In most cases, a majority vote in your favor gets you what you want; but not if you’re Christian Loranger, the voters are the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals, and to win your appeal you need a ‘supermajority’ – at least four ‘yeas’ amongst one ‘nay.’
On March 15, the board agreed 3-2 that Loranger only ever intended to continue the original two-family use of 120 Front Street, continued activity over the years that perpetuated that two-family use, and never abandoned that two-family use. But Loranger needed a 4-1 vote.
Members Betsy Dunn and Kate Mahoney said that while he did not abandon the use, Loranger failed to timely act over four years to keep from losing that two-family use. For Dunn and Mahoney, no haste made waste.
Loranger, who bought the uninhabitable 120 Front Street two-family house in 2013 to raze and rebuild as a two-family home, heard the ZBA back in October 2017 say that the two-family use of the home was ‘grandfathered’ according to the bylaw, and no special permit for a two-family was necessary.
That was overturned by town counsel who told the ZBA that vote had no legal standing, for Loranger had no building plans proposed at the time.
Now, about five months later, Loranger’s house, which was intended to house his family and aging in-laws, has lost its two-family status.
With the appeal in its third session, the board still struggled with the issues before them: abandonment and non-use, two separate matters for the board to ponder. Was the non-conforming (two-family) use ‘abandoned’ within a two-year timeframe and was there a period of two years where two-family use was discontinued? Building Commissioner Scott Shippey thought so, which is why he denied the building permit prompting Loranger’s appeal.
Dunn was steady in her finding of non-use, but after some discussion Mahoney wavered a bit.
“My feeling is … this home was built as a two-family, has never been anything but a two-family,” said Chairman Marc Leblanc. “[and] Mr. Loranger purchased it as a two-family with the intent of either renovating or removing the structure … but his intent all along was to have it remain a two-family…. I didn’t see anything brought in front of us that it was at any point going to be a one-family.…”
“I agree with [LeBlanc] that the intent was [two-family use],” said Dunn, “but I don’t see on the other side the action needed to protect that use.…”
LeBlanc disagreed, emphasizing that the house was fire-damaged and uninhabitable. “Different avenues were taken. It wasn’t always … a singular direction … over a long period of time.”
“The speed at which this moved was not one of a person that was protecting [the two-family use],” said Mahoney.
Alternate member Tad Wollenhaupt, voting that night in ZBA member Michelle Smith’s absence, asked the board, “Does anybody see Mr. Loranger’s intent to abandon this use?”
“I don’t see abandonment,” said LeBlanc. “…The intent from the beginning never wavered … from it being a two-family.…” Action may have lagged at times, he added, “[But] conduct is consistent that there was always something moving forward one way or another.…” Non-use, to him, was never more than simply not being able to live in the house.
Mahoney, once poised, shifted to perplexed. “I don’t think we ever suggested that abandonment would apply, and this intent … I don’t think non-use has to apply, to what?” she asked, exasperated. “Non-use in the sense of non-use, how much action is enough action?
“It is in the same non-livable condition … six years after purchase,” Mahoney said. “That to me does not speak of use…”
“Sorry, but I see non-use as an issue,” Dunn said.
“They simply stretched it out way too long,” said Mahoney. “What constitutes action, writing some emails? I don’t think an email or whatever…. At what pace is reasonable?”
As the discussion ensued, Loranger said in an aside, “I don’t stand a chance here.”
“Who’s to say that an email shows [action], who’s to say it doesn’t?” said LeBlanc. “Are we the body that says you need to do more than this?”
Mahoney paused. “It just isn’t at a pace…” she trailed off. “It’s five years and nothing has changed….”
“But it’s a dangerous statement that says nothing has happened on that property,” said LeBlanc. “I don’t think that we’ve seen that the property owner has washed his hands of it for a long period of time…. It may not be ideal, and it may not be what we would like to see, but I think it’s there.”
“One email a year,” said Mahoney reticently. “That constitutes an action, but I don’t think that’s the intent of the bylaw.”
Round and round went the board. LeBlanc defended Loranger’s action of continued use, as did Wollenhaupt.
Dunn whispered to Mahoney in an aside, and Mahoney, visually doubtful, replied, “I know, but he did stuff.”
Having discussed it ad naseum, as LeBlanc put it, he suggested an informal poll. As Town Counsel Barbara Carboni explained how the question should be posed, Mahoney stared ahead with a pained expression. A finding of either one – abandonment or non-use – would uphold Shippey’s denial.
Shippey, with white knuckles, wringed an invisible lump of dough with his fists and Mahoney paused to vote.
“Abandonment?” LeBlanc asked Mahoney. ‘No,” she replied. “Non use?” asked Leblanc.” “Yes,” she said, wincing.
The board was split. Mahoney’s head lay face down on the edge of the table for some time as Carboni explained at length how to form the formal motion – to overturn the building commissioner’s denial of the building permit. She sighed as the motion was seconded, and then paused before giving the second ‘nay’ that denied Loranger’s two-family.
After, the board argued politely. As she left the town house, Dunn called out, “Whatevah!”
The next meeting of the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for April 12 at 7:30 pm at the Marion Town House.
Marion Zoning Board of Appeals
By Jean Perry