Mr. Connelly, developer of the Hendries property was not present at the most recent hearing that took place last Thursday (4/12) but his voice was still heard. In a series of emails to select members of the Planning Board Mr. Connelly took issue with Planning Board member Pete Jackson, members of the public who have criticized the proposal, and the process itself.

The emails were summarized by Emily Innes, chair of the board, and read into the record at the request of board member Pete Jackson.

On March 8th Mr. Connelly wrote to Ms. Innes, cc:ing PB members Whiteside and Lynch and Town Administrator Kevin Mearn, and said he had been told that Mr. Jackson intended to put forward a motion to have his application denied. While acknowledging that it was hearsay, he was concerned and wanted confirmation that the board would not act on a request to deny his application. Innes responded in a couple of emails stating a) the confirmation he requested was in violation of the open meeting law and would put his application in jeopardy and to address any future correspondence to her only and b) she had not heard the rumors but that any motion made, seconded and in the ‘proper form” would be considered. She further noted that the board had not finished working through the zoning matrix and that “in addition to the zoning provisions, which must be met as a minimum requirement of granting a Special Permit, we must also consider the public welfare.”

In an email to Ms. Innes on March 12th, again cc:ing PB members Whiteside and Lynch and Town Administrator Kevin Mearn, Connelly stated that “This application process has been anything but fair to us as applicants. Your response to my question reveals what is wrong with this approval process. Meeting the zoning provisions is not the minimum requirement for a special permit. It is the major requirement for the issuance of a special permit.” he went on to say:

Currently, the Planning Board meetings are non-productive due to three members of the public: Ellen Denooyer, Cheryl Tougias, and Peter Mullin. Peter Mullin has accused my team of impropriety regarding the data in our traffic study. He made the accusation because he clearly did not understand the data in the report. Ms Denooyer and Ms. Tougias have made baseless and irresponsible representations of what could be developed on the site without a shread of analysis and data to back it up .  .  . These three individuals are not acting in the best interest of the town .  .  .My hope is that the Planning Board adhere to what the residents of our town want rather than embracing the obstructionist view of a few people at the expense of our community.

Innes in her replied that she could not respond to emails that copied other members of the board and again requested that Connelly correspond with her only.

In his follow-up Connelly, responding only to Innes, said:

I am stunned to see the alleged “massing study and site analysis” from Ms. Denooyer on the town web site as a submitted document. This is not her property and she no authorization from us, as applicants, to submit any document on our development.  .  . You sat in on meetings with Alex Whiteside, Kevin Mearn, Jerry Connelly, and me and we made all the changes to the proposal you and Alex suggested. The changes were embraced by Ed Duffy and Bernie Lynch. What happened?

(Editor’s note: We have selectively quoted from the emails for brevity and exercised editorial discretion. You can find the full text of the email exchange here.)

The above prompted a heated exchange at the meeting. Jackson said it sounded as though they had been negotiating changes. Whiteside vehemently responded that they “absolutely did not  negotiate.” Innes concurred and Jackson was satisfied. Neither Mr. Lynch nor Mr. Duffy commented on the characterization that they had “embraced” the changes. Nor did anyone speak to what the changes were.

Mr. Mullin and Ms. DeNooyer were present at the meeting and took exception to Mr. Connelly’s statements. Mr. Mullin said he did not intend to be obstructionist and was only looking for a “good project.” He recounted that at the pervious session he had met privately with the traffic engineer to discuss the data and that an apparent lack of logic between the findings of a traffic study done for 131 Eliot and one for 36 Central could be attributed to the fact that the studies used different methodologies. All agreed at earlier session that 131 Eliot would be analyzed using the same methodology as 36 Central. Mullin thought the developer arrogant in his approach but that he should be granted the continuance he was requesting.

Ms. DeNooyer was “very disturbed’ by the comments and said the developer was twisting the process and maligning members of the public who were attempting to participate in the process. She was confused as to why the board, after a year and a half, continued to listen to someone who had not filed a complete application.

Innes emphasized that the board welcomes public participation.

At the session Whiteside made a motion to continue the hearing. It passed 4-1 with Jackson opposing. It was Mr. Jackson’s last PB meeting and he stated that he viewed the Hendries building as the linchpin to the area, one that the neighbors would live with for the next fifty years and that despite requests the site plan and building massing as presented by the developer remain essentially the same as what he presented in 2010.

The massing study presetned by s. DeNooyer that Mr. Connelly referenced can be found here. A complete list of documents related to the Hendries project posted by the Planning Board can be found here. Connelly Construction also has a web site containing the application they submitted and other related materials. It can be found here.