Select Board reopens hearing on Nagog Woods site plan after notification error; closes public comment pending technical specs

The Acton Select Board reopened a contested site‑plan and special‑permit application on Nov. 17 for a proposed racquet‑sports facility at 45 Nagog Park and 62 Nonset Path after staff rescinded prior approvals because of defective abutter notifications.

Applicant counsel Jonathan Silverstein told the board the project team complied with the approved plans, said any trees removed were within a fire‑lane area required by the fire department, and argued construction activity to date was on the applicant’s property. The applicant’s consultants described a reinforced‑turf emergency access—designed to look like grass but to carry heavy apparatus—and said it would be gated and locked for emergency use only.

Several board members and staff recited the procedural background: the town had calculated the 300‑foot abutter radius from only one address instead of from both lots, which omitted some condominium units. Staff also referenced a 1976 restrictive covenant that preserves a buffer for much of the neighborhood but allows a driveway up to 150 feet in certain lots; board member Dean Snyder Grant said the proposed emergency access measures were designed to meet life‑safety requirements and cited a recent fire‑chief memo filed with planning.

Public comment stretched over more than an hour and included formal remarks from the Nagog Woods Community Corporation’s counsel, condo association treasurers and residents who documented what they described as large‑scale, early‑morning tree removal. Speakers asked the board to require a photometric lighting plan, a third‑party inspection of tree‑clearing compliance, a landscaping bond and replacement with mature trees if cutting exceeded approved limits, and pre/post noise monitoring. Supporters of the project also spoke, noting the facility’s community benefits and the applicant’s past contributions to local programming and free seasonal memberships for Nagog residents.

Fire Chief Arnhem and the applicant team explained the emergency‑access rationale: the reinforced‑turf surface is intended to preserve a low visual impact while allowing apparatus access, gates would use fire‑department locks, and snow removal and storage would avoid wetlands. The chief said the access road is intended primarily for rare life‑safety use, not regular traffic, but acknowledged circumstances could require access by multiple vehicles during events.

Board members debated possible conditions, including requiring the applicant to provide technical specifications for building light and sound transmission, a photometric plan, landscaping buffers (potentially determined after a spring site walk), a requirement that future occupancy of currently vacant office space trigger a permit amendment, and procedural language clarifying whether the applicant or any future owner must apply for amendments.

The board voted 3–2 to close public comment for now while directing staff to draft a decision with conditions and to request the applicant’s technical specifications (lighting and noise/sound transmission) for review; the board set a target of reviewing draft conditions at its Dec. 1 meeting. The closing vote did not finalize any permit; members said they wanted time to consider the technical information and to craft enforceable conditions if they proceed to a final decision.

Next steps: staff will include the applicant’s photometric and building‑specification materials in the packet, and the Select Board expects to review a draft decision with enumerated conditions at the next meeting. If the board approves any use of OPEB, zoning or permits that require Town Meeting action, staff will identify those steps separately.