There was a presidential debate, a NL pennant game, and Monday Night Football but none proved to be an incentive to accelerate the pace of town meeting. It was after 9:00pm and the first article had not yet been put to bed. The article recommended that $198,278 of unrestricted general government aid be appropriated to the Reserve Fund. It is the anticipated use of the funds, demolition of the town owned portion of the Hendries building, as referenced in Article 4 that created the lengthy discussion.
Tom Hurley, Chair of the Selectmen, rose to speak to the issue. The selectmen sought to put the funds into the Reserve Fund in order to have ready access to the money as needed to tear down the town owned portion of the Hendries building at 131 Eliot Street. Prior to last night’s vote there was not enough cash in Reserve Fund to finance the demolition based on the estimates that have been received. Following are some of the facts that came up in the course of the discussion:
- The Milton Building Inspector Joe Prondak ordered Connelly Construction to demolish their portion of the building as it had suffered a substantial collapse. There is a hole in the roof and the building in collecting water.
- Connelly Construction has appealed the demolition order, opting to litigate the issue.
- Mr. Prondak has not condemned the town owned portion of the building. He said this was because he understood that the town would be taking down their portion.
- The estimated cost to take down the town owned portion is ~$186,ooo. $86,000 of that is for the demolition of the building. It is not known for certain if the building contains hazardous material. The bid, however, assumes there may be hazardous material present (i.e. asbestos). The remaining $100K will pay for police details, MBTA service shut down and bus service etc.
- The MBTA is going to be having an engineer look at the condition of the building.
- The Board of Selectmen are meeting this evening (10/23) in executive session to discuss the Connelly’s pending litigation.
The discussion on the floor of town meeting focused on several points. Some town meeting members questioned whether this was the best use of funds (TMM Neely argued that the money should fund the health costs of injured fireman Pickens), whether the town owned portion was in fact a safety concern (TMM Webster Collins stated “no part of our building is in any danger”), and, ultimately, if a solution could not be arrived at with Connelly by Planning Board if they got back together (TMM Jim Mullen). Another group of members spoke in support of the appropriation citing the hazardous condition of the building (TMM Ellen DeNooyer & Peter Mullin), the flexibility it would afford the Selectmen in addressing the issue (TMM Peter Mullin), the liability it presented the town (TMM Sean Fahey). TMM Michael Chinman asked about the option of seizing the building by eminent domain. Chair Hurley said the funds were not available for such an action. They did look at he cost of the town tearing down the entire building which would be about half a million. If that were to occur the town would place a lien on the property owned by Connelly and seek to recoup the cost of that portion of the building he owned.
In the end, Articles 1 and 4 passed.
Town Meeting also quickly passed Articles 2 and 3. Article 2 dealt with appropriating $485,000 to finance rehabilitation, replacement or enhancement of Town’s sewer system and to borrow this amount from the MWRA at an interest rate of 0%. Article 3 recommended amending appropriation for water and sewer to account for reduction in rates ($17,577 for water and $54,381).
Town Meeting will reconvene on Monday, October 29th to take up two zoning articles. One calls for approval of an overlay for assisted living facility and another to approve Coulter Landscaping remaining at their current location.
The Warrant Committee has revised their recommendations on those articles from what appears in the warrant mailed to households.
- The revised text for Article 5 (Citizens Petition for Coulter Landscaping) is here.
- The revised text for Article 6 (Assisted Living) is here.
Correction: In a previous version of this post it was stated that Connelly Construction would prohibit town equipment on his property during duration of town taking down its portion of the building. In a conversation Mr. Connelly stated that is not the case and that to date
the issue has not been discussed.
What is the cost to the taxpayer to hold this second Town Meeting in October?
As I sat there as a Town Meeting Member trying to do due diligence it seems to me more obvious than ever that the system is a complete anachronism of the 19th century and earlier.
Again, in dollars and cents what are these two extra nights of Town Meeting costing the taxpayer.
I want to do due diligence but are we really serving the taxpayers with this antique form of government.
There must be a better way.
Mr.Schroth.The collapsed portion of roof is on the Town of Milton’s building,Its mind- boggling to us, why Mr.Prondak and Mr.Clarke continue to misrepresent the facts, we have submitted surveyed documentation to the Town showing the collapse,it is what it is.
Facts are stubborn things. Here is the exact language of the report of the structural engineer (Cowen Associates) hired by Mr. Connelly, regarding Lot 2, a portion of the property owned by Mr. Connelly’s Carrick Realty Trust:
“An area of the [Lot 2] building connecting to the Town Owned building has undergone a collapse (most probably due to snow load). This is comprised of an area of approximately 600 square feet and involves a segment of roof and second floor.”
There is no reason for Mr. Connelly’s mind to boggle. His own structural engineer says the collapse is on his own property.
Mr. Connelly: work with the Town, take the building down.
Mr. Chinman,
The Cowen Associates report addresses the Town owned property. It states “It should be noted that a portion of this building is a wood framed building which connects the steel and concrete building to Lot 2 of the Carrick realty.This building is on the property line of Lot 2. A portion of this connector has collapsed”.The structural engineer’s statement is clear that the Town of Milton’s building has collapsed.
At the request of the Board of Selectman we provided a stamped survey of the location of the collapse.It is on the Town of Milton section of the property. It is east of our property line.
Your statements in your posting is a perfect example of the arrogance and lack of factual knowledge of this process.My statements are predicated on the results of the professionals we have hired to evaluate this property.
Mr. Chinman,the town should work with us to develop the property. It would be in the best interest of everyone involved.
Also, facts are stubborn things,and you have no right to be wrong on your facts.
My quote is from the section of the report of the professional you hired specifically addressing Lot 2. “An area of the [Lot 2] building . . . has undergone a collapse.” You can name-call me arrogant, but is the quote accurate?
As for your assertion that the town should work with you to develop the property: I heard the chair of the Planning Board all but plead with you to continue to work with the Board to come to a plan that conformed with legal requirements. He even told you that you were close, and predicted success if you were willing to modify your submitted plan. You refused, and insisted on a vote on the plan as submitted. We all know the results.
Should the town work with you to develop the property? Yes. Does “working with” mean caving to whatever you want? No.
Coming back to you calling me arrogant: why is your submitted, nonconforming plan the only possible plan for development?
I can not believe that the town meeting decided to apropriate a minimum of 200k to take down the Hendries building. I remember sitting in town meeting just a couple of years ago discussing shutting off every other street light because we had no money in town. Now that there is a little money the Selectmen feel this is the best use? I have a novel idea, work with the developer, let the planning board and the developer come to an agreeable position, both sides need to give a little and let the developer take the building down or rehab it. Instead we are to pay to take it down, lose out on the sale of the property, lose out it on the potential tax revenue, lose out on much needed affordable housing stock and put the town through a prolonged law suit that could cost a whole lot of money. I know some people will respond that we should not allow a bad building design (not that i thought it was bad or good) because of the reasons I just stated, what I am saying is the planning board should have done its job. They were able to pass the Milton Hill House building in less than a couple of months that plan does not include all of the things that was asked for on the Hendries building. Obviously the Connellys did not hire or speak to the right people! that stinks and should not be the way town govt. works. On top of all this, I just got a copy of the deed last night for the Hendries building, I am shocked our town counsel allowed it. This will cost the town and us a lot more in the end.
Once again the undisputable hazard created by this deteriorating building is being ignored. For the safety of emergency responders, neighbors, pedestrians and potential intruders, this building must come down in a controled demolition now. The Milton owned section is the easy part. It is 15 feet (about) off the ground on solid concrete pillars, has no basement, a one level steel frame and is, for the most part, empty. The largest and oldest portion is owned by Connelly. Most of this area is concrete, brick, cork insulation, several floors, many divided areas, a basement with 5 or more feet of stagnant water (20 years worth), all sorts of manufacturing stuff and a tar and gravel roof that has partially caved in. Walls, floors and overhead are also falling in. This building is a snow storm away from total failure. The true construction and state of this building is concealed under the aluminum siding with fake windows. The original (Connolly) building is an old concrete refridgerated factory/wharehouse. Except for the old 1st floor store front entrance, there are no windows. If you took the total cost to demo entire building the cost to do the Milton portion would be a very small portion, much less than the actual ratio of square feet. There is no question, in my opinion (I have been inside many times as a Milton Firefighter) that there is no viable use for this building. It must come down. The question is, do we work together with Connolly and do it together, or do we protect the Towns liability and do our section now? For the Town to have to do this with a hostile relationship and lawsuit with the Connellys is a shame and benefits no one. I hope there will be a meeting resulting in a solution that will benefit all, especially the public that are put in danger.
Well said Malcolm! I agree. We have a developer interested in developing the parcel including purchasing the town owned piece. Get the planning board and the developer in a room and figure it out and save the town this prolonged, costly dispute and lets put some people to work here in Milton. If the Milton hill house can get their permit In a couple of months, why can’t the Connelly’s? I am now more interested in that dynamic. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.