ZBA finds Baldwinville School Apartments changes insubstantial; developer may remove deteriorated house if historic approvals obtained

The Templeton Zoning Board of Appeals on July 15 found proposed changes to the Baldwinville School Apartments’ comprehensive permit to be insubstantial, allowing the project team to incorporate the revisions into the existing Chapter 40B permit. The board’s finding clears a path for the developer to implement several site adjustments; one larger change — demolishing a deteriorated house at 12 School Street — remains conditional on approvals from historic-preservation agencies and financing partners.

Project counsel told the board that construction began after closing in April and that field staking revealed a property line overlap affecting an abutter at 6 Cottage Street. The applicants proposed two scenarios: (A) move a pedestrian path and accept the loss of two parking spaces so the abutter’s backyard is preserved with an easement; (B) if the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the National Park Service (National Historic Trust approval noted in the filing), and lenders permit demolition of 12 School Street, remove that building and reconfigure the site to add approximately 15 parking spaces, a small maintenance shed, and additional landscaping. The board agreed the changes were not substantial under the Chapter 40B amendment factors the applicants submitted.

Attorney Carla Chaffee (representing the applicants, listed in filings with Nixon Peabody), Matt Zoller and Jason Korb (development team), and Brad Johnson (civil engineer, Boller Engineering) presented the amendment package and plans. Chaffee walked the board through the Chapter 40B standard that distinguishes substantial from insubstantial changes. The applicants said they had National Historic Trust approval but were still awaiting Massachusetts Historical Commission sign-off; the demolition option is therefore conditional and would only proceed if all required approvals and lender/investor consents are secured.

Site-specific changes described to the board included shifting an access path that would otherwise encroach on a neighbor’s backyard, which would reduce on-site parking by two spaces (applicants said the count would drop from 76 to 74 if only the path change is implemented). The conditional demolition of 12 School Street would remove an existing impervious footprint and the adjacent walkway and would add roughly 15 parking spaces and a modest maintenance shed. The project team supplied a home inspection summary and a structural-engineer assessment that the presenters said concluded the 12 School Street structure is in significant disrepair.

Other modifications the board approved as insubstantial: restoring previously value-engineered facade details (additional brick and revised window details) to better match the historic school building; changing proposed fencing to a white PVC fence along the abutter’s property line (the abutter requested a 6-foot section stepping up to 8 feet) — the applicants noted that fences taller than 7 feet typically require a building‑department special permit but that waiver authority rests with the 40B board; and adding low-level bollard lighting along the path, limited site lighting designed to meet dark‑sky practices, targeted tree uplighting for landscape accents, and a modest monument sign at the site entrance. The civil engineer told the board that impervious-area impacts were nominal because the house demolition would remove existing impervious area and the project would repurpose area rather than substantially increase runoff.

Board members asked questions about stormwater, lighting spill, fence height and the historic‑approval process. The applicants said they will provide easement language granting the abutters exclusive use of the backyard area in perpetuity, and they described two approval tracks: the path-and-parking change that proceeds immediately, and the demolition-plus-parking scenario that proceeds only if the remaining historic-agency approvals and lender consents are secured. The board made a motion, seconded, and on a roll-call vote declared the proposed changes insubstantial and incorporated the revisions into the permit record; the board did not require a full new public hearing on the presented modifications.

Next steps: the developer will proceed with the path relocation and corresponding site adjustments and will return only if the conditional demolition option or other changes trigger a finding of substantial change. The applicants said construction is already underway following a closing recorded in early April.