The Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee has ruled in favor of developer Geoffrey Engler and the SLV housing project proposed for Shingle Place Hill off School Street in Manchester’s Limited Commercial District.
The town’s Zoning Board of Appeals had voted August 16, 2022 to reject Engler’s application for a comprehensive permit under the state’s 40B regulations for the 136-unit apartment complex to be known as The Sanctuary at Manchester-by-the-Sea. Thirty-four of the units (25%) would be listed as affordable.
Engler, the managing partner of Strategic Land Ventures, had appealed the town’s rejection to the state’s Housing Appeals Committee on September 15, 2022.
Now, more than two years later, the HAC issued a 60-page “Proposed Decision” on October 10. Both sides were given two weeks to make small factual corrections to the decision, according to Town Administrator Greg Federspiel. On October 24, HAC is expected to sign the paper, making it a final decision.
“Based upon review of the entire record and upon the findings of fact and discussion above, the Housings Appeals Committee concludes that the decision of the Board is not consistent with local needs,” reads the conclusion of the decision. “The decision of the Board is vacated and the Board is directed to issue a comprehensive permit that conforms to this decision as provided in the text of this decision.”
“I’m not surprised by the decision,” said Federspiel. “The record of the HAC is very heavily tilted toward developers.”
He said that the HAC rules in favor of the developers more than 95 percent of the time.
“The decision basically rejects the testimony that our experts presented and placed full credibility on the testimony of the applicant’s experts,” said Federspiel. “We continue to disagree with that. We think we had very strong and creditable witnesses and the committee is saying the opposite.”
But the town will not be issuing a comprehensive permit to Engler anytime soon. Instead, the town will file an appeal of the HAC decision in the state’s Superior Court.
The town’s Select Board voted Monday night to file an appeal, according to Federspiel. The town administrator said, under the process, the town had the option of filing with either the state’s Land Use Court or the Superior Court and the town’s attorneys preferred Superior Court.
The HAC’s decision explains that the ultimate question for the state was “whether the decision of the (ZBA) is consistent with local needs.” To prove this, the town would need to prove that there is a “valid health, safety, environmental or other local concern that supports the denial” and “that the concern outweighs the regional need for housing.”
The town objected to the project on several areas, including that the work at the top of the hill would impact the vernal ponds and wetlands at the base of the hill, that runoff from the project would adversely affect the wetlands below, that the single road in and out of the project presented a danger to both the residents of the project and any emergency vehicles trying to reach the project, as well as to several other areas.
In each case, the decision concludes that the town did not prove their objections.
While the town was the main opponent of the SLV project, during the appeals process, a group of 10 citizens were allowed to intervene as part of the state’s General Laws. The group, also known as the interveners in the decision, was solely allowed to object concerning “evidence and arguments relating to alleged potential environmental damage caused by the project’s impact on vernal pools and the cold-water fishery stream,” according to the decision.
The group of 10 is comprised of local residents and backed by the Manchester Essex Conservation Trust (MECT), which applied for standing in the case but was denied because the MECT is not an abutter to the proposed location of the SLV project.
Steve Gang, chairman of the town’s Conservation Commission, announced the decision last week at the ConCom’s October 15 meeting.
“There are some appeals (to the HAC decision) underway, I understand, but don’t expect those to yield a different result,” said Gang.
While one possibility is that the town will take the decision to court, he added that it was possible the issue would come back to the ConCom.
“The applicant may show up at our door with a (Notice of Intent),” said Gang. “The proposal they made to the ZBA calls for 19 waivers to local wetlands bylaws, which would, as I remember, pretty much cancel out our protection of vernal pools or additional buffer zones. ... Those two are the
primary areas where (Manchester’s local regulations) have significantly enhanced protection.” Federspiel said that he suspected that the group of 10 would also take an appeal of the HAC’s decision to court.
