SHREWSBURY – Nearly two months since the initial appeal was filed, the Beal Commons court case is still pending before Land Court.
The appeal came after the Planning Board granted developers four special permits to build the Beal Commons, a residential-commercial development with 53 apartments and 7,000 square feet of retail space.
Seven plaintiffs — all of whom live on nearby Hascall Street and Wesleyan Street — filed an appeal of the decision in early May.
Specifically, the plaintiffs asked the court to annul the Planning Board’s decision and deny the special permits.
Since the case commenced, several motions have been filed.
In a motion dated June 1, the residents sought to add eight additional plaintiffs to the case. Michael Henderson, Carolyn Henderson, Susan Collins, James Collins, James Nagengast, Mary Genetti, Suchit Patel and Michael Binder are “direct abutters” to the development or are “owners of property across the street” from 1-7 Maple Avenue, according to the amended complaint.
Attorneys representing both the developer and Planning Board filed motions opposing the addition of the plaintiffs. In their motion, lawyers for Shrewsbury Hascall MM LLC wrote that “the proposed additional plaintiffs have failed to make a preliminary showing that they were or will be uniquely aggrieved by the… previous grant of a special permit.”
The lawyers also argued that the motion was futile, alleging that the plaintiffs haven’t identified how the Planning Board failed to act in accordance with the law.
The defendants filed a joint motion, asking the court to require the seven original plaintiffs to post a $50,000 bond to continue the case. The defendants cautioned that the case could become costly, and the defendants should post the bond if they are “confident in the likelihood of success.”
“The plaintiffs likely will not be able to establish standing as aggrieved parties, and even if they do have standing, do not have a likelihood of success on any of their claims,” court documents read. “There is nothing in the plaintiffs’ complaint that even remotely identifies a unique particularized harm that each of the different plaintiffs have individually claimed.”
The attorneys said that the appeal delays the development of the mixed-use project in a “timely and cost effective manner.” The lawyers argued that the plaintiffs are trying to delay construction of the project with the lawsuit.
“The plaintiffs do not have a likelihood of success and they should not be allowed to use the existence of this lawsuit to delay the developer’s project,” the defendants wrote.
A hearing on the case is scheduled for July 14.
RELATED CONTENT
