Developer presents 55+ community concept in Gardner; planners and neighbors raise density, access and parking concerns

An attorney for Apple Classic Homes presented a conceptual design for an over‑55 community on a site in Gardner, describing a plan of 90 duplex buildings and a central clubhouse, and the Gardner City Planning Board members and nearby residents raised concerns about vehicle counts, emergency access and the overall density.

Peter Campobasso, an attorney from Leominster representing Apple Classic Homes, told the board the development concept is for 90 duplex buildings (two units per building) with an internal network of private roads, trails and a clubhouse maintained by a homeowners association. Campobasso said the concept complies with the planning board’s open‑space/lot‑coverage calculations and that, based on his calculations, the project proposes roughly 26 acres of open space where the bylaw requires about 23 acres.

Why it matters: the project is intended to address senior housing demand in Gardner, but several board members and residents said the conceptual layout appears dense and questioned whether the private road geometry and cul‑de‑sac turning radii are adequate for large emergency apparatus. Board members also flagged potential off‑site traffic impacts and the need for updated traffic studies compared with prior proposals.

Discussion highlights: board members and staff said the concept follows the city’s open‑space bylaw metrics as presented but emphasized the difference between a conceptual layout and the detailed engineering that will be required for a special‑permit and site‑plan review. Several board members voiced concern about the number of vehicles the buildout could add, with one member noting that 180 units, at 1.5 vehicles per unit, could generate roughly 270 vehicles — a point raised to illustrate neighborhood parking and traffic concerns rather than to set a formal vehicle cap. Campobasso said typical units include two‑car garages and that many units in similar projects show single‑occupant households or reduced vehicle use, and he noted the applicant’s Rutland, Mass., project is under construction and uses similar building types and amenities.

Neighbors’ concerns: a number of board members and neighbors said the layout feels crowded and noted a historic rock wall and trail connections near the site. Board discussion recorded that the applicant proposes a 50‑foot buffer where the bylaw minimum is 30 feet; Campobasso said no buildings encroach on adjacent properties and that trails would be connected to existing conservation areas and land‑trust parcels in the rear of the site.

Process and next steps: the applicant said the next filings will be a special‑permit application and a site‑plan submittal; the board and staff reiterated that detailed engineering — including fire‑truck turning radii, cul‑de‑sac dimensions, traffic analyses, and utility and drainage design — will be required as part of those submissions. Board members encouraged early coordination with the fire chief and with abutters during the public review process.

Campobasso and other developer representatives said they expect to pursue phased construction and will present a formal application following departmental reviews and further outreach.