If our town government were an amusement park then the Planning board might its carousel. Mr. Connelly, developer of the Hendries site seems to think so, and he wants off the ride. At the most recent meeting of the Planning Board he stated, “I think it is time for the Planning Board to close the hearing and create some sort of framework for us to move forward. For us it is a circular process.”
When invited to the table at last Thursday’s session, Mr. Connelly began by reading an email he had written into the record. The email had been sent to members Innes, Whiteside, and Lynch and cc:’d to Town Administrator Mearn on April 19th. In it he wrote that an application for a special permit and site plan for the Hendries property were filed in July, 2010 and resubmitted to address deficiencies in September, 2010. The public hearing began on September 23rd, 2010. Connelly writes “that the application as filed in September,2010 is a complete application.” and that he’s “complied with and performed on,in good faith, every request by the Milton Planning Board regarding our proposed development.” He goes on, “the public hearing portion of the application process has lost its fruitfulness for the development” and requests “that The Milton Planning Board close the public hearing and engage in regularly scheduled meetings to complete the permitting process for the application.” You can find the full text of Mr. Connelly’s email here.
Emily Innes, Planning Board chair, acknowledged the request. She said the site plan was incomplete and summarized a series of items that needed to be addressed. These items had been sent to Connelly in a memo dated 4/26. They included provision of public amenities such as an atrium or public meeting space, the issue of the floor area bonus, parking requirements, building height and story requirements, adequacy of 3rd and 4th floor setbacks, compliance with design standards, permission from DCHD for all 3 affordable units to be 1 bedroom, location of business parking and number of spaces required. revised traffic study, and consideration of Conservation Commission concerns regarding removal of black oak. The complete text of Ms. Innes memo can be found here. Innes recommended keeping the hearing open until the end of may to provide ample notification to the public that hearing would be closed and, should design change dramatically, to provide time to comment on changes.
At the meeting Connelly responded by saying that he was willing to discuss the issues but needed a building that the board endorses. “We have made some significant changes and I have listened pretty intently . . .there can be some changes, but not significant. I need the footprint, the unit count, the parking has to be where it is – underneath the building on the rear. These are things that have to be.”
It appeared that the irresistible force of the developer was coming against the immovable object of the Planning Board. During the course of the evening neither changed its position. Connelly reiterated and asked numerous times if the Board would grant his request to close the hearing. He stated, “Again – I have gone as far as I go with the public hearing – that’s our position.” The board did not grant the request.
During the Citizen Speak portion of the meeting several residents spoke. They included Peter Mullin, Ellen DeNooyer, Keith Mills. They requested that the hearing remain open and emphasized the need for the public to be given the opportunity to speak about the development. Gene Irwin spoke in support of Connelly. He faulted the board for drawing out deliberations on developments, citing the one on Brush Hill Road and another at St Elizabeth’s property as falling apart because the developer could not get approval from the board. “It is time for this board to get something done,” said Irwin..
Ms. Innes noted that the building commissioner had determined that the building was too tall and had too many stories on the Central Avenue side. There was an extended discussion about the height and elevation. At issue is the base from which to measure the actual height. There was discussion about mean post construction grade versus mean pre-construction grade and fill versus no-fill. The primary challenge however is that the footprint of the new building in essentially inside the footprint of the existing building. The question to be addressed is whether measuring using the perimeter of this existing building is an acceptable way to determine the height. Member Whiteside had concerns on that and the chair is going to contact town counsel for an opinion on that. Newly elected member Mike Kelly spoke at length on the issue and did not understand why there were no elevations. When Connelly against stated that he wanted the hearing closed Mr. Kelly said, “I do not think it is to your benefit to do that. Without elevations there is not even a question [as to whether it meets the zoning]. How could you ask somebody to approve something that sits in space?”
Another issue that was discussed was the setbacks to the 3rd and 4th floors. Mr. Whiteside quoted from the bylaws:
In a Central Avenue planned unit development the third and fourth stories of any building shall be set back from the second story sufficiently so as to maintain a scale appropriate to nearby residential areas. Set-backs shall meaningfully reduce the appearance of the bulk of a building above the second floor. The Planning Board may in its discretion grant an exception or modification of the set-back requirements in this paragraph upon finding that the entire building is set back from the lot line so as to meaningfully reduce the appearance of the bulk of the building.
Exactly which floor is which has yet to be determined; but the current design does not have any setbacks.
You can find the Central Avenue zoning bylaw text here.
No one seemed to have a monopoly on frustration and Whiteside expressed his when he said, “You’ve got to work with the board! You have deficiencies in this plan – we are willing to work with you. We want a completed project. You are not trying to address these issues.”
During the discussion it was also mentioned that Town Counsel would be willing to take another look at the FAR bonus assuming all other issues had been resolved. Mr. Kelly pointed out that this was something of a Cath-22 for the developer. The building proposal to date has assumed that the bonus would be granted. This despite a ruling from Town Counsel that the bonus cannot be granted because of the removal of the tree which would need to be replaced in kind, that is, with another 200-year-old black oak. Mr. Whiteside said, “In fairness, John Flynn said no bonus and they have been using the bonus ever since.” Innes said the board did have discretion on awarding the bonus but rarely goes against the advice of town counsel.
Innes did agree to include a request of Town Counsel to revisit the FAR bonus when he reviews the method proposed to determine the height and elevation of the building.
The hearing will continue on My 24th and it is hoped that counsel will respond to the request and have answer for Mr. Connelly regarding building elevation in advance of that.
Following are some of the statements made during the course of the session.
“The proposal we have is the one we need. It is the building we need. . . We are not going to make material changes.” — Steve Connelly
“I spoke to Mr Gillon and he has run the numbers using the same methodology for 36 Central Ave and we are ok. So if we get to a point where we can talk about a the building I’ll certainly produce that written report.” — Steve Connelly
” I am really struck by Mr Connelly’s remarks this evening. This rush to close the public hearing. The public has a right to comment on this proposal . . . I believe he [traffic engineer] and I were both in agreement . . . that making that change [from parobolic to straighline] got a lower estimate as to number of vehicles, the number of entrances and exits that would be generated. I believe the board asked for a revised study. . . He’s saying I’ll give you that but only after the public hearing is closed. I don’t thnk that is the way the process works.” — Peter Mullin
“This planning board needs to move quicker. . . these developers are spnding tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to get approvals. . . I think this board should get something done.” — Gene Irwin
“I’d just like to poiint out if the building wasn’t there there wouldn’t be any graffiti.” — Member Ed Duffy
“It is not necessarily the planning board’s responsibility to help a particular developer make a certain profit . . . we want a building that works for the town and work with the developer on that.” — Robert Murray
“Emily are we going to address my request? Are you going to work with me on my proposal? I don’t have a building to work on yet. Are we going to address that tonight?” — Steve Connelly
“With all due respect I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding how the process works – once the public hearing is closed the board moves into the deliberative period. . . we have 65 days in which to deliberate – we as a board have never done this – close a hearing on a project that a majority of the board have identified zoning issues with.” — Chair Emily Innes
“Most of the zoning issue that [have been] identified are discretionary with this board. I understand that and this board understands that.” — Steve Connelly