Board continues hearing on 35 West Prescott subdivision after debate over waivers, drainage and curb design

The Planning Board continued the public hearing on PB2604 — the definitive subdivision and stormwater management plan for 35 West Prescott Street — to Monday, June 15 at 7 p.m. after questioning from board members about multiple waiver requests and site details.

Jeffrey Brown, the applicant’s representative, told the board the plan splits a 3.619‑acre parcel and shifts the A & R frontage to a proposed Violet Way (a 50‑ft right of way). To avoid creating a zoning nonconformity for the nearby house at 31 West Prescott, Brown said the team added “a 1‑foot strip of land (about 219 square feet) between the new roadway and the adjacent property” that the developer hopes the neighbor will accept or that would otherwise become part of Lot 4.

Brown described the engineering design and waivers the applicant is seeking, including allowing a sidewalk on only one side of the private road, using a Cape Cod (asphalt) berm instead of granite curbing, permitting HDPE drainage pipe in place of reinforced concrete pipe, and reducing cul‑de‑sac dimensions to match previous private‑road approvals. He also noted the historical commission’s frontage requirement for a granite wall (partly built), a recorded 3‑ft drainage easement that will be expanded to a 20‑ft easement at subdivision, and an 8‑inch water main connection across the site.

Board members pressed for detail on several fronts. One member asked for a clear mapping of planning‑board conditions on the drawings and flagged inconsistent labeling where some sheets read “public road” and others “private road.” Another asked whether the railroad had been notified about a riprap/overflow emergency outfall; staff said the railroad had been provided notice of the hearing and would receive the decision.

The curbing waiver drew particular debate. A board member said granite curbing requires less maintenance and performs better over time; Brown responded that a Cape Cod berm is far less expensive to install and simpler to repair and still creates a functional gutter line. “I disagree straight up that it’s a better product,” Brown said, arguing that granite curbing can crack, require more complex repairs and contribute material that ultimately reaches stormwater. The board signaled reluctance to grant that waiver without further evidence and expense comparisons.

Members also requested the fire department’s turning‑radius analysis before approving a cul‑de‑sac waiver. Brown said he had submitted a turning‑radius plan to the fire department and offered to provide the board with the department’s response; several members said they needed that confirmation in writing before acting on the geometry waiver.

Neighbors’ potential impacts from a proposed infiltration basin sited less than 30 feet from an abutting multifamily parcel were discussed at length. Brown and engineering staff said the soils in the area are highly permeable, described the basin as a dry infiltration basin with no standing water except briefly after storms, and said their calculations show a 100‑year storm flow of 1.81 cubic feet per second (CFS), which the team said the basin can contain. A board member nonetheless asked that the abutter be informed and that the board consider the proximity carefully before granting a setback waiver.

Next steps: the board voted to continue PB2604 to the June 15 meeting and asked the applicant to deliver complete waivers justification, the fire department’s turning‑radius sign‑off or analysis, and comparative impervious‑area or drainage impact figures that quantify tradeoffs for the waivers under consideration.

Votes and formal actions recorded at the meeting included multiple unanimous voice approvals of housekeeping items and a motion to continue PB2604 to June 15.