Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Access Wetlands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board defers decision on 34 Central Street modification after conservation and access concerns
Summary
The board continued consideration of a modification for a 44‑unit development at 34 Central Street after hearing that the conservation commission excluded a proposed access road from its order of conditions and that raising the roadway profile to meet stream‑crossing standards would increase wetland impacts; the board asked staff to pursue additional peer review and placed the applicant on a near‑term future agenda.
The Planning Board continued deliberation on a requested modification for the Bfield Heights development at 34 Central Street on June 17 after lengthy technical and legal discussion about a proposed road/egress across a wetland and stream crossing.
Applicant representatives, including Christian (project engineer), outlined the work the project has completed and the remaining question about an exit/egress lane that would cross a wetland. Christian said prior conservation hearings produced mitigation for several buffer areas but that the specific stream crossing raised a design problem: "to meet the stream crossing we would have had to elevate the road which would have increased our actual physical wetland impact area," he told the board.
Board counsel Jay Tuller framed the board's review in three steps: (1) determine whether the applicant demonstrated best efforts to avoid the impact, (2) if the board accepts that burden, decide whether to accept the proposed access as submitted or to impose additional conditions, and (3) if changes are required, consider a limited peer review focused on that condition. Tuller described the applicable standard as a reasonableness or "best efforts" inquiry rather than a bright‑line test.
Members of the conservation commission were referenced during the discussion; board members said the conservation commission ultimately excluded the access road from its order of conditions after peer review raised concerns that raising the road profile and adding drainage treatment for the last 100 feet would create larger wetland impacts. Christian said he had submitted the full crossing design to the town's reviewer, Joe Serwatka, and that Serwatka's memo concurred that the proposed modifications would expand wetland impacts. Christian also disputed that the culvert capacity was inadequate, saying the culvert "was not nearly full" even in the hundred‑year storm model.
Several planning board members voiced continuing concern about single‑access layouts, emergency access and sight distance. Jay and board members agreed the board was entitled to seek additional expert input if members believed alternative engineering approaches had not been fully explored. Pete Pos summed up the board's concern: he wanted to "trust but verify" whether other engineering solutions had been considered before the town lowered its standards.
After discussion, the board did not approve the modification. Members asked staff to collect additional technical information and to identify potential peer‑review resources; the applicant will be placed on a future agenda (the chair said a target of "a couple weeks") to return with any additional analysis and to allow the board time to seek outside consultation. The board explicitly declined public comment during this non‑public‑hearing procedural continuation and then adjourned the meeting.
No formal amendment to the original approval was made at the meeting; the board's next action will follow the additional review and the applicant's return to the agenda.
