Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Permit Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
250 Turnpike comprehensive-permit hearing continued to Feb. 26 after peer-review follow-up requested
Summary
Applicant Ferris Development Group presented progress on responses to peer-review comments for a proposed comprehensive-permit project at 250 Turnpike Road. The board agreed to continue the hearing to Feb. 26, 2025, to allow the applicant and peer reviewers to exchange revised plans, drainage calculations, and wetlands and traffic responses.
The public hearing on a proposed comprehensive-permit development at 250 Turnpike Road was continued to Feb. 26, 2025, after the applicant and the town's peer reviewers said additional plan revisions and technical responses were needed.
Ferris Development Group representative Brian Charbel told the Zoning Board that the applicant filed updated plans in late November and expected the board to circulate them for peer review. The town's civil engineering peer reviewer, Patrick Bogle of Howard Stein Hudson (HSH), outlined outstanding technical issues including grading and slope stability, ADA-compliant grading, Title 5 (septic) setbacks and analysis, wetlands setbacks and potential need for state interpretation on certain wetland buffer requirements, drainage calculations and constructability near property lines.
James Tetrault, the applicant's engineer from Expedite Engineering, and the applicant's wetlands and traffic consultants were reported to be preparing responses. Patrick Bogle said the applicant had identified many items that would be addressed in plan revisions and that HSH would review subsequent submittals. Board members and neighbors had raised concerns about compacted grading, retaining walls near wetlands, and the layout of several units that create long driveways or narrow buffers along the southern property line.
The applicant said they were exploring site changes such as consolidating some three-unit buildings into a single six-unit building along the southern property line and shifting units northward to increase setbacks from abutters. Applicant counsel and neighbors' counsel have been in communication about possible reconfiguration steps.
Traffic and wetlands peer reviewers were requested to attend the Feb. 26 session to discuss responses: the board asked for attendance by the town's traffic reviewer (Jeffrey Dirk of Nasha/NASA Associates as recorded) and the wetlands reviewer (Lucas/Environmental consultant). The board and applicant agreed that submitting revised plans and technical memos at least seven days before the hearing would allow meaningful review by volunteer board members and peer consultants.
The board scheduled the next hearing session for Feb. 26, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. and took a recorded vote to continue the matter to that date.
