What’s happening at Max Pak Mr. Alderman?
By George P. Hassett

  After two and a half years of public meetings, a 23 page planning document and a $4.2 million investment, the future development of the old Max Pak factory site was seriously threatened Thursday.
  That night, without any comment or explanation, Ward 5 Alderman Sean T. O‚ÄôDonovan withdrew the zoning amendments he proposed at a July 13 Board of Aldermen meeting that would have paved the way for a 200 unit residential development at 56 and 61 Clyde Street. And now, neighborhood residents are asking, ‚Äúwhy?‚Äù

  ‚ÄúLet us know what‚Äôs going on,‚Äù said Hudson Street resident John L. Sullivan. ‚ÄúWhy wasn‚Äôt there any public input on this decision? I wonder if there was just too much behind the scenes maneuvering?‚Äù
O’Donovan did not offer any reason for the withdrawal at the Committee on Land Use hearing. He declined to comment that night and has failed to return repeated phone calls and e-mails.
  A source close to KSS Realty, the developers who paid $4.2 million for the abandoned land on Clyde Street, said the project is now in jeopardy. KSS executives Stephen E. Smith, the nephew of former president John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and Darren Sammaweera are disappointed and angry and may abandon the development, the source said.
  Repeated calls to KSS went unreturned.
  Warwick Street resident Ralph Russo said he was pleased with O‚ÄôDonovan‚Äôs withdrawal Thursday.  He said he had recently circulated a petition opposing the development which everybody in his immediate neighborhood signed. Russo said his neighborhood would have seen the most dramatic of the development‚Äôs traffic impact and that KSS had yet to deliver certain promised documents outlining their plans.
“We’re talking about streets 20 feet wide that would have been turned into main drags once this gets built,” he said. “This isn’t a case of, ‘not in my backyard.’ There was just too much unknown about the project – when were they going to start? How much was going to be built? If they sell out to somebody else what happens then?”
  Joe Lynch lives on the other side of the possible development. He said he was disappointed that the public process had ended abruptly because ‚Äúone segment of one neighborhood‚Äù believed new zoning would upset the area‚Äôs balance.
“I’ve worked well with Ralph Russo but I warned him that we had to continue the public discussion and not stop the process. Residents on both sides of the issue should have been able to get up and state their case,” he said.
Lynch said the property in its current state is a dangerous eyesore that does not generate any significant tax revenue.
“It’s a crying shame for 5 acres of land to go to waste,” he said. “This was an opportunity to do business with a serious developer with a good reputation to get a quality development in our neighborhood.”
Russo said he did not know “the wisdom the alderman used” in withdrawing the amendments but that the right choice had been made.
“They came in here trying to abuse us. If someone else comes in to my neighborhood and tries to be abusive, I’ll fight them too,” he said.