Planning board delays decision on Hardy Street contractors bays after dispute over sidewalk, curb cuts and floodplain controls

The Peabody Planning Board continued review of a site plan for a proposed multi‑bay contractors facility at 0 Hardy Street after developers and city staff failed to agree on whether a sidewalk must be installed across the property and on the number and size of curb cuts from Hardy Street. The applicant’s attorney, John Kelty, said the firm seeks to build contractor bays and has received Conservation Commission approval but cannot accommodate a full public sidewalk without losing critical space needed for bay circulation and emergency egress. Kelty said the plan showed curb openings that left insufficient room for parking and vehicle turnaround and that adding sidewalk along the frontage would remove space needed for those functions. Planning board members and Department of Public Services staff pressed the applicant to revise the curb‑cut design. Board member Joseph Gagnon said a single 120‑foot curb cut is “not workable” and favored multiple smaller openings; Gagnon recommended three smaller curb cuts serving paired bays. Gagnon said multiple curb cuts could improve vehicle circulation and may make the plan more acceptable to Public Services. Director of Public Services William Pollitz and Planning Department staff told the board the city’s ordinance (section 27‑36) requires applicants to construct sidewalks or curbing when a lot lacks acceptable pedestrian infrastructure. Pollitz’s memo, read into the record by planning staff, requested a sidewalk be shown on the plan and said DPS would expect sidewalk construction conforming to nearby standards. Board members raised technical concerns tied to the site’s floodplain. Kelty and the project engineer said floor drains, oil separators and MDC traps would be needed for the bays, and that flood elevations could inundate separators during extreme events. The applicant said oil separators and drainage details are plumbing and building code issues that will be subject to building‑department review and possible variances. Several board members suggested design options to reduce the curb‑cut width, reconfigure bay depths, or reduce the number of bays (for example, reducing seven bays to six with deeper bays at one end) to create room for a 20‑foot curb cut and improved circulation. The applicant said he could revise plans and return with alternate curb‑cut layouts. The board voted unanimously to continue the item to the board’s first August meeting so the applicant could revise curb‑cut options and work with DPS on sidewalk expectations. The continuance means the planning board will reconsider the site plan with revised curb‑cut and sidewalk drawings and any DPS comments before taking a formal vote.