Planning Board — June 9, 2026

The board discussed the process for the Select Board review and how substantive changes would trigger a return to the Planning Board. One member noted that the plan acts as a 'palette of options' rather than a list of mandates, while another suggested more detailed alignment with state-level Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) legislation.

The board voted to approve the plan and forward it to the Select Board with a favorable recommendation.

The Select Board is expected to vote on the plan during a July or August meeting.

The applicant, representing TAKJ LLC, proposed combining 37 Popes Lane and 85 Newbury Street. The combined lot would exceed the required 100 feet of frontage and one acre of property necessary for the Highway Corridor Zone.

The board approved the A&R plan.

The applicant requested various special permits and waivers for a project involving 18 residential units, 12 townhouses, and a mixed-use building. The applicant requested a continuance to allow time to respond to third-party peer review comments received late the previous week.

The board voted to continue the hearing to June 23, 2026.

The hearing is rescheduled for the June 23, 2026, Planning Board meeting.

The applicant proposed a 12,397 sq. ft. freestanding freezer building. Discussion focused on noise mitigation for the abutting mobile home park, the placement of mechanical equipment behind a building cutout to act as a sound barrier, and the use of arborvitae for landscaping. Concerns were raised regarding potential noise from idling trucks and equipment.

The site plan was approved with a condition that the applicant must work with town staff to implement noise mitigation measures if a nuisance occurs.

The hearing focused heavily on landscaping and irrigation. The applicant expressed concern that municipal water would be prohibited for irrigation, making it difficult to maintain large tree plantings. There was also a debate regarding safety fencing around stormwater basins, with board members expressing concern for public safety if residents walked near the basins. The applicant (Abiomed) argued they were willing to assume the risk on their property. Board members expressed concerns regarding public safety and established town precedent, noting that existing retention ponds in town are typically fully fenced. There was a discussion regarding the height and aesthetic of the fence, with a preference for a four-foot black-gauge fence that blends into the landscape. Staff reminded the Board that town regulations prohibit using the public water supply for irrigation, requiring either a private well or rainwater harvesting. The applicant requested flexibility in the language of the condition to allow for 'alternative sources' rather than just a 'private well.' The Board discussed the feasibility of well testing and rainwater collection. The Board reviewed the site plan, including various waivers for submission requirements (such as specific utility profiles and tree counts) and specific conditions of approval.

The discussion was ongoing regarding the extent of fencing required for stormwater basins at the end of the segment. The Board required the applicant to add fencing surrounding the stormwater basins to the plan set, with the specific type and height to be reviewed and approved by town staff prior to installation. The Board agreed to a condition stating the applicant must work with town staff to explore alternative sources of water for landscaping irrigation, while maintaining the general town prohibition on using municipal water for this purpose. The site plan was found to be in substantial compliance, subject to several conditions including revised snow storage plans, removal of noncompliant planting notes, added fencing plans, and relocated ADA parking spaces.

The applicant must revise the plan set to include the fencing. The applicant will work with town staff to explore alternate water sources.