommorrow.

[fefie.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering where this was too.

The only other recent building controversy I know about in this area is (not on Highland) the big condo on the community path at Willow where the developer built the roofline much higher than was allowed. (Anyone here know the end of that story? What kind of mitigation was worked out?)

At the time the Armory change-of-use conditions were being negotiated in the neighborhood, the negotiation of nearby MaxPak/KSS with its neighbors was also in full swing.

[tfarrell.livejournal.com]

It was the former "diamond club" building at Highland and Cherry.

I believe the building now contains a real estate office and a preschool.

[ron_newman]

The real estate office (Coldwell Banker) closed, and most of the building is now vacant and for lease.

Re: It's not the request itself, it's the attitude that people oppose...

[ron_newman]

We went to the same meeting, but I thought all of the Armory people dealt with the neighbors' concerns calmly and respectfully. There is a large Neighborhood Advisory Board that will meet at least monthly; most of the members were at the meeting.

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

You're right, sorry. But the meetings were hosted by the Alderman who was to report back to the Zoning board with a recommendation. It felt like the only purpose was to give people a place to rant pointlessly.

[ron_newman]

That's not good. Which project is this?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_meej_/]

Ron, it might be more proper to state that "it can never become a night club as long as the closing time remains unchanged." And as we're seeing, it appears that they don't have any qualms about asking for the conditions to be amended.

(Again, I don't have an issue with matinee performances - I actually am very surprised that that ended up as one of the conditions to begin with, as daytime hours seem critical to the intended function. I have an issue with what come across as misrepresentation and manufactured emergencies, given the conditions that were agreed to.)

[ron_newman]

People like me who support adding matinee hours would oppose extending night-time hours, and the ZBA would hear that. The issues are just different.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_meej_/]

They definitely are different, yes. And I'm on the same page in terms of supporting matinee hours in principle, and opposing extending night-time hours. It's just that the implied attitude on this and a number of prior issues - "well, just set it up anyway, see if they notice and complain" (see also the installed unpermitted food prep area, the parking arrangements not being as agreed on, and now matinee hours...) doesn't come across as giving a damn.

And you're right, I'd hope, that the ZBA would hear the opposition to night-time hour extensions and respect that. But I'd prefer that the developer actually respected the agreement reached and never went so far as to create that fight. (In other words, I'd prefer a good neighbor relationship to a poor one. And so far, it's on the fence.)

So, while I do support matinee hours in principle, I'm having a hard time feeling that I can actually support their request for a change to the conditions, because I'm fairly sure it's the first (and most reasonable) of many requests.

[ron_newman]

I haven't heard of there being any parking issues. They have a lot behind the armory, and an agreement to use another one (owned by Somerville Hospital) for evening shows.

If the ZBA decided to approve matinees only provisionally, with a review six months down the line, I'd be fine with that. (I'm speaking only for myself here; I have no idea how the Armory folks feel.)

[notnatalie.livejournal.com]

I'm going to throw my two cents in here, as someone who also attended the community meeting, primarily to get a look-see at the space in the tour they gave a half hour before the meeting started.
The space, by the way, is incredible.

Let me say I am not an abutter. And also, I am 1000% behind having the Armory thrive. I can not wait to attend shows (and hopefully, matinees!) I felt that Debra was a tremendous resource and is obviously working very hard to build trust.

However.

I could wait six months after the official opening before i got to start attending those matinees.

I was REALLY struck by the attitude toward the one main concern the abutters brought up, that of parking and traffic issues. It seemed to me that the original conditions were fair: wait six months after the official opening before seeking an expansion of hours. Yes, these conditions were agreed to years ago, when there was less trust. That's what compromise is about.
That this was a pretty fair compromise, all things considered, seemed to have been overlooked by those seeking zoning variance.
I didn't get the sense that the neighbors were any longer concerned it would be turned into a nightclub. The issue is of trust. Debra probably feels, rightly, that she has spent a lot of time being transparent, working with the community, and building trust. But it seemed to me that, to her, this has been going on for so long that the neighbors just have to go with good faith. But to the neighbors, the Armory is just getting going!

Frankly, I would have felt really affronted and dismayed at this turn of events, if I was an abutter. Heck, I felt it anyway, and I wasn't.

All I kept thinking, was "Debra has tenants that clearly need the matinees for revenue. What the heck happened that it was not made abundantly clear to them that there was a 6-month trial from the official occupancy date before the Armory would push like mad to get the hours changed?"

I would have never thought of the term "elitist" but I am very sad to say that is an appropriate description. A very subtle sort of elitism, one that implies that the neighbors are being fearful and selfish, and not caring about the Armory tenants. When it really seemed to me that they felt betrayed.
And I would have, too. It left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

[ron_newman]

I didn't see it being an issue of needing matinees "for revenue", but rather that any theatre company at all has matinees as part of their regular run. Schoolkids and seniors, among others, prefer matinees and don't want to stay out until 11 at night. One of the matinees is 10 am on a Thursday, which is probably for a high-school class.

Also, Somerville Open Studios was and is looking forward to using the Armory as a group-show exhibition space.

When the original agreement was reached, the Armory expected the main tenant to instead be a dance company that would have had only evening shows. Instead they got Actors' Shakespeare Project.

well, they got the daytime hours approved

[kalimba21.livejournal.com]

I'm very happy to report that, after 4 hours, this part of their request was approved in a 4-1 vote.

This opens up the space for events for kids, which makes me so happy - this is the best think I've seen happen in Somerville since I moved here 17 years ago. I am only sorry that it has taken them 4 1/2 years to get through everything to finally open. Taking this long must have cost them a bundle. We are so fortunate to have this amazing new space.

Re: well, they got the daytime hours approved

[ron_newman]

Thanks for your report. Did they approve the request unchanged -- all parts of the Armory can open at 8 am, seven days a week?

Re: well, they got the daytime hours approved

[kalimba21.livejournal.com]

Yes, they approved it just like that.
So now school groups can go to things there, and the Shakespeare matinees should be able to perform. There was an odd point saying that changes take 21 days to implement, after the matinees, but I think the intent should cover them.

The concurrent events got dropped, due to getting bogged down by what the total capacity would be allowed to be.

Re: well, they got the daytime hours approved

[ron_newman]

I recall that the legal capacity of the performance hall is well into the 300s. But Actors' Shakespeare Project will sell no more than 199 tickets per show, because of their agreement with the Actors' Equity union.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

It can never become a nightclub because the closing time remains unchanged (10 pm Sunday-Wednesday, 11 pm Thursday-Saturday), and this would remain true even if the property were sold to a new owner. Nightclubs aren't known for matinee performances in any event. In addition, the owner can apply only for a beer and wine license, never for a full liquor license.

Never? (http://davis-square.livejournal.com/3008251.html)

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

I'm having a hard time feeling that I can actually support their request for a change to the conditions, because I'm fairly sure it's the first (and most reasonable) of many requests.

How right you are! (http://davis-square.livejournal.com/3008251.html)