by Frank Schroth — updated 12.05.13 8:21am

At Wednesday’s meeting of the Board of Appeals attorney Ned Corcoran’s request for variances to develop 6 condominium units on a 16,655 square foot parcel  of property that abuts the Milton Food Mart was denied. Mr. Corcoran was representing the developer Michael Moxley who was also present.

The session began with Mr. Leonard, Chairman of the Board of Appeals, summarizing several letters. There were approximately 4 letters that were opposed to the development due to its density, the potential traffic impacts, and its unattractive appearance. One writer, Moira Hamilton of Dyer Avenue, also questioned the public benefit to be realized from granting the requested variances. The site is zoned as residential C and as such would permit a single family home. A letter from Bill Reilly, President of the Knights of Columbus, was also summarized in which he said the neighborhood would be improved. The Knights of Columbus had sold the property outright to Mr. Moxley for $350,000 in a sealed bid process. There were 3 bids altogether. Moxley’s was the high bid.

Mr. Corcoran then made his presentation. He sought relief citing the hardship of developing a site that met Residential C zoning requirements. He argued that the property was a pre-existing non-conforming site that sat within a number of properties that were also pre-existing and non-cnforming to zoning. Further he argued that the cost of tearing down the buildings (there are 2 on the property, a house and the Knights of Columbus structure), filling and grading the lot to be buildable was “exorbitant.” It could not be developed as residential C and realize the value of the investment according to Mr. Corcoran. He also cited the Historic Commission’s opinion that preserving the skeletal steel structure, which Mr. Moxley intends to do, had benefit. The proposal calls for tearing down the house and stripping the Knights of Columbus building down to the steel beams. The KoC building was originally used as a warehouse and distribution point for the original owner who ran a paper business. The core structure would be expanded to allow create 6 units.

Corcoran was peppered throughout his presentation with questions largely from Mr. Leonard. The other members of the Board of Appeals present were Ted Daiber and Jeff Mullan. Upon hearing the list of issues regarding costs etc, Leonard asked, “Didn’t you know all that going in?” He also questioned why the developer did not go to the Planning Board on an advisory basis. Corcoran said that some but not all the issues were known and that he had gone before the Planning Board. Corcoran acknowledged that he had a difference of opinion with the Chair of the Planning Board, Alex Whiteside, who felt that the proper way to address the site was through a rezoning effort. Corcoran said that would be at least an 18 month effort that no developer would undertake. (Note: Mr. Corcoran and Mr. Moxley presented to the Planning Board the previous evening. The board decided not to support the request for a variance. Mr. Whiteside in particular was adamant in his opposition characterizing the request as “market driven zoning.”)

Mr. Leonard dismissed some of Mr. Corcoran’s statements. Corcoran had met with Board of Selectmen but Leonard noted they had no jurisdiction. When Corcoran cited the risks involved, Leonard replied, “Risk is not our concern.” And when informed by Corcoran that Mr. Moxley would consider chaining the units from 3 bedrooms to 2 in response to a Planning Board member’s concern, Leonard said the number of bedrooms “was not a consideration under any circumstance.”

Mr. Corcoran outlined three possibilities for the site: 1) move forward with proposed 6 unit development b) seek a comprehensive permit (i.e. 40B) or c) explore an institutional use. He maintained the first was the best for the developer, the neighbors and the town and said if denied the variance the developer would move forward. Mr. Leonard asked at that point “If you do not get your 6 units you will pursue other avenues?” Corcoran answered in the affirmative. Leonard concluded, “that is a strong position but at least you are being clear.”

After hearing from one resident who spoke in support of the development and several who opposed it, Mr. Leonard made a fairly lengthy statement outlining his reasons for denying the variances requested. He mentioned that most developers seeking such “extraordinary relief came with the imprimatur of the Planning Board” and that such variances are granted sparingly. That the developer lacked Planning Board approval was a concern. Leonard also cited the traffic congestion in the area, specifically the challenge of making a left on Brook off of Thacher. He said traffic is a major issue for any development and a substantial issue here. He then reiterated the scope of relief sought. “You are asking for an enormous amount of relief” . . .3 times what the zoning allows “in a situation that has not undergone site planning.”  Leonard said, “we cannot unilaterally write the bylaw .  .  . this sort of substantial deviation should come from elected officials .  .  . we should not make political decisions contrary to what elected officials have expressed.”  He said the developer was free “to go elsewhere and with best wishes.” He also said he would not be swayed by the “siren song of 40B.”  Mr. Mullan and Mr. Daiber agreed with Mr. Leonard and the rationale he gave. Mullan added that he was also concerned that the proposal would expand the non-conforming characteristics of the site. The meeting adjourned.