Marlborough committee advances change to allow up to 400 homes at Results Way campus

The Marlborough City Urban Affairs & Housing Committee on May 27 voted to report out a zoning amendment that would increase the residential cap in the Results Way mixed‑use overlay Subdistrict 2 from 100 dwelling units to 400.

Developers Terry Mckran (Graland) and Kevin Sheen (Grayland) told the committee they acquired the Results Way campus in 2020, relocated corporate leases (including BJ's Wholesale and an extended lease with Hologic), and are building the Massachusetts State Crime Lab on the site. Their conceptual full buildout shows roughly 300 garden‑style apartments, about 100 townhomes and a final commercial building; they said structured parking would not be required until the later phase.

"We are looking to raise the residential cap from 100 units to 400 units in Subdistrict 2 of the Results Way overlay district," Kevin Sheen said during the presentation.

The developers corrected press accounts about parking totals, saying the headline figure of about 3,200 was a total at buildout that includes roughly 1,700 existing spaces; the net new parking is approximately 1,500 spaces, they said.

Councilors spent much of the discussion debating whether the additional 300 units should be allowed by right or only by special permit, and whether the city should rely on the special‑permit process or negotiate mitigation and phasing through a development agreement. Proponents of a development agreement, including the developers, argued that locking mitigation and phasing terms into an upfront development agreement helps financing and certainty. Several councilors said a special permit can provide an extra layer of review but questioned what it would add beyond the master concept plan and the development agreement, both of which require two‑thirds council approval under the overlay rules.

The Planning Board had sent a favorable recommendation (motion by Dr. Finnby, seconded by Mr. Russ) noting the amendment preserves neighborhood character, increases housing diversity and provides economic benefit. The Planning Board also urged early inclusion of townhouse units and mixed‑use amenities, public access to trails where feasible, and preservation of mature trees.

Councilors and the solicitor agreed to append a clarifying sentence to the zoning text to require that multifamily dwellings in Subdistrict 2 comply with Section 650.26 of the zoning ordinance and that such compliance be made a condition of any required site plan approval. During the meeting the solicitor and councilors discussed a 12% affordable requirement referenced under 650.26 and agreed the amendment should not permit age‑restricted units to be treated as affordable for that purpose.

The committee moved and approved the amendment as revised and voted to report the item out to the full council for the June 8 agenda; the committee counted four votes in favor. The committee asked the solicitor to place the ordinance in proper form for the council meeting. If the solicitor cannot produce final language in time to place it as an action item on June 8, the measure will be referred and must meet an internal 90‑day clock noted in the meeting (the committee observed that 90‑day clock would elapse July 6).

Next steps: the full city council will receive the amendment language and supporting materials on the June 8 docket; final adoption will depend on subsequent (two‑thirds) approvals required by the overlay (master concept plan and development agreement) and any site plan reviews for individual phases.