Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board supports waivers and conditionally approves preliminary subdivision plan for Esco Road extension
Summary
The board voted 4–0 to approve a preliminary subdivision plan allowing a roughly 1,365-foot extension of Esco Road to create two new frontages on a roughly 30-acre assemblage, while recommending conditions and noting multiple required waivers and future requirements for a definitive plan.
The Worcester Planning Board on Aug. 13 voted 4–0 to approve a preliminary subdivision plan that would extend an existing private portion of Esco Road by roughly 695 feet (for a total private-plus-new length of about 1,365 feet) and create two new lot frontages within a roughly 30-acre assemblage at 34 Esco Road and 224 Southwest Cut Off.
The applicant team, represented by Eric DeBrule (Boiler & Giny) and attorney Adam Baldarelli, said the extension would create a cul-de-sac and two buildable frontages. The plan requests multiple waivers from the city subdivision regulations, including centerline radii, dead-end length (the combined private and proposed extension exceeds the typical 500-foot limit), one-foot contour interval format and locating major on-site features such as trees over 12 inches in caliper.
City planning staff emphasized that this hearing was preliminary and that no definitive approvals would be granted until a future filing. Planning staff and DPW recommended conditions and noted outstanding submittals that will be required for definitive plan review: a stormwater report, lighting and landscaping plans, wetland delineation confirmation, and documentation to address proposed retaining walls and right-of-way impacts. Staff additionally advised the board that the site spans multiple zoning districts and that the applicant should clarify intended future uses because the northern portion is in a lower-density residential district and the southern portion is in manufacturing zones.
Planning staff raised concerns about redundant emergency access and recommended the applicant consider providing alternate access should the single way be blocked, and they flagged a proposed retaining wall located near an adjacent privately owned parcel that may require an easement for maintenance. Conservation staff noted that a prior wetlands delineation had been revoked and that a confirmed wetlands boundary will be needed before definitive submissions.
The board and staff discussed that the requested dead-end length waiver is atypical but that, given site-specific constraints and the existing private way, the board would consider supporting it if subsequent definitive materials address erosion control, stormwater, and access concerns. DPW also noted a typical pavement-width detail and other technical items that the applicant will need to meet or request waivers for in the future.
After hearing public comments (including a small number of statements opposing the project and one caller making non-substantive remarks), the board closed the hearing and voted to approve the preliminary subdivision plan 4–0 with staff recommended conditions and an expression of support for the waivers noted in the staff memo. The vote was procedural: definitive plan review and all remaining technical approvals will be required before any construction or roadway acceptance.
The board’s conditions require that the applicant provide a confirmed wetland delineation, a full stormwater report, lighting and landscaping details, documentation resolving retaining wall location and maintenance access, and coordination with DPW on right-of-way and pavement standards. The applicant said no specific use has been chosen for the lots at this time; the majority of the parcel is in manufacturing zoning, according to the applicant, and the team said they intend later site-level reviews to determine final use.
