To the editor:
“Residences at Endicott,” a six-story, 68-unit condominium project in a congested neighborhood, is scheduled to be heard before Peabody’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) on Monday, May 3 at 7 p.m. via Zoom.
It is my view that the Endicott Street neighbors were short-changed at every step of the way throughout this process. It is my hope that the ZBA will right these wrongs, listen to the neighbors, review all the facts, and ensure the builder works collaboratively to build a reasonable structure for their neighborhood.
The process began in early 2020 with a proposal too massive for, and its character inconsistent with, this neighborhood — a clear violation of our zoning ordinance. Dozens of neighbors objected and appeared in person at one of the very last in-person City Council meetings prior to the pandemic.
Before the neighbors were able to voice their objections, the council meeting was adjourned for spurious reasons. That was the last time the residents had a chance to speak on this project in person. Never before has a project this size been considered without in-person participation from the abutters and neighbors.
Neighbors then became the guinea pigs for the untested, unfair, and inequitable virtual public hearings where they — those with the internet access and computer savvy to be able to connect — experienced dropped calls, garbled voices, and loss of connectivity throughout the hearing(s).
Nonetheless, the petitioner was granted the special permit with a vote of 9-2 to construct a 38-unit condominium project in an R1A residential housing zone restricted to single- and two-family homes.
These neighbors and abutters, justifiably upset by their council’s decision, then exercised their right to defend their property and their quality of life through the appeal process afforded to them by law.
Rather than allowing these property owners their day in court, the carpenter decided to cut and run, and intentionally defaulted in court by choosing to file a 40B application through MassHousing, which subsequently issued a project eligibility letter for what is now a six-story, 68-unit monstrosity charmingly referred to as “Residences at Endicott.” In doing so, the neighborhood was cheated again, because the state (MassHousing) bypassed the required neighborhood and city official site meeting, which should have taken place outdoors, by citing COVID-19.
Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40B is meant to be a tool for collaborative decisions between a city and a developer in order to achieve a meaningful goal to provide needed affordable housing.
The spirit and intent of 40B is to provide sensible building with respect to its ultimate size and density, while still allowing for a reasonable profit for the developer. This carpenter, although he had an approved special permit in hand to develop the project that he said he wanted to build, chose to file a 40B application, effectively denying the neighborhood group their right to be heard.
He was able to do so now rather than wait his turn, because of a loophole in the 40B statute created by Peabody’s inclusionary zoning, evidence of our community’s commitment to increasing affordable housing.
The carpenter’s end-run flies in the face of the spirit and intent of Chapter 40B, and I question why the state Legislature would allow this and why MassHousing, rather than challenge it, gave this carpenter their seal of approval.
I am confident that the many concerns surfaced by a project of this magnitude at that location, if addressed by fair negotiations between this carpenter and the ZBA, will result in a sensible structure with respect to its ultimate size and density, while still allowing for a reasonable profit for the carpenter — who, by the way, has never engaged in a project of this magnitude.
Should this goal not be achieved and the builder is dissatisfied with the ZBA’s rejection, reduction in size, or attachment of conditions or changes, the petitioner still has recourse by filing an appeal with the state Housing Appeals Committee. Ironically, such an appeal would be the equivalent recourse for fair treatment that this petitioner denied the Endicott Street neighbors.
Anne Manning-Martin
City Councilor-at-large
Peabody
.
