Council opens public hearing on 90‑unit Ames Village condominium proposal; matter sent to Urban Affairs

Attorney Brian Fogg, representing Marlborough Northborough Land Realty Trust (an affiliate of the Gutierrez Company), presented a special‑permit application to build two ownership condominium buildings totaling 90 units on an 11‑acre site at the corner of Ames and Forest Streets in the newly adopted Eames Village Overlay District. The public hearing opened March 9, 2026.

Fogg said the project would preserve roughly half the site as open space (about 5.87 acres), meet or exceed overlay dimensional controls, and provide 1.6 parking spaces per unit including 90 garage spaces under the buildings. He described the community as "age‑targeted," intended for empty‑nesters and ownership rather than rental product, and projected the city would receive "over half a million dollars in net revenue" annually compared with a by‑right single‑family development.

Several neighbors spoke in favor and asked questions. Fred Meyer, who lives adjacent to the site, said he "does not mind it" but prefers natural open space in his backyard. Jacob Ratliff, a nearby resident, said he supported the design but asked whether the city has conducted a comprehensive, cumulative traffic study for multiple projects. Fogg said traffic work was done by MDM Transportation and accounts for peak periods when school is in session; he said the city typically conducts project‑specific traffic reviews and that site plan review will scrutinize construction and post‑construction stormwater mitigation.

Residents raised concerns about runoff and construction‑phase erosion. Dayna McAfee said previous nearby construction caused excessive runoff that damaged in‑yard filtration equipment; Fogg replied that current stormwater standards require retention on site and that construction controls will be reviewed by city departments during site plan review.

Several speakers questioned the project's "age‑targeted" description and whether a deed‑restricted 55+ community would be required; Fogg said an over‑55 deed restriction can create difficulties for buyers and sellers, so the product is marketed and designed for older homeowners but is not deed‑restricted to 55+. He estimated unit prices in the $500,000–$600,000 range.

Valerie Simolis, who lives on McKay Drive, voiced broader opposition and asked "Is there anything that would stop it?" expressing concerns about nighttime lighting, noise, wildlife displacement, and the perception that hearings are a formality. The presiding official answered that a special permit requires eight affirmative council votes to be approved and described available light‑mitigation strategies and noise ordinances.

Councilors asked the applicant about outreach, parking allocation and ownership of garage spaces, likely school impacts, condo fees (not yet estimated), and whether the by‑right alternative of roughly 22 single‑family lots would yield more children. Councilors emphasized remaining questions on fiscal and infrastructure impacts and directed the matter to the Urban Affairs Committee for more detailed review and drafting of special‑permit language.

The council closed the public‑hearing portion of the item and placed the application formally in Urban Affairs for further consideration and site plan follow‑up.