The question is not whether anything will be built on the Hendries site; but if it will happen in our lifetime. The key bone of contention between the developer, Steven Connelly, and the Planning Board is still in place.
The issue is coming to agreement on what current zoning code dictates is the proper way to calculate the amount of commercial space to be included in the development. It has to do with parking spaces. As with the current structure, the new structure will have some partial parking under the structure. The amount of commercial space is a percentage of the primary floor. At issue is whether the parking that is under the structure is subtracted out of the floor space. The planning board argues that the parking under the structure is part of the primary “floor” space. The developer argues it is not. This is a problem. If for sake of argument, the total floor space is 1000 sq feet with parking included and 500 sq without it, then that significantly impacts the amount of sq footage allocated for commercial space. It doesn’t help that there are evidently multiple copies of the zoning regulations online and it appears that the developers were working off one version and the planning board another.
Another issue involves height of the building and how that is calculated. The building is restricted to 45′ but given the property slopes where do you begin measuring from?
Regarding the overall design of the structure, several members of the board voiced disapproval with the view of the building that greets people entering Milton as they come across the bride from River Street. Mr. Whiteside commented, “It is a very unfriendly welcome to Milton . . .we have to do better.”
And then there is the matter of the oak tree. The tree is on the Eliot side of the building and the consensus of the board is that it should stay if possible. There are questions about its health. An arborist will take a look at it.
The board also discussed the development to take place at the Boyle Estate which sits at 683-685 Brush Hill Road.
There is little agreement on what to do here either. The issue is between the developers and the abutters. The developers initially planned a standard residential development with 5 homes. More recently they have been looking at cluster zoning which allows for more flexibility is the positioning of structures which can afford greater green space. The developers presented a concept at a meeting with residents which Bob Sheffield, attorney representing the developers admitted was not well received. They presented it to the board which viewed it favorably if only a an attempt to move the discussion forward.
Mr. Whiteside noted that, “we have to pick up the pace.” This is true if a cluster type development is to take place as the zoning needs to be written to allow for that type of use. Otherwise it will be a more standard development. The residents have yet to identify what they would embrace. The recommendation is to have a 2 hour session next week to discuss this project at which the residents will be expected to present their preference and identify specific concerns with current concepts.