Developer to revise Woolen Mill chimney report; board to hold public hearing on inspection plan

The Planning Board reviewed a structural inspection report for the Woolen Mill smokestack required by condition of approval PB-2026-04-SPA ext. Staff read the condition into the record: before beginning construction activities the applicant must obtain a structural assessment and prepare a maintenance plan for the smokestack for Planning Board review and approval.

Tim, planning staff, said the applicant submitted a consultant’s report prepared after an on-site inspection by a specialist flown in from Chicago. John Levadas of LWM Residential LLC, the developer, told the board the consultant recommended removing the top masonry rows and provided a set of 10 recommended maintenance and inspection actions which the applicant intends to follow.

Board members pressed whether the applicant would commit to all 10 recommendations and whether the work would be completed ‘‘within the next year’’ as the report suggested. Levadas said the intent is to complete the work within a year but asked for limited flexibility for schedule or winter-weather constraints and noted the project’s broader construction timetable. The Historical Society’s Matt Smith urged preservation, saying the top three rows create a distinctive profile and that the plan to preserve the chimney is welcome.

Board members debated procedure: because the original condition was set in a public hearing, some members said acceptance of the plan should likewise be taken in a duly noticed public hearing to preserve public comment rights. Staff said consensus approval and staff monitoring could be appropriate in routine cases but recommended a formal hearing where a specific condition (for example, a five‑year inspection requirement) may need to be finalized. The board agreed to try for an October 12 public hearing (or Oct. 26 if notice deadlines prevent the earlier date) and signaled that they would accept the report as the plan once the applicant revises it to: label it a plan, add boilerplate language describing what a five‑year inspection entails, and, if acceptable to the consultant, clarify timing (board members indicated a 24‑month window would be acceptable if endorsed by the structural engineer).

Levadas agreed to ask the consultant to revise the report to read explicitly as a plan, to add inspection‑procedure bullet points for five‑year checks, and to supply any clarifying language on timing before the scheduled public hearing.