Developers seek 20‑lot open‑space subdivision off Cottage and Baker lanes; neighbors raise drainage, traffic and water concerns

Maccati Engineering presented a preliminary open‑space residential development (OSRD) plan to the Town of Templeton planning board on Wednesday for roughly 28 acres off Cottage Lane, Baker Lane and Stevens Way. The yield plan shows 20 buildable lots under the OSRD rules, roughly 14–15 acres of protected open space, municipal sewer and water connections, and a gated emergency access to Baker Lane for police, fire and DPW only.

Wesley Bliss, the applicant’s presenter and project representative, said the filing is for a special permit for an open‑space residential development and a preliminary subdivision plan on property owned by Jeffrey and Colleen Dusty. "The plan that you see here in front of you is considered a yield plan under the regulation," Bliss told the board, describing a 20‑lot layout and a cul‑de‑sac and connector roadway. He said the OSRD rules allow reductions from the underlying Agricultural‑1 zoning (1‑acre minimum, 150‑foot frontage) to half‑acre lots and reduced frontage (75 feet allowed, though the applicant is proposing ~100 feet of frontage on most lots to make homes feasible).

The plan would shorten the longest roadway from about 1,750 linear feet to 1,450 feet (saving roughly 300 linear feet), add a roughly 400‑foot connector (an extension of Stevens Way), and include two above‑ground stormwater basins. Bliss said the submission is designed to leave at least half the parcel as open space; the applicant’s yield calculations showed roughly 15.6 acres of open space before subtracting open, above‑ground drainage infrastructure and about 14.5 acres after that subtraction.

Access and traffic were central concerns for residents at the public hearing. The applicant proposes a gated emergency access to Baker Lane that would remain closed to general traffic and be opened only for police, fire and DPW, a concession Bliss said the fire chief requested to allow emergency access while limiting additional traffic onto Baker Lane. "That will be closed at all times unless the emergency vehicles need to get through there," Bliss said. He added the main vehicular access would be to Cottage Lane, where sightlines to Route 2A are better.

Neighbors raised multiple concerns about drainage, road condition, water and sewer capacity, construction traffic and safety. Judy, a Baker Lane resident (37 Baker Lane), said, "In the spring, and when we have heavy rains, we have a lot of water that comes into our yard ... I don't want more water pushing up into our yard." Bliss said the definitive design will include drainage calculations showing that runoff to abutting properties will not increase, and that the board will hire a peer‑review engineer to evaluate the applicant’s final plans.

Other technical details discussed at length: the proposal intends to loop the municipal water main from Cottage Lane to Baker Lane to eliminate dead ends and reduce stagnant water; the project would tie to existing municipal sewer mains on Baker Lane and rely on gravity flow where possible; street trees are required by local regulations; the right‑of‑way is shown as 50 feet with a pavement width of roughly 26 feet and sidewalks proposed on the duplex/closer side; the applicant noted the town’s parking requirement of two spaces per dwelling unit; and the planning board reiterated that bonding and peer review will be required prior to construction.

Planning board members said off‑site infrastructure needs (water/sewer improvements, road surface and bridge work) and the condition of existing pipes will be addressed with the town departments during subsequent, definitive design and permitting stages. Residents were told developers must post securities (performance bond) to ensure completion of roadwork; the board said it would not release bond funds until work is completed.

The planning board kept the public hearing open and voted unanimously to continue the hearing to the board’s next late‑June meeting for further deliberation and possible conditions. The board said the next step will be peer review of technical studies (drainage, traffic, water/sewer capacity) and negotiating conditions — including any off‑site improvements and bonding — before a vote on the OSRD special permit or definitive subdivision plan.

Next steps: the applicant will provide definitive plans and technical studies (drainage, traffic, water/sewer) for peer review; the planning board will work with town departments to determine off‑site mitigation and bonding requirements; and the public hearing will be continued at the board’s next meeting, which the board said would be posted in advance.