At the 6/28 meeting of the Planning Board a vote on approving the concept of the Hendries proposal seemed imminent but it didn’t happen. Chairman Whiteside had said the board should move forward with a vote that would include granting (or not) the awarding of a bonus the developer is seeking. But that was before the board learned of a petition with 165 signatures.
The hearing on Hendries began with William McDermott, the attorney for the developer, reviewing the status of outstanding issues. The issue of the height he confirmed can be me with a small change as they are currently only a couple of inches off. The basement space can be used as commercial space as the building inspector emailed Chairman Whiteside that it would work if it was handicap accessible which it is. Mr. McDermott reiterated that the intent was to come in with a zoning compliant building.
He turned over the discussion to Warren Daniel, the architect. Mr. Daniel reviewed with the board an increased setback from Central Avenue and stepback on the 4th floor. Here is a revised drawing indicating the revisions. It also shows that the 3rd story element is now 40′ off grade.
The additional setback will allow for a landscaped area with a raised planter and benches. There is also a courtyard on the Eliot Street side. The illustration below indicates these areas which are intended to satisfy the requirement for a public amenity.
The developer, Steve Connelly, confirmed he is seeking a 1.64 FAR which is somewhere between a 9 – 10% increase (FAR = floor area ratio). All the designs presented to date include the bonus. Without the bonus / increase Connelly would lose 4 units at the market rate. Whiteside said that “tonight [we should] determine if we are to give them a bonus.” That statement was made prior to citizens speaking. A number of residents rose to speak, some familiar to the board and the issue and some appearing for the first time.
Ellen DeNooyer, a vocal critic of the proposal, presented a petition containing 165 signatures. The petition urges the Planning Board to “uphold the zoning requirements of the property” and identifies 6 critical elements. These include but are not limited to step backs along both Eliot and Central facades, the inclusion of a public plaza of 3000SF, and limiting the FAR to 1.5. You can find the full text here.
Ms. Tougias who has also been critical of the scope and scale of the building reiterated her arguments that the building is too big and too close to the street and stressed that the board has discretion in the awarding of the bonus. She advocated for the corner to be open in order “to be more inviting for other businesses.” She felt the modifications presented by the development team were “minor” and that they (the development team) go back to the drawing board.
Adam Gilmore spoke of the massing also and questioned why it had not been addressed until now given the issue had been raised over a year ago. He too wanted to see the corner opened up and said the existing tower element rendered the structure as two separate buildings. He also questioned the statement that the building fit within a historical context. Mr. Gilmore is an architect as is Ms. Tougias and Ms. DeNooyer.
Keith Mills, owner of Esprit De Vin, said he saw “one side giving in and one side is not. . . [I'd like to see it] happen right and I look to you guys to make this happen for us.” Ms. Margaret Donovan of Central Ave said she thought the building should be “scrapped,”and Ms. Andrea Palmstrom of Eliot Street said some on Eliot Street “feel like 2nd class citizens.”
Former board member Peter Jackson challenged the public amenity and the massing of the building. Mr. Jackson has longed questioned the building’s massing and displayed an alternative shown below (note that Mr. Jackson’s illustration of the ‘current proposal’ did not reflect the most recent changes made by Mr. Daniel). Massing refers to the shape and location of structural elements. He also took the board to task for not suggesting that Connelly meet with the neighbors.
note: The Hendries building is enclosed by red rectagnle. Connelly’s proposal is first, the changes Jackson presented are in the bottome illustration. Differences include stepbacks, removal of tower, and open corner space. The Connelly proposal does not reflect the most recent changes.
The last person to speak was Peter Mullin, a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 2. He emphasized that the Central Avenue Business District zoning called for public amenities with an emphasis on the plural and that the board was permitted to award a bonus not required to. At one point Mullin asked if one of the illustrations previously projected could be returned to the screen. Getting no assistance from anyone he returned to the poster on an easel. Mullin concluded by recommending a vote – a no vote – in the hope that would give the developer an incentive to meet with neighbors.
Mr. Connelly for his part has remained steadfast in his belief that the building is compliant and that it is the building he needs. he said, “I am not redesigning my building.”
Board Member Innes stated strongly that a meeting should occur, citing the fact that other developers are encouraged to do so. “There is a consistency issue [here].” It appears that the developer will make that effort.
The hearing concluded with the board recommending that Mr. Connelly meet with the neighbors. Mr. Lynch questioned whether a meeting between the developer and neighbors would do any good. he also urged them to read the petition then and there. He also said he had remained largely quiet throughout the hearing because he did not want to influence it. Whiteside made it clear “I am not going to call for a vote tonight” because he had not read the petition. When he arrived Mr. Lynch addressed the fact that he does work from time to time for Mr. Connelly; but that his oath to his office overrides any consideration of future financial opportunities with Mr. Connelly.
great job with the graphics
“Mr. Lynch addressed the fact that he does work from time to time for Mr. Connelly; but that his oath to his office overrides any consideration of future financial opportunities with Mr. Connelly.”
Why do we have a state ethics law, if this kind of assurance is all that’s necessary? You mean, every time public officials recuse themselves from decisions because of possible conflicts of interest, that’s an admission by them that they are incapable of abiding by the oaths of their offices?
I think not. Ethics laws have a purpose, and Mr. Lynch should abide by that purpose. He should recuse himself.
The petition presented by Ms. Denooyer to the planning board is misleading to the public in it’s written form.The document represents to the public that the six listed elements are required at a minimum for the proposal to meet the zoning bylaw.This is simply not true.We will address each item as listed on the petition.
1.)Step back along Central Ave.
The author of the petition failed to include the language of the zoning bylaw in section 4.e and 5.b that was added at the May,2007 Town Meeting to accommodate the specfic design that we presented to the CCNA in March of 2007.The CCNA supported our 5 floor design on Central Ave and at the corner of Central Ave and Eliot St. Article 47 was approved at Town Meeting to accommodate our design.The bylaw does not require 10′ step backs of a stucture to be zoning compliant.
2.) Step back the facade along Eliot St.
Again, the author of this petition fails to consider the bylaw as it is written regarding step backs for a mixed use structure.It only promotes an opinion of design, not what is required under the bylaw.
3.) Provide a significant public plaza of minimum 3000sf at the corner of Eliot St. and Central Ave.
The current proposal offers over 8000sf of open space with public access on the site. It consists of space on Eliot St.,The corner of Central Ave. and Eliot St. and on Central Ave.Please see our design at http://www.131eliotstreet.com. The zoning bylaw in section 5.o and 5.q does not require a public plaza seperate from green space serving the building.Again,the author is not accurately representing the bylaw.
4.) Limit the FAR to 1.5
Section 4.b does not limit FAR to 1.5 for removing a decayed and rotted oak tree with a termite infested stump and root system.Also, it is the opinion of three Massachusetts certified arborists that the right decision was made in removing the tree.Regarding section 4.b, the language calls for “a development will preserve,if feasible,or replace in-kind one or more significant natural features”. The oak tree was not feasible to save and it is at the discretion of the planning board how to meet the FAR bonus requirement.
5.)Provide commercial space on the ground floor along Central Ave. including retail space fronting on the the public plaza at the corner of Central Ave and Eliot St.
Our proposal has the building flush with retail space all along Central Ave and wrapping the corner up Eliot St.The author of this petition has completely misrepresented our proposal to the public.
6.)Provide a consruction management plan which incorporates review and comment by the Planning Board and the public.
The author of this petition is representing to the public that a construction management plan is not being considered.Again, the author of this petition is misleading the public.Both the Planning Board and us ,as applicants, have agreed that a plan will be in place for construction of the development.
The building at 36 Central Ave.,approved under the same bylaw, is six feet off the side walk and 4 stories high with a mansard treatment for the 4th floor facade. The sides and rear of the building has a 5 floor element.Three sides of the development abut the residential C district.Representing to the public that our proposal does not meet the bylaw is disingenuous at best, in my opinion.