Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board continues review of 10 Plain Street megaproject after fiscal, stormwater and traffic studies
Summary
The Braintree Planning Board continued its review of a proposed $230 million redevelopment at 10 Plain Street — a 752-unit MBTA-zoned apartment project — after peer reviewers flagged school, stormwater and traffic issues; the board set a continuation for Dec. 9 to allow further analysis and MBTA coordination.
The Braintree Planning Board on Nov. 12 continued a high-profile public hearing on a proposed $230 million redevelopment at 10 Plain Street, telling the developer and peer reviewers to return on Dec. 9 with additional analyses on floodplain elevations, stormwater modeling and a rail-crossing diagnostic review.
The project would convert a large former manufacturing site into market-rate and affordable rental housing across two phases (Phase 1: 427 units; Phase 2: 325 units; total about 752 units). The developer and its consultants presented revised stormwater designs, traffic analyses and architectural updates; independent reviewers described a net positive fiscal outcome for the town but noted several areas that need further documentation.
Why it matters: independent fiscal reviewer Carl Seidman, retained by the town, said the project is likely to generate a net positive fiscal contribution but estimated a lower net range than the developer: "I estimate a net fiscal impact somewhere between 733,000 and just under 1,200,000," he said. Seidman also cited significant property-tax revenue potential (gross property-tax revenue estimated near $2.8–$3.0 million) but noted net figures depend on market performance and offsets for displaced revenue.
Board members pressed the project team on school, police and special-education costs. Seidman said the development could add roughly 117 school-age children to the system — an estimate the board heard broken down as 47 elementary, 33 middle and 37 high-school students — and that the elementary schools on the south side are already at capacity. He told the board the town would likely need about eight elementary teachers and a dedicated bus, adding roughly $68,000 to recurring costs; special-education costs were estimated separately at about $45,000 per student on average.
Stormwater and floodplain issues were a central part of the hearing. Eric Dias, the town's peer reviewer for stormwater, said additional test pits and a revised hydrologic model had resolved the largest technical concern — groundwater mounding — by taking a conservative approach: "Removing infiltration completely is a conservative approach," he said, adding that the revised model still shows reduced peak discharge compared with existing conditions. Dias said a pending updated floodplain elevation (following remediation and dam removal work) must be finalized; the board could either wait for the formal hydraulic report or condition approval on receipt of the final elevation and compensatory-storage compliance.
The applicant's civil team said it has engaged an outside hydraulic consultant (SLR) and has added five subsurface infiltration systems with roughly 45,000 cubic feet of storage to reduce peak flows and meet the town's local phosphorus-removal requirement.
Traffic peer review also drew detailed discussion. Robert Michaud of MDM, who led the traffic review, said Phase 1 operations can rely on the Plain Street driveway with typical left‑turn queues of about two vehicles; when Phase 2 is built, the project anticipates opening a second driveway on John Mahar Highway. Michaud said peer reviewers and the project team had conducted sensitivity testing and that monitoring and a construction management plan should be conditions of approval. A separate MBTA diagnostic-team review of rail crossings is scheduled for mid‑December; MBTA comments to date favor emergency‑only use of the Hancock rail crossing rather than general traffic access.
Community reaction was mixed and at times sharply critical. Resident Robert Tomer told the board, "We're building apartments. They're not homes," and urged the board to demand more detailed, verifiable numbers on school and service impacts before committing.
Next steps: The board voted to continue the hearing to Dec. 9 to allow the applicant to supply the pending floodplain study, the MBTA DTR findings, and any remaining peer-review clarifications. The board’s continuation preserves options for additional conditions or changes if the outstanding studies require design modifications.
