Neighbors press Scituate board over stormwater, wetlands and traffic at 24-unit 40B hearing

Scituate — The Scituate Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday opened a public hearing on a comprehensive permit application from First Parish Village LLC to build 24 condominium units at 210, 214 and 218 First Parish Road, 25% of which the applicant says will be restricted to low- and moderate‑income households.

Chair Chris Cara introduced the application, which the applicant said is before the board under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B and 760 CMR 56 after receiving a project‑eligibility letter from MassHousing in August 2024. Attorney Michael Shaughnessy, representing the applicant, told the board the development meets three jurisdictional requirements for a 40B filing: a limited‑dividend regulatory agreement, a MassHousing project‑eligibility letter and a purchase‑and‑sale agreement for site control.

The applicant proposes four residential buildings on about 2.54 acres with two eight‑unit buildings and two four‑unit buildings for a total of 24 units. Engineer Bob Rigo of Riverhawk Environmental described the design as having 37 parking spaces (including two accessible spaces), a single 24‑foot driveway entrance, permeable pavement and subsurface infiltration areas intended to reduce post‑development runoff and protect adjacent wetlands. Rigo said the project’s stormwater calculations and Title 5 septic design have been submitted and will undergo peer review.

"We designed it so we reduce the post‑development runoff rates," Rigo said, adding that porous pavement and permeable pavers are proposed for the front portion of the site and roof runoff will be directed to subsurface infiltration areas.

Neighbors and town officials immediately focused on hydrology, flood risk and missing or incomplete documentation. Town Planner Karen Joseph asked that the landscaping plan be prepared and stamped by a landscape architect, requested more current percolation (perk) test data for the site and questioned porous‑pavement maintenance requirements. Building Commissioner Clark Brewer urged additional screening and said the placement of buildings close to the road is surprising for the neighborhood.

Several abutters described longstanding wet conditions on and downhill from the site and urged the board to require independent technical review. Kenneth Jacobson (169 First Parish Road), a residential‑mortgage capital‑markets professional who described the developer’s stormwater and traffic submissions as incomplete, asked the board to keep the town’s stormwater bylaw protections in place and to require an independent peer review of the stormwater and traffic analyses before waiving local standards.

"I'm not here to argue against housing broadly," Jacobson said. "I'm asking to do exactly what the law empowers you to do: protect the health, the safety and the environment of people who already live here, and refuse to waive those protections on the strength of an incomplete application."

Other residents said the site historically functions as a retention area, cited photographs and first‑hand observations of standing water, and warned that adding rooftops and pavement could push runoff onto neighboring properties. Several speakers also questioned whether 37 parking spaces will be adequate for 24 units that include larger three‑bedroom units, and whether traffic counts fully address morning school traffic and Greenbush train crossings.

In response, the applicant and the board emphasized that MassHousing and state standards apply to 40B projects and that the town will engage an outside engineering peer reviewer to evaluate the stormwater, septic and traffic work. Chair Cara said the town expects a traffic study draft by the end of the week and that the peer review process will take several weeks.

The board voted to continue the public hearing to Monday, Aug. 3 at 7:00 p.m. for further review; members said the peer review report and the finalized traffic study will be considered at a future session.

What’s next: The town will retain an outside engineering firm to perform a peer review of the stormwater and related technical materials; the board set the continued public hearing date and requested that the applicant provide the outstanding traffic report and updated test‑pit/percolation data. If the board later considers waivers to local bylaws, it may do so only after reviewing peer‑review findings and any revisions to plans.

Authorities and standards cited in the hearing include Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, 760 CMR 56 (MassHousing rules), and Title 5 (310 CMR 15) for onsite wastewater systems. The board said it will post peer‑review findings and updated materials for public review before the next hearing.

The hearing was continued to Aug. 3 at 7 p.m.; no final vote on the application was taken.