The Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously on Jan. 26 to close the public hearing and continue deliberations on an appeal challenging permits for the Veritas Christian Academy project, explicitly reaching no decision on the merits of the case and scheduling further deliberations for Feb. 10 at 6:30 p.m.
Chair Thomas White opened the hearing noting that the appeal, filed by abutter Adam Muscari, seeks to overturn both a building permit and a Planning Board–approved site plan (May 5, 2025) for the Veritas project at 172 Cochituate Road.
White stated that the board’s role was narrowly defined under town bylaws and state law and that the appeal raised three specific questions: whether the project complies with the Aquifer Protection Overlay District (APOD), whether it complies with lot coverage requirements under zoning and the Planning Board decision, and whether elements of the approved plan violate setback requirements.
White emphasized repeatedly that the ZBA was not revisiting the entire Planning Board process, which started with the filing of the application on June 24, 2024 and involved multiple peer reviewers. Instead, the ZBA needs to determine whether legal or procedural error occurred in the application of zoning rules. The board acknowledged at the outset that the timeliness of the appeal had been disputed in prior sessions but did not take that issue up for decision during the meeting.
Attorney Peter Durning, speaking on behalf of Muscari, agreed with White’s framing. He said the appeal alleged that the Planning Board failed to properly apply the APOD bylaw, particularly with respect to impervious coverage, density of development within the Zone II wellhead protection area, and setbacks associated with engineered slopes and site features. Durning said the relief sought was review and potential remand of the site plan approval, not opposition to Veritas as an educational institution.
Jonathan Silverstein, counsel for Veritas Christian Academy, argued that the project fully complies with zoning and that the Planning Board, Conservation Commission, and Board of Health all reviewed and approved the relevant environmental and dimensional issues. Silverstein said the project is a Dover Amendment–protected educational use under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 3, and that dimensional requirements cannot be applied in a way that would unreasonably interfere with that protected use.
Silverstein stated that the project is privately funded and does not involve public grants or loans. He said impervious coverage is 21.9% of the total parcel area, below the 30% threshold applicable under the Aquifer Protection Overlay District, and that building coverage is 4.1%, well below the 20% limit for structures in the underlying district. He argued that calculating coverage based on the entire parcel, rather than only the portion within Zone II, is consistent with the zoning bylaw’s definition of a lot as land in single ownership.
Addressing setback claims, Silverstein said a small encroachment alleged by the appellant involved a handicap access ramp, which he said is exempt from setback requirements under both zoning and the Dover Amendment. He also argued that an engineered grassy slope replacing a retaining wall does not constitute a “structure” subject to setbacks, and even if it did, strict enforcement would unlawfully impair the educational use without advancing a legitimate zoning objective.
Joseph Medendorp, a Wayland resident and Veritas parent, described the project as limited to renovation of an existing building and construction of one additional schoolhouse, with a maximum enrollment of 108 middle school students under the current approvals.
Medendorp said claims of a 400-plus-student campus mischaracterized long-term conceptual planning and septic design capacity rather than approved construction.
Lisa Gerdes, a co-founder and senior consultant to Veritas, said the school underwent a “grueling” Planning Board review and complied with all applicable bylaws, seeking only one waiver related to parking landscaping.
Multiple parents, alumni, and residents spoke during the public comment period, some expressing support for the school and concern about cost of delays and others raising objections related to groundwater protection, tree clearing, traffic, and precedent. Muscari told the board he was not opposing the school itself but asking that it be held to the same zoning standards as other property owners, particularly with respect to drinking water protection and setbacks.
Hydrogeologist Scott Horsley, testifying for the appellant, said the Planning Board misapplied the APOD by effectively diluting density calculations across the entire parcel, including land outside Zone II. Horsley argued that the intent of the bylaw is to limit impervious surface and wastewater density within the wellhead protection area itself, because only that area contributes groundwater to municipal wells. He said the densest portions of the project are located within Zone II and asserted that this conflicts with the bylaw’s protective purpose, even if it aligns with a literal reading of the lot definition.
Veritas consultants responded that groundwater, stormwater, and wastewater issues were extensively analyzed.
Chris Blessen, the project architect, said the Planning Board relied on peer-reviewed engineering studies and approvals from the Conservation Commission and Board of Health before issuing its decision. Michelle Callahan of Nitsch Engineering said the stormwater system exceeds state recharge requirements, reduces runoff rates, and volume compared with existing conditions, and incorporates Zone II–specific pretreatment measures required by the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. Peter McGlew of Ares Engineering said groundwater mounding analyses were revised in response to peer review and demonstrated only temporary, non-problematic impacts.
During questioning, board member Adam Hirsh sought clarification on current and future student counts, and Medendorp reiterated that the Planning Board approval and building permit under appeal are limited to a maximum of 108 students.
After nearly three hours of testimony, the board voted to close the public hearing, and no further new evidence submitted by the public will be permitted. White said the board’s intent was to resolve the matter as efficiently as possible while giving due consideration to the arguments raised.
