[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6101156,"mediaKeyId","2809858-70717b0d39202da9143a30138dcdd1ed","parentId",2809858,"title","Design Review Board gives feedback on proposed six-unit building at 339 Chestnut Street; will send comments to ZBA","audioSeconds",1570,"startMs",3277000,"endMs",4847000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2809858-70717b0d39202da9143a30138dcdd1ed&start=3277&end=4847","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2809858-70717b0d39202da9143a30138dcdd1ed/thumbnail_3277000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6101156/Town-of-Needham/Norfolk-County/Massachusetts/Design-Review-Board-gives-feedback-on-proposed-six-unit-building-at-339-Chestnut-Street-will-send-comments-to-ZBA","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6101156-3e2be42ecfdf651760464b238041986e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188244&Signature=IHGbLnyYjVYbi0AwA76Hz83BCPM2ThihPb9pqMe0Gbqi56vf8hOoPlLFbnqO9~Co5JvnAYCMYnjNmioxym-4EINVptgQhc8MoCCRH6JXUj-k6kHEqiiS0aDOpJKnsox4DBniyWyVhlMubLa14efQG2D7oBw6jaRZSdbLFeLhUfbxoYvk-8e3xNvsHKVnZbOl0-1dfRKiZyoU5tHlSUx2g~EpM2MxeptfyPX4Xyki57JCnvDoeQv0I8LY778ryQZr~jUzlbg8ewgV1BYFs5wUxfC0S5hs7JFlykcXCee6-dcClfCR01EZUy1KwYnc8UqSIs8-ev1KL9RJMHVkkSiYlA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town of Needham, MA","date","2025-03-27T00:00:00Z","article","The Needham Design Review Board on March 26 reviewed a proposed six-unit apartment building at 339 Chestnut Street and provided formal design comments to be forwarded to the Zoning Board of Appeals with the town’s departmental review package.

Attorney George Genter Jr. presented the application under a comprehensive-permit review as a local-initiative project, saying the proposal is a partnership with the town and would replace an early-20th-century office building with a new three-story structure containing six rental units, two of which would be designated affordable.

Why it matters: The proposal would add small-scale rental housing and two affordable units on a 6,200-square-foot lot with constrained frontage and limited on-site landscaping. The project is before the Zoning Board of Appeals and will be considered at an upcoming hearing in April.

Key project facts presented by project architect Scott Melcher:
- Lot area: about 6,200 square feet with 40 feet of frontage; building set off property lines by approximately 5 feet.
- Proposed building: three stories, six dwelling units (one 1-bedroom affordable unit on the first floor, one 1-bedroom affordable unit on the third floor; remaining units primarily two-bedrooms).
- Unit sizes shown in the presentation: first-floor affordable unit ~600 sq ft (front), first-floor rear unit ~900 sq ft (one-bedroom); upper-floor two-bedroom units ~900 sq ft and ~986 sq ft.
- Parking: eight spaces at grade in front of the building (two compact, six full-size; one van-accessible adjacent to entry).
- Accessibility: two first-floor units are designed to be accessible; there is no elevator.
- Materials and massing: horizontal siding in three exposures (narrow to wide), a cornice/cap and a 3-foot screen wall at the roof to hide mechanicals and a potential future photovoltaic array.

Board feedback and concerns
Board members generally praised the building as a visual improvement over the current structure and supported the project’s inclusion of affordable units. Members raised several design and maintenance questions:
- Landscaping and edge treatment: many of the planting areas shown in the rendering are offsite or located on neighboring parcels; the board cautioned that narrow planting strips between sidewalk and parking often fail and suggested low-maintenance surfacing (gravel, groundcover, or decorative concrete) or simple landscape details that are easy to maintain.
- Security and privacy: the board supported a fence treatment at the property line — a low metal fence on the south side to allow light to windows and a privacy fence near trash storage — and the applicants proposed a gate for maintenance access.
- Color and material balance: one member said a darker accent tone as shown “pops” from the rest of the building; the project architect noted the accent will wrap the right-side façade to provide continuity. Board members were split on whether the darker accent felt integrated or too visually separate.
- Trash and utilities: the board welcomed the proposed screened enclosure for trash and recommended durable screening materials facing neighbors.

Procedure and next steps
The DRB will forward its written comments to the Zoning Board of Appeals as part of the departmental review packet. The applicant indicated a ZBA hearing date in mid-April; project representatives discussed an April 17 hearing date during the meeting. The DRB did not take a final action to approve or deny the project; its role at this stage is advisory to the ZBA on design issues.

Ending: The applicant will refine materials and landscape details as needed; the DRB’s recorded comments will accompany the application at the ZBA hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Town of Needham: Design Review Board 03/26/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Applicants presented a proposed six-unit apartment building under a comprehensive-permit process; the DRB offered design feedback on massing, materials, landscaping and trash screening and will forward comments to the Zoning Board of Appeals ahead of an April hearing.","taxTitle","Town of Needham, Norfolk County, Massachusetts","taxId",54445,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6101159,"Needham Design Review Board approves multiple business signs, requests changes to one application",2549,169000,2718000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2809858-70717b0d39202da9143a30138dcdd1ed&start=169&end=2718","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2809858-70717b0d39202da9143a30138dcdd1ed/thumbnail_169000.jpg","/articles/6101159/Town-of-Needham/Norfolk-County/Massachusetts/Needham-Design-Review-Board-approves-multiple-business-signs-requests-changes-to-one-application","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6101159-c18b1acbcf058caba95410ee5387f4b5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771188244&Signature=IJnA3k8HlGoi0TPL7O0YxM9su6aI6ciQvQVxqGNBGEyP2Q8GOoH7-p~BrsRPzY4LkIrXBPJUIXW6BLVL3GqDZLDAet4B5ud0VyHYb2YbApVJz7HxTiSA2TUaPlT~auP3TUg6gGrztj0-jQ~QW~0LfgzFKXa7qljVsK5ZQyterCFWFtdluBIMgtKNPEdxPn~h5hino4Z8AinKq03egOTmJZ74FZu~6o-7F6T1sgWeqPHdw999w-ITgUhM~QFaqFx7jnei5As5jXzriOeRktRko6rFOSRcn9E21N1QE0gZzyPZwl3pue5HPspyDaWTKEnD4QTgXu8C6z0znaY~SsY0oA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Needham Design Review Board on March 26 approved sign designs for seven properties across town and gave detailed feedback on two other applications that will require follow-up.

Board members voted unanimously to approve exterior signage as submitted for Hope and Comfort’s hygiene hub at 33 Fourth Avenue; Saint Sebastian’s new commemorative granite wall at 1166 Greendale Avenue; an address sign at 200 Highland Avenue (MassDOT); A to Z Childcare at 126 Gould Street; Taylor True Value at 51 Fremont Street; Dedham Savings Bank at 695 Highland Avenue; and the store-front and post-mounted signs associated with those packages. The board also offered substantive design feedback on Burn Boot Camp’s planned replacement panel at 77 Charles Street and flagged a potential permitting issue for a sign at 51 Fremont that the building inspector may need to review.

Why it matters: The DRB review determines whether new signage and small site elements fit Needham’s downtown and neighborhood contexts. Approvals clear applicants to move forward with building permits; conditions, design preferences and enforcement notes guide how the town will treat future installations.

Most of the approved items were modest replacements or refreshed graphics. Michael, the presenter for Hope and Comfort, described three elements: a roadside post-and-panel panel measuring about 36 by 60 inches mounted roughly 6 feet above grade, a 6-by-30-inch logo applied to the front-door glass, and a loading-dock sign for shipping and receiving. The board asked only about mounting details and illumination; Michael said, “No illumination at this time. Nope.”

At 1166 Greendale Avenue, Saint Sebastian’s proposed granite and limestone commemorative wall was presented as a senior-class gift. The applicants described a roughly 16-foot-long wall with a central school-name panel approximately 18.5 feet wide by 2 feet 7 inches tall with 9-inch carved lettering; left- and right-hand acknowledgment panels; and six brown uplights. Plantings behind the wall would include tulip tree, northern red oak and Appalachian dogwood with hydrangeas and lilacs.

At 200 Highland Avenue, the presenter for a MassDOT-impacted address sign said the existing marker was moved during a street-widening project and the new non-illuminated sign would simply display the number “200.”

For 126 Gould Street (A to Z Childcare) and 51 Fremont Street (Taylor True Value), applicants proposed replacement wall-mounted and post-mounted aluminum or metal-faced signs with vinyl graphics; the board approved both packages but noted the building inspector may require a special permit for one of the post-mounted signs at 51 Fremont depending on how the zoning bylaw is interpreted.

Dedham Savings’ package at 695 Highland Avenue included a refaced freestanding cabinet (21 square feet) and multiple building-mounted signs, a non-illuminated corner logo sign (about 19.2 square feet) and canopy uplighting. The applicant said the pole cover would be repainted and the project will use a lower-color-temperature LED retrofit (4,000 K) to reduce brightness. The board discussed the face brightness and the town’s foot-candle limits and asked staff and the building inspector to confirm compliance if the sign proceeds.

Burn Boot Camp at 77 Charles Street sought to reuse an existing large light-box cabinet. Board members raised aesthetic concerns about the size of the cabinet relative to the doorway and the amount of white polycarbonate proposed; they asked the applicant to explore alternatives — such as reducing the cabinet depth/height, using an inverse (colored) background, adding banding or graphic elements, or building a smaller cabinet — and to return with revised designs. No approval motion was taken for that item; the board agreed to continue discussion at a future meeting.

Votes at a glance
- Approve signage, 33 Fourth Avenue (Hope and Comfort): approved (roll call: Steve Dornbush — yes; Susan Optum — yes; Mark Glusing — yes). Motion recorded as approval of signage as submitted.
- Approve stone wall and landscaping, 1166 Greendale Avenue (Saint Sebastian’s): approved (Steve Dornbush — yes; Susan Optum — yes; Mark Glusing — yes).
- Approve address sign, 200 Highland Avenue (MassDOT/address marker): approved (Steve Dornbush — yes; Susan Optum — yes; Mark Glusing — yes).
- Approve signage, 126 Gould Street (A to Z Childcare): approved (Steve Dornbush — yes; Susan Optum — yes; Mark Glusing — yes).
- Approve signage, 51 Fremont Street (Taylor True Value): approved (Steve Dornbush — yes; Susan Optum — yes; Mark Glusing — yes). Note: building inspector may require special permit for one post-mounted sign; applicant was advised.
- Approve signage package, 695 Highland Avenue (Dedham Savings): approved (Steve Dornbush — yes; Susan Optum — yes; Mark Glusing — yes). Applicant indicated LED retrofit to 4,000 K to reduce brightness.
- 77 Charles Street (Burn Boot Camp): no approval; board requested redesign and will continue review.

What the board asked staff to do: Confirm whether the 51 Fremont post-mounted sign requires a special permit with the building inspector; confirm any foot-candle/illumination limits for Dedham Savings’ face brightness and document that LED retrofit in permit materials.

The board completed the sign reviews in a single evening and took minutes and procedural votes later in the meeting. Several members commented that many proposals were straightforward replacements and appropriate for their contexts; in contested cases the board favored smaller scale or additional graphic detailing over large, bright polycarbonate faces.

Ending: For applications approved tonight, staff will issue DRB approval letters that applicants may attach to building permit submissions. Applicants asked to return with any material or illumination changes and to coordinate special-permit steps with the building inspector where noted.","The Needham Design Review Board approved signage for seven properties — including Hope and Comfort, Saint Sebastian's and Dedham Savings — and asked for design revisions or additional permitting on others, while flagging one proposal for further review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Design Review Board gives feedback on proposed six-unit building at 339 Chestnut Street; will send comments to ZBA

Needham Design Review Board approves multiple business signs, requests changes to one application