by Frank Schroth
At the last meeting of the Planning Board a new chairman was selected and the board held hearings on Hendries and the Milton Hill House expansion. The new chair is Alex Whiteside, Hendries may be inching forward, and the new Hill House development needs work.
One of the more interesting aspects of the Hill House expansion is the manner that the developers have chosen to pursue it. They have opted to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals with ~9 variances versus requesting a change in zoning from the Planning Board and approval by Town Meeting. The developers have acquired 3 homes. One will be preserved (The Henry House) and the other two torn down. Whiteside did not appear to view this approach favorably saying, “[If you are going to] just ask for a variance why bother with zoning.” Ned Corcoran who represents the developer pointed out that the original Hill House went through a similar process (i.e. pursing variances) and that the feeling was it would be less time-consuming.
The developers were commended for their work with the immediate abutters and neighbors but there was some concern voiced that the wider population had not been given time to comment on the development. Mr. Corcoran acknowledged that the developers had not yet reached out to the local neighborhood association.
The proposal would add 30 units; two in the Henry House, 1 in a newly built Carriage House, and 27 in a new building. They will be high-end secure units that are expected to appeal to older couples seeking to down size but stay in Milton. You can view the most recent rendering of the Milton Hill House proposal here.
The primary concern voiced by many was the appearance of the building that backs up to Eliot Street. Whiteside commented, “The back of the building should not look like the back of the building.” Pete Jackson, past member of the board said the Eliot Street edge os the building is a “disaster. The relationship to Eliot is very poor.” He suggested pushing it back from the street but Corcoran responded that such a measure was not feasible and from a financial standpoint they would not do it. They will revisit the overall look and design of the Eliot facing side of the building.
The Hendries hearing began with Ms. Innes, past chair, recounting her consultation with Town Counsel regarding the building height and elevation. In short the height of the building is determined by how the bottom floor is defined. Is it a basement parking lot or is it primary floor commercial space? The former only needs to be 8′, the latter needs to be 11′. While the board discussed the various options and how they complied to zoning within inches the real issue appeared to be how the street level space was developed. Having that space developed as basement parking would be “a dreadful mistake” according to Cheryl Tougias, a local architect and recent candidate for the Planning Board. In one of the more forceful critiques of the building she encouraged the board to exercise their discretion to keep the street level floor one that would encourage active use by the neighbors and pedestrians. She viewed the option as “contrary to transit oriented development.”
Pete Jackson, who recently stepped off the board, said he was “distressed by the tenor” of the discussion. He expressed concern that board in its discretion would do away with zoning and that it would be “horrible” to move commerce off the first floor.
Another issue that Town Counsel addressed was the FAR bonus. According to Innes, counsel said that the granting of the bonus was at discretion of the board. Jackson in his comments said there was “no way to allow the bonus given the tree is gone.” He was referring to black oak tree that Connelly removed due to safety concerns. The bonus depends in part on the developer providing a public amenity. Jackson reiterated a position he has long-held with is that there should be a public plaza on the corner.
Ellen DeNooyer, another local architect and member of the board of the Columbine Cliffs Association, expressed the view of the Association that a bonus should not be granted due to removal of the tree. She also believes the ground floor should be commercial.
Connelly in his remarks said he needed definitive answers and sought to move forward to permitting. In his view the process is still a “circular” one. He asked for a “definitive framework.” Whiteside was encouraged by the discussion. “Let’s get zoning compliant . . . we’re moving. We’re moving along. Don’t despair here.”
The hearing will continue on the 28th.