The Rindge Zoning Board of Adjustment denied an appeal of the decision to approve a 27-unit development on Dale Farm Road during its Tuesday night meeting.
The appeal was filed by abutter Dawn Dunbar, who was represented Tuesday night by her lawyer, Patricia Panciocco, of Panciocco Law.
Initially, the board questioned whether it had the authority to consider the appeal, after Code Enforcement Officer David DuVernay questioned whether the board had jurisdiction to rule on the matter. However, Gary Kinyon, the attorney representing Rindge, advised the board they did have the right to rule whether the Planning Board, in making their decision, misinterpreted the Zoning Ordinance, and the ZBA agreed to move forward with hearing the case.
Panciocco made several arguments that the approval of the project was improper, some of which the board said were arguments for the Superior Court, and not something they could rule on.
Among her arguments were that the town of Rindge had adopted a Planned Unit Residential Development ordinance five years before the state explicitly allowed towns to do so, making the ordinance itself invalid. It was also too broad and lacked standards required by law, she said, leading the Planning Board to believe they had “carte blanche” when regulating Planned Unit Residential Developments. She also argued the Planning Board had misinterpreted the intent of a variance granted by the Zoning Board to allow more than one unit to be built on a lot with less than the required amount of frontage.
The board didn’t find any of the points made by Panciocco compelling enough to overturn the Planning Board’s decision.
Some points they felt the Zoning Board of Adjustment couln’t rule on, such as when the town adopted the ordinance and if they were allowed to at the time or whether the road the development is on is class V – required by the ordinance – or class VI. Other points, they said, didn’t hold water.
ZBA member Cynthia Childs said the Planned Unit Residential Development ordinance did have standards included, and the Planning Board had followed them. “It’s not that we gave them free reign and they can do whatever they want,” she said.
The board also disagreed that the Planning Board had misinterpreted the variance granted by the ZBA.
“They followed through with their requirements. I don’t see where the Planning Board erred,” said ZBA member Bill Thomas. “I’m not seeing any reason to fault the Planning Board at all.”
The board unanimously voted to deny the appeal of the Planning Board’s decision.
Ashley Saari can be reached at 924-7172 ext. 244 or asaari@ledgertranscript.com. She’s on Twitter @AshleySaariMLT.