Brief bit: Selectmen agree to another Hendries extension

by Frank Schroth

At last Tuesday’s meeting of the Board of Selectmen members Hurley and Conlon voted to give Carrick Realty, owners of the Hendries building, until yesterday to work with the town’s retained counsel and building inspector to come to agreement on plan for taking down the Hendries building. This was granted with the understanding that “substantial” progress would be made on the issue. Believing this to be the case, yesterday afternoon they granted another extension. This one until this coming Thursday. At that time they expect to sign an agreement that will set May 28th as a deadline for submission of a complete demolition permit from Carrick for their portion of the building.

At their meeting late yesterday afternoon the selectmen reviewed a draft of the agreement. A key concern of Carrick’s was any future liability the town might cite during the demolition. There is agreement by both parties to hold the other harmless. In addition, they will “draw a line in the sand” as of the signing of the agreement whereby any pre-exisitng legal actions will be withdrawn. The town has issued two demo orders both of which have been appealed by Carrick. Those would go away. Conlon and Hurley were satisfied that the draft was very close and that the few tweaks and changes could be made and the agreement signed this Thursday. Member Keohane dissented and said he would not sign the agreement and said he would favor issuing another demolition order under Mass General Law 39. He said that they (the town) had been this close before and it fell apart. The vote was 2-1 to approve the extension. The board meets  this Thursday.

 

  5 comments for “Brief bit: Selectmen agree to another Hendries extension

  1. Dick Burke
    April 29, 2014 at 8:57 am

    As I read this most recent chapter in j the Hendries saga, some how the quote ” fool me once shame on you fool me twice ( or more) shame on me ” comes to mind.
    The time for this awkward dance needs to end.there is no reasonable argument to counter that the building is not an eyesore, dangerous and is not helping the economic and residential development of the Central
    avenue area.
    The time for talk is over , the time for action is now.
    Let s get to work and move forward. e have been patient and have waited long enough.

  2. Peter Jackson
    April 29, 2014 at 9:04 am

    I’m concerned about the proposed agreement as I understand it. It includes a deadline for submitting a demolition permit application but does not set a time for undertaking the demolition. The proponent could get a demolition permit and then sit on it indefinitely. This is a similar situation to the P&S on the town parcel when there was no deadline on the agreement.

    I believe the agreement should indicate the demolition has to begin within 30 days of receiving the required permits and be completed no more than 30-60 days later.

  3. Malcolm Larson
    April 29, 2014 at 1:50 pm

    It is unbelievable that so much distrust , bad faith and lack of integrity exists at 131 Elliot St. Clearly the BOS are out of patience as they should be. Every time. I hear the owners “team” defend this dangerous building my blood pressure goes up. My confidence in the Connellys suddenly being cooperative & reasonable is very low. It is worth one last try , but with very specific time / date requirements. This needs to come down this summer. Our excellent building inspector, Joe Prondak, deserves credit. It is not easy to push forward building demo with uncooperating owners and their lawyers. This is a serious public safety issue that is long overdue for a resolution.

  4. Michael Chinman
    April 29, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    Mr. Larson, I was trying to find–but couldn’t–the exchange you had in comments on this site with Mr. Connelly within the past year or so. I believe Mr. Connelly made specific assurances to you about demolishing the building. My memory is that at the end of the exchange you were satisfied with Mr. Connelly’s representations. Do you remember what were the specific assurances?

  5. Malcolm Larson
    April 30, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    I don’t remember details but I thought he agreed to take down building ASAP . It has been so many years, so many failed “agreements”. They believed the tree was a public safety concern that had to come down but the building isn’t. ? I thought Connellys Lawyer sounded fairly reasonable last Monday, but he doesn’t make decisions. We shall see in a few days if substantial progress can be made.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *