Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Site plan review panel asks DPW meeting, delays Aurora LLC’s 154 Smith Blvd. apartment proposal

Site Plan Review Technical Advisory Committee · January 6, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Site Plan Review Technical Advisory Committee paused review of Aurora LLC’s proposal for three six‑story apartment buildings at 154 Smith Boulevard after DPW raised extensive drainage and roadway concerns; the applicant agreed to a focused work session to resolve technical comments before resubmitting.

The Site Plan Review Technical Advisory Committee on Jan. 6, 2026 agreed to postpone formal action on Aurora LLC’s proposal for three six‑story multifamily buildings at 154 Smith Boulevard and to schedule a detailed work session with Public Works to resolve drainage and roadway comments.

Applicant representatives introduced themselves and outlined the project, including parking, driveway access and reconstruction of Portsmouth Boulevard. Peter Habib, architect with Procon, described a central fire pump room in Building B that feeds buildings A and C and said each building will have separate domestic booster pumps for everyday needs. An applicant representative for Time Bond said the team was willing to expand the pedestrian alley to the required 15‑foot minimum and to add fire‑lane markings on the plan set.

DPW staff told the committee they had compiled extensive comments — largely road and drainage related — that the applicant had not yet fully addressed and requested a sit‑down meeting before the applicant’s next submission. “We have a substantial amount of … drainage and road related issues. Some of it could be addressed under stipulations, but we’d like an open dialogue with the applicant,” the DPW staff said. DPW also flagged questions about an emergency access gate previously discussed and whether a generator would serve the fire pump.

Committee members agreed that the building design itself raised no major program concerns but that several technical items required coordinating with DPW. The committee closed the public comment period and approved a motion to continue the item and to schedule a DPW‑applicant work session to address the outstanding comments.

Next steps: the applicant will meet with DPW to resolve drainage and roadway comments, then return with revised plans. No approvals or permit decisions were made at Tuesday’s meeting.