The senior development project, designed for residents aged 55 and older, includes 90 duplex buildings and amenities like a clubhouse community center. Concerns emerged about the proposed roadway widths and sharp corners, which could challenge emergency vehicle access. Coordination with the local fire chief was deemed necessary to ensure the design meets safety requirements. The developer acknowledged the feedback and expressed a commitment to maintaining adequate space for emergency access.

The density of the senior project prompted serious discussion among board members. One member highlighted that while the development complies with open space requirements, the increase in vehicles—projected between 270 to 360—raises traffic concerns. The board emphasized the need for a traffic impact study to address these potential hazards. Another board member voiced objections, arguing that the current density undermines the original intent of open space provisions meant to limit housing density. They stressed that the spacing between homes is insufficient and questioned whether it accommodates adequate outdoor space for residents.

In response, the developer stated the proposal adheres to buffer zone requirements, exceeding the stipulated 30-foot boundary to 50 feet. However, concerns about the project’s proximity to existing features, such as a rock wall boundary, were raised, questioning the development’s impact on these elements. The developer reiterated the importance of balancing open space with economic viability and acknowledged the need for community feedback. The board agreed to continue the public hearing later, allowing for further review and potential revisions based on feedback.

Another proposal reviewed was a new residential development encompassing various housing types, including single-family homes, duplexes, townhouses, and multifamily buildings. The project aims for 350 to 360 housing units, about half of what city bylaws permit. The proposal includes 26 acres of open space, exceeding the 23-acre requirement, while lot coverage slightly surpasses the mandated 20% threshold.

Questions arose about the inclusion of community use areas and trails in open space calculations, which would be managed by a Homeowners Association (HOA). Public access to the trail network was confirmed, with plans for connectivity to existing trails leading to conservation areas. Concerns about building dimensions and spacing were addressed, with clarifications that this development would be treated as a site plan rather than a subdivision, meaning it would exist as a single parcel owned by the HOA. Units would be sold as condominiums under a specific declaration.

Community feedback, particularly from abutters, was deemed critical. One board member expressed skepticism about the feasibility of selling so many units, citing concerns about increased density leading to fire risks and insurance challenges. They emphasized the need for careful layout consideration. Discussions on parking highlighted plans for garages to accommodate two vehicles, aiming to minimize street parking, a significant consideration in areas prone to congestion.

Amidst these discussions, a board member highlighted the importance of addressing density concerns while emphasizing the need for senior housing in Gardner. They noted that the development could help free up existing homes for younger families, benefiting the broader housing market. Pricing references for similar developments in Rutland were shared, although local market dynamics were acknowledged as potentially different.

The meeting also addressed a zoning amendment for the floodplain overlay district, emphasizing compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Amendments were procedural, focusing on definitions and adding a floodplain coordinator. Compliance was essential to prevent homeowners from losing insurance coverage. A motion to approve the zoning amendment passed unanimously.

Additionally, the board discussed a historical preservation project for Central Street, recommending a zoning change that also received unanimous support. A referral about a zoning district designation change for a parcel on Mass 101 was introduced, primarily to schedule a joint public hearing with the city council.