The Mason Zoning Board unanimously rejected an application for a special exception to allow a “glamping” campground behind Marty’s Driving Range.

The board held an off-schedule meeting on Monday evening, solely for the purpose of deliberating the proposal. Board members unanimously agreed that the application stumbled at the first hurdle of the approval process -- “that the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of [the zoning] ordinance.”

The proposal, submitted by Marty’s Driving Range owner Nicole Ruggiero, would have allowed up to 10 sites on land behind the driving range. The sites would have included raised wooden platforms and walled tents, which would have been furnished, for a higher-end camping experience. While Ruggiero said in a presentation last week that users of the campground would likely include guests who attend concerts at the driving range, she said she also intended it to operate as an independent business, not reliant on concert-goers.

Zoning Board Chair Bob Young began the meeting by summarizing the concerns of neighbors, residents and emergency personnel that the board had heard during the public hearing portion of the application, which was held on June 19.

Among those concerns were noise, lighting and control of behavior, particularly during nighttime hours, access for emergency personnel and availability of town resources to respond, the disposal of sanitation and potable water and ingress and egress of campers.

The discussion on Monday, however, did not delve into any of those issues, as the board first determined that temporary camping sites didn’t fit what was allowed in the district by special exception at all.

The General Residence, Agriculture and Forestry District allows multiple uses by special exception, including inns, tourist homes, lodging houses, retail stores and service establishments, light manufacturing, automotive repair and service stations, recycling centers, offices, public utilities and seasonal outdoor entertainment.

Board members said a campground ultimately didn’t fit any of those definitions.

“The task at hand is for the board is to convince themselves there is a specific link to one of the allowed uses, or there is not a specific link to one of the allowed uses,” Young said.

“As I keep reading this, I don’t see how we proceed,” said board Vice Chair Phil Garside.

Board member Hector Bermudez pointed out that what qualifies as a campground is laid out in state law, but there are no specific allowances for campgrounds or definitions for them in the town’s ordinance.

Member Nate Choquette pointed out a potential “big gray area” related to the allowance of tourists homes or lodging houses. Young replied that in his reading of the ordinance, he interpreted those uses as more-permanent structures than what Ruggiero was proposing.

After discussion, the board took a vote on whether the application fit the first criteria, fitting the intent of the town’s planning ordinance. The board found unanimously that it did not, as special exceptions are intended to only allow specific uses, and campgrounds was not one of them.

The board did not vote on any of the other criteria requirements, as failing in one criteria results in the failure of the application as a whole.

Ruggiero has 30 days to appeal the decision.

Ashley Saari can be reached at 603-924-7172 ext. 244 or asaari@ledgertranscript.com. She’s on Twitter @AshleySaariMLT.