Planning Board approves 18 Lund Road car‑storage site with conditions and lighting, fuel restrictions

The Planning Board voted 5-0 on Jan. 7 to approve a site plan and site‑location development review for a proposed vehicle-storage and related operations lot at 18 Lund Road, in the Business‑Industrial zoning district, subject to multiple conditions and peer‑review responses.

The board adopted amended findings of fact and conditions after a series of staff and peer‑review items were addressed or conditioned for follow‑up. Key amendments required the applicant to work with city staff and peer reviewers to meet lighting ordinance standards and to satisfy the city engineer’s January 7 memo. "The applicant will work with City staff and a peer review to meet all the requirements of zoning article 2, 230604 as applicable to this site after approval," a finding amended by the board said.

Lighting and photometrics: Staff and the applicant submitted updated photometric plans; reviewers requested additional revisions to avoid excessive illumination under canopies and to control off‑site light trespass. The board required the applicant to finish lighting adjustments to meet the ordinance and peer‑review standards as a condition of approval.

Fuel storage and future changes: The site plan shows a pad for a future above‑ground fuel storage tank but no tank or spill‑prevention plan was provided. The board amended conditions to require that any future fuel storage be subject to a minor site‑plan amendment reviewed by the city planner (staff‑level review) and that the applicant supply a spill‑prevention plan before the tank is installed. "We would be looking for, like, a compliance report on an annual basis to make sure that these requirements are still being met," Planner Emily Cole Pressard said of long‑term monitoring for similar projects.

Snow storage and wetlands buffer: The board also required a six‑foot non‑conductive fence to be set back from Goose Fair Brook and amended a condition to require signs on the fence reading "no snow storage beyond this fence" to protect the stream buffer; the city engineer recommended the fence be pulled back to maximize buffer protection. The applicant committed to adjust landscape and fence alignment to meet the engineer’s memo.

Process and next steps: Staff will require the applicant to respond to the city engineer’s outstanding comments, to finalize landscaping and lighting details, and to provide any remaining peer‑review responses. With those conditions in place the board adopted the findings of fact and conditions and approved the site plan and site‑location development review by a 5-0 vote.

Ending: The approval carries conditions that staff must confirm before final sign‑off; the board reserved authority to require further amendments if peer reviewers or city engineers report unresolved issues.