By Leah Dearborn and Seth Daniel
The Phantom Ventures suit-and-tie strip club proposal has delivered one unexpected development after another, and Tuesday night’s proceedings may have been the most surprising yet – a new owner entered the picture and the applicants withdrew their three-year-old proposal at the eleventh hour.
This withdrawal followed the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) denying the application on the grounds of lack of standing.
The meeting itself was remarkably subdued on Tuesday evening, despite significant activity behind closed doors, as Phantom Ventures representatives did not show up. The proposal in question sought a Special Permit to open a nude cabaret and sports bar at 200 Beacham St., the former location of King Arthur’s Strip Club.
Chairman John DePriest made multiple announcements asking if anyone from Phantom Ventures was present before revealing that an email had arrived that afternoon requesting the application be withdrawn.
According to DePriest, the board also received an affidavit from property owner Demetrios Vardakostas indicating he had no knowledge of the proposal. The affidavit noted that the applicants no longer occupied the Beacham Street property, having been evicted from Chelsea Court the previous month due to unpaid rent and taxes.
Finding insufficient authority for the applicants to appear before the board, ZBA members voted to dismiss the case without allowing further public discussion.
Adding another layer to this situation was the property’s sale the previous week to Greg Antonellli of Everett, who became the new owner.
Antonelli operates GTA Landscaping Co. and has not disclosed his intentions for the site, though his real estate division has been acquiring numerous properties in Everett’s industrial zones, many near the Produce Center.
Some observers suggested Antonelli might collaborate with the Phantom group to submit a new application at his property, while others believed he had entirely different plans in mind.
Antonelli stated that plans for the property remain premature given that he has only recently acquired it.
City Manager Tom Ambrosino expressed hope that Antonelli would pursue an alternative use rather than nude dancing.
“I’m pleased that the Zoning Board of Appeals rejected the application,” he said. “Hopefully, the new owner will propose a better use for that site.”
City Councillor Dan Cortell, who had spearheaded substantial opposition to the Phantom application on multiple occasions, indicated he was gratified by Tuesday’s unexpected result.
“A lot of hard work went into this fight that included not just of our City Manager, City Solicitor and staff, Department of Planning and Development and Inspectional Services, but also our volunteer Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Board, Economic Development Board and Licensing Commission as well as the literally hundreds of residents I called upon to support the fight all whom were looking out for the best for the city and its future,” he said. “Some football games end in a spectacular interception or last second score. Others end with a run out the clock ‘kneel down.’ Last night’s ZBA meeting ended with the latter. A win is a win and last night Chelsea put the notorious history that is King Arthur’s behind us. Chelsea is a better and more desirable city for it.”
Board member Janice Tatarka noted that Phantom Ventures technically retained the option to reapply since the original application had never reached a vote.
“They could come back,” said board member Janice Tatarka. “It’s possible.”
What remains clear is that the contentious Phantom Ventures application – which prompted numerous hearings and a Constitutional Court case in federal court – is presently inactive. Following a Federal Court determination that the City’s adult entertainment ordinance was unconstitutional earlier this year, Phantom Ventures resubmitted their application for Tuesday’s hearing. That constitutional challenge stemmed from the ZBA’s 2015 denial of Phantom’s original application.
The ZBA has determined that any nude dancing application must fall under the ‘theatre’ use category. Phantom Ventures had intended to apply under the ‘Theatre’ use provision on Tuesday – until questions arose regarding their standing with both the property owner and the new owner.
Phantom’s representatives, absent from the Board proceedings, offered no immediate comment.