Commentary by Frank Schroth
Last August at a meeting of the Board of Selectmen, Chair Keohane announced that “the Connellys are on board” with an effort to revive a mixed use development at the Hendries site. They would be holding two neighborhood meetings in September at which their attorney and Cheryl Tougias, a local architect, would present the revised plan. Those meetings did not happen. That is not all that hasn’t happened.
The building is still standing despite a demolition order that dates back to . . . well, quite a while ago. That demolition order stems from a roof collapse, but it is not known who owns that portion of the building. There is an enforcement order pending regarding the Connellys taking down the large black oak that stood over the property. The Connellys removed the tree for safety concerns, however, it was a controversial move at the time, which was also quite a while ago. The enforcement order is from the Conservation Commission, which had not been notified.
They key thing that didn’t happen was the granting of a special permit to build a mixed used development. The Connellys were denied that about a year or so ago. As a result they explored the concept of building a 40B apartment building on the site. Senator Joyce, concerned that the property was not going to be developed in a manner that was in the best interests of the town if it were a 40B, convened a group of officials and residents who met with the Connellys on several occasions for the purpose of revising the original mixed use plan and addressing some of the neighbors’ key concerns and some of the issues identified by the Planning Board in denying the application.
The principal change made was pushing the building back from Central Avenue and thereby modifying the sense of scale and opening up the corner with more space.
The Connellys were amendable to the changes, and it appeared that a resolution was in sight; but there is a monkey in the wrench to all this. The town owns a portion of the building. The P&S with the Connellys for that was nullified when the special permit was denied. The town had the property appraised and put out an RFP for bids on the property. Uh oh.
If a mixed used development is in the best interests of the town and if a mixed used development requires the entire property (the Connellys-owned portion + the town-owned portion) be developed to be successful, then putting out a the town-owned portion to bid and having that property possibly purchased by another developer could be problematic. Would that developer need to abide by set back and buffer zoning requirements? Would selling to another developer essentially prompt the Connellys to renew their interest in a 40B development? Doesn’t this potentially undermine the best interests of the town? Was this legally required? Didn’t the Hendries committee talk about this aspect of the development with the Connellys in advance, given it is a critical piece to a successful resolution?
Well as it happens, there was only one bid on the town-owned parcel, and it was from the Connellys. The town appraisal was $240K. The bid amount has not been disclosed. The Selectmen will be discussing the matter tonight. We fervently hope that, regardless of the amount, they keep their eyes on the prize and concentrate their efforts on what is in the best interests of the town. In our opinion that is a mixed use development that conforms to zoning law and results in a building that makes the neighbors proud and generates revenue for the town. This is an extremely challenging situation, but it can be done. Let’s get everyone on board, the Connellys, the selectmen, the neighbors and make it happen.