by Frank Schroth

At their meeting last night, the Board of Selectmen voted 2-1 to sign an agreement with the Connellys, principals of Carrick Realty and primary owners of the Hendries building, that calls for the building to be demolished no later than September 30th of this year. The town also owns a portion of the building. Both parties are bound by the date.

During Citizens Speak, residents of the neighborhood and Town Meeting Members Pete Jackson and Peter Mullin addressed concerns to the board. They voiced a similar concern which was a lack of clarity on status of the demolition. Was there still an agreement being discussed? Has Mass Housing taken any action? Had the Connellys commenced work on the building? Mulliin encouraged the board to continue their efforts as the pressure appeared to be resulting in some movement.

When the selectmen took up the issue, those questions were largely addressed. Brandon Moss, an attorney with Murphy Hesse Toomey Lehane, the town’s law firm, reviewed the changes to the agreement that had been made since their last meeting with the selectmen. The most substantial change was substituting a date for completion of the demolition instead of a date for filing for a demolition permit. The filing of a demolition permit involves permit and approvals from MBTA and Conservation Commission among others. The dependencies on those organizations made setting a date problematic. Further, the key outcome mutually desired is the removal of the structure. Putting a date against that was determined more important and had been argued for in previous Citizen Speak sessions.

Mr. Moss said that the agreement pertained to both Carrick and the town regarding their respectively owned portions of the building. Each party can make a request of the other at any time regarding the status of their demolition. The mutual release of liability is still in effect. The suits will be dismissed upon demolition of the buildings. This was flagged as an incentive to get the buildings down. Carrick will release the town from its suit once the town’s portion is down. Member Hurley said it was the town that had actually requested the September date because the town would not have its funding available until July 1. Town Meeting recently passed an article that appropriated $450,000 for “extraordinary and unforeseen expenditures” (i.e. Article 33 of 2014 Town Warrant). $250K of that is allocated for 0 Central Ave, the town owned portion of the Hendries building.

Building Inspector Joe Prondak was also present at the meeting. He reported that the building continues to deteriorate, that it has suffered another collapse, and that if the deterioration should accelerate the parties would need to step up their efforts. He noted that the asbestos that was present was not friable (i.e. not airborne); however, some of it is present in areas of the building that are not safe to work in. In these cases the entire area’s materials would be considered hazardous and removed in a manner consistent with safety regulations.

Member Keohane continued to express doubt that the Connellys would remove the building per the agreement. “I see a lot of loopholes in the agreement .  .  . and we have had agreements before.” He advocated for pursuing a Chapter 139 demolition order concurrent with the agreement. Hurley said such an action would nullify the agreement. Keohane asked Moss what remedies existed if Carrick did not take the building down by the agreed date. Moss said there were three options. First, if they failed that would be a violation of a binding agreement and they could go to court. The 2nd and 3rd options would be to file for either a Chapter 139 or Chapter 143 demolition order.

Brian McDonough, attorney for Carrick Realty, said that “we are in agreement” with the terms as explained by Mr. Moss. In fact, the Connellys have already signed the agreement. Hurley said he felt it was “a fair agreement.” A motion was made to accept the agreement. Hurley and Conlon voted for and Keohane against.

There was brief discussion of what the future use of the town land might be, but no decision has been made and that will be discussed at a future time. The hearing was continued until September 2, 2014.