Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flexible Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Reservoir Meadows flexible‑development hearing continues amid residents’ drainage and open‑space concerns
Summary
The Planning Board continued hearings on a four‑building flexible residential development at 26 Meadow Lane after detailed technical submissions and sustained public concern about stormwater, septic interactions and whether proposed open space meets the zoning definition (upland requirement).
The Planning Board continued multiple hearings for the Reservoir Meadows proposal at 26 Meadow Lane (flexible major residential development and LID special permit) after the applicant submitted revised plans and peer reviewer Fuss & O’Neil confirmed receipt of the update.
What the board heard
- Applicant presentation: Engineer Peter Bemis said the revised plans increase conserved open space, remove nearly an acre of former runway pavement, and add infiltration and treatment areas sized to address site soil conditions. Bemis emphasized the project’s use of on‑site infiltration and stormwater treatment tailored to the site and said the proposal reduces existing impervious surfaces.
- Open‑space and septic issues: Several residents and the Open Space Preservation Commission reiterated that zoning requires upland open space; wetlands, detention basins and subsurface septic systems are not counted toward the required open‑space percentage for a multifamily/flexible development. The commission asked the applicant to demonstrate that sufficient upland open space (not wetlands or systems) will remain. The applicant said some of the previously counted areas are being reconfigured and he will re‑calculate to meet the bylaw requirements or consider a conventional subdivision if needed.
- Test pits and soils: Board members asked why test pits are shown mostly outside the proposed building footprints. Bemis said the soils across the site are similar and that test pit locations reflect areas inspected by the board of health; additional targeted pits were conducted where leach systems will be located.
Board action and schedule
- The planning office and peer reviewer will review the latest plans and provide comments. The board voted to continue the hearings to Feb. 24 and extended the decision deadline to March 14 so staff and peer review can comment and the applicant can supply additional test‑pit documentation, cut‑and‑fill and the detailed calculations for open‑space eligibility.
Resident concerns
Several abutters testified strongly about prior septic failures in the area, the limited infiltration capacity of underlying fill soils and the need for hydraulic/stormwater studies; several urged the board not to waive any open‑space or setback requirements and asked for clearer mapping of easements (including septic reserve areas on nearby parcels).
Ending
The applicant will submit a refined open‑space calculation excluding wetlands and sewer/septic locations, provide clearer test‑pit mapping on the buildable footprints and respond to peer‑review comments before the continued hearing.
