| July 18, 2012 | ||
| 7:00 pm |
The Columbine Cliffs Neighborhood Association is hosting an open meeting to discuss the development of the Hendries property at 131 Eliot street.
The meeting will be in the Keys Community Room at the Milton Public Library on July 18th @ 7:00pm. All are welcome to attend.
Related links:
- Milton Planning Board documents related to Hednries Development
- Connelly Construction web site on Hendries Development
- Most recent diagrams re: development and news post
I cannot recall a Milton project that has had as many public meetings or had as much scrutiny as 131 Elliot St. Lengthy televised open to all public comment Planning Board meetings, newspaper articles and many letters & documents & diagrams on MyTownMatters available to all. Neighborhood groups are a good thing, but I would like to see an agenda and know who will be making presentations in support of latest proposal and opposed. Will the P Board be there? The Selectmen? Connolly Construction people? I have the understanding that final plans are very close to being approved by Planning Board. I have read the CCNA letter and there concerns and suggestions are clear. It is time for the Planning Board & Connelly to come to an agreement. No one can deny that this project has been fully discussed and everyone interested has had ample opportunity to comment. Now we need leadership, compromise and renewed efforts from the contractor and P Board. We do not need to move farther apart.
Completely agree with you Malcolm. I am assuming that this open meeting will be an opportunity to speak about the Milton Hill House building and learn from the lack of discussion that surrounded the building built across the street from the Hendries building. The meeting should be re-titled to include the Milton Hill House building for discussion as I am confident the CCNA has the same concerns for that building and if not, why? The building is literally walking distance and can be seen from the Hendries building and anything that is discussed regarding 131 should certainly apply to that building. I am confident the CCNA has the same concerns for a that building seeing that there are no “massing studies” no public space planned, closer to the street and balconies, all of which are being demanded of the Hendries building. Furthermore, none of that was demanded from the developers of the building that was built directly across the street from the Hendries building.
I watched the planning board meeting the other night and no one from the CCNA was there to ask these same questions of the Milton Hill House proposal that is being demanded of the Hendries building literally next door. Personally I am for both buildings being built provided they meet all zoning and or variance requirements and adhere to smart growth, I just feel that you can not treat one building proposal differently if you are true to your overall cause. I am just confused as to why 131 is singled out. I feel the CCNA are losing credibility since they are not treating all development in their neighborhood the same. Why is that? If they are so concerned about massing studies, open public space, no balconies, proximity to the street then where are they on the development next door to the Hendries that appears to be sailing through.
I look forward to looking into the permitting processes that the three buildings have endured and try to figure out why the Hendries building is singled out. Who were the people that were most vocal and their affiliations, who were the people hired on the developments and their affiliations, differences in political support of the three, planning board affiliations with the various projects and see if any of the members of the board had any affiliations and or business that may be linked to the developments (ethics), these results would be interesting to see. As a town meeting member and life-long resident of Milton, these are the questions people are now asking me and want me to look into as everybody wants fairness. Seeing that the CCNA was and is so silent on the other projects it does have the appearance of being odd unless of course they are building their case against the Milton Hill House and have not been vocal yet. If all buildings are going to be under the same scrutiny then the groups concerns can be validated as true to their cause but if they are going to single out just one building, there is then another reason for the outrage that is not about the building but rather an agenda and due to other reasons.
I hope someone from the CCNA can answer these questions and observations. If they do plan on fighting the Milton Hill House development and if not, why the silence. I guess more importantly I hope the Planning Board addresses the Friendliness they are showing for the Milton Hill House development, prior development across the street from the Hendries building and the complete animosity that has been shown against the Hendries property for the last 10 years that was approved twice to move forward by town meeting. Myself and others are now more focussed on the process and people involved rather than the buildings themselves as well as looking at other projects under consideration in the town.
I attended the meeting held last week at the Library hosted by 4 members of the CCNA and attended by Steve Connelly and his architect. I attended because having been the the Connelly’s architect for the first 8 years of the project’s life and a resident of the Columbine Cliffs neighborhood since 1986, I was concerned that the project was being de-railed by the CCNA and wanted to hear the specific concerns that the group had that would justify the reality that in the absence of a special permit approval for the Connelly’s Hendries proposal, we would continue to have the status quo of a derelict and unsightly building there for years to come. At the meeting I heard and the Connelly team heard in a very constuctive and amiable forum, the concerns and reservations the CCNA had about the current design and I think the CCNA heard and understood the Connelly team’s reasons for disagreeing with most of the CCNA’s arguments. I did hear,however, a commitment by the team to revisit the idea of incorporating vertical setbacks along the Central Avenue facade even if they felt that such setbacks would have a minimal effect on the overall design while at the same they feared that those changes would result in structural complications and possible negative consequences on marketability of some of the units.
At the end of the meeting I was dismayed to hear that the CCNA intended to host a larger forum to discuss their position on the project this week before the Connelly team had a chance to react to what was discussed last week at a time when their architect would be out of town and unavailable to participate.
This project has not suffered from lack of public discussion. I have no idea what the CCNA group hopes to accomplish at this next meeting knowing that the Connelly team will not be there to participate. The forum for public discusion should continue to be the Planning Board, however convoluted that process has been.
Finally, the suggestion that Bernie Lynch, because he has done Lead paint testing in the past for the Connellys or that I, as has been said in this forum, can’t be oblective in this debate, because we have have had past business relationships with the Connellys is an insult to Mr. Lynch, me and the Connellys
Editor’s note
Mr. McGrath is referring to a meeting that took place on July 11th. The meeting had not been publicly advertised. In a conversation with Mr. Connelly he confirmed that he, along with his architect Warren Daniels, met with Peter Mullin, Ellen DeNooyer, Adam Gilmore, and Michael Blutt. Mr. McGrath was also present.
Mr. Connelly stated that there continues to be a difference of opinion in the design. He advocates for the design he has presented as being best for the area and the future tenants. The neigbors he met with advocate for a building with an alternate massing that would scale the presence of the building and feature more open space particularly on the corner of Eliot and Central. Mr. Connelly confirmed that he believes he is in compliance with the zoning. He also said he would not be attending tonight’s meeting and had informed the CCNA of that.
We were not aware nor did we attend this session. While Mr. McGrath suggests that “public discussion continue to be the Planning Board, ” one on one, unadvertised meetings between developers and neighbors are not unprecedented. In fact, in this instance the board encouraged it. The Milton Hill house, the development on Brush Hill Road and others involve meetings that are not put on public calendars. They take place between the vested parties who then report back to the board.
Mr. McGrath, if you were appointed to the Planning Board, would “having been the the Connelly’s architect for the first 8 years of the project’s life” cause you to recuse yourself from votes on that project? If “no,” I wonder whether you are the best person to be judging others’ concerns about objectivity. If “yes,” then how can the suggestion that you may lack objectivity be insulting?
Mr Chinman
Certainly having worked for any length of time on the project in question would cause me to recuse myself. I think Mr Lynch has disclosed his relationship and he should be able to make an unbiased vote at the PB.
Mr. McGrath, the adequacy of Mr. Lynch’s disclosure (“from time to time” is puzzlingly vague) is a different topic; I was asking about your assertion that you are insulted by suggestions that you may lack objectivity in this debate.
Disclosing a relationship is no assurance of an unbiased decision. It merely reduces the appearance of conflict of interest that would otherwise be quite convincing were an attempt to hide the relationship come to light. The appearance of conflict of interest is still quite strong given the ongoing financial relationship between Mr. Lynch and Mr. Connelly.
It’s interesting to recall that Mr. Connelly attempted to have former Planning Board member Pete Jackson recuse himself based on the flimsiest rationale. Apparently he is not really concerned about conflict of interest.
It would seem to me that any board member who receives financial benefit from an applicant ought to recuse himself from any decision involving the applicant. The ethical consideration in this instance places the public’s belief that the public’s interest is being served above a member’s assertion that no conflict exists.