Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 29 York Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears objections to after‑the‑fact changes at 29 York St; straw polls favor moving buildings and keeping central dumpster
Summary
At a public hearing on Feb. 9, the Planning Board heard contested amendments to the 29 York Street subdivision (buffer reduction, unit enlargement, relocation of units, and switch from a central dumpster to individual totes). The board signaled support for moving two units and keeping the original centralized dumpster plan and requested as‑builts and stormwater verification; no final votes were taken.
The Planning Board held a public hearing Feb. 9 on multiple after‑the‑fact amendments to the approved 29 York Street subdivision and indicated agreement with town staff that several changes need clearer documentation before formal approval.
Town attorney Ben McCall said the applicant submitted requests to convert a central dumpster to individual trash totes, to reduce the separation between some units, and to reflect an enlargement and altered placement of unit 14 that currently encroaches on a required 50‑foot landscape buffer. Applicant counsel Gray Louis argued that the 10‑foot green perimeter strip standard should control and that the 50‑foot buffer could therefore be reduced; the applicant alternatively requested the board lower the buffer to 44 feet.
Neighbors and board members raised concerns about sanitation, snow removal and circulation if 50 individual totes are used; Public Works advised the project did not meet the municipal curbside collection standard and would not drop off 50 totes. Several board members said the originally approved single consolidated dumpster is preferable and that any change should be supported by an operational plan demonstrating safe, sanitary, and maintainable service.
Town Engineer Chris Osterrieder and multiple board members also emphasized that the as‑built site and stormwater facilities differ from the approved plans and requested an as‑built drawing to confirm the detention pond and other stormwater infrastructure were constructed as designed. The board said it was open to relocation of units 1 and 2 provided the stormwater issues and as‑builts are verified.
The chair conducted straw polls: members generally supported moving units 1 and 2 (conditional on stormwater/as‑built verification), opposed the tote plan in favor of the central dumpster absent further evidence, and did not reach a majority in favor of reducing the 50‑foot buffer for unit 14 (three opposed, two for or undecided). Attorney McCall advised the board that formal findings will be required and that the board may vote on each requested amendment separately at a subsequent meeting. The matter was continued to Feb. 23 for deliberation and potential final action within the statutory timeframe.
