Contested 38‑unit workforce housing plan at 525 Broadway draws sharp neighborhood opposition; board continues the application

A proposed 38‑unit, one‑bedroom workforce housing development at 525 Broadway drew extensive testimony from the applicant, technical experts and dozens of residents — and the Planning Board voted to continue the application for further technical review and an applicant rebuttal.

The applicant’s presentation described a reduced project (from an earlier 44‑unit plan) with two buildings, 38 one‑bedroom units, and 41 parking spaces proposed citywide for the site (where staff notes 76 parking spaces are required by the zoning calculation the applicant seeks relief from). Architect Jeffrey Moniz, who led the design presentation, framed the proposal as "workforce housing by design," noting small 1‑bedroom units and an emphasis on walkable access to downtown amenities.

Traffic, stormwater and landscape experts testified in support. Traffic engineer Todd Brayton summarized his firm’s trip‑generation analysis as "about 256 trips" per weekday for the development, an increase of roughly 1.5 percent on Broadway, and concluded that peak‑hour entries and exits would amount to a vehicle every three to four minutes during the busiest hours; he testified that levels of service at nearby intersections would see little change. Project engineer Lynn Small told the board the proposed underground detention and sand‑filter system would reduce peak runoff compared with existing conditions: "the peak runoff will actually be reduced from existing" after construction. Landscape architect Pam Rogers said 11 mature trees exist on site, four would be retained and 14 new trees were proposed as replacement plantings.

Opposition centered on traffic and safety at the nearby ‘‘1‑Mile Corner’’ merge on Broadway, potential parking spillover to adjacent residential streets, the removal of mature trees (several residents said large specimen trees would be lost), and the design’s compatibility with the immediate residential neighborhood. Direct abutter Dana Sylvia, who lives across from the proposed driveway, said: "It's a safety issue," describing frequent vehicle conflicts near her driveway and expressing concern about left‑turn access. Other neighbors asked the board to scale the proposal back and questioned whether the project’s rents (applicants and a leasing agent referenced market rents around $2,000 for comparable small units) constituted genuinely "affordable" workforce housing.

The applicant agreed to take the board’s and public’s concerns to the Technical Review Committee (TRC) for further vetting of pavement, stormwater, sight distance, landscaping and deed/easement language (including a potential agreement to use the church driveway for secondary access). After public comment the board voted to continue the application to the September meeting to allow the TRC review and permit the applicant to submit requested clarifications and a rebuttal at the next hearing.

Key variances and requests on the table included a height relief of a few feet above the code limit (to allow internal mechanical and sustainable systems), a parking variance (41 spaces proposed vs. 76 by the code calculation), and minor lot‑coverage relief tied to the project's layout across a municipal boundary. The board did not grant approvals tonight; the record will be supplemented and the item returned to the board in September.