Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Developer outlines 388‑unit Turnpike Road project; board presses on height, traffic and sewer

Westborough Select Board · November 5, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Post Road Residential presented plans for two parcels at 171 Milk/222 Turnpike Road totaling 388 rental units. Select Board members welcomed the investment but requested peer review of traffic analysis, clarity on sewer allotment and school impacts, and questioned a requested five‑story height and several waiver requests.

A developer seeking to build two multifamily complexes along Turnpike Road told the Westborough Select Board on Nov. 4 that the proposed project would be phased across two parcels and deliver 388 rental units, but board members pressed for additional data on traffic, sewer allotment, student impacts and requested design details before the matter advances.

Tom Montelli of Post Road Residential described a north parcel with 206 units and a south parcel with 182 units and said the project would emphasize smaller units — studios and one‑bedrooms — with institutional management. "Tax revenue when the project, meaning both the north and the south parcel are complete, is estimated to be 20 23 times in place taxes," Montelli told the board, and he argued stormwater mitigation and new water/sewer connection fees would deliver infrastructure benefits.

Despite those fiscal claims, board members repeatedly raised safety and infrastructure questions. Several members said a proposed Route 9 curb cut required careful coordination with MassDOT because the site lies on a grade and sight distances are constrained; others asked for a third‑party peer review of the traffic study. One member asked directly about sewer capacity, noting his liaison role to the wastewater treatment plant: the board asked staff to report the current allotment and the project delta. Montelli said the project had been included in an AECOM sewer projection and estimated the development would be a small fraction of the town’s projected surplus; he also said peer review of traffic was in process.

Members pressed Montelli on a request for five stories on the north parcel. Montelli said the extra story was necessary to close an economic feasibility gap and that the design would keep the structure under the 60‑foot height limit while addressing grade changes to reduce perceived massing. He also described waiver requests tied to open space (seeking a reduction to about 30% open space by accumulating points tied to sustainability measures), parking (developer proposes roughly 1.4 spaces per unit based on market precedent) and other standards.

The board asked that the planning board and staff ensure that any changes the project requires to easements, curb cuts or capital planning are routed back to the Select Board, and members requested that the developer provide renderings, the peer‑review traffic analysis and clarified sewer numbers before the December site‑plan public hearing. Montelli committed to provide those materials and to work with town engineers and MassDOT on access and stormwater design.

Next steps: the item will proceed through the Planning Board’s site‑plan review and the developer will appear at a public hearing in December; the Select Board’s requests for peer review and allotment data will be used as follow‑up checklist items for staff and the planning process.