It was the first Planning Board session since the removal of the black oak tree on the Hendries site so it was not surprising that last night’s planning board session was largely devoted discussion of the tree and it’s consequences to the development plan. It was also the first session since Mr. Connelly, the developer of the Hendries site had called for board member Pete Jackson to recuse himself.
The session opened with Mr. Jackson speaking to the issue of recusing himself. Connelly called for his recusal for several reasons (please see previous post here). Principal among them was what he perceived to be a significant conflict of interest Jackson had given his involvement with the development of 2 Adams Street, another condominium development that would compete for buyers. Jackson disagreed with the points Connelly made and said he ould not recuse himself. Specifically with regard to the conflict of interest claim, Mr. Jackson acknowledged he was on the team but that after election to the board he had recused himself from all discussions of that development and realized no financial benefit. Regarding Connelly’s claim that he had improperly managed the RFP process for obtaining an independent arborist to assess the oak, Jackson said he did not know Largess Forestry (the arborist selected) prior to process and that the vetting and selection process was carried out by the entire board. After concluding his statement Alex Whiteside said, “I agree with your analysis.” No other board members commented.
Mr. Whiteside went on to say that with the removal of the oad, Mr. Connelly had removed the only significant natural feature of the property and that his most recent plans did not show sufficient replacement in kind. Therefore the any bonus regarding the Floor Area Ratio bonus (ability to enlarge size of building) was in jeopardy. He asked Mr. Connelly “What do you have to say for yourself?”
Connelly began by repeating his call for Jackson to recuse himself saying that he had a fundamentally different view of the conflict of interest law. Mr. Connelly read a portion of the general law pertaining to conflict of interest stressing what “a reasonable person” would view as opportunity for an official to potentially exert “influence in performance of duties.” Connelly states that as a member of an approving board on development of his project as well as one that competes with his project that Jackson has a conflict and should recuse himself.
Regarding the oak tree, Connelly said he was liable for any damage it might cause and that he had to address that risk and remove his exposure to damages and consequently he took down the tree. He noted that in no previous discussions of the tree was there anything that would reduce his liability. He said that he understood that in taking down the tree he removed his opportunity for a bonus and that his architect, Warren Daniel, was present to present an alternative plan with a reduced FAR.
Prior to Mr. Daniel making that presentation, Mr. Whiteside invited Matt Largess of Largess Forestry the arborist who assessed the health of the oak at request of Planning Board to speak. Largess had deemed the tree to be healthy (see post here). However when the tree was taken down it was evident that there was rot in the center. Mr. Largess was asked to speak to that. He spoke at length in a voice that at times was emotional. He characterized the session as a “funeral” for the tree and took a moment to read Kilmer’s “Trees.” Regarding the health of the tree, the actual risk resulting from the rot, and how long the tree could survive, Mr. Largess was equivocal. When pressed by Mr. Whiteside he said the tree “was not completely sound,” and that “it was on its way.” He also said the tree was “75% healthy, “was not ready to fall over,” and “could have lived for a long time.”
A number of residents then spoke about the removal of the tree and expressed incredulity at Connelly’s claims regarding public safety. Some were not convinced the tree needed to be removed among them, Fred Brink, who documented the removal of the tree and offered his pictures for review of tree’s health. Many expressed anger at the manner in which Mr. Connelly went about removing the tree. Mr. Edman, a town meeting member from Precinct 11 said, “You could have done better.” Regarding safety concerns, many asked why the developer had done nothing to address the risks presented by a condemned building firefighters aer prohibited from entering. Keith Mills who owns and manages a nearby wine shop asked what might be expected in terms of addressing other neighborhood concerns in light of Mr. Connelly’s abrupt removal of the tree. A letter by former Fire Chief Malcolm Larsen was read in which he voiced serious concerns about the building’s deteriorated condition. The board spent some time in discussing how to determine what was in the building and if fire suppression mechanisms were working. However, given it appears no one can safely enter the building it is unclear if that can be done.
Warren Daniel, architect for the development, then presented revised plans with a smaller building. There is commercial space on ground floor and first floor. the first floor also has one residential unit. One of the key differences in addition to reduced size was modification of the tower to make it more prominent.It is slightly higher and has a more pitched rood. There is also a small complimentary architectural feature that has been added to the corner facing the trolley tracks. This was intended to address concerns voiced by the board about the impression the building gives to people coming into Milton from Mattapan. Mr. Whiteside had said it looked like a “prison.”
The revised design, or “concept” as Whiteside repeatedly referred to it, did not appear to impress the board. Mr. Jackson rose to take issue with “the massing” of the building and requested that alternative massing study be done. Massing refers to where the bulk of the building sits on the property. In current design the building is close to the street and Jackson feels the current design overwhelms pedestrians and other abutting structures. Jackson would like to see a study in which the massing is moved away from the street and an open area that is more environmentally friendly is available to public. He recognized that what was designed was “exactly” what had been discussed with the revitalization committee but that he felt it was “totally wrong” for the neighborhood. Mr. Whiteside said “I got to agree.” Whiteside said the time had come to encourage the public to come look at the plan and offer their input. Elise Brink thought that might just “churn everybody up.” She continued, ” The planning board has the zoning bylaws in front of them and they should implement them. People who are interested will of course come forward but in general the board is there to implement the zoning. If the public does not like what they are seeing then they should press for more specific zoning laws that address setback and height restrictions in these commercial areas.”
The board will resume deliberations on April 14th.