Planning board recommends redline edits to DFY26‑014, sending CBD zoning changes back to council

Bridgewater — The planning board, meeting jointly with the Council Economic Development (CED) committee on June 24, recommended sending a redline version of ordinance DFY26‑014 back to the town council with edits that change downtown (CBD) form‑based code standards and clarify review procedures.

Chair Patrick Driscoll opened the public hearing on DFY26‑014 and reviewed staff redlines prepared by town planner Shane O'Brien. Driscoll said the board had corrected formatting errors and made substantive adjustments including lowering the maximum height to 3.5 stories, removing a four‑story allowance, and restoring certain review steps that had been exempted. "We exempted CBDR from site plan review. So we're just removing that exemption. So these projects would come back to the planning board now where they didn't before," Driscoll said.

Why it matters: the changes narrow building massing and increase planning board oversight for projects in the downtown districts. That could affect the scale and timing of proposed developments, how ground floors are used, and the review obligations for applicants.

Key changes and clarifications - Ground‑floor activation: The boards adopted new language requiring that, for new construction, ground floors be designed to accommodate active commercial uses with a minimum 15‑foot floor‑to‑ceiling height and a required percentage of active uses. As presented, "commercial, retail, restaurant uses must occupy at least 80% of the gross floor area of the ground floor," Driscoll said; other sections discussed 70% thresholds for specific frontage types. The remaining ground‑floor area may be used for accessory functions such as elevators or vestibules.

- Height and massing: The redline replaces a four‑story maximum with a 3.5‑story standard in the affected CBD districts and limits building footprint to 6,000 square feet while removing allowance for larger 'lodge' buildings in rear areas.

- Parking easements and deed restrictions: The board clarified that off‑site parking required as part of approvals should be secured with a deed restriction or easement that "runs with the land" and be recorded prior to endorsement or occupancy, and that staff will require recorded language in the decision letter.

- Site‑plan review restored for CBDR: The group proposed deleting the CBDR exemption from site‑plan review so CBDR projects will return to the planning board rather than bypass that review stage.

- Process timing and referral packaging: The ordinance language retained a 30‑day target for the planning board to render and file a decision following the opening of the public hearing, with explicit allowance for agreed extensions. Members debated 30 versus 45 days; some worried 30 calendar days could be short, while others noted the clock counts from the opening of the hearing and can accommodate multiple meetings. The board agreed staff should clean up the redline and supply a concise summary of the edits to send to council; the full redline will be available for council review and advertising.

Public comment and procedural notes Resident Janet Hansen of Pleasant Street urged the boards to post the full packet and redline online and recommended a 45‑day decision window to avoid rushing decisions. "I would have found it very helpful. It should have been attached to the agenda," she said, adding that she preferred allowing more time for review.

Staff and members also discussed water‑impact reviews. Planner Shane O'Brien said water and sewer connections are handled by the water/sewer department and DPW and that the planning board conditions approvals when a favorable recommendation is pending. Board and council members said a separate townwide rule in the works would route water‑impact information to the town manager and council for larger projects.

Votes and next steps The planning board closed its portion of the public hearing and then voted to recommend ordinance DFY‑26‑014 to the council with the edits discussed and to provide a cleaned summary plus the redline for the council packet; the council will re‑advertise the ordinance for a future council hearing (staff cited a likely July 14 council packet date). Board members asked staff to prepare a clean version for advertising and to circulate the materials to both committees in advance.

The board's recommendation is advisory; the council will consider the ordinance and the boards' edits during its next advertised public hearing. Staff said they will post the summary and cleaned redline to the planning application/zoning amendment section of the town website.

Sources: Statements from Chair Patrick Driscoll, town planner Shane O'Brien, CED committee chair Mary Kenny Hunt, and public commenter Janet Hansen during the June 24 joint public hearing on DFY26‑014. The planning board voted to close the public hearing and to recommend the redline edits to council.