Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Planning board approves 21‑unit Bedford Heritage Reserve cottage court with waivers and modified conditions
Loading...
Summary
The Bedford Planning Board granted conditional use and site plan approval for a 21‑unit cottage court at Lot 13‑72 after approving three waivers and modifying conditions to require utility easement sign‑offs before construction and to add roadway and pedestrian protections near the gatehouse.
The Bedford Planning Board on Feb. 9 approved a conditional use permit and final site plan for the Bedford Heritage Reserve, a 21‑unit cottage‑court housing development off Constitution Drive.
Jonathan Devine, the civil engineer for the applicant, told the board the project has been refined since it was continued from December: the plan now includes a 5‑foot sidewalk connection from Constitution Drive into the site, updated unit floor plans and garage access, and three waiver requests — recategorizing school impact fees to a townhouse rate, permitting gravel for an overflow visitor parking area under power lines, and allowing portions of the site circulation to be within 30 feet of the property line due to lot shape and topography.
Devine said the existing driveway was constructed for a commercial use and that the town’s land‑development regulations would require a 400‑foot sight distance for a commercial driveway, but that the driveway is an existing nonconforming feature and, as a residential driveway, the 200‑foot standard applies. To limit heavy‑vehicle turning movements, the applicant proposed signage restricting right turns for trucks leaving the site.
The board and staff focused much of their discussion on pedestrian safety along the short, steep causeway into the development. Devine said four engineering criteria — low traffic volumes, a gated entrance that calms traffic, additional pedestrian‑ahead signing, and sight‑distance measures — supported a design that relies on a striped shared lane rather than a full continuous curb sidewalk through the constrained segment. Department of Public Works staff recommended widening the pavement by 2 to 4 feet if a full sidewalk is not feasible; the applicant agreed to add 2 feet to the roadway in the constrained segment and to provide enhanced delineation at the gatehouse area.
Another central issue was transmission‑line infrastructure: reviewer comments and board members noted that guy anchors or grounding poles within a 350‑foot transmission easement overlap parts of the proposed roadway, garden and parking area. The board and staff said the town needs a formal sign‑off from the utility/easement holder for any work inside the easement; the applicant asked that that joint‑use agreement be provided prior to construction (rather than prior to plan signature) to preserve marketability while agreeing that construction cannot proceed without the required utility approvals.
After public comment from a nearby resident who urged the board to help the project succeed and avoid returning the site to older, larger office proposals, the planning board voted to grant the three waivers and then to approve the conditional use permit and site plan. The board’s motion included these explicit changes to staff conditions: require the joint‑use agreement or equivalent approval from the utility prior to construction (instead of prior to plan signature), add DPW approval for driveway alterations, and modify the sidewalk/roadway condition to add 2 feet to the roadway in the constrained station and to require sidewalk design details (striping, curbing, or a grass panel) near the gatehouse. The approval was granted by voice vote; individual roll‑call tallies are not recorded in the transcript.
What happens next: the approval is subject to precedent conditions to be fulfilled within one year and as noted in the staff memo; the applicant and town staff will finalize the agreed wording of those conditions and the applicant must obtain required easement/utility agreements before any construction work that affects the utility easement.
Quotes from the meeting included the applicant’s engineer, Jonathan Devine: “Here tonight, we are asking for conditional approval,” and public commenter Chris Shapley: “I would plead…to do what you can to get this project to work so we don’t go back to the office building walls.”
Speakers quoted and paraphrased in this article are drawn from the meeting record and include Hal Newberry (chair), Jonathan Devine (applicant engineer, TF Rands Group), Becky (planning director), Tom Bridal (developer/participant), and Chris Shapley (public commenter).
