Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Riverfront Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press commission to reject or scrutinize L Street duplex and group‑home plans; hearings continued
Summary
Large turnout opposed two separate riverfront development proposals at 309 and 303 L Street, citing stormwater, buffer impacts and traffic. Developers were given deadlines to supply stormwater plans and riverfront checklists; both hearings were continued to June 10 after divisive roll‑call votes.
Two contentious riverfront development proposals drew sustained neighborhood opposition at the Peabody Conservation Commission’s May 6 meeting and were continued to the commission’s June 10 session.
The first matter, a Notice of Intent for 309 L Street presented by attorney John Kelty, would construct two duplexes, driveways and related utilities adjacent to bordering vegetated wetlands. Kelty asked to continue the hearing to June 10; commissioners and staff repeatedly asked for a stormwater management plan, a completed riverfront redevelopment checklist and plan revisions showing conservancy‑district lines.
Multiple neighbors said they had collected more than 70 petition signatures opposing the subdivision and raising flood, stormwater and habitat concerns. “They will definitely damage the critical wetland buffer zone and wildlife habitat,” said public commenter Teras Cuchareno, who read the petition into the record. Commissioners warned that a proposal of five units triggers stormwater standards and must show compliance with local ordinances (staff cited city code sections governing riverfront redevelopment and stormwater).
A related Notice of Intent for 303 L Street, which proposes paved parking, retaining walls and stormwater work for a group residence, also drew residents’ objections about runoff, lighting and density. Neighbors urged the commission to deny continuances if applicants repeatedly fail to provide required materials; commissioners balanced that concern with a desire to allow applicants to produce the requested engineering studies.
Both hearings were continued to June 10. The roll‑call votes on continuances were split (4–3) in each case; commissioners voting no cited concerns about insufficient documentation to proceed without the full stormwater and riverfront analyses.
