Needham ZBA continues hearing on 40B plan for 339 Chestnut St.; developers seek waivers for 6-unit building

The Needham Zoning Board of Appeals on April 17 heard a comprehensive permit (M.G.L. c. 40B, 760 CMR 56) application from Needham Enterprise LLC for a three‑story, six‑unit rental building at 339 Chestnut Street and continued the hearing to May 15 for further review.

Town counsel Chris Keep told the board that "the ZBA on this application is acting in the place of all other local boards within town," and reviewed key procedural points for a 40B local initiative project, including the ZBA's 180‑day hearing window and the requirement that the board evaluate requested waivers against the standard of being "consistent with local needs." Keep also summarized timing: the ZBA has 180 days to complete the public hearing and, after closing, 40 days to issue a decision.

Why it matters: the applicant requests multiple waivers or exemptions of Needham's Chestnut Street Business District rules that, if granted, would allow residential use on the ground floor, a full third story, higher floor‑area ratio and relaxed lot area/frontage requirements on a pre‑existing substandard lot. The project proposes two deed‑restricted affordable units, which the applicant and town staff said would be monitored under the state and local regulatory agreements.

Applicant presentation and project details

George Gentle Jr., attorney for the applicant, described the proposal as demolition of an existing two‑story building and replacement with a three‑story structure containing six rental units: one one‑bedroom unit and five two‑bedroom units. Two units will be designated affordable: the first‑floor one‑bedroom and a third‑floor two‑bedroom. The application states the site contains 6,200 square feet of land, with 40 feet of frontage; proposed on‑site parking is eight spaces (six full‑size, including one accessible space, and two compact spaces). Above‑grade habitable area was described at about 4,200 square feet and roughly 2,000 square feet below grade for storage and mechanicals; the applicant reported a computed floor‑area ratio of about 1.34 when basement area is included (the Chestnut Street Business District FAR limit is 0.7).

Scott Melching, the project architect, presented elevations and materials, and said the building is designed to read as a residentially scaled mass applied to a commercial lot. The team said the roof parapet will screen mechanical equipment and that the building is being designed all‑electric with space for at least two EV chargers. Melching described window placements, small Juliet balconies and a central front entrance facing Chestnut Street.

Waivers requested and zoning issues raised

The applicant listed core waivers needed to construct the project as proposed: approval for residential use on the ground floor; relief from the district's limit that residential occupancy be restricted to the second floor and a half story above; a density exemption (the Chestnut Street Business District density calculation would limit this lot to about two units at 18 units per acre); relief from lot area and frontage minimums (district requires 10,000 sq ft and 80 ft frontage; the lot is 6,200 sq ft and 40 ft frontage); an FAR exemption (district max 0.7; proposed ~1.34 including basement); and a stories exemption (district limit 2½ stories; applicant proposes a full third story while remaining under the district’s 35‑foot height limit).

Design, parking, drainage and site layout concerns

Board members and staff questioned parking layout, maneuvering aisle width and pedestrian separation between Chestnut Street sidewalk and the parking area. The applicant said the narrow 40‑foot lot constrains options; the proposed maneuvering aisle is 20 feet (the bylaw standard cited by the applicant is 24 feet) and engineers reviewed the layout without objecting. The design team said they had reduced impervious lawn areas, will add a paved side walkway to move trash collection away from a neighboring property, and plan to revise stormwater details per Public Works requests.

Board members asked about lighting and safety in the parking area at night; the applicant said ambient downtown lighting is available and stated they would add on‑site illumination if the board or staff later determines it is necessary. Snow removal was noted as a practical issue for the small site; the applicant said snow would be removed off‑site if it impedes parking or circulation and that a contractor/bobcat arrangement would be used.

Accessibility and affordable‑unit monitoring

Tatiana Swanson of the Commission on Disabilities submitted a comment asking that accessible bathrooms be fully ready to accommodate grab bars and that at least one unit be adaptable for residents with hearing impairments. The architect and applicant said toilet/shower reinforcement and other accessible provisions would be "blocked and ready" in construction so they could be fitted as needed; the team said grab bars are typically installed when requested by a tenant but reinforcement will be provided. The applicant said state monitoring agents (and local oversight) will audit compliance with affordable‑unit restrictions and that the project is a Local Initiative Project (LIP) with the town as co‑applicant; the Select Board has signed the application and the state granted project eligibility.

Agency and board comments read into the record

The project team read written comments into the record from multiple town departments: Planning (recommended a front landscape buffer and suggested moving the building back to create separation), Design Review (requested alternatives to turf for narrow planting strips and noted concerns about long‑term maintenance), Public Works (requested stormwater plan revisions and infiltration sizing), Building, Fire and Police (no objections noted), Health (reminder about required permits), Conservation (no jurisdiction comment), and the Community Housing Specialist (supportive of the location for affordable housing). A nearby resident, Gary Zamian, submitted written concerns that the development is too large for the lot and places parking in front; that comment was read into the record as opposition.

Public comment and next steps

No members of the public attending remotely or in person spoke against the project at the meeting; the chair noted no vocal opposition was present. The board did not close the hearing and, with the applicant’s agreement, continued the matter to the board’s next scheduled meeting on May 15 at 7:30 p.m. for further engineering, design and regulatory agreement detail. The applicant was asked to provide revised stormwater drawings, clarify parking illumination, and supply draft regulatory‑agreement language and a draft decision early enough in the 180‑day window so the developer can produce any required pro forma to show economic feasibility if conditions or denials are proposed.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Allow withdrawal of appeal for 0 Colgate Road (applicant requested to withdraw). Outcome: approved (unanimous voice vote). Note: town counsel advised the board the building inspector’s earlier decision meant the withdrawal cannot legally be "without prejudice." - Motion: Allow withdrawal of 282 Warren Street appeal without prejudice (applicant requested). Outcome: approved (unanimous voice vote). - Motion: Continue the 339 Chestnut Street 40B hearing to May 15, 2025, 7:30 p.m. Outcome: continued (consensus). - Motion: Adopt minutes as presented. Outcome: approved (unanimous voice vote).

The board will take up the 339 Chestnut Street application again on May 15, when staff and the applicant expect to return with revised drainage plans, a draft decision for review and clarifications on parking, lighting and accessibility details.