by Frank Schroth

At their 9/27 session the Planning Board signed the decision denying Connelly Construction a special permit to develop the Hendries site and approved revisions to the text of two articles that will appear on the October Town Warrant among other business.

The meeting began with Margaret Donovan asking, during Citizen Speak, if the hearing on Hendries had been closed with a vote. Chair Whiteside responded that it was implicit in the vote to deny the permit. Mr. Connelly did not appear before the board’. At a previous session Whiteside indicated that Connelly had asked the decision to be deferred. Last night Whiteside said he had told Connelly that if he wanted to resurrect the process he needed to come in and tell them. He did not.

The board first did take a vote to  reaffirm that the hearing was closed. They then voted to accept the denial of the special permit as written and the reasons it gave. There are 5:

1. The Proposed Building is Too Big.
2. The Proposed Building May Have Too Many Stories.
3. The Proposed Building May be Too Tall
4. The Parking is Inadequate.
5. The Third Story on Central Avenue is Not Adequately Set Back.

You can find the full text of the opinion here.

Member Lynch questioned item #2, stressing hat “may” was not definitive. Whiteside responded that it was “may” because a plan adequately defining the height and number of stories was never provided. The vote to accept the decision was 3-1. Connelly Construction has 30 days from signed decision to appeal according to Chair Whiteside. However, two audience members stated that the time allowed to file an appeal was 20 days.

The board also discussed revisions to the two zoning articles that will be on the October warrant:

One concerns allowing Coutler Landscaping to stay at its location. This is a commercial business in a residential zone. The applicant has submitted a citizen Petition to remain there. Mr. Coulter has the support of his neighbors with one exception. Ned Corcoran, the attorney representing Coulter, had made the case that this is spot zoning that qualifies as an exception and should be allowed to remain. At the previous session Chair Whiteside questioned that. He did not agree and requested Town Counsel give an opinion as to whether or not it was “justified spot zoning.” Town Counsel agreed that it was. Whiteside now supports it and acknowledges the business provides a “public good.” The board will recommend the article at town meeting. However, the final language is not yet available. Mr. Whiteside and Mr. Corcoran will work to revise language slightly. Whiteside had lingering concerns about future construction of sheds or lean tos to house equipment. He does not want any future construction taking place on the site without the express permission of the planning board.

The other article is one that will allow assisted living business at the site of the current Horseplay Stables. The Zoning warrant subcommittee (Cheryl Tougias, Stan Genega, and Joyce Nkwah) appeared to review recommendations and issues they had with the article. In general the feeling of the Warrant Committee was that the article was too restrictive. There were principally three areas as outlined by Ms. Tougias who is chair of the subcommittee that were a concern. They are:

• the requirement that there be an interior courtyard
• the requirement that there be a port cochere
• the requirement that methods and materials be used to “ensure high-quality construction”

These were related in that in the opinion of WC in that they were inflexible and in the case of the last point difficult to determine and enforce.

Mr Whiteside admitted that he wrote the article for this one development and was not looking to have a lot of them. Mr. Genega stated that the requested changes did not compromise the Planning Board’s control.

After some discussion the Planning Board amended the language. The board preserved their desire for a safe out door space and protected entrance way etc but not specifically a interior courtyard or a port cochere.

On the issue of building materials the conversation focused on acoustic standards. The WC’s concern was that “high standards” was highly subjective and that it would be difficult to enforce. Whiteside suggested Tougias come back with a recommendation. They eventually determined that Whiteside will work with Tougias on refining language.

The Warrant Committee will take up the article revisions at their next meeting and vote on whether or not to recommend before Town Meeting. It is reasonable to expect that they will.