94 Ashford proposal draws board concern over massing, parapet height and stormwater routing

Architect Leonard Brandes and the applicant team presented a 14‑unit, three‑story apartment proposal for 94 Ashford Avenue on Jan. 9. The plan calls for 14 units (nine two‑bedroom and five one‑bedroom), 20 required parking spaces with underground parking, and a carriage house retained on the site.

Board members raised design and massing concerns despite generally favoring the project’s goals. The board asked the applicant to soften the building’s bulk where it faces the adjacent historic gatehouse, to step the massing with the hillside rather than present a single tall roof line, and to break the facade scale so the new building better fits the neighborhood context.

Key issues discussed - Height and parapet: The applicant requested a height variance of 5 feet 4 inches for a parapet wall and rooftop equipment screening. Board members asked whether lower or stepped parapet solutions could conceal condensers and solar equipment without the requested variance. - Façade and massing: Several board members said the proposed front elevation is overly symmetrical and urged the design team to introduce step‑backs or varying roof lines so the building reads as a collection of smaller masses rather than one large block. - Stormwater routing: Dan Collins (Hudson Engineering) reported the stormwater system had been upsized to capture the 100‑year storm and that the design would be modified to convey runoff away from Beacon Hill Drive and toward Ashford Avenue, including a proposed new catch basin in the village right‑of‑way. - Parking and access: The project proposes two garage doors and a ramp down to below‑grade parking; the board asked the team to confirm slope and in/out circulation and to consider whether two doors are necessary given constraints on ramp width and grade.

Next steps: The applicant will revise massing and elevation drawings and return with alternative roof lines, stepped facades or other design moves intended to reduce the building’s visual bulk. The project requires variances for rear-yard setback and parapet height; the applicant said it will pursue Zoning Board of Appeals review and requested guidance from the Planning Board before seeking variances from the ZBA. Planning staff and board members recommended a follow‑up workshop with the Board of Trustees and asked the applicant to provide updated plans and stormwater details.

Why it matters: The site is near downtown, mass transit and pedestrian corridors; the board signaled support for infill housing in the village’s downtown transition zone but asked for more contextual design work before the village moves forward with zoning relief.