The Town of Concord Planning Board on Dec. 17 adopted its MBTA-community site plan rules and regulations, approving the document as amended after a public hearing and limited edits.

Board members spent the bulk of the hour refining language and clarifying intent. Planning Board member Linda Miller raised concerns that references to “design guidelines” in section 5.2 could be confused with the separate section 5.8, which the board agreed to relabel to avoid ambiguity: "Site design is not the same as design guidelines," Miller said. Staff confirmed the board had not previously committed to adopting binding design guidelines and that keeping the option to adopt guidance in the future seemed prudent.

The board also debated landscaping and screening rules. Miller asked whether the requirement for a landscaped buffer adjacent to public sidewalks (section 5.4.g) should specify width or depth; members opted to clarify the language so the minimum six-foot buffer is described by depth to avoid misreadings. On rooftop terraces and balconies, several members cautioned that mandatory screening for odors or noise would be impractical and could treat MBTA communities differently from other multifamily structures; the board kept mechanical-equipment screening requirements but declined to extend strict screening to terraces and balconies at this time.

Staff presented written comments from local developer Matt Sepe and a public comment from Carol Savoy; a member of the public, Azure Atias of 29 Lexington Road, spoke in favor of the draft, saying it "seems like a pretty clear roadmap" for thoughtful development. Elizabeth (staff) summarized Sepe’s four points, including that MBTA zoning and the draft rules do not obligate the town to add public infrastructure and that sustainability language does not supersede the town’s separate fossil-fuel-free general bylaw.

After discussion the board voted to close the public hearing and then voted, by roll call, to adopt the MBTA-community site plan rules and regulations as amended (formatting and edits discussed during the session). The board agreed to add an acknowledgement in the final document thanking Ennis Associates and Emily Ennis for assistance preparing the draft. The finalized regulations will be dated and published as the board’s adopted rules.

The board did not schedule additional public hearings to adopt the rules because staff advised that state MBTA-community requirements do not mandate a separate public hearing for initial adoption; members removed a proposed amendment that would have required hearings for any future change if that requirement would create a procedural conflict with state review.

The board’s action completes the Planning Board’s formal adoption step; staff will publish the adopted rules and file the finalized document with the date and the agreed acknowledgement to the consultant.

The board moved on to other agenda items following the vote.