ITEM FILE PHOTO
BY GAYLA CAWLEY
MARBLEHEAD — The controversial Mariner project may be down, but it’s not out following an appeal by the development team.
The application for what would have been the town’s first assisted living facility on Pleasant Street was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals in May. It reversed an earlier decision of the Planning Board.
The ZBA rejected a special permit for the facility, the final approval needed for the developers, Coastal Streets and Harbor Street Development. The Planning Board had unanimously given site plan review in March. Phil Helmes, one of the developers and chairman of the board, had recused himself from the vote.
But the developers filed an appeal of the ZBA decision with the Massachusetts Land Court on June 16, challenging the legality of the vote.
“We feel that the project is good for the town,” said Helmes. “We believe in the project and we want to advance it through the land court.”
Another reason for the appeal was that the elderly residents in town have shown interest in a facility and a housing option, he added.
The application was rejected because the board found that “the design features of the project are not compatible with the existing neighborhood, which surrounds the site on three sides, in that the massing is too large,” according to the ZBA decision.
The ZBA also found that the developers did not minimize the effects on the neighborhood given the impacts related to “the incompatibility of the proposed structure.” Board members wrote that the project would have adverse effects on the abutting lots, according to town documents.
“The next step is that a land court judge will schedule a status conference and we will be notified of that date,” said Rebecca Curran Cutting, town planner.
Attorneys for the developers argue that site plan review was granted by the Planning Board, followed by seven months of public hearings with the ZBA, according to the appeal documents. During that time, the ZBA “did not express concern over the proposed developments or massing,” but denied the application for “reasons related to massing and fundamentally in conflict with the findings in the site plan approval.”
“The zoning board’s decision was legally untenable, arbitrary, capricious and in excess of its authority,” the appeal states. “The plaintiff is aggrieved by the zoning board’s decision and asks that the decision be annulled.”
Attorneys Paul Feldman and Shawn McCormack also wrote in the appeal that the ZBA denied the developer’s application within minutes of its May 9 meeting “without deliberation or discussion as if the members’ vote had been pre-arranged.”
The development would have contained 87 apartments, including some two-bedroom units. It would be located on a 4.5 acre site and was set to feature parks, walking paths, sitting areas, patios and gardens. The residences would have included a restaurant, private dining, pub, cafe, beauty salon, health and wellness room, library and movie theatre, according to the developer’s website.
Gayla Cawley can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter @GaylaCawley.
