Rockaway Annex condos likely to win approval despite questions on sprinklers, access easement
/By Carol Britton Meyer
The zoning board of appeals closed the public hearing Tuesday night for a proposed 12-unit townhouse complex in the Rockaway Annex neighborhood under the state’s comprehensive permit law, but has not taken a final vote on whether to approve the project.
This week’s meeting was the eighth hearing since last August on the development at 25 Ipswich Street. The next step is for the ZBA to meet on April 29 in a public meeting to discuss the draft decision with conditions recently crafted by Town Counsel Brian Winner and Joseph Peznola, a consultant to the board who has provided guidance from the beginning of the process.
The document is posted on the ZBA’s page on the town website and will be the topic of discussion by town counsel, Peznola, and the development team in the interim. The April 29 meeting will be held at town hall at 7 p.m.
Click here for the draft decision and other documents about this project
Now that the hearing is closed, the board has 40 days to review the document and then make a final decision with conditions for the project. The developer will review that document, with the option to appeal any of the conditions with the state housing appeals committee.
On a unanimous vote at the April 1 ZBA hearing, the board approved a motion related to the finding of fact presented by Chair Patrick Finn that the ZBA “has enough preliminary information and plans in order to render a potentially favorable decision” to issue a comprehensive permit for the project. This is not a commitment to a favorable decision, but as Finn pointed out that night, there would be no conditions to draft or consider if the ZBA were to outright deny the permit.
However, the ZBA and Dean Harrison, the housing consultant to developer Alan Mckenzie have indicated that neither wants to take that route.
No public comment at next meeting
While the meeting on April 29 will be open to the public, no comments will be accepted, as the hearing is now closed.
The proposed Residences at Rockaway plan includes six modular, four-story townhouse-style buildings with two units each set on a .63-acre, single-family-zoned lot. Three units would be affordable. Parking would be in garages under the units and in the driveways.
The comprehensive permit process, more commonly known as Chapter 40B, allows developers to circumvent most local regulations in exchange for an affordable housing component if the town has less than 10% of its housing units designated affordable. Hull’s current percentage of affordable units is 1.6%, according to the state’s formula.
“This has been quite a task, and I commend you for your patience and understanding,” Finn said to the development team.
‘It’s absolutely nuts’
Barnstable Road resident Kathy Torraco took exception to Finn’s comments, noting that she would have preferred that the board “do more listening and be less appreciative of what the developer is doing. We, too, are being very patient.”
“This is the wrong development on a tiny lot in a residential area,” she said. “It’s the wrong thing for this neighborhood. I haven’t expressed any emotion until now, but this is unacceptable.”
Finn noted that proposed developments are “out of our hands when they’re 40Bs. We’re trying to do this in a friendly manner.”
“This is an unfortunate set of circumstances. It’s absolutely nuts,” ZBA member Richard Hennessey told Torraco. “This is not an appropriate location. We’re doing the best we can for the town of Hull, but we are confined by the regulations. I can’t imagine what it would be like to live in your neighborhood with this project coming down the pike. It’s ludicrous.”
Sprinkler system still a sticking point
A sticking point that remains is the sprinkler system requested by Fire Chief Chris Russo. Since the last discussion about this issue, a different, less-expensive system is under consideration.
However, while amenable overall, the developer needs more time to decide whether to include such a system in the development plan.
A key issue that was barely touched upon during this week’s hearing but has been a topic of much discussion during earlier meetings is an access easement across the neighboring property at 20 Ipswich Street.
The developer has planned to use this easement as an alternative access road to the proposed development and for the installation of utilities for the project.
Attorney addresses easement issue
In a recent letter written to the ZBA – also posted on the board’s link on the town website – representing a number of abutters, Attorney Allan Levin outlines why he believes the plan for 25 Ipswich Street cannot legally be approved due to easement issues, claiming that the developer “has no rights to use the easement.”
Levin said in the letter that this property was formerly part of a larger tract of land owned by Hulltop LLC, comprising what is currently 7 Salisbury Street, 20 Ipswich Street, and 25 Ipswich Street. The entire property is the former Veterans of Foreign Wars post.
In the deed transferring the property currently known as 20 Ipswich Street to Derek and Kelly Paris, reference was made to the easement, according to Levin, but “there was no ‘metes and bounds’ description of the easement, nor was the easement reserved for any other lots.”
Derek Paris – who strongly objects to allowing the developer to use the easement – attended the hearing this week.
“If I win in Land Court, I’ll be putting a fence around [my entire] property,” he said.
One ZBA member asked about the Land Court case, but the discussion headed in a different direction before he received clarification.
‘The easement does not exist’
As a result of his research, Levin claims that because “there is no approved/certified plan on record indicating the easement,” by law, “the easement does not exist.”
Even if the easement did exist, he explained, “the project has no rights to its use in any event. While the project may abut the easement, the project does not have any existing deed rights to the easement.”
Where the easement “either does not exist or provides no rights to the project, it is the abutters’ position that the project as proposed cannot legally be approved,” Levin’s letter states.
While the letter was not referred to nor read at Tuesday’s hearing, Finn remarked when this issue came up briefly, “The developer isn’t doing anything unless he gets the rights to the easement.”
The proposed conditions, with Hennessey emphasizing that they have not yet been decided, relate in part to both the easement and a sprinkler system.
When at 10 p.m. the discussion ramped up, Finn pointed out that after months of hearings, now was not the time to “get adversarial.”
“I’d like to land this plane onto a runway and not crash it into the Hudson River,” he said.
A replay of the ZBA hearing will be available at Hull Community Television’s website at 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.
© 2025 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
