ZBA needs more time to decide on Veritas appeal

The Zoning Board of Appeals voted on Jan. 13 to continue the appeal hearing on the issuance of a building permit for the Veritas Christian Academy, construction project. The discussion focused on whether a valid appeal was made within 30 days after the building permit was issued, as required by law.
Abutter Adam Mascari filed a letter on Nov. 18 requesting “zoning enforcement” with the Town clerk and Building commissioner, which was followed by a Dec.5 application to the ZBA. The board debated whether the November letter was a valid appeal request and what constituted a timely appeal. The building permit was issued on Oct. 30.
VCA’s counsel Jonathan Silverstein of Blateman, Bobrowski, Haverty & Silverstein, argued that Mascari did not follow the proper procedure for appealing the building permit. He said the Nov.18 letter, which requested zoning enforcement, was not an appeal because it did not state that it was an appeal and did not mention the ZBA. He said the Dec. 5 letter used more explicit language requesting an appeal and should be considered the actual appeal, but since it was beyond 30 days, an appeal hearing should not be granted.
Responding to the abutters’ request for an appeal, Silverstein disputed claims regarding stormwater, septic design, traffic impacts, and impervious areas, saying they had been raised and resolved during the planning board process and that the building permit is consistent with the approved plans.
Veritas, located at 164-172 Cochituate Road, sought approval to renovate its existing buildings and construct a new middle school building, totaling 7,000 square feet on 10.5 acres. The planning board approved the project with conditions in April, citing “the project aligned with the institution’s educational use and zoning objectives, despite requests for waivers on certain regulations.

Neighbors raised environmental and site impact concerns, including issues with the proposed septic system (high water table and nitrogen sensitivity) and stormwater management. According to neighbors, the town issued a building permit that appears to be broader than what the Planning Board approved. They said the permit allows clearing, grading, septic construction, and supporting infrastructure that matches the footprint of a larger campus because the septic system is sized for more than 400 people, which conflicts with the approximately 100-person phase one program that the planning board approved.
Despite the appeal question, Veritas’s builder removed around 300 trees at the construction site the day before Christmas.
Mascari said in an earlier interview that he talked to Building Commissioner Nathan Maltinsky, Town Planner Robert Hummel, and Town Manager Michael McCall, after he filed his Nov. 18 letter, looking for a response to his letter. According to Mascari, there appeared to be a lot of confusion. After only receiving the Veritas documents as a response to his original appeal, and fearful of the deadline, he filed his December appeal for the constructive denial of the zoning enforcement request.
Subsequently, Mascari and his neighbor Pat Kavanaugh hired attorney Peter Durning of Vettill Law, who represented them at the ZBA appeal hearing. Durning argued that although Mascari did not specifically request an appeal, the language he used, “seeking enforcement,” showed his intent. He said Mascari articulated his concerns in the November letter about the issuance of the building permit based on an error in the site plan approval process, and he highlighted non-compliance with the aquifer protection district and other elements. “While certain elements don’t have the precise magic incantation to say that it was an appeal, citations of General Law chapter 48 sections 7 and 8, which apply to an appeal of a building permit, demonstrate intent,” he said.
Durning also said the project consolidates four former residential lots into a multi-building campus and that impervious area calculations should have been limited to land within the overlay district rather than averaged across the entire parcel. He argued that infrastructure shown in the plans, including roads, athletic facilities, and wastewater systems, encroaches into required setbacks and that construction fencing had crossed onto abutting property.
Town Counsel Carolyn Murray, of KP Law, explained the legal framework and need for a timely appeal, but stated that both sides had valid arguments. She advised the board it can revoke or modify a permit upon finding a zoning violation but it does not have the authority to issue a temporary stop-work order absent such a finding.
Murray said the Murrow vs. Somerville case, which Silverstein referenced, was a case where the court struggled with a similar appeal of a building permit, but it was not case law. It was decided in the Land Court and does not apply to Wayland.
According to Murray, if the ZBA denied Mascari’s request for an appeal, their decision could be appealed to the Superior Court, which would also struggle with the same issues. If the Court decides the Nov 18 letter is a valid appeal, the actual appeal would be remanded to the ZBA.
The ZBA decided to continue the case to Jan. 26 because the issues involved are highly complex, with significant legal and technical arguments presented by both sides. Board members repeatedly said that they did not have enough information or time to make an informed decision in a single meeting. They expressed a need to review additional materials, hear further public comment, allow for written submissions, and clarify the proper scope of the board’s review before ruling on the appeal.