The developer of the Hendries site, Steve Connelly, appeared at the last Planning Board meeting along with attorney Bill McDermott and architect Warren Daniel. The entire session was given to the Hendries development and Mr. Connelly and his team were present to respond to a series of issues with the development that did not conform or comply with current zoning. At the previous Planning Board Planning Board member Alex Whiteside had identified 25 items of concern.

Attorney McDermott started the discussion and restated their objection to having PB member Pete Jackson sit in on Hendries hearings because they (the Connelly team) believe there is a conflict of interest given Jackson’s involvement with a development at 2 Adams Street.  Emily Innes, who was elected Chairman earlier in the session, instructed them to proceed.

Mr. Daniel then proceeded to read through the items and give the team’s response. The first had to do with providing “significant amenities to the public.” Daniel responded that there would be “historic looking field stone walls, wrought iron fences, and historic lighting.” There would also be benches. The Planning Board was not satisfied with this response. Mr. Whiteside commented that he “was ot ready to concede that was a public amenity as I haven’t seen the plan. . . [I] reserve judgement.” Mr. Jackson said he did not consider these amenities to the public as these “items are basic street scape improvements.” Ms. Innes stated that it would be helpful if the board defined for the developer what it meant by “significant.” Jackson suggested a small landscaped plaza as an example. Mr. Duffy and Mr. Lynch did not comment. And so it would go. Whiteside being the most vocal in his criticism and Lynch keeping his counsel to himself.

There were three significant issues. First, Whiteside in particular felt the plan was lacking in specificity and detail. He referred to what was presented as “a concept plan” and consequently it was difficult to determine a responsible opinion to what they were proposing on a large number of items. Second, items 2-5 received significant discussion and were especially confusing. These pertain to the size and height of the building. There was considerable discussion regarding a basement floor vs a first floor vs a primary floor where the primary floor which might have been the first floor or the second floor had to be 11′ in height. Also whether the building was 4 stories or 5 stories. Does the basement count as a story? It is underground but not entirely given the slope of the property. Also, brief reference was made to the P&S with the town regarding the portion of property (parking lot) owned by the town. There was no immediate resolution to this. The last major issue had to do with performing a massing study. Mr. Jackson had requested this at an earlier meeting and reiterated the need. This was echoed by Mr. Whiteside and by resident and architect Cheryl Tougias during the Citizen Speak portion of the meeting. Their feeling is that the scope and scale of the proposal dwarfs the neighboring structures and will not provided a welcoming pedestrian environment or overall attractive ambience. At issue is not necessarily the size of the building but the fact that it faces right up against the sidewalk, presenting a high vertical plane. It was unclear whether Connelly would be performing such a study.

The board will resume the Hendries hearing on June 9th at 6:40. Hendries will be on that meeting’s agenda.