By Geena Monahan—For the North Star Reporter
More than a dozen residents gathered at last Thursday’s Planning Board meeting, hoping to learn the fate of the former First United Methodist Church property at the corner of Hoppin Hill Avenue and South Washington Street.
Instead, they were told there are still no plans to share.
The March 19 hearing before the Planning Board involved a preliminary subdivision plan that the applicant’s attorney acknowledged was filed primarily to secure a legal protection known as a zoning freeze.
“We have no intent to actually build that road or create these lots,” attorney Jonathan Silverstein told the board.
The preliminary plan divides the property into four theoretical lots connected by a cul-de-sac road. Silverstein said the layout is not intended for construction, but instead allows the owner to preserve the current zoning regulations on the land for up to eight years under state law.
“If a property owner files a preliminary subdivision plan and then submits a definitive plan within seven months, the zoning that applies to that land stays in place for eight years,” Silverstein explained. “It’s very common when a property owner is aware of potential zoning amendments that could make development more difficult.”
Why the zoning freeze matters
The subdivision filing comes as North Attleborough officials consider a zoning change that would alter how new vehicle dealerships are approved across town.Under the proposed bylaw, dealerships would still be allowed in commercial zones but would require Planning Board approval through a special permit, rather than being permitted by right.
Board member Greg Walsh said the pending zoning change was a key factor behind the filing.
“What’s triggering this is the proposed zoning change,” Walsh explained to the crowd. “It’s more advantageous for them to be under a permitted use rather than a special permit use.”
Planning Board Chairman Jason Gittle said the board would still follow its standard review process, despite assurances that the plan itself will never happen.
“If we deliver an actionable decision, we’re going to follow the process the same way we always do,” Gittle said. “We’re not trying to be punitive — we just want to handle it the way we usually do.”
Residents voice concerns
Many residents who attended the meeting said they believed the hearing would provide answers about the future of the property, including whether the existing church might be demolished. Linda Fisher, an abutter to the property, said the meeting notice left some residents confused about what would be discussed.
“I think most of us are here to get answers to questions — is the church going to be knocked down, is the parsonage going to be knocked down?” Fisher said. “I think we misunderstood what was going to happen tonight.”
Gittle said the town does not control the property and no development proposal has been submitted.
“If there were changes of use or a development proposal, it would need to come before us,” he said. “But right now, the only thing in front of us is this four-lot subdivision.”
Residents used the public comment period to voice broader concerns about the possibility of expanded automobile dealership operations near their neighborhood, including the potential for a larger project to emerge later.
“My concern is that by going through the procedure this way, six months or eight months from now they can submit another plan for the ultimate development of the property,” said resident Michael Carr.
Fisher said noise from car alarms and early-morning vehicle deliveries has already become a problem in the area.
“From 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. the car alarms are constant,” she said. “Cars are delivered at 1:30 in the morning sometimes. They promised certain things before and it hasn’t happened.”
Another resident, Lisa Ryan, urged the developer to consider the property’s historic and community value.
“Many of us find that property to be an iconic historical landmark in town,” Ryan said. “Kids sled there. It’s an opportunity to have a gathering place, and I hope the owners recognize how important it is to preserve something like that.”
Gittle acknowledged the concerns but said the board must operate within the limits of zoning law.
“Sometimes it’s one of those lots you wish the town owned,” he said. “But we don’t own it. We’re going to follow the law and make sure the process is followed.”
The board ultimately continued the hearing to a future meeting.
Country store proposal discussed
In a separate agenda item, the board reviewed a proposal from the same ownership group to renovate an existing building at 563 South Washington St. into a country store with a fueling station.
The project, submitted by Route 85 Realty Corp., would repurpose a building originally constructed in 1965 that historically operated as an auto repair garage and gasoline station.
Attorney Robert Knapik, representing the applicant, said the proposal would renovate the structure into a retail country store selling a mix of items including candy, toys and hardware.
“If you went into one of the applicant’s other stores in Upton or Mendon, you’d find an eclectic mix of items — penny candy, toys, knickknacks, fishing poles,” Knapik said.
The project would also reinstall fuel pumps under a canopy and make several site improvements, including reorganizing traffic circulation and reducing the amount of paved surface on the property by about 5,000 square feet.
Matt Merva of Bohler Engineering said the redesign would create nine parking spaces and add grass behind the building.
“We’re cleaning up circulation,” Merva said. “Right now it’s somewhat haphazard parking of cars throughout the site.”
Traffic engineer Jason Adams noted the project is not expected to generate significant additional traffic because many visits would come from drivers already traveling along Route 1.
The proposal has already received approvals from the Zoning Board of Appeals for required special permits and variances, Knapik said, and will also require permits from the Conservation Commission.
While Planning Board members agreed the proposal would improve the current condition of the site, residents still raised concerns about what it could mean for the rest of the property owned by Imperial.
“The previous display and this one seem very coincidental,” said Carr. “It looks like the snowball is getting bigger for the automotive Disney World.”