The Planning Board recently voted to deny Connelly Construction a special permit for their proposal to redevelop the Hendries site (related post here).
The most urgent issue regarding the property right now is demolition of the building which has been ordered by the Building Inspector. There are a several complicating factors: proximity to the T, proximity to Central Ave and Eliot Street, and joint ownership of the building. The town owns the parking lot and the portion of the structure above it. There is consensus among the vested parties that coordinating the concurrent removal of their respective pieces is the most sensible approach. At the most recent meeting of the selectmen Joseph Prondak said he had a meeting with Mr. Connelly in which Connelly stated that he was gong to be taking his portion of the building down. The town is committed to tearing down its portion.
The MBTA has been notified and is compiling an assessment of requirements that will include running bus service for some period of time. Those are expected this week at which time Prondak will issue a RFP for demolition of the town’s portion of the building. The goal is to have estimates in hand and a fixed cost in time for Town Meeting on October 22. Selectman Hurley has said that amount may need to come out of free cash. Preliminary estimates have ranged from $150K to $400K. Connelly declined a suggestion initially made by Selectman Keohane to pay for removal of the entire building. The town would have deducted the cost of his tearing down their portion from the P&S he has signed with the town. This would have removed the need for the town to seek funds and would have been more economical as the town will is required to pay prevailing wage. Connelly Construction is not.
At their most recent meeting Mr. Connelly said he did not have a plan should the permit be denied. A conversation with the Town Planner confirmed that Connelly Construction has a number of options. They include:
- Selling the property
- Returning after two years with revisions to the current plan. Developers denied a special permit need to wait two years to reapply with the plan
- Submit an “as of right” proposal that conforms with current zoning – that is, one not requiring a special permit. This would be a commercial only building
- Submit a substantially separate plan that requires a special permit. They can do this at any time assuming that the plan is significantly different from the one denied (i.e. only 3 floors)
- Appeal the Planning Board’s decision with the land court
- Not do anything
- Pursue a 40B option. However, the economics of 40B may not be appealing given the relatively low price paid for the Hendries building (~$250K)
The Planning Board selected a firm, Brown Walker Planners of Newburyport, and appointed 5 residents to the Master Plan Committee. Brown Walker was one of three firms to respond to a request for proposals. The others were Vannasse Hanglin, Brustlin of Watertown and Community Opportunities Group Inc., of Boston. Whiteside and Duffy favored Community Planners. Innes and Kelly favored Brown Walker. Lynch initially chose VHB. He said “I’ll go with Mike” as the women of Community Opportunities seemed “very animated.” Each of the firms had given presentations and answered questions from the board at their August 9th session. Innes and Kelly both has questions they asked of each firm. Whiteside and Duffy had no questions and Lynch was absent. He watched the session when rebroadcast on MATV.
Questions asked by Innes included but were not limited to: what the most important element in the visioning process was, how they would keep the working group focused and can they get the job done in time for May Town Meeting. Mr. Kelly said that Milton has not changed in a long time and that people were happy with that. He asked, why fix something that doesn’t need fixing. Thought the specific words were different, the firms responses were uncannily similar in theme. All felt the date could be met. All stressed that engaging diverse points of view from throughout the community was critical to the success of the effort. They noted that those who are civically active often turn out to working sessions but there are others who are less confident in speaking up or don’t have the time to attend who need to be drawn in. As a principal from Community Opportunities said, “You want your enemies in the room.” Soliciting broad input was reassuring to Kelly who made a point of saying that he felt it important to get the opinions of the person behind the counter at a retail shop as that of an architect. The firms also echoed each other in response to Mr. Kelly’s concern that everything was OK so what is the argument for doing this. They said that often a visioning exercise can identify those aspects of a community that need to be protected and preserved and establish strategies that will guarantee that those elements are safeguarded. The firms sounded more similar than different which may explain why Chair Whiteside said he believed all three of them to be very qualified and went along with the choice of Brown Walker. The motion to select the firm passed unanimously.
The board also appointed the following 5 residents: John Cronin(P4), Ellen DeNooyer(P2), Enrique Silva(P2), David DeFilipo (P1), Dick Burke(P6). The number in parentheses refers to the resident’s precinct.