Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board backs 72 Ledgewood massing but declines to act on cut-and-fill without data
Summary
The Winchester Planning Board recommended favorable action on the proposed house size, massing and siting for 72 Ledgewood but said it could not evaluate the cut-and-fill impacts because the applicant did not provide fill-depth calculations. The board will forward its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Winchester Planning Board voted to recommend favorable action on the massing, location and design of a proposed single-family home at 72 Ledgewood, but held off on any recommendation about the project’s cut-and-fill and stormwater impacts until the applicant provides detailed fill calculations.
The applicant’s engineer, David Romero, described plans to build a single-family residence on an undeveloped, wooded lot and said the project will include infiltration stone trenches and other stormwater measures intended to capture runoff onsite. Taylor Herman, the town planner, said the submission triggered site-plan review because the proposed house is larger than 5,000 square feet and the grading will exceed the bylaws’ thresholds. Builders told the board that trees on the lot had already been removed after consulting the building inspector and the Conservation Commission.
The board’s first motion recommended favorable action on the building’s massing and location, citing that the proposed scale is consistent with nearby properties. That motion passed unanimously. A second motion—prompted by several members’ concern that the record lacked quantitative data on how much cut and fill the work would require—declined to take action on the grading question until the applicant supplies calculations showing the volume and maximum depth of fill; that motion also passed unanimously. The board noted the Zoning Board of Appeals will make the final determination and that the planning board’s recommendation will be included in the ZBA packet.
Applicants and staff agreed to provide the requested fill-depth numbers to planning staff as soon as possible so the planning board can update its recommendation if needed before the ZBA hearing. The board also discussed landscaping and proposed retaining walls, noting retaining walls up to about 4 feet where needed and a planting plan to partially replace removed trees.
The board’s stance leaves the ZBA with the full discretion to act on variances or special permits related to grade changes and stormwater; the planning board emphasized its role as an advisory body and the expectation that the ZBA will consider the additional engineering data when it meets.
