The Northborough Zoning Board of Appeals continued consideration of a petition from ZHS Trust seeking a special permit for an adult day-care at 3943 King Street and a modification of site-plan approvals for senior living at 38''' 39 to 43 King Street, sending the application to the boards Jan. 28 meeting for further review.

The petition asks the board both to allow adult day-care to operate at a Business West District parcel within Groundwater Overlay District Area 3 and to treat a proposed senior living project under the towns multifamily/assisted-living rules while seeking relief from the towns requirement that certain senior-care uses hold a license from the Executive Office of Elder Affairs (EOEA). The board took no final vote on the use-variance question and instead provided feedback to the applicant and staff before continuing the hearing.

Board members said the central issue is whether the Zoning Board should grant a use variance that would, in effect, allow a senior-living development to proceed without the EOEA licensing the transcript shows the board associates with assisted-living residences. Paul Tagniferri, chair of the Northborough Zoning Board of Appeals, told the applicant the board would treat the filing as a standalone application and that the use-variance question "is critically important" to the boards review.

Multiple members said they were uncomfortable using a zoning variance to waive state licensing requirements. One board member summarized the concern as: permitting an unaudited assisted-living-type use at a density far above what the bylaws permit for multifamily housing would, in the boards words, "substantially derogate" from the bylaws purpose. Members cited comparisons to other towns that define "senior living" or separate independent-living and assisted-living uses and to projects in nearby communities with lower unit densities.

The applicant representative told the board the proposal is not a request for a multifamily-zone density variance and that the project would reduce the previously approved 88-unit plan to 66 units. The representative said the project would not operate as an EOEA-licensed assisted-living residence and argued the reduced unit count and different septic calculations would lower pressure on town sewer and services. "All I'm here for is to ask the waiver on the license for the executive office of elderly affair simply because I am not offering those activities," the applicant representative said in the hearing.

Board members and the towns legal advisor reminded the group that use-variance law under Massachusetts General Laws (discussed in the meeting as the boards statutory limits) requires the board to find specific, site-based hardship and to ensure relief will not harm the public good. Several members said they had reviewed comparable projects in Shrewsbury and Westborough and found those towns' ordinances include many additional conditions (minimum lot sizes, open-space rules and other standards) not present in Northborough's bylaws.

Public comment included Fran Backstrand, chair of the Northborough Council on Aging, who said state law sets specific standards for assisted-living facilities and argued the board should treat the project as age-restricted housing rather than as licensed assisted living. "You shouldn't even think about the assisted living model at all. He is building an age-restricted apartment building for active seniors," Backstrand said. She also said affordability is a separate issue, noting many seniors live on modest fixed incomes and that independent-living units often must be priced and designed with those incomes in mind.

Staff and the applicant confirmed a health-agent email states the septic system approved in 2018 is sufficient for the modified application as described in materials provided to the board, and the applicant said proposed on-site changes and traffic mitigation work include approximately $1,000,000 in planned improvements. Board members said they welcomed that detail but remained focused on the use-variance standards and the towns lack of a defined "senior living" category in the bylaws.

The board offered the applicant two paths: withdraw without prejudice and refile with changes, or proceed and receive a formal decision after the board completes its variance analysis. The applicant indicated he was considering withdrawal but did not formally withdraw at the meeting. The board then voted to continue the hearing on the site and use matters for 39 and 43 King Street to the boards Tuesday, Jan. 28 meeting at 7 p.m.; the motion passed by voice vote with those present indicating support.

The board also advised the applicant and staff to clarify which elements of the previously approved 2018/2021 plans are administrative revisions and which would require new relief, and suggested the applicant consult the planning board about a possible bylaw amendment if the town wishes to accommodate the "senior living" product described in other municipalities.

The case will return to the ZBA on Jan. 28. The applicant may withdraw and refile, submit revised site plans clarifying changes to parking and building envelope, or proceed toward a decision on the use-variance question.