An architect’s rendering of the Point Nantasket project, from the water side. Source: Town of Hull

By Carol Britton Meyer

The zoning board of appeals hearing on the townhouse project at the foot of Allerton Hill was postponed until next month due to a last-minute cancellation by the ZBA’s attorneys.

The July 21 public hearing on The Point Nantasket Realty LLC’s challenge of the planning board’s May 14 unanimous denial during the site plan review process was continued to August 11.

Under the town’s zoning bylaws, building permits cannot be issued for projects without site plan approval.

“We were ready to go for tonight, and town counsel – representing planning board members – is present, and the attorney for the applicant,” ZBA Chair Richard Hennessey said. “As chair, I requested [the ZBA] have its own representation for this hearing based on what could be seen as a fairly complex and novel [issue],” referring to the nature of the appeal.

“Regrettably, the attorneys from the firm assigned to represent us are unable to be here tonight,” he said. “I received confirmation of that at about 4:30 p.m. today, and as a result, there’s an agreement to open this hearing and continue it, which [many will find] frustrating.”

Town Counsel Brian Winner said that during a meeting that afternoon among the attorneys, it was decided that due to circumstances “outside of our control,” the earliest continuation date would be August 11, and the “planning board has no objection to that.” Some planning board members attended this week’s ZBA meeting.

The developer’s attorney, Adam Brodsky, clarified that his client was prepared to “present this evening. He’s not taking a position for or against the continuance request … He hasn’t agreed to it, but he doesn’t oppose it.”

Click here to read the full text of the developer’s appeal

The developer is proposing nine “residential cottages” connected by a common deck at the former Sunset Marine property at 839-845 Nantasket Avenue, as well as a pavilion, boat ramp, boardwalk, and other amenities on approximately 3.28 acres.

An architect’s rendering of the Point Nantasket project, from the street side. Source: Town of Hull

The proposal calls for demolishing the existing structures, which have been boarded up and surrounded by fencing for years, and repairing the existing dock.

The project is being proposed by Chris Reale of Hingham, who formerly owned the Paragon Boardwalk property at Nantasket Beach, along with Hingham builder Tom Fleck, whose father once ran the boat yard at the site.

‘Planning board’s decision should be annulled’

In a 20-page appeal posted on the ZBA page on the town’s website (www.town.hull.ma.us/786/07212026-Meeting), The Point Nantasket Realty, LLC asserts that “the planning board’s decision should be annulled” and that the board “engaged in improper procedure, had no legal or factual basis to deny approval, and failed to impose reasonable conditions.”

The appeal, written by Brodsky, alleges that “egged on by a small vocal group of opponents, the planning board, together with the design review board, engaged in a witch hunt seeking to, among other things, challenge the Building Commissioner Bartley Kelly’s zoning determination and reviewing the project for conformance with the Massachusetts Building Code, none of which falls within the planning board or design review board’s authority.”

In response, Winner wrote a memorandum to the ZBA on behalf of the planning board dated July 21, 2026 (posted on the same page as above), but there was no time to discuss it because the meeting was continued.

Winner wrote the memo after he reviewed the planning board’s decision and discussed it with members of that board, noting that the decision is “the product of the reasonable exercise of the planning board’s authority” under the town’s zoning by-laws and that its decision “is supported by substantial evidence both as a factual matter and as a matter of law.”

On behalf of the planning board, Winner requested that the ZBA deny The Point’s appeal and affirm the planning board’s decision. He also included a summary of the ZBA’s role in the appeal. Winner also provided a summary of why the planning board believes its decision should be affirmed.

In his letter to the ZBA, Winner notes that “a board may lawfully reject a site plan that fails to furnish adequate information on the various considerations imposed by the bylaw as conditions of the approval of the plan.” A board “also possesses discretion to impose reasonable conditions under a bylaw’s requirements in connection with approval of a site plan, even if the conditions are objected to by the owner or are the cause of added expense to the owner,” according to Winner.

In some cases, he continued, “the site plan, although proper in form, may be so intrusive on the needs of the public in one regulated aspect or another that rejection by the board would be tenable.”

‘Project is insufficiently described’

Winner also said the planning board’s decision sets forth that the board requested at least two additional meetings with the applicant to discuss revisions to the proposal, but that the applicant “only agreed to a single additional meeting and has made it clear there would be no additional meetings. As such, the board finds that the project is insufficiently described, the applicant has been uncooperative, and that the board, therefore, cannot make fair a determination on the merits of the project.”

Planning concerns also related to traffic, primarily at the intersection of Fitzpatrick Way and Nantasket Avenue, and the “great number of unresolved questions” about the proposal.

“The applicant did not provide the planning board with sufficient information and, moreover, did not provide the planning board with sufficient time to receive, review, and evaluate such information – assuming it ever was to be submitted,” Winner wrote. “The Point alludes to the planning board’s denial not being about the reasons stated in its written decision but rather being about some underlying objection to the project,” among other “entirely speculative motivations,” none of which Winner considers “worthy of response as none pertain to the singular legal issue before the zoning board.”

Winner also said that the planning board “requests that the zoning board affirm its decision and deny the petitioner’s appeal. If, however, a supermajority of the zoning board believes there is any merit to the petitioner’s appeal, it should vacate the decision and remand the matter to the planning board for further proceedings.”

At the final Site Plan Review hearing in May on the townhouse development, planning board members said they felt that the developer had not addressed all of their concerns and had presented plan revisions in a piecemeal format. That sentiment differed from comments board members made the previous month, when the developer was lauded for “responsiveness” and “making a lot of good progress” in modifying the plans in response to feedback.

Also, Design Review Board Chair Julia Parker told the planning board that the DRB had voted against the project on May 13.

‘Regrettable’ situation

On Tuesday, the ZBA unanimously agreed to the continuance “to its own time slot on Tuesday, August 11, at 7 p.m.,” Hennessey said, calling the situation “regrettable…. Given the size of this space [the high school exhibition room], we hope to be back here at that time.”

“Our team will be available August 11,” Brodsky confirmed.

Hennessey, Philip Bellone, and Edwin Parsons are the voting ZBA members for this appeal.

A replay of the ZBA meeting is available on Hull Community Television’s website, www.hulltv.net, and planning board hearings on this project are available at www.youtube.com/@HullTVGovernmentMeetings.

Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.

Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.