Local developer addresses mounting criticisms

When Scott Lenhart decided to go into the development business after a 10-year stint on the Canton Planning Board, he fully expected to encounter resistance from time to time and perhaps an occasional controversy or two.

But never did he anticipate the chorus of criticism that has greeted him in recent months across his hometown of Canton — from Plymouth Street to Chapman Street, and most recently on Sherman Street, where signs now line the street as a show of protest against one of Lenhart’s construction projects.

Sherman Street neighbors speak out at the October 2 Planning Board meeting. (Click to view CCTV coverage)

The signs, which are bright red with white lettering and call for an end to “pork chop lots,” are just the latest salvo in what has been a month-long battle waged by the neighbors over 95 Sherman Street, which was purchased by Lenhart and his business partner, Don McNeice.

The two developers plan to sell the existing home while adding a new single-family residence on a smaller lot carved out of the original — the aforementioned “pork chop.”

Neighbors contend that the new home will destroy the historic nature of the existing property and threaten the overall beauty of the neighborhood, which has been deemed a scenic way by the town.

“We oppose the plan,” said Sherman Street resident Valerie Metsika at a Planning Board hearing last month. “We think it is going to ruin our scenic district. It is going to be an eyesore to this community, and we want to put our foot down on behalf of our neighbors and the town.”

The neighbors have also objected to the removal of several trees on the property, even going so far as to call the police — Lenhart’s other employer — when it appeared that the developer might be in violation of the scenic way bylaw or the public shade tree law.

The town tree warden subsequently conducted his own investigation and determined that no violations had occurred; however, Metsika still insists that there were plenty of “violations in spirit” that day.

“It was heartbreaking to see,” she said of the tree removal. “It was a literal cemetery of trees, littered all over like match sticks, all over that yard.”

Lenhart, in a recent telephone interview, said he sympathizes with the neighbors’ concerns and can see where they are coming from.

“They’re upset,” he said. “They don’t want another house down there.”

At the same time, Lenhart is adamant that he has not done anything wrong, nor does he apologize for doing what is permissible under the law.

“I met all of the frontage requirements and the lot size and setbacks that permitted me to subdivide,” he said. “I agree that it’s not entirely in keeping with the existing neighborhood, but you’ve got a whole range of different types of housing and different size lots down there.”

He added that the new house would look even better if it could be set back further into the property; however, doing so would require a variance under the existing bylaws.

“Unfortunately, there is no incentive for me as a developer to go that route because I would ultimately lose if one of the neighbors objected,” he explained. “So my only option is to go and do what I can do as a matter of right. It’s more of a commentary on the way the bylaws are written than anything else.”

Lenhart said he was also doing what he thought was permitted as of right with the two-family residence at 447 Chapman Street, which was another instance where his plans were at odds with the desires of the neighborhood.

At a hearing of the zoning board held in June, Lenhart’s attorney, Suzanne Matthews, had argued that the existing home — an estate house built in 1855 — could be razed and reconstructed as a two-family under the current bylaws.

But while the abutters agreed with Matthews that the home had fallen into disrepair, they placed the blame for that squarely on the developers, claiming that they had ignored the property while at the same time accepting irresponsible tenants.

Neighbors further claimed that they were deceived by Lenhart and McNeice, insisting that they had promised to divide the 45,000-square-foot parcel into three lots, demolish the two-family, and build three single-family homes. Instead, they built two single-family homes and decided to build a duplex on the remaining third lot.

Lenhart, for his part, said he never made any promises to the neighbors, arguing that he would “never lock [himself] into something like that.”

Meanwhile, the zoning board deliberated at length on the issue and ultimately settled on a compromise decision, voting 3-0 last week to preserve the two-family use, but only if it is “tied to the existing historic structure.”

The decision permits Lenhart to renovate the home while increasing its size by 25 percent, as long as it “closely resembles the historic structure and blends with its style.”

Lenhart said he was pleased with the ZBA’s decision, although his preference was to “have something brand new and looking uniformly the same.” “At least now,” he said, “I’ll be able to add on and still provide the amenities that people want with new construction.”

As for the criticisms that have been lodged against him by neighbors, Lenhart attributes them, in part, to a perception problem, perhaps stemming from the fact that he is also a Canton Police officer and previously served on both the planning and zoning boards.

Particular in the case of the latter board, which he served on as an alternate until March 2012, Lenhart said he can now see why “people might think there’s a conflict,” and he wishes in hindsight that he had never accepted the appointment.

“If I could do it over again I never would have served in that capacity,” he said. “I only agreed to serve because I thought I had a comprehensive understanding of what the zoning issues were, but it became an issue — people thought I was there for the wrong reasons.”

To the neighbors on Sherman Street, however, perception and reality are one and the same.

“What is so hard for us to understand is the irresponsible way he chooses to build in his own hometown,” wrote Metsika in an email on behalf of the neighbors. “There is a disregard for history, the environment and the neighborhood that is so prevalent in his approach … We are angered and frustrated as a community and as a neighborhood on Mr. Lenhart’s ability to do whatever he wants in this town.”

Lenhart, not surprisingly, disputes the neighbors’ assertions, believing instead that there are larger issues at play that can help to explain the recent backlash.

“I think what it is, and I’ve thought a lot about this,” he said, “is that because of the economy, I think the town has been so used to not having a lot a of development, so that anything that comes down the pike is not going to be well received. But I do think that what I build, in most instances, is aesthetically attractive and appealing to the neighborhood.”

“People just don’t normally embrace change,” added Lenhart. “As a developer, I know there is always going to be objection; it just seems that lately, it’s a lot more acute than it has been in the past.”

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=22755

Posted by Jay Turner on Oct 24 2013. Filed under News. Both comments and pings are currently closed.