Trammell Crow proposes 752‑unit redevelopment at former Armstrong site; planning board continues review

Trammell Crow Residential and its consultants presented a proposal to redevelop the former Armstrong factory site at 10 Plains Street into a 752‑unit multifamily complex during the Braintree Planning Board public hearing on Aug. 12.

The applicant, represented by attorney Frank Marinelli, said the project is a by‑right multifamily development under the town’s MBTA Communities Multifamily Overlay District. Marinelli described the plan as a two‑phase project with 427 units in phase one across five four‑story buildings and 325 units in phase two in a single four‑story building with an integrated garage. "The proposal is by right under zoning," Marinelli told the board. He and the development team said the project would preserve and add open space, treat on‑site stormwater and connect new trails to the existing river boardwalk.

The nut graf: The proposal would replace industrial structures and impervious surfaces with housing, landscaping, public walking access and stormwater controls. Developers say the project will create significant tax revenue and public amenities; residents and civic groups raised concerns about traffic, municipal services, school impacts and how public use of the riverwalk will be preserved.

The development team described technical details in separate presentations. Architect Steve Shetler said buildings are designed as multiple, smaller four‑story blocks oriented to the river with pedestrian paths and multiple entrances. Civil engineer Nick Delacaba said the site is divided into three zoning‑compliant lots and proposed 1,055 parking spaces with 74 reserved spaces banked for future need. Delacaba described decentralized infiltration systems and five underground infiltration chambers on the eastern half of the site to treat runoff, and said stormwater systems were designed to meet state and local performance standards.

Wetlands scientist Andrew Thibault said the team completed an updated wetland delineation after the river restoration work. He said the plan reduces impervious cover by about 2.4 acres, with most of that reduction (about 2.1 acres) inside the 200‑foot riverfront jurisdictional area. Thibault said the filing with the Conservation Commission treats the project as a riverfront redevelopment and asserted the plan will produce a net benefit to the resource by moving development farther from the river and adding stormwater treatment.

Traffic consultant Robert Michaud summarized a traffic impact assessment and said daily vehicle trips under a full build would be similar to current daily trips generated by the existing commercial uses on the site. Michaud said the project’s estimated ~3,400 daily trips would be nearly identical to current daily volumes and that peak hour increases were modest and concentrated in outbound morning traffic toward Route 3. He identified the Plain Street–Hancock Street intersection as the location likely to experience the most pressure and said signal retiming and optimization could mitigate predicted delays. Michaud also described a post‑occupancy monitoring plan and a transportation demand management program that would include bicycle facilities, EV stations and unbundled parking.

On fiscal impacts, Marinelli said a consultant’s report filed with the board projects gross annual property tax revenues near $3 million at buildout and net revenues to the town in a range the consultant estimated at $1.2 million to $1.9 million annually after municipal costs. He said one‑time building permit fees could approach $3 million and water/sewer connection fees another ~$1 million. The team said they would seek an order of conditions from the Conservation Commission and that town peer reviewers will evaluate traffic, stormwater and fiscal reports.

Public comment spanned more than an hour. Speakers in opposition raised concerns about water and sewer capacity, school enrollment projections, traffic and the scale and commercial mix of the project. Pat Mulkerin, a building‑trades union representative, urged stronger commitments on union labor, accessibility and construction standards. Several residents criticized the architectural character, the scale of density, and the plan’s effect on traffic and town services. Councilor Meredith Bridal (District 5) urged the board to require community benefits tied to the project’s scale, including street and pedestrian improvements, public programming at the riverwalk and traffic safety investments.

Other residents expressed support. Matthew Sisk, a longtime Braintree resident and fisheries board member who said he speaks personally, urged approval in part because the redevelopment would open views and stewardship for the restored river and fish ladder. Supporters also said the site had been blighted for decades and that redevelopment could support nearby small businesses.

The Planning Board did not vote to approve or deny the application at the Aug. 12 meeting. After discussion, the board voted to continue the public hearing to Sept. 9 to allow peer reviews to be completed and to let the applicant and staff address traffic, stormwater, wetlands and pedestrian‑connectivity concerns raised by the public and departments.

What’s next: The board will receive peer review reports and follow‑up materials; the applicant and town peer reviewers will respond, and the board will consider additional hearings and targeted meetings before any final decision. The public record for the application remains open.