Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Needham board reviews scaled‑back Kabad Center plan; conservation review and tree protection remain open
Summary
Design team for the 1195 Central Avenue Kabad Center presented a reduced footprint and lower building heights to eliminate a proposed easement and large retaining wall; the board did not vote and asked for civil peer‑review and Conservation Commission feedback on drainage and tree protection.
The Needham Design Review Board on April 6 reviewed a revised submission for 1195 Central Avenue, the Kabad Center, in which the applicant reduced building footprints and lowered finished floor heights to address neighbor and zoning concerns.
Kayla Sulva, counsel for the applicant, introduced architect Alan Westman, who told the board the team reduced the kabad and residence square footage, rearranged floor levels (a split second floor and a partial third floor) and moved occupant loads down to ground level to cut grading. "By rearranging the floor levels," Westman said, "we were able to reduce our grading quite a bit, eliminating this massive retaining wall," and lowered peak building heights from the previously shown ~43.6 feet to about 34.6 feet in the rear and roughly 30 feet in the front.
The changes removed the need to seek an easement on the northern neighbor’s property, Westman said. Materials (Jerusalem stone, nickelback siding, stucco and aluminum windows) remain similar to the prior submission; the landscape plan was revised toward native species. The team said civil/site drainage and grading plans are under peer review and that the applicant is scheduled to meet with the Conservation Commission later in April.
Board members focused questions on stormwater management, the feasibility of saving two existing trees that sit close to proposed paving edges, and the high water table and wetlands on the site. A board member noted the edge of paving appeared very close to a trunk and warned that despite intentions to protect trees, construction may threaten their survival. The applicant acknowledged those concerns and said tree protection and preconstruction measures would be included and modified if peer‑review or Conservation Commission comments require changes.
No formal DRB vote was taken on design approval; staff indicated the DRB would prepare an updated memo to the Planning Board documenting the DRB’s review and any outstanding comments so Planning can continue its review.
Next steps: the DRB will send comments to the Planning Board, the civil plans remain under peer review, and the Conservation Commission meeting later in April may require changes the applicant will circulate to DRB staff.
