Planning Board Tackled Washington St Railbed Development in Monday Meeting

Above, Jennifer Williams of the Planning Board.

The first significant item on the agenda was a review of the 340 East Central Street property in which the new Starbucks will be located. Two members recused themselves. Chair Anthony Padula expressed frustration with several items, including location of the catch basins away from the curb, pavement that was “an inch short” (in thickness), concerns about water drainage in a handicapped space, and failure to use castings made in the US.

The town’s consulting engineer acknowledge some of the points and said the offending casting had been replaced with one made in the US and that the misalignment of sub-surface pipe and catchment had been the result of the components of the property being developed separately.

Despite the problems Beta said many items, such as fencing and dumpsters, had been installed as recommended. Padula asked that the hydrant, located near an entrance, be protected to reduce the chance of damage by plows.

Member Jennifer Williams expressed concern with the high level of vehicle traffic when Starbucks opens while cross walks are still incomplete or temporary. She expressed concerned that a MassDOT improvement of East Central might not happen for years, leaving dangerous "temporary" conditions and risking the safety of the public. But Beta Group said the word from the contractor was that MassDOT would be working on the project in 2022.

Member Greg Rondeau expressed concern about the need to backfill certain areas to reduce the risk of injury to workers or the public and also questioned how feasible it would be to work on the balance of the building once Starbucks is occupied. In the end, the Board did approve a “partial Form H” for the site.

Next, the Board heard about “field changes” at 5 Forge Parkway. Amanda K. Cavaliere - Guerriere and Halnon explained that the site changes were relatively minor and being made to provide space for needed equipment. The primary impact would be a reduction from 249 parking spaces to 241. Gregory Rondeau asked for bollards to be installed to protect the equipment and he asked whether the improvements would reduce the odor in the area (possibly a reference to the NETA cannabis cultivation and manufacturing facility at that location).

Cavaliere, said, that was the expected outcome.

Here again, the Board voted to approve the plan.

Then, an initial hearing for 120 Constitution Blvd was granted a continuance until Oct. 18.

The most complex matter of the evening was looking at a site plan modification for a proposed light-industrial site on Washington Street, along the former railbed that once ran from Franklin to coastal Rhode Island. The developer is proposing to put three buildings on a long, narrow parcel running between Washington Street (where the power lines cross) and the toward I-495. They requested a waiver to allow 75 parking spaces. Since the project abuts residential areas, it’s setback cannot exceed the height of the building. The height is in fact 30 feet and the setback is 31 feet.

The plans call for septic instead of town sewer, a retention of some public right-of-way access and snow storage “on an 8-foot sloped area.”

Representatives of the developer described concrete curbing and storm-water handling designed to comply with the latest town regulations. and stressed that there will be on-site waste receptacles as well as on-site holding tanks for industrial waste water. Heating will be provided by on-site propane tank(s).

Planning Board Chair  Padula asked whether there were plans to screen the site, to minimize its impact on residences, and also asked whether tenants would be controlled by some kind of association document to make sure they would adhere to hours of operations and other restrictions that might be attached to the development. He also asked, “Will there be retail sales”?

No, according to the developer.

However, Member Joe Halligan said a similar property on Union Street had begun the same way but eventually started to feature customer-oriented businesses.

Concerns were also expressed by the Board regarding truck access but the developer said he didn’t foresee semi-trailers coming to the site. Still, noted Board member Rick Power, the site is small. “How would vehicles get in and out if a truck is unloading,” he asked?

That was something the developer team agreed to look into.

‘Even the fire department requires a place to turnaround,” Padula reminded.

Both Padula and member Jennifer Williams questioned the egress from the back. “Will that be maintained,” she asked. Williams also expressed concerns about pedestrian safety on the densely packed site.

Karen Miller, who lives nearby on Washington Street, again raised the question of semitrailers. “How can you ensure that an 18-wheeler won’t come; you can’t control that,” she noted. she also said the street has a lot of walkers but not sidewalks. Referring to a previously proposed use at the site, a gym, Miller said, that at least had less traffic and trucking.

Paul Harrington, an abutter on Washington Street, also said he was concerned about traffic but also noted, while private land, residents had long used the area as an access point to multi-use trails. As a result, he asked whether public access could be preserved.

The developer suggested that fencing would not be continuous, implying but not stating that access could be preserved.

Eventually, the Board voted to continue the public hearing until Nov. 1, by which time the developer would also have met with the Conservation Commission.

Attention was then turned to Eastern Woods, at 725 Summer St., a subdivision plan, also eventually was continued to Nov. 1. The plan had come before the Board previously. Issues raised included allowing asphalt rather than concrete sidewalk – to match the rest of the neighborhood, drainage and issues involving what slopes would be acceptable and/or the need for guardrails.

Since septic systems will be needed, something that has to be approved by the Board of Health, Member Greg Rondeau asked how the soil drainage was and suggested that the area was known for the presence of ledge; a point that generated additional comments and warnings from the Board.

Olam Estates, was next up...

One of the issues that the board also has raised questions about is a driveway for Lot 4, currently cutting across another lot. Padula said some developers had dealt with that by sharing a driveway but that made it difficult to determine who would be responsible for plowing and maintenance.

Olam Estates, at 900 Washington was the next topic. Planner Amy Love said they had submitted updated plans, which were being reviewed by BETA and the Town Engineers. Love said the project is requesting a number of waivers, including to have sidewalks on only one side of the road and also a 26-foot width for the roadway. However, concern was expressed that this could be insufficient when or if the fourth lot is developed for religious purposes.

Given the potential for more vehicle traffic – and pedestrian traffic – Williams raised the question of when or whether the town would extend sidewalks to that part of Washington Street.

Halligan noted that the Board was only being asked to look at the three lots of the subdivision being planned today, but said “as a help to the developer they should know if they come back to build that temple we may be looking for a wider street.”

After some further discussion, this hearing was also continued to Nov. 1