WORCESTER, Mass. — Developers seeking to build four residential units at 10 Renfrew Street/4 Inverness Avenue presented site plans to the Worcester Conservation Commission on June 30, and the commission continued the public hearing to July 21 for revised stormwater designs.

The applicant, James Tetrault of Expedited Engineering, said the project would install infiltration chambers to manage roof runoff and that driveways were designed to pitch positively away from buildings. “We could modify the plan to have the runoff go off the south side of it here instead of the positive pitch just carrying it into the road,” Tetrault said during the hearing.

Staff reviewed preliminary stormwater calculations and told the commission the proposal met many design assumptions but showed a small increase in peak runoff at some downstream design points. Staff noted a marginal increase in the 2‑year storm “in the order of 0.1 cubic feet per second” at one analyzed point and urged the applicant to reduce peak rates at all design points. Staff recommended either plan revisions showing reduced peak flows or a conditioned approval requiring a revised stormwater report and plans.

An abutter, who identified himself as Thomas Dankraffs, told the commission he already receives runoff and said he expected additional flooding if the project added new flows. “So all that water is gonna end up on my property because I’m at the bottom of the hill,” Dankraffs said, pressing the applicants on what measures would prevent post‑construction flooding to his yard.

Commissioners and staff discussed options including subtle regrading to direct driveway runoff into successive pervious areas, use of permeable paving blocks for short driveways, or additional swales. Tetrault and the project team said the site soils had frequent shallow ledge that limited deep subsurface options and that they performed multiple test pits; they said they would try to revise grading and drainage to reduce peak outflows. The team also noted infiltration structures were sized principally for roof runoff.

Staff described outreach done for the drainage evaluation and said they had inspected the downstream catch basins, which on site visits were partly filled and in need of maintenance. Commissioners emphasized the project drains toward an area of the city that discharges to Broadmeadow Brook and asked the applicant to demonstrate no increase in peak rates to all downstream municipal design points.

Because the project will also appear before the Planning Board, the commission accepted the applicant’s request to continue for one meeting. The commission voted to continue the hearing to July 21; the roll call recorded by staff showed Commissioners Kirschner, Nystrom and Chair Diane Fratoni voting in favor.

The commission asked the applicant to submit revised plans and a revised stormwater report before the next hearing, or in the alternative the commission said it would consider a conditioned approval requiring those revisions and demonstrating compliance with the city’s stormwater standard for peak runoff.