Town Crier

WILMINGTON — Last Tuesday night, the Plan­ning Board continued several public hearings and approved certain pre­sented draft conditions for their scheduled items.

The first appointment of the night belonged to 687 Main Street’s site plan review and storm­water management, which was continued to the next meeting on July 13. One other appointment was moved by request to the next meeting later that night — 225 Andover Street’s site plan review, stormwater management, and parking relief special permit.

Ben Hartley joined the call on behalf of Wil­ming­ton Main Realty L. P. for the sign special permit at 269 Main St. He detailed the request to reuse their current nonconforming signs as they’re reconfiguring the Starbucks drive thru. Director of Planning and Conservation Vale­rie Gingrich had prepared draft conditions, which Hartley said he was OK with, and the board voted to accept the conditions as drafted.

The board then squeezed in Form A in between appointments, which here regarded 90 Eames St. Gingrich shared that the owner would be purchasing one lot and combining it with the other lot being created. Attorney Rob Peterson Sr. added that the railway spur would also be sold. The form was approved.

They went on to ap­prove the Board of Ap­peals Case 17-21 for an addition onto 12 Lucaya Circle. Gingrich said the reason for the appeal was that the addition would put the property over 15 percent impervious in the groundwater protection district.

Then they accepted draft conditions for the site plan review at 377 Ballardvale St. T-Mobile Northeast representative Tim Green assured the board that there would be no groundwork done, only the replacement and installation of new antennas.

The other Board of Ap­peals case referred to a request to add a garage to the right of the existing home at 31 Arlene Ave. Gingrich reported that the applicants had cited soil conditions and wetland setback requirements preventing them from building the garage on the other side of the house. However, she said that the Conservation Commission only re­quires a 25 foot setback with wetlands and that there wasn’t any further information on the soil.

Chairman Mike Sorren­tino suggested that the applicant be required to document the soils issue in order for their request to be granted. Terri Bo­land agreed that this was their usual requirement. Gingrich stated that she would ask the applicants to provide ad­ditional information documenting the identified hardship.

For the matter of the site plan review for 625 Main St., Attorney Paul Feldman began by es­tablishing that there would be no physical changes proposed to the building or the parking lot. He said that his cli­ent simply would like to purchase the building and move in his counter fabrication business.

The land surveyor for this project then ex­plain­ed that they would reconfigure the parking lot and increase the travel aisle in order to fulfill the requests of the town department heads. Feldman said that this wouldn’t bring a lot of re­tail traffic due to the type of business primarily being by appointment. He also said this client fully understood that they couldn’t bring any vehicles into the building without adding floor drains.

He later appealed to the board to vote whe­ther to approve the site plan review that night, although Gingrich had earlier said she’d only had time for a quick review, having received the final version that day. Feldman explained that the Zoning Board of Appeals process had been quick to allow this use case in the general industrial zoning knowing their deadline for the buyer was June 30.

Gingrich responded to say it looked like the ap­plicant had addressed most, if not all, of the town’s comments and that there would be no appeal period. She wouldn’t suggest any further action beyond closing the public hearing for the board that night.

Sorrentino concurred with Gingrich, setting a hard line that’s typical for these situations.

“It seems like you an­swered all of the questions, but we can’t come up with draft conditions without [Gingrich] and the Engineering department having a good overlook,” he said. “I just don’t see any way around that.”

The board approved the closing of the public hearing and would bring draft conditions to the next meeting.

They next heard a proposal for changes at 201 Lowell St. for Textron and ND Acquisitions L.L.C. Dave Fensterma­ch­er provided context that the request would in­volve demolishing five out of the six Textron buildings and creating a warehouse in their place. This would lower the square footage on the property by over 200,000 square feet. They would also be providing room for 455 parking spaces and closing one of the curb cuts.

He went on to say that the DPW is trying to cla­rify whether anyone else is using the new pump station on Lowell Street that they’d look to join. The landscaping architect chimed in to add that they were focusing on diversifying the plant material on the property. They also mentioned an ongoing Mass DOT traffic review.

The board was largely concerned about traffic effects onto Lowell Street and how many cars would be going in and out of the property during peak hours. Gingrich brought up the development going on across the street at 168 Main St., and she said she would send that site plan to the applicant. They voted to continue this public hearing for next time.

Finally, they voted to endorse the site plan and definitive subdivisions for 203 Lowell St. in case of a subdivision.

Their next meeting on July 13 will be in person and the public may join.

(1) comment


It is great that the board decided to continue the hearing to next month.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.