Planning board approves Compass Road 16‑lot subdivision after drainage, traffic questions

The Gardner Planning Board on Dec. 11 approved a 16‑lot Compass Road subdivision for duplex homes after hearing technical reviews of drainage, traffic and fire access and taking public comment. The board recorded one abstention; no members voted against the proposal.

The project matters because the site sits on the Gardner–Templeton town line and will rely on Gardner water and the city sewer system; it therefore requires both local subdivision approvals and a state highway (MassDOT) access permit before construction. Neighbors pressed the board for additional safeguards on sight lines, school‑bus safety and construction staging.

Developer Trevor Fletcher of Gras Engineering told the board the plans had been revised since an earlier hearing to address outstanding items raised by the city peer reviewer and the city engineer. “We have a 16‑lot subdivision on which we're planning on constructing duplexes,” Fletcher said, describing the single entrance, two infiltration basins and a common mailbox and pullout at the road. He said the project will tie into Gardner city water and connect to an existing sewer main that runs down toward the city treatment plant.

Fletcher explained two waiver requests: to allow high‑density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe in place of reinforced concrete pipe called out in older local regulations, and to waive a required 3‑foot sump in certain drain manholes. He said the city engineer and the Department of Public Works had indicated those waivers should be acceptable when the city takes the road.

On stormwater, Fletcher and the project engineer said the basins were designed to meet Massachusetts stormwater standards and peer‑review comments. He said the project’s calculations show the required recharge volume at the peer‑review point as about 0.27 inches and the design provides 0.28 inches; infiltration testing included three tests per basin and the basins were oversized, providing “over four times the required recharge volume” in the front basin and “just under six times” in the rear basin. The peer reviewer asked for additional documentation; the applicant agreed to provide riprap sizing calculations and a SWIFT filing prior to construction as permit conditions.

Steve Savaria, senior project manager with Fuss & O'Neill, which prepared the traffic assessment for the applicant, told the board the analysis found the site access “will operate safely and efficiently.” He noted the access is onto a state highway, so final authority on sight lines and access lies with MassDOT, which will review the traffic data and issue any needed permitting conditions.

Residents urged caution. Mary Shaffer of East Templeton said she remains “concerned about some of the water issues” and asked about groundwater test results; Fletcher pointed to the estimated seasonal high water table (ESHWT) at 42 inches and an observed standing water level at about 64 inches on one test hole and explained how that data informed basin sizing. Shaffer also asked about construction parking and said, “If you park trucks in front of my property… it's gonna be a safety hazard.”

Drew Robertson Butler raised school‑bus safety, saying he would not want a child riding “on that bus 4 times a day” when the bus must turn into a site entrance with limited sight lines. The applicant and board noted that MassDOT review and permit conditions (including limits on construction parking and temporary traffic control) would address many of those operational concerns.

On fire access, the applicant provided turnaround geometry and said the cul‑de‑sac exceeds the ladder‑truck turning radii required by the subdivision regulations (design radii provided at about 30.4 and 44.4 feet vs. typical ladder‑truck radii of 21.5 and 35.5 feet). The applicant said he had shared plans with the fire department and received no objection on turnaround or hydrant placement.

The peer reviewer and city engineering staff recommended items to be submitted before construction: revised erosion‑control sequencing that specifies when clearing will occur, formal riprap sizing/calculations for basins, a SWIFT filing, a 50‑foot construction entrance (the plan was updated from 40 feet), and material specifications (mortar composition) for manhole construction. The applicant agreed to those conditions.

After discussion the board voted to close the public hearing and then voted to approve the Compass Road project “as presented.” A motion to approve carried with recorded ayes and one abstention; the board did not record any opposing votes. The applicant must obtain any required MassDOT permits and submit the noted preconstruction documentation to the city before starting work.

The board and city engineer said the MassDOT review is a significant next step because the project's single access is on a state highway and MassDOT permits typically include detailed conditions on parking, traffic control and access. The board noted the Town of Templeton has raised legal questions about jurisdiction because some construction activity and sight‑line concerns affect Templeton; those challenges, if pursued, would involve state permitting and possible appeals outside the local approval process.

Next steps: the applicant will provide the preconstruction documents requested by the peer reviewer and city staff, seek a MassDOT access permit and return to the city if any plan changes affect the right‑of‑way. The board recorded implementation risk as dependent on state permitting and potential appeals.

Votes at a glance: Compass Road subdivision — approved (vote recorded as majority in favor, 1 abstention; no votes against).