Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Residential Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board continues Reservoir Meadows revision after extensive public comment; decision deadline extended to May 2
Summary
The board continued its public hearing on 26 Meadow Lane (Reservoir Meadows) after the applicant revised the layout from five to six units. Neighbors raised groundwater, septic and open-space concerns; the board set a March 24 procedural continuation and extended the decision deadline to May 2 to allow further peer review.
The Planning Board on March 10 continued the public hearing on 26 Meadow Lane (Reservoir Meadows), a revised flexible-development proposal that would change the plan from five to six residential units and reorganize building placement and open space.
Why it matters: the project proposes multiple units on an 8.7-acre property and relies on the flexible-development provisions of the zoning bylaw that trade density for protected open space. Neighbors and the board flagged drainage, groundwater, septic reserve placement and open-space accounting as issues that require careful peer review and follow-up from the Board of Health.
What the applicant presented: engineering consultant Peter Bemis described a reconfigured plan with two duplexes in the rear and two single-family homes forward, a loop road, a proposed on-site infiltration approach for stormwater, a new hydrant on the loop, and an expanded open-space area the applicant said totaled roughly 60% of the site. Bemis noted the plan preserves most of the parcel as open meadow and said the design team supplied updated drainage calculations and a fire-apparatus circulation exhibit.
Neighbors' concerns: several residents and abutters raised concerns about groundwater discharge and the proximity of existing private septic systems. Neighbors asked that Fuss & O'Neil (the board's peer reviewer) examine groundwater and stormwater behavior and suggested additional testing and assurances to protect existing leach fields. One resident said water historically emerges within the horseshoe area and freezes in winter, creating hazardous conditions on adjacent streets; the resident asked for a focused groundwater impact assessment. Other commenters asked the board to confirm how utility and reserve easements affect the open-space calculation.
Board response and votes: the applicant requested time to receive peer-review comments and to refine the conventional "proof-of-yield" (conventional plan) calculations that set the maximum number of units. The board voted to continue the public hearing to March 24. The board also voted to extend the decision deadline for 26 Meadow Lane through May 2, 2025, to allow Fuss & O'Neil supplemental review, additional submittals and time for public comment.
Next steps: the planning department will forward the updated submission to the peer reviewer and post comments when they arrive. The board asked the applicant to respond to peer-review items and suggested follow-up coordination with the Board of Health on the proposed septic layout and reserve area. If the Board of Health or peer review requests changes, the board said it will require specific revised plans and possibly additional conditions aimed at protecting existing on-site systems.
Ending: The board emphasized open-space protection and called for clear documentation (maps/exhibits) demonstrating how open-space totals are calculated and how reserve septic areas are treated in the calculation.
