Swampscott shuts off club lights

SWAMPSCOTT – The Beach Club has been rebuffed by the Zoning Board of Appeals in its attempt to reconstruct and add lights to two tennis courts.The board voted unanimously Wednesday night to revoke a building permit for the club following neighbors’ complaints it misrepresented plans to avoid notifying them and filing permits.”To allow a building permit ? when they have at best not been forthright, I worry the message you send is you’re better off holding your cards close to your chest and describe a project in middling terms to get what you want,” attorney and club neighbor Scott Burke told the Zoning Board of Appeals during the open hearing.”They have unclean hands, and the Beach Club should not be able to go forward with it,” he said.The private summer club adjacent to Phillips Beach has a pool, tennis courts and a clubhouse. It was founded in 1928 and predates the residential zoning of the surrounding neighborhood. But the growing density of the neighborhood and the club’s expansion have sparked increased tensions in the neighborhood.The most recent dispute concerns a proposal to resurface and add lights to two of the club’s four tennis courts. Neighbors contend the project was misrepresented to the town to avoid permits and public hearings. The Beach Club agreed to stop work on the project a few weeks ago, after town officials and neighbors raised concerns with the project.Burke, armed with copies of a 12-tab packet of documents that he handed to the board and audience members, presented emails between the club Vice President Martin Grasso and the Conservation Commission Chairman Mark Mahoney in which Grasso described a project to resurface two of the club’s four tennis courts. Based on this description, Mahoney said the club did not need project approval from the conservation committee.But the building permit (applied for before the email conversations) authorized the town to reconstruct the court with a new 4.5-inch concrete base and to install seven 22-foot lights. Building Inspector Rich Baldacci issued the permit, noting that the Conservation Commission said it didn’t need to review the project – but when only presented some of the email exchange with Mahoney, Burke said (and said Mahoney confirmed).”Why wouldn’t they have just told the Conservation Committee it was more than (a resurfacing) unless you want to bypass notice to neighbors and have your way?” Burke asked. “It’s not a maintenance item, it’s a $90,000 reconstruction.”Neighbors also argued the lights constituted a change of use because they enabled the courts to be used after dark. The Zoning Board of Appeals, not the building inspector, has to approve a change of use.Underlying the arguments was a deep distrust of the Beach Club, where neighbors cited “mission creep” where a club with a pool, tennis courts and small clubhouse now has movie nights with a 25-foot inflatable screen and speakers. Neighbors noted a lengthy special permit with numerous conditions was issued when the club rebuilt its clubhouse in 2002, and this permit specifies the new clubhouse and any accessory structures will be “exclusively for the same use as is now made” of the property.Burke noted that the special permit specifically omits restricted hours and seasons of use on the courts where the lights are proposed to be built.”It was my understanding at that time that this was as far as they would go – what you see and what you saw built was the extent of the build out,” Ken Shutzer, the chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals at the time of the 2002 special permit for the Beach Club, said.Attorney Paul Lynch, representing the Beach Club, said the club was not applying for a change of use and had no intentions to use the courts beyond the 9 p.m. hours of operation. Thus there was no reason to revoke the building permit. The Conservation Commission would address any floodplain issues, he said.While several neighbors spoke in opposition to the Beach Club, none of the Beach Club members i