The public hearing on the Hendries building was postponed, but discussion certainly wasn’t.

It was postponed because abutters  had not been notified. However, residents who live near the Hendries building found the meeting and voiced their concerns during Citizens Speak. The residents welcomed the development but the demolition of the existing structure may cause the following issues:

• possible damage to the foundations of nearby homes
• risk due asbestos and hazardous materials
• “river rats” and other vermin flushed out and infesting the neighborhood
• traffic, safety and access problems
• the size and scope of the development may be oversized for the neighborhood

Alex Whiteside, Chairman of the Planning Board, confirmed that all of that would “need to be handled properly.” There was also some discussion about the timing of the development and concerns with it overlapping the completion of the construction on Central Ave.

As it happened, a public hearing did break out during the course of the meeting. Whiteside convened a public meeting per the agenda with regard to the height of accessory structures, another article that will be before Special Town Meeting. The goal is to button down the zoning so that accessory structures (e.g. garages, work sheds) within a certain distance of a property line not exceed 14 feet. Homeowners have been taking advantage of the loophole regarding the height and by passing the intent of the zoning relating to these structures. The article sponsored by the Selectmen asks that phrasing be added per the Building Inspector’s recommendation of 14 feet. Whiteside wanted an explanation for why that is the specified height. Planning Director Bill Clark explained that it is consistent with the building inspector’s experience in Hull and Quincy and was endorsed by the Board of Selectmen. Whiteside said, “You can ask the Board of Selectmen to come to explain why they chose 14 feet.”  The board hopes to have the specific zoning language to approve at the next meeting on August 12th.

The board then took up discussion of 131 Eliot Street, the Hendries building, and disagreement and confusion entered that discussion. Parts of the plan were illegible according to the board. Whiteside was highly critical of the plan saying it was “wildly out of compliance.” The principal disagreement was between members Whiteside and member Pete Jackson. Jackson believed that the application was sufficient for a public hearing and that questions would naturally come up in the course of the hearing. Whiteside felt important details that the public iss entitled to know such as the average height were missing and hence it was inadequate. He said it was “a concept plan whatever that is. . . I don’t get it. . . and it is impossible to read.”

Jackson left the meeting early. The remaining members continued the discussion for another 15 minutes or so before adjourning. Clark had strongly encouraged the developer to attend the meeting to hear the feedback and factor it into the presentation to be given at the public hearing now scheduled for August 12th. It appears all (developers and board members) would benefit from a clearly defined requirements document that identifies what an application needs to consist of.