Approval of the initial Paragon Dunes plans granted by the planning board on March 20 was subject to conditions, including gaining approval from all the appropriate state agencies. The plans were reviewed by the board April 3 and approved April 10.
Stormwater management addressed
However, the developer, the Procopio Companies, found it necessary to present revised plans to the planning board at the end of this summer in response to comments received during the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) review process. Most of the modifications address stormwater management and landscaping issues.
A MEPA certificate was recently issued for the development after the state Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs determined that the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) submitted for the proposal “adequately described the project and assessed its impacts,” and it was also determined that “an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not required,” Adam Brodsky, attorney for the developer, said at the meeting. “We request that the board close the hearing tonight.”
Based on MEPA regulatory review and requirements, “the applicant is advised to continue to study alternatives and additional measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate project impacts and effects,” Hull Conservation Administrator Ian MacDonald told The Hull Times in response to an email inquiry.
Due to the lack of a quorum at its November 12 meeting, the conservation commission was unable to address the Paragon Dunes project and will re-advertise and re-notify abutters, according to MacDonald.
Residential and commercial uses
The development will include 132 residential units, commercial uses, an elevated courtyard with an inground pool, public open spaces, a parking garage, surface parking for a total of 180 cars, and a dog run.
Click here for plans, reports, and other info on the Paragon Dunes project
The now-approved proposed changes include creating a 10-foot-wide wooden boardwalk along Nantasket Avenue with stairs and handicapped-accessible ramps, and elevating all but one of the commercial spaces and the residential lobby to a height that is about two feet, four inches above the current level of the sidewalk.
The raised boardwalk will allow flood water to pass under the building, but will not increase the overall height of the structure, as the interior ceiling heights of the first-floor commercial spaces will be reduced. One of the commercial spaces won’t be elevated because of its location; it would be disconnected from the public area if elevated.
The building is also being pushed back 10 feet from Nantasket Avenue, as well as the same distance from the northern boundary near the state Department of Conservation and Recreation’s comfort station.
Changes won’t affect project’s density
These modifications, however, won’t materially change the density, unit count, parking, or the architecture of the earlier-approved plan, Brodsky said earlier.
The Design Review Board also weighed into the process. At the request of Planning Board Chair Jeanne Paquin and the DRB, a landscape architect with expertise in coastal landscaping reviewed the landscaping plan to ensure the plantings will survive at that location, considering its proximity to the ocean.
The landscape architect hired to do the review assured the board that the plantings included in the current plan are salt- and wind-tolerant.
Both DRB alternate Kevin Locke and resident Bill Smyth suggested getting the Hull Garden Club involved.
“Get someone familiar with Hull to work with the consultant [about the plantings],” Smyth said. “Let somebody from the Garden Club be your guide. Trust me, you need a native.”
‘What’s best for the town’
Resident Susan Mann reiterated what she said she read “in the MEPA letter” related to encouraging those making the decisions to think carefully about the project and, in her own words, to consider “what’s best for the town and the people who will be living in this building.”
Planning board member Harry Hibbard countered that as far as he can tell, “every single recommendation,” whether made by the DRB, planning board, or members of the community, has been “responded to and accommodated by” the development team.
“I’ve never seen a more professional or responsive approach to this kind of a project, period,” he said. “[The development team] has bent over backwards to do what they have been asked to do, and we take everything that’s put in front of us into consideration. We’ve spent hours and hours on this. I object to your suggestion that they aren’t being cooperative.”
In response, Mann said that wasn’t her intent.
“I was just responding to the MEPA letter saying they hope people will take [the available information] into consideration,” she said.
Procopio Director of Development David Roache reiterated that the development team “has taken this very seriously,” working with not only the town, but also the Woods Hole Group and the state Office of Coastal Zone Management.
‘Narrow and specific’ vote
Before the vote, Paquin noted that the board’s charge was “narrow and specific,” and that the vote related only to the modifications submitted by the developer.
She also noted that a mixed-use development at this location would “liven the area and make it more active. … I think we’ve reached a good compromise for the town and the developer. I’m comfortable with it,” she said.
The board ultimately voted to close the hearing and went on to unanimously approve the modifications (members Jim Pitrolo and Nathan Peyton were not present).
Community Development and Planning Director Chris DiIorio is still drafting the planning board’s conditions to the approval of the modifications, and encouraged any members who would like to add conditions to reach out to him soon.
“This is clearly a better project than it was before,” he said.
In response to a “thank you” from the development team following the vote, Paquin said, “We got there!”
A replay of the full meeting will be available on Hull Community Television’s broadcast channels and on demand at www.hulltv.net.
Like what you’re reading? Stay informed with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.
Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.
© 2024 The Hull Times. All rights reserved.
