By Dolores Sauca Lorusso

The planning board went into overtime last Wednesday night to approve special permit conditions for the Paragon Dunes project before the clock struck midnight. Board members voted in favor of the motion to “approve the conditions as corrected with the second round of edits completed as of 11:50 p.m.”

The conditions were agreed to by all voting members who were in attendance, except for Harry Hibbard, who left before the meeting was adjourned, stating for him that the late hour approaching midnight was “pumpkin time.”

The approval of the Paragon Dunes plans granted by the planning board on March 20, for a four-story, 132-unit building at the site of the Paragon Boardwalk, was subject to the conditions the board began to review on April 3 and subsequently approved on April 10. In order to accommodate a 20-day appeal period in time for the developer to meet is anticipated closing date of April 30, the vote needed to occur last Wednesday.

“I apologize for pushing the board to such lengths, but the decision needs to be filed to town clerk,” said Adam Brodsky, legal counsel for the Procopio Companies. “[It would be a] shame if we spent the last six months only to have a great benefit to the town disappear because of timing issues.”

Planning board Chair Meghan Reilly said the proponents did not explain their timetable in detail when the planning board opened the public hearing.

Director of Community Development & Planning Chris DiIorio said that without approval that evening, the developer would “not be in line with the 20-day appeal period after filing with the town clerk.”

“Let’s make changes, respond tonight, and move forward,” DiIorio said.

“[I would] hate to see it fall through when we are this close,” Reilly said. “I thought what we needed to do to meet the deadlines of the proponent was to close the public hearing and vote on the project, which we did.”

Click here for the full special permit application, plans, and other resources

Member Jeanne Paquin concurred it was “not conveyed at all that today was the deadline for conditions… this board has bent over backwards to get through the process; the proponent should have told us when the application was submitted that they had a deadline.”

Prior to leaving, and before the second set of edits, Hibbard made a motion to vote on the conditions as amended; however, the motion did not pass.

“What is stopping us from approving this as amended tonight?” asked Hibbard. “The proponent has a deadline; every condition has a deliverable or due date attached to it.”

After Hibbard’s departure, the board deliberated and approved a motion to stay and make the edits in real time.

“Conditions are always evolving,” Paquin said. “This is a big deal in town, and I want to treat it as such. Over the years, there have been times when the proponent has not understood what we are approving is what is getting built; I am not saying that will happen here.”

The board did not want to vote on the conditions without a full review of the edits to be sure they accurately reflected the revisions that had been discussed. After a brief recess, the members proceeded to review the newest copies of the conditions that DiIorio had edited and printed for review.

In a statement sent to the Times, Procopio Vice President of Development David Roache said: “We appreciate the hard work and long nights of the planning board in collaborating to craft a shared vision for this project. We look forward to bringing it to reality.”

The conditions state the planning board “reserves the right to inspect the site for compliance with the approved site plan and architectural documents at any time, and notify the DRB [Design Review Board] when the board will be inspecting the site.”

One section of the conditions that caused considerable concern was modification. The initial draft stated that if modifications to the site development are required, the applicant shall submit a written request to the building commissioner specifying the proposed changes. Then the building commissioner, along with the town planner, would determine if the modifications were minor or major. Only if a request was major would it be submitted to the planning board for review. In the revised condition, the request is submitted to the planning board.

“Given the degree of public comment, the decision on what is major or minor change should come to the planning board first,” Reilly said. “[I am] not comfortable with that wording as-is. We have put in a lot of work and had feedback from the community.”

Paquin agreed it should be up to the planning board to determine what is a major or minor change.

“The building commissioner did not sit in on the meetings; he does not know what the planning board and citizens fought for,” Paquin said. “Any deviation from the plan is a change and needs to be approved.”

Requirements for easements with the DCR, MassDOT, and the ArtWalk are built into the conditions, along with an agreement to maintain the open space shown on the Public Access Diagram dated March 18. The developer also will pay the town a $50,000 parking mitigation fee.

“Need to give them as much time as possible to acquire easements,” said DiIorio. “They can’t build until they have them.”

“A lot of good ideas in their plans are also contingent on getting easements…if they don’t get easements from DOT and DCR then plans will have to change,” said Design Review Board Chair Tom Burns.

The developer also is required to submit architectural details for cornices, columns, eaves, gutters, roof rakes, siding, trim colors, and other details for approval by the planning board in consultation with the DRB.

Members of the Design Review Board said they were happy that some of their concerns were addressed with the conditions; however, they said they would have preferred to see “stronger language” concerning items that may have a future cost impact to the town, such as underground electrical lines and infrastructure upgrades.

“Unfortunately, our primary concerns about the density of the project, length of the wall of building on George Washington Boulevard, relationship to the comfort station, and lack of commercial parking were not fully addressed,” said DRB member Julia Parker. “We look forward to the conservation commission’s review of the project and their comments, and thank the planning board for their efforts.”

One of the conditions stipulates that there will be no apartment leases or sublets shorter than a term of six months.

Member Nathan Peyton said a subletting restriction takes away a tenant’s “financial freedom, because subletting is a tenant’s right.”

Hibbard countered by saying the condition does not prohibit subletting, it just enforces a minimum of six months, “protecting against people doing one-month rentals at the beach.”

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

Do you have an opinion on this issue? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.