Planning board continues review of 219 Littleton Road redevelopment after detailed traffic, stormwater and design scrutiny

The Westford Planning Board continued the public hearings on the proposed redevelopment at 219 Littleton Road after an extensive, multi-consultant review of traffic, site design and environmental constraints.

Brian Bisel, the applicant’s transportation engineer, described the study’s methodology and several remaining items: he said the team used a "net trip generation increase" approach because counts taken when the hotel was operating were low and adding the proposed residential trips yielded a net increase; he acknowledged the town’s peer reviewer’s request for a Saturday analysis and said the team will provide it but expects it will show a net reduction for some measures. Bisel also presented stopping sight-distance and intersection sight-distance measures, crash analysis results along the frontage, a 1% growth assumption for background traffic and outstanding distribution volumes requested by the peer reviewer.

Town peer reviewer Sam Doro, senior project manager with TET, asked the board to require explicit commitments on design elements that affect safety even if regional projects proceed later: maintenance of sight triangles (no planting above 3.5 feet), clear commitments on retaining sight lines, and short-term mitigation where reasonable. He and the board discussed queue lengths for left turns from the site (the applicant provided a 95th-percentile Q of about 343 feet for one movement and a delay estimate under a minute), truck turning templates for fire and delivery access, and whether signal retiming or small traffic-safety measures should be required if larger corridor projects (MassDOT/495) do not occur in time.

Civil reviewer Katie Cruz and peer reviewer Ashley Gilers described a stormwater approach that combines subsurface chambers, porous pavement in parking areas, a rain garden and water-quality units where high groundwater prevents recharge. They noted the site’s wetland constraints, shallow groundwater, and preserved mature trees limit recharge options; several site-plan and grading items remain open until the applicant submits a consolidated revised plan set. The applicant said an on-site wastewater treatment system has been conceptually approved by MassDEP and that final design and permitting are in progress.

Board members pressed the applicant on operational details that must be resolved in the next submission: a more concrete snow-storage and removal plan (board members flagged northern parking areas as having no feasible storage), the adequacy of delivery/oversized-vehicle spaces for a ~600-unit development, pedestrian connectivity and accessible routes through long parking fields, and whether the proposed bus-stop layout would require a pullout or safe on-road stopping arrangements. The applicant described two proposed bus stops—an internal on-site stop intended for elementary children if the bus approaches from Powers Road, plus an on-Littleton-Road LRTA stop with a shelter for other directions—and said the school department prefers an internal location for elementary students but could use the LRTA stop depending on routing.

On historic-preservation, the project team presented plans to restore the on-site historic house and barn (new painted composite siding, replacement of vinyl windows with clad-wood divided-light windows, porch and trim restoration, and accessibility upgrades to the house’s public access). The applicant also proposes limited public amenities at the house and barn (bike storage, bike fix station and visitor access), but confirmed there will be no dedicated public restroom in the outbuilding.

Affordable-housing commitments were discussed: applicant counsel said the team had been working with the Affordable Housing Trust to reweight the deed-restricted mix and is proposing three units at 50% AMI, 23 at 80% AMI and four at 100% AMI; 26 units would continue to count toward the town’s subsidized housing inventory under current rules. The trust will take a formal vote on the arrangement and the applicant said it will reflect any changes in the revised waiver package.

Given the number of outstanding technical and plan-level items, the board voted to continue PB2602/PB2605 to the May 4 meeting to allow submission of a consolidated revised plan set and for consultants to close open review items.