Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Site Plan 63 Kendrick topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Needham Planning Board unanimously approves amended site plan and keeps construction‑management requirement
Summary
The Planning Board voted 5–0 to grant amendments to the major project site plan for 63 Kendrick Street, approving multiple special permits and retaining a condition requiring a construction management plan despite the applicant’s request to remove it.
The Town of Needham Planning Board voted unanimously on Feb. 4, 2025, to grant amendments to the major project site plan permit for 63 Kendrick Street and to adopt the board’s decision as revised, including a requirement that the applicant submit a construction management plan to the Building Department before a building permit is issued.
The decision updates major project site plan review special permit number 1990-78 (originally dated Aug. 5, 1997, and amended in 1998 and 2006). The board’s motion grants: a special permit under Section 1.4.6 of the zoning bylaw for change/extension/alteration of a preexisting nonconforming use; a waiver under Section 8.4.2/8.4.3 (as corrected in the decision text) regarding parking setbacks from an intersection up to a maximum of 25 percent; and an amendment to the major project site plan review permit under Section 7.4.
Board members discussed edits circulated in a redline draft before the vote. Planning staff said most of the applicant’s attorney’s suggested edits were incorporated, but the attorney had asked to remove the construction management plan provision; staff and several board members opposed deleting that requirement. The board retained language directing that, before a building permit is issued, the applicant must satisfy the Building Department and submit a construction management plan that may require concurrence of the Building Commissioner and Police Chief.
Adam Block made the motion to grant the requested relief and to accept the revised decision; Paul Albert seconded. The board voted five‑zero in favor. The vote was recorded in the meeting transcript as unanimous.
The board did not adopt other changes requested by the applicant’s attorney that would remove the construction management condition. Planning staff said minor editing corrections were made to clarify references and to fix numbering errors in the decision text before adoption.
The board noted that the Building Department, as the enforcing office, will determine whether a formal written construction management plan is required for a particular scope of work; participants said that historically the Building Department required a formal plan only for large‑scale site work where staging, contractor parking, and material storage raise off‑site impacts.
The board approved the decision as revised and directed staff to finalize the document for signature and filing.
