A capacity crowd filled the hull high exhibition room as the zoning board of appeals began the hearing on the point, a project proposed for 839-845 nantasket Avenue. [Photo By the Point ALLERTON ASSOCIATION]

By Carol Britton Meyer

The zoning board of appeals hearing on The Point project proposed at the foot of Allerton Hill was continued Tuesday night following a nearly three-hour presentation by the attorney for the project and related discussion.

The hearing was the result of The Point Nantasket Realty LLC’s challenge of the planning board’s May 14 unanimous denial during the site plan review process.

The high school exhibition room, where the hearing was held, was “packed with folks who have strong feelings one way or another,” noted ZBA Chair Richard Hennessey. He then asked for their cooperation in not making any remarks that might interrupt the meeting. No public comments were accepted.

The planning board will make its presentation on Tuesday, August 18, at 7 p.m., which will allow them equal time as needed. In May, 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.

Town Counsel Brian Winner requested the continuation to allow members of the planning board – a few of whom attended this week’s hearing – to discuss the presentation by Attorney Adam Brodsky and other members of the development team at their already-planned meeting the following night, August 12. A meeting of the planning board was not posted for Tuesday’s hearing, so all the members were unable to attend.

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.

Click here for more information on the project and to read the filings by the developer and town counsel.

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.

The presentation and back-and-forth between Hennessey and Brodsky and other development team members was detailed and complex, with references to the planning board’s denial of site plan approval and the reasons behind the developer’s 20-page appeal of that decision, which is posted at www.town.hull.ma.us/786/07212026-Meeting.

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

A main point of discussion revolved around Brodsky’s assertion that the board did not have grounds for such a denial. According to the appeal, the planning board “engaged in improper procedure, had no legal or factual basis to deny approval, and failed to impose reasonable conditions.”

During the hearing, Brodsky claimed that the planning board made “procedural errors” and denied that the development team had not provided adequate information to the board for their review of the proposal.

The one exception, he said, “is that we were asked to present a physical model of the proposed development to scale. [However], no one builds physical models anymore – so we provided computer-generated 3D models,” – which Brodsky said is not grounds for denying site plan approval. A development team member noted that the bylaw doesn’t include the word “physical” for the model reference.

Brodsky also claimed that the board’s “allegation that they were not afforded sufficient time to review the project” is inaccurate. The development team also asserted that the project is in compliance with the related town design guidelines and is “fully zoning compliant.”

Brodsky advocated for the ZBA to send the case back to the planning board “for all the reasons set forth in our appeal. It’s important to have fair and impartial hearings, with guardrails [in place].”

“There need to be legitimate grounds – based on the zoning bylaws and design guidelines -- [to justify a denial],” he said.

When asked by Hennessey whether he had any comments during the development team’s presentation, ZBA member Phillip Bellone had no questions, but said “there seems to be a lot of nitpicking going on by Mr. Brodsky – someone did this or that, and I don’t buy any of it.”

When making a few comments near the end of the presentation, Reale objected to Bellone’s remark, noting that he found it “offensive.”

According to its August 12 agenda, the planning board was to enter into executive session to discuss the “Open Meeting Law complaint against the planning board filed by Christopher Reale on August 5, 2026” but did not offer details on the nature of the complaint. The agenda also listed an executive session to discuss strategy with respect to litigation regarding the permitting appeal for The Point.

A replay of the meeting will be available on Hull Community Television’s website, www.HullTV.net.

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.