Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Commercial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on Hawthorne Realty project continued to Oct. 6 as board requests curb‑cut and stormwater details
Summary
The Select Board continued the public hearing on Hawthorne Realty’s plan to redevelop properties at 465–471 Great Road into building‑trade shops, asking for narrower curb cuts, clarified sidewalk work, dumpster and vehicle‑storage plans, and a review of stormwater calculations.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Commercial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Select Board continued a public hearing on an application by Hawthorne Realty to redevelop 465–471 Great Road into two buildings that would house building‑trade shops, citing detailed questions about access, sidewalks, parking counts and stormwater treatment.
Engineer Nathaniel (last name not provided) described the proposal to remove two existing commercial buildings and replace them with two buildings containing a total of eight rental shop units for contractors and other building‑trade tenants. He said the project reduces overall impervious surface by cutting back pavement in several areas and places stormwater infiltration structures behind the buildings; roof runoff will be handled by dry wells and an infiltration basin is proposed at the front of the property.
Select Board members and staff pressed for additional detail on pedestrian safety and curb cuts on Route 2A (Great Road). Member David asked the applicant to reduce curb‑cut widths and repair sidewalks so pedestrian crossings are safer. “The really wide driveway entrances make it less safe for pedestrians to walk on the street, and so I’d like to understand exactly where the sidewalks will go, exactly where the curb cuts will go,” David said.
Board members also requested clarity about vehicle storage and whether indoor vehicle bays should count toward the site’s total parking calculation; the applicant says the plan provides 39 total spaces (26 exterior and 13 inside bays). Planning staff noted the site runs into a parking maximum tied to developable area and said the board could grant relief if needed. Peer‑review comments raised questions about stormwater retention and a narrow one‑foot landscaped buffer that the peer reviewer suggested should be 10 feet; the applicant said testing and recent design changes have reduced the need for a de minimis waiver.
Public comment was mixed: a neighbor opposed conversion of retail to trade uses and said the convenience store on the site is important to nearby residents. Planning staff recommended continuing the hearing so the applicant can provide revised curb‑cut and stormwater details; the Select Board voted to continue the hearing to Oct. 6 at 7 p.m. in the Town Hall meeting room.
Next steps: Applicant to provide revised curb‑cut and sidewalk plans that coordinate with the state’s Route 2A improvement plans, clarify where trade vehicles will park and publish final stormwater calculations and landscaping plans for staff and peer review.

