Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Withdrawal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant withdraws Bridal Bow comprehensive permit application after board questions on sewer and SHI impact
Summary
The applicant for the Bridal Bow 40B application asked to withdraw the comprehensive permit application without prejudice after board members raised concerns about sewer calculations, unit counts and impact on the town’s subsidized housing inventory; the board allowed the withdrawal.
At a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, the applicant for the Bridal Bow comprehensive permit asked to withdraw the application without prejudice after an exchange with board members about unit counts, sewer billing and how a change from rental to homeownership would affect the town’s Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI).
Applicant representative Nick Marioli told the board the developer planned to change the proposal from a rental project to a 12‑unit homeownership project (a revision from an earlier 16‑unit design) and described revisions to drainage and building elevations. The applicant also said the site will be able to connect to town sewer when a nearby sewer extension is available, and that the design had been changed to accommodate that future connection.
Zoning Administrator Noreen Stockman told the board that the town has reached Safe Harbor under the state’s regulations and noted there was no appeal on file; she cited 760 CMR 56 and related regulations in the procedural record. Several board members questioned the proposal’s effect on the SHI and on sewer betterment calculations.
Vice Chair James Moss said changing the project from rental to homeownership would reduce how the development counts toward the SHI — a change he described as substantial for the town’s inventory. Mark Finneran and others pressed for clearer information about how sewer charges and sewer‑equivalent units would be calculated for the revised plan and asked staff to obtain more precise figures.
Facing the board’s reservations about unit type, amenities and technical questions about sewer math, the applicant signalled a preference to withdraw rather than be denied. The applicant requested withdrawal “with the right to come back” after further work with town officials, and the board voted to allow the application to be withdrawn without prejudice.
Action and next steps: The board recorded a motion to allow withdrawal at the applicant’s request and the vote carried with no opposition recorded in the meeting transcript. The applicant said it would consult the select board about pursuing a Local Initiative Program (LIP) route and would not abandon the project but would return after further coordination. The applicant also said it prefers to work with MassHousing over a direct submission to the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD).
