I’ll confess I did not know this was the big show, the full presentation to the Zoning Commission, February 25, by the team proposing a high-rise rental housing development on Sutton Avenue. Like many of my Historic District neighbors, I had grieved for the destruction of Center School, and indeed had borne witness against it at that time.
Subsequent Council votes had already “trumped” neighborhood opposition several years ago; it was full speed ahead. All I was planning to do that night was to bring up what I had heard, that someone had drilled down and gotten water; big surprise. I don’t see how you can build an underground parking garage under water…
What was more depressing was that while there was a modest turnout of the public, the Romano development group seemed to have an almost equal number of suits: architects, landscape guys, storm water guys, traffic guys (of course I’ve never seen a traffic engineer say anything other than that the project that’s paying his fee will have no effect on traffic flow). And so their presentation lasted until almost an hour had passed.
After that there were questions from elected Commission members, mostly small-time stuff like “what about trash?” Fair enough. We need to hear questions from all of them.
Finally, Zoning Chairman Tacogna asked for public comment in favor. Some architect-type fellow who I believe may have even been involved earlier on, went on for more than 15 minutes, with a long series of criticisms (ironically), such as regarding ADA (disability) matters.
After all that, the speakers in opposition had their turn. Two women spoke, one whose name I recognized was Amory Erenhouse, who raised the traffic issue forcefully.
By this time Chair was demanding brevity, so when he called my name, I decided to raise only a few points–water, affordable housing, renters’ probable lack of commitment to the neighborhood, etc., and speak quickly.
I began and ended by referencing the sorry history: a school destroyed by forces desirous of regional commuter parking facilities, the seduction of “free money” rationalizing a demolition grant for alleged toxic materials remediation, etc. TOD (Transportation Oriented Development) has for 20 years been something of an unchallengeable shibboleth, I noted, even as it’s now past its sell-by date: cf. remote work. And I looked at the Commissioners and said it was now time for new eyes, theirs as well as Council’s, to take a total reset on this.
After these public comments, Planning Administrator Attota had several final questions of her own. Her estimable surmise was that this application needs numerous changes, albeit nothing that sounded like a deal breaker. The meeting was continued to March 25. Let’s hope the public comment and questioning is also “continued” to that next meeting.
