Central Station LLC’s revised plans, which were a focal point of the meeting, addressed previously raised concerns by removing a seventh unit in the back building, thus eliminating the need for a variance. The applicant emphasized that the project now only required relief for a D1 use variance to allow residential use on the first floor, which is in line with the flexibility for such use in the downtown area as highlighted in the master plan. The revisions included flipping the parking area, relocating the loading zone, and moving the rear building closer to the property front to comply with requirements. Additionally, the project aimed to reduce impervious coverage and improve stormwater management, which would benefit the community by decreasing runoff rates and volume into an existing stream.

The board reviewed the recommendations from Remington and Vernick concerning the water supply and sewer main, with the developer agreeing to replace the existing sewer main and lateral connections with PVC pipe. The applicant also sought exceptions for the drainage easement and the cover on the sewer main, proposing slightly less than the required 36 inches of cover to avoid the need for a pump station for the last townhouse unit. The board discussed the possibility of an alternative plan or conditioning approval on the applicant working with the board’s engineer to approve plan amendments related to the pumping station.

Stormwater management was a key topic, with detailed explanations provided on the impact of different ground covers and the usage of green infrastructure to reduce runoff from the property. The new development’s permeable areas and green infrastructure would promote increased infiltration and reduced runoff, aiding in flood prevention for neighboring properties. A new exhibit (A7) was presented to address comments from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) about the color consistency of the brick and the materials used in the project. Adjustments to the windows were made in response to HPC comments, with the placement influenced by the limited space and fire safety considerations.

The architectural details of the building were discussed, such as the placement of the brick and the location of mechanical equipment. The equipment, to be located centrally on the roof, would have minimal visibility from the street. The board considered regulating window treatments for residential units, with a suggestion for shades or blinds on front-facing windows. The applicant argued that the building would fit with the character of the neighborhood and align with the goals of the master plan, which suggested more flexibility for ground floor apartments.

The board discussed various conditions for the development, including stormwater management, landscaping, and revisions to the plans. There was debate about whether to allow recreational uses in the building due to potential impacts on parking requirements. The board moved to grant approval for the development, subject to conditions, including the recording of a stormwater manual, submission of HOA documents for review, and as-built studies for lighting and trash areas.

Additionally, the board addressed a social media post by a member of the public that shared an experience related to the Planning Board, raising concerns about the accuracy of the post and the propriety of requesting personal information from board members. The professionalism of the board’s staff and the challenges of public communication were also discussed.