Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Drive Parcel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer told to reapply after 2010 Commercial Drive permit lapsed; special permit required for light manufacturing
Summary
Board told an attorney that a 2010 approval for a 4,000 sq ft Commercial Drive building lapsed after two years of inactivity; an applicant proposing light manufacturing/assembly of telescoping flagpoles would need to reapply for site plan and a special permit.
Get email alerts on the Commercial Drive Parcel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning Board discussed the status of a Commercial Drive parcel where a 2010 decision authorized construction of a 4,000‑square‑foot building but did not determine use at that time. A board member said the original approval lapsed because no action occurred within the two‑year period; an applicant (through counsel) must reapply, and the board advised that a new site‑plan review and a special permit application will be required.
Board members reviewed the prior decision’s constraints — a narrow entrance limited by Conservation Commission (ConCom) conditions and proximity to wetlands — and said those site constraints explain why the project did not proceed. The current inquiry described a proposed low‑impact light manufacturing or assembly use: assembling prefabricated telescoping flagpoles. Board members said such a use would likely fall under light manufacturing/assembly in the zoning code and confirmed the applicant would need to request a special permit and provide details on use and circulation.
Board members advised the attorney and applicant that approvals tied to the 2010 site plan have lapsed; the applicant should reapply with a full site plan and explain the intended use so the board can consider both the building and use in a single application. The board also noted that MassDEP and the Conservation Commission may have outstanding jurisdictional matters to address, given nearby wetland constraints.
No formal approvals were recorded in the transcript; the board described procedural next steps for reapplication and identified potential environmental and access constraints the applicant should address in a new filing.

