Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Srcd Senior Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer presents concept for 55+ senior residential community; board urges wetlands delineation and stamped plans
Summary
A developer presented a conceptual Senior Residential Community Development (SRCD) for property off Norfolk Road; the Planning Board advised wetlands delineation, conservation-commission consultation, and detailed stamped plans before the board will consider any buffer reductions or density calculations.
A developer introduced a conceptual Senior Residential Community Development (SRCD) for 0 Norfolk Road and asked for informal feedback from the Town of Millis Planning Board. The board reminded the presenter that SRCD projects are governed by the town's SRCD bylaw (perimeter buffers and density calculations) and emphasized that informal sketches are insufficient for formal approvals.
Board members repeatedly underscored two primary technical items: wetlands delineation and accurate calculations of "usable" land for density purposes. The planning board noted the SRCD bylaw requires a 100-foot perimeter buffer around an SRC parcel but allows the planning board to reduce that width to no less than 50 feet at appropriate locations; the board also pointed out that access roads and pedestrian paths may cross the perimeter buffer at the board’s discretion. The building inspector and other members advised that wetlands delineation and an engineered survey will determine the acreage usable for the two-units-per-acre density limit under the bylaw.
Several members said they would not render decisions about buffer reductions without a stamped engineering plan and specific reasons for any encroachment; the board suggested the presenter consult the conservation commission and obtain a wetland delineation, then file a formal application. Public commenters cautioned that the site is several miles from sewer and that soils may be poor, so the board recommended early soil testing to avoid unnecessary expense.
The board did not vote on the concept; it offered procedural guidance and said it would not substitute informal comments for the detailed information required with a formal application.
