Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Environmental topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board continues review of proposed senior housing at 7 Hawthorne / 338 Elm amid stormwater and tree‑loss questions
Summary
Applicant presented design refinements for a 51‑unit 55+ housing development on a 12‑acre site; board and peer reviewers requested additional test pits and stormwater analyses for low elevations and further tree‑by‑tree arborist documentation before the board will set conditions. Hearing continued to April 8.
The board continued its review of a proposed 51‑unit, age‑restricted (55+) residential development on a roughly 12‑acre site near Hawthorne Road and Elm Street, after the applicant presented updated layout and landscaping plans and discussed stormwater and tree replacement analysis. The developer and their team described phased demolition already under way, conservation‑board coordination and a plan for individual infiltration systems for each building footprint.
Planner and applicant representatives said prior test pits were concentrated on the northern portion of the site, while peer reviewers cautioned that groundwater and soil conditions may be less favorable near the lower, southerly elevations adjacent to wetlands. Eric Dias, stormwater peer reviewer, said additional test pits or contingency design measures will be needed if groundwater is found to be higher in the lower reaches; the project team said they could revise calculations or remove some infiltration units at lower elevations as a mitigation “plan B.”
Another key area of discussion was tree removal and replacement. The applicant engaged a certified arborist and provided a count and condition assessment: of 297 trees catalogued outside the wetland, 66 were identified as dead or compromised; within the 100‑foot buffer 59 trees were catalogued with 22 dead or compromised, according to the arborist summary provided to the board. Planning staff and the mayor’s office asked for coordination with the town’s tree committee to establish appropriate replacement calculations or payment‑in‑lieu, and the board asked the applicant to provide documentation of the arborist field work and a proposed mitigation strategy.
Board members asked the applicant to continue working with the town’s peer reviewers and conservation commission; Assistant Director Murphy said staff would prepare draft conditions for the board if peer reviews reach closure. The applicant and staff agreed to return with revised stormwater calculations, additional test‑pit results where required, and a clarified tree mitigation plan. The public hearing was continued to April 8, 2025.
Why it matters: The project would establish new age‑restricted housing on a large site adjoining wetlands and affects stormwater, floodplain and tree resources; peer‑reviewed technical work and a clear tree‑mitigation plan were prerequisites to final approval.
