By Scott MacKeen
Staff Writer
3/31/11
The Planning Board’s March 24 hearing on the Hendries property redevelopment was the first opportunity for residents to make public comments about the 200-year-old oak tree that was recently removed from the property.
It was also a chance for the developer to introduce a new design for the building he plans to develop on the Eliot Street site – a structure that has been downsized from the original plan.

Under zoning bylaws for the property, the Planning Board may award a “bonus” for the developer to increase the size of the building by 15 percent if he preserves or replaces “in kind” a significant natural feature.

Board Chair Alex Whiteside said the oak tree the developer chose to cut down March 9 – a tree many neighbors were sad and angered to see go – was the site’s only significant natural feature.

“The site no longer has any significant natural features” and the developer hasn’t shown a replacement plan, Whiteside said. “So it seems to me it no longer qualifies for the bonus.”

Responding to criticism that he has “thumbed his nose” at the neighborhood, Steve Connelly, of Dorchester-based Connelly Construction, said his decision to have the tree removed was based on public safety.

“The tree was [at] high risk for failure. It endangered our fellow residents in the business district,” said Connelly, explaining that removing it also removed his exposure to liability.

Connelly owns the property at 131 Eliot St., including the vacant building. The Planning Board had no say in the removal of the tree, but did ask Connelly to incorporate it into the design of the new development.

Residents at the meeting said they were upset and disappointed with Connelly.

“This was a disgraceful way to treat the neighborhood,” said Ellen Denooyer, of Capen Street.

“Shame on you. You and I know you could’ve worked around that tree,” Eric Edman, of Pagoda Street, added.

Matthew “Twig” Largess, an arborist the Planning Board had hired to inspect the health of the tree, said photos taken after it was cut show the trunk did have some rot.

“I wasn’t exactly accurate on the trunk,” he said, adding that he still felt the tree “could have lived a lot longer.”

He said the tree still had 75 percent life left, and could have survived another 20 to 50 years.

Largess said only about 0.5 percent of black oak trees the age and size of the Hendries tree remain in the United States.

“It was pretty devastating to me,” he said of learning the news Connelly had removed it. “It’s very rare to have a tree like this.”

Many scoffed at Connelly’s assertion that he was acting out of concern for public safety. They pointed to the long-vacant building – which has been deemed unsafe for the Fire Department to enter – saying Connelly should have demolished the structure years ago.

“His ‘concerns for public safety’ are pretty hard to stomach,” said Central Avenue resident Elise Brink, who had previously collected names on a petition to save the tree.

Denooyer said the building is “a thousand times more dangerous than the tree ever was” and that it would “show some good will to the town” if Connelly tore it down.

Whiteside read a letter from former Fire Chief Malcolm Larson asking the board to investigate whether the building’s fire-suppression system is working. Larson also called on the board to see when the structure was last tested for structural integrity.

Town Planner Bill Clark said he was told by Building Commissioner Joe Prondak there is no structural report on file for the Hendries building. Clark was unsure whether Prondak had ever been inside the building. He said there is “water all over the floor” and “the floor is missing in some places.”

Clark said town inspectors in January tested a box outside the building that connects to interior heat sensors, and found that the sensors work.

The Planning Board agreed to further investigate the condition of the building.

“I think if the former fire chief has some questions, we should find out the answers,” member Emily Innes said.

After that, Connelly and architect Warren Daniel, of Natick-based Daniel Architects Inc., unveiled their new plans for the new condominium building. Because he will not receive the 15 percent bonus, the developer’s building condo unit count has been reduced from 34 to 31. The design showed that the west end of the building has been reduced by 18 feet.

According to Daniel, the ground level will feature garage parking and 5,272 square feet of commercial space; the first floor will have one residential unit and 2,588 square feet of commercial space; the second and third floors will each have 11 housing units; and the fourth floor will have eight housing units. There will also be 31 outdoor parking spaces.

Board member Peter Jackson said the building as currently constituted is “100 percent the wrong use” for the site. He said he would prefer to see a green area maintained near the street, with the bulk of the building set back from the road.

Calling the current design “harsh and cold,” Jackson said he would like to see a greener, more pedestrian-friendly project.

“The complaints that we seem to be getting about 36 Central [Ave.] is that it’s too big. This would be even more massive than 36 Central,” said Jackson, referring to the 18-unit Residences at Brook Hill development across the street.

“I would agree that [Connelly’s] building would probably have to be repositioned,” said Whiteside.