SHREWSBURY – As the Beal Commons appeal is well underway, the seven plaintiffs in the case recently amended their complaint. The amended version details their objections to the approval of the Beal Commons project, including allegations of “undue pressure” on the Planning Board to approve the project.
On April 13, the Planning Board voted to approve Beal Commons, the residential-commercial development currently slated for the site of the former Maj. Howard W. Beal School in the center of town. The building would have 53 units and 7,000 square feet of retail space.
An appeal was filed after the decision and on Aug. 14, attorneys representing seven plaintiffs — Julie Ross, Barry Pulster, James Kavanagh, Elizabeth Kavanagh, David Moyer, Karin Holovnia and Lynda Camarra — filed the amended version of the complaint, explaining their argument to appeal the Planning Board decision.
Plaintiffs’ case
Court filings include pictures of the seven plaintiffs’ homes and, when appropriate, their view of the project site. The pictures are meant to demonstrate the plaintiffs’ legal interest in the case and potential hardships the construction of Beal Commons would cause, according to the court document.
RELATED CONTENT: Additional plaintiffs not allowed in Beal Commons appeal
For example, the appeal alleges that the “influx of traffic” may make it “substantially harder” for some plaintiffs to access their home. The plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that the Beal Commons proposed structure doesn’t fit with existing bylaws.
“The plaintiffs’ properties are uniquely and individually harmed by the grossly out-of-scale nature of the proposed project,” court filings read.
The motion also notes that other nearby developments in the Town Center District have considerably fewer residential units than Beal Commons.
RELATED CONTENT: Appeal filed for Beal Commons project
The appeal also takes issue with the town’s claim the process to choose the developer was “fair [and] transparent.” As part of their argument, the plaintiffs mention that the town elicited one bid for the centrally-located property, ultimately selling it for $250,000.
The appeal also takes issue with the town’s claim the process to choose the developer was “fair [and] transparent.” As part of their argument, the plaintiffs mention that the town elicited one bid for the centrally-located property, ultimately selling it for $250,000.
Planning Board vote on Beal Commons
The Planning Board approved four special permits in its April decision, but the amended complaint claims that the board did not issue two additional special permits that should’ve been required to build the structure.
The appeal also argues the April 13 vote to approve Beal Commons was “legally invalid and absurd.”
RELATED CONTENT: Citizens’ petition regarding Beal out of order at Shrewsbury Town Meeting
After approving the four special permits, the Planning Board made another vote.
“I move to the extent that a vote is required on anything other than the four special permits that we just granted… that we take a separate vote on that as well to the extent something was not caught up in that,” the Planning Board motioned in April.
“I move to the extent that a vote is required on anything other than the four special permits that we just granted… that we take a separate vote on that as well to the extent something was not caught up in that,” the Planning Board motioned in April.
The board approved this motion 4-1.
According to the appeal, “the Planning Board did not record with the town clerk its purposed fifth special permit to grant anything else for the project that was ‘not caught up’ in the zoning relief sought.”
RELATED CONTENT: Shrewsbury Planning Board approves Beal Commons plans
Therefore, the appeal continues, the “loose ends” vote has no legal force, and the developer will need to return to the Planning Board. The appeal also alleges the decision was “arbitrary.”
Lastly, the appeal notes that there was “undue pressure” for the Planning Board to approve the project. According to the appeal, the Select Board sat together in public hearings so as to “project the appearance of unanimity of support for the project.” The appeal also accused a former Select Board member of violating the Open Meeting Law to pressure the Planning Board into approving the project.
Town Manager Kevin Mizikar declined to comment.
