Steven Connelly of Connelly Construction, developer of the Hendries site, flew solo last night. He brought no architects. He brought no attorneys. He did not need them for what he wanted which was a vote on a special permit that has been under review since 2010. And the vote came, reluctantly. On a motion made to deny the special permit by Ms. Innes and seconded by Mr. Whiteside the board voted 3-1 to deny the permit.
The vote brings to a close a long and at times contentious chapter in the effort to redevelop the Hendries site at 131 Eliot Street.
Mr. Connelly told the board, “I have gone as far as I can go . . . I just need a vote.” To which Mr. Whiteside, Planning Board Chair, eventually responded, “I don’t want to give you one . . . but I am prepared to do so.”
The board chose to first vote on a motion regarding the bonus FAR. All of Mr. Connelly’s designs have been predicated on a bonus being awarded. The bonus was dependent on preserving a natural feature or replacing it “in kind.” It also required providing significant public amenities. Mr. Whiteside said these conditions had not been met. Ms. Innes made a motion to deny the bonus, Whiteside seconded, and the board voted 3-1 to deny with member Lynch being the lone vote not to deny the bonus.
Whiteside, Innes, and Duffy all expressed their disappointment at having to take the vote. One member said, “[It is] a failure for all of us.”
After denying the bonus the board seemed to hope that Mr. Connelly would consider an alternative to a vote on the permit itself. When polled by Whiteside Connelly said, “I am asking you to vote on it.”
They did. Whiteside, Duffy, and Innes concurred that the permit be denied because the proposal failed to meeting zoning requirements. These included but were not limited to parking, height, and floor area ratio.
When asked by Ms. Innes what his plan was if the permit was denied, Mr. Connelly said he did not have one.
Whiteside and Innes appeared especially disappointed. After reviewing the reasons for why the permit was denied Whiteside commented that the issues were “all solvable, but you have not cared to solve them. . . I don’t like to do this . . . but you insist . . . we have tried as hard as we can try . . .[we have] been very, very reasonable . . . [we have told you ] what we wanted and haven’t gotten any of it.”
The vote was 3-1 to deny the permit. Mr. Lynch was the sole dissenting.
In a related development the Board of Selectmen are moving forward with an order from the Building Inspector to demolish the building as it has been deemed a serious safety hazard.