Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision And Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press Planning Board for stronger tree, drainage and buffer protections at 18 Highland subdivision; board continues the application
Summary
The Planning Board continued the Caswell Development special-permit and subdivision application for 18 Highland Avenue after residents urged legally binding tree-preservation plans, larger no‑build buffers, clearer stormwater protections and house footprint limits; the board asked staff to clarify plan callouts and to return in two weeks.
The Planning Board continued consideration of Caswell Development’s subdivision and special‑permit application for 18 Highland Avenue after an extended presentation by the applicant team and sustained public comment from neighbors.
Millennium Engineering’s Steve Stewart (S8) described a number of concessions made to address prior board and neighborhood concerns: rear setbacks were increased to 35 feet for multiple lots, side setbacks were widened in places (including up to 25 feet at one edge), retaining walls were removed from grading plans, and the developer reduced maximum building coverage from 25% to 20%. The applicant said the plan will add street trees and a 10-foot green buffer as a no‑build perimeter feature and that many mature trees will be preserved where possible.
Neighbors and abutters urged stronger, enforceable protection measures. Matt Nash (S9) asked the board to require “a tree preservation plan by a certified arborist, legally binding” with critical-root‑zone protection and penalties for violations. Several residents described existing drainage issues downhill from the site and requested that the board memorialize protections during construction and in perpetuity rather than only as a permit condition. One speaker asked for house‑footprint diagrams so homeowners can visualize building scale overlooking their yards.
Board and staff discussion focused on where protections appear on the plan versus in recorded documents. Staff (S2) recommended putting callouts and any necessary restrictive language directly on the final plan and capturing other commitments in the decision’s written conditions. The board voted to continue the special‑permit and subdivision application for two weeks so the applicant can submit revised plans and staff can draft clearer condition language.
Next steps: the applicant will supply revised plans and clearer plan callouts, including tree‑protection and no‑build buffer labeling, and the board will consider a decision (or additional conditions) at the next scheduled meeting.
