by Frank Schroth

At their meeting on March 21 the Planning Board resumed their discussion of an ANR lot on Hillside Street. ANR is an acronym for “approval not required.” However, in this case, some form of approval is required, which helps to explain all the lawyers. It was strongly indicated at a previous session by the attorneys involved that either way the board’s decision would be appealed.  If the board approved the “approval not required” lot it would be appealed by Mark Brobowski, attorney for the Corliss family, an abutter. If they did not approve it, it would likely be appealed by Marion McEttrick, attorney for the applicant, Todd Hamilton. What to do? Bring in another attorney, Town Counsel John Flynn.

Prior to bringing in Mr. Flynn it was apparent that there was a significant difference of opinion between Alex Whiteside, Chair of the Planning Board, and Marion McEttrick regarding how to label an adjacent property. At one point Mr. Whiteside admonished Ms. McEttrick saying,”I said to you Mrs. McEttrick  – let me know what you want to say and we can discuss it before we get back here; but you didn’t do it.”

In a follow up conversation with Ms. McEttrick she explained her reason for not acceding to Mr. Whiteside’s request. McEttrick felt that any discussion regarding the lot should be done in session so as to keep the other members of the board and the public apprised. Further any decision would also inform and the reasoning behind it could then inform future matters of a similar nature.

Whiteside wanted the adjacent lot labeled a non-buildable lot saying, “I have been dealing with these matters for a long, long long, long time – I would suggest it is a lot and not a buildable one.” Ms. McEttrick would not agree to that saying, “but it is not easy. If I put that on a plan now – you are going to tell me it is not build able if I come at some future point in time .  .  . that is why I am not going to say it.”

Mr. Kelly weighed in and that is when the notion of the squiggle denoting the relationship came up. The specific lots of land referenced were not indicated to viewers. Regardless, no squiggles were added. Mr. Kelly again referred to the lots in question as a subdivision. McEttrick took issue with that and expressed concern that members of the board continued to refer to what she viewed as a single ANR lot as a subdivision which she did not believe it was. Whiteside said he was “befuddled.” He turned to Town Counsel and asked, “Is it a lot or isn’t is a lot?” He replied, “You are not being asked to determine that.”

“While we might all have our own opinions Town Counsel trumps it,” said Whiteside regarding town counsels opinion that the lot in question was not a subdivision. The attorneys all agreed to language stating that this plan does not determine the status of assessors lot KA2  as a build able lot and the board then approved the request. What is not know is whether the attorney for the Corlisses, Mark Brobowski, will appeal the decision. He indicated that he would if the ANR were granted. Another family, the McDonoughs, have also retained legal counsel and may look to appeal the decision.

At their session on 3/28 the Planning Board issues that came up included but were not limited to:

• Discussion of 17 Canton Avenue – Bob Sheffield appeared before the board and, despite his efforts to obtain approval pending some changes, will need to come back. Issues with the property concern mitigating the sound produced by an air conditioning unit and a generator. The board also needs to approve the style of canopy and install tim on the front consistent with the original facade. The developer did not preserve the original building as the board believed he would. The building was to be the home for a law firm and group that manages a assisted living facilities. That latter business has since been sold off by the owner. “Things change” Mr Sheffield explained. The board was concerned about what might take its place. Mr. Sheffield said it would just be a law firm.
• There was an extensive discussion of the two 40B proposals: Milton Mews and the Hendries building. Resident Margaret Donovan had a muber of quesitons and made a number of points. Mr. Clark clarified for her that the total of all the units in the two developments would count against the town’s affordable housing quota despite the fact that only 25% of them are in fact affordable. This is because they are apartments and not condominiums or houses. The Milton Mews proposal is for 276 and the Hendries is for 72. He also said that despite what Ms Donovan had heard the money allocated for demolition of the town’s portion of the building had not been spent. Donovan said that the town could be expected to add 36 children to the school system at a cost of $12,000 per student as a result of development. Member Innes said there would be some but not as much as people expect. Ms. Donovan also took exception to comments made on MyTownMatters that were critical of the Planning Board regarding the Hendries process. She stated, “you as a board should be commended for your patience and protection of the town.”