*Revised* Planning Board Meeting
Planning Board continued detailed review of the large Rocky Hill development (north and south neighborhood architecture, amenities, trails and roadway/public-way intentions) and approved the draft decision for the historic-preservation special permit at 2-4 Elmwood Street. New hearings for an ADU at 84 Congress St. and a historic conversion at 29 Water St. were heard and continued for further review.
The Planning Board spent the bulk of the April 27 meeting on continued review of the Rocky Hill development, where the applicant presented updated architectural designs for the north and south neighborhoods (about 296 units in the north), amenity buildings, car barns and a two-neighborhood amenity approach. Designers described simplification of elevations, window patterns, porch depths, and a neutral historic palette; the Design Review Committee had been engaged across multiple meetings. Civil items discussed included VHB civil peer-review comments pending response, fire sign-off received, coordination with DPW on capacity, the intention to have the boulevard accepted as a public way, trail alignment through regulated areas with a mix of natural bark-mulch trail and sidewalk, and a proposed emergency access/right-of-way. Public comment urged alignment of sidewalks/trails to connect to regional trail plans and installation of a hybrid rapid-flash beacon at the nearby crossing.
Other hearings: The Board approved staff's draft decision for the 2-4 Elmwood Street historic-preservation application after the applicant increased the front setback, shifted the garage to protect trees, and agreed to preservation-restriction and landscaping conditions; the vote to approve the draft decision passed (recorded 5-0). The Board continued the Rocky Hill application, 29 Lake Attitash Rd., 84 Congress St. (proposal to convert a two-story garage to a second-floor ADU), and 29 Water St. (historic building conversion to six condo units seeking a historic special permit and parking waiver) to future meetings for additional civil, historic-commission, and staff review. Neighbors raised concerns about setbacks, tree protection, screening, potential encroachment of exterior stairs, and parking/egress arrangements on multiple filings; staff committed to follow-up reviews with building inspections, DPW, Conservation, and to produce tables showing how affordable-unit requirements will be met for major projects.
Points of interest
