Town official backs 809 Sandwich Road LIP; ZBA presses developer on safety, setbacks and utilities

Assistant town manager Peter Johnson told the Zoning Board of Appeals the town’s housing working group and select board reviewed and endorsed the 809 Sandwich Road application as a Local Initiative Program (LIP) submission, noting the project had been negotiated to provide a mix of deed‑restricted units across income bands. Johnson said the working group moved the developer from an initial ownership plan to rental housing and described the regional housing shortage as the rationale for the town’s support. He urged the board "not to attempt to reduce the number of units proposed," and said the select board’s endorsement was unanimous.

The applicant, Jack Dolly of Northland Residential, and his engineering team presented site plans describing a 36‑unit development on the existing cleared lot, preservation of the existing curb cut with a slightly widened access, guest parking, community amenities and stormwater basins. The civil consultant said the design includes dead‑end streets with hammerheads and a turnaround area that, on paper, accommodates fire apparatus.

At length the ZBA focused on safety and engineering details. Board members repeatedly raised sight‑distance and curb‑cut concerns for high‑speed traffic on Sandwich Road, argued the front buildings’ roughly 23‑ft setbacks are well inside the town's preferred 35‑ft setback, and asked whether alternate building types (triplexes, fourplexes) were considered to push units farther from the road. One member told the applicant: "Safety is always an issue for me," and said a shared driveway or interconnection with the neighboring parcel would materially improve safety; the applicant replied their work must be limited to the parcel the developer controls.

The board pressed for technical confirmation on several outstanding items: peak‑hour domestic water demand and available fire flow at the nearest hydrant, documented compliance with 527 CMR turnaround and dead‑end access standards, retaining‑wall structural calcs, definitive stormwater/drainage calculations and a site‑specific snow storage/removal plan. The applicant acknowledged some items remain outstanding and said they will supply calculations, coordinate with DPW and the utility, and identify snow‑storage areas on revised plans.

Multiple abutters raised neighborhood concerns about traffic and safety, school‑bus access, noise from adjacent roads, and whether the developer had engaged abutters early in the process. One resident urged a buffer of evergreen trees and a 10‑ft fence along a barn property. The board’s peer reviewer summarized a June 5 letter echoing many of these items: waivers for setbacks and lot coverage, the need for a street‑opening permit for water‑main work in the right‑of‑way, clarifications on septic nitrification and board‑of‑health approvals, and minor stormwater comments.

Next steps: the ZBA made a procedural motion to continue this application and to focus upcoming hearings on engineering and traffic. The board specifically requested consolidated, revised plans with retaining‑wall calculations, sight‑distance computations, a storage/snow‑management plan and documented confirmation of fire‑flow and water‑supply capacity. The board also signaled it will schedule a traffic‑focused meeting and obtain peer review comments before taking a final vote.

The article is based on the public hearing record and statements made by Peter Johnson, Jack Dolly, the project engineers and ZBA members during the hearing.