Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 19 Willow Street Remand topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board adopts supplemental findings, reaffirms approval for 19 Willow Street after remand
Summary
After receiving a Historic Preservation memorandum during a court-ordered remand, the Planning Board adopted multiple supplemental findings on height, setbacks and compatibility and reaffirmed its approval of the 19 Willow Street development in unanimous votes.
The Planning Board on Jan. 14 adopted supplemental written findings and unanimously reaffirmed its approval of a previously permitted major site plan at 19 Willow Street after the case was remanded to the board for additional written findings.
The board reopened a narrow portion of the record to accept a new memorandum from Historic Preservation staff that the court had directed be provided to the board to aid in considering whether the proposed development is “generally compatible” with character-defining elements of an adjacent historic district. The board heard public comment and then took three separate motions to adopt additional written findings addressing the maximum height standard, setback requirements and the compatibility/design standard required by the code. Each motion passed on roll call unanimously (6–0).
Why this matters: A court remand had required the Planning Board to add written findings or clarify its prior rationale, particularly around the local compatibility standard that triggers additional analysis when a development is within 100 feet of a designated historic district. The board’s new written findings and the Historic Preservation memo were intended to supply the explicit memo and rationale the code requires.
What the board did - The board voted to adopt supplemental factual findings and conclusions on the project’s compliance with the maximum building-height requirement for the applicable overlay district. Votes recorded: Maggie Stanley — yes; Austin Smith — yes; Sean Murphy — yes; Marfaine Chan — yes; Justin Barker — yes; David Silk — yes. - The board then adopted supplemental factual findings and conclusions regarding the applicable setback requirements. The same roll-call yes votes were recorded. - Finally, the board adopted supplemental findings addressing the site design compatibility standard and concluded the Historic Preservation memorandum provided the written analysis the land-use code requires and that, based on the full record, the proposed development is generally compatible with the major character-defining elements of the immediate vicinity.
Board and public comment - A public commenter (identified in the record as Murray) urged the board to disallow the new memo as untimely, arguing the board had already made up its mind and that independent Historic Preservation review should have been part of the record before prior deliberations. Board members responded that the board had discretion to reopen the record on remand, that the Historic Preservation memo supplied the particular written analysis the code requires and that their prior deliberations had, in substance, addressed the compatibility standard.
Outcome and next steps - The board’s motions supplemented its December 2021 approval letters and its December 2023 amendments with the newly adopted findings. The board authorized its vice chair to sign the resulting documents. The board’s actions were recorded in unanimous roll-call votes by members present.
