Marblehead planning board tables Green Street condo hearing until October

MARBLEHEAD – The Planning Board won?t continue its hearing on a 20-unit condominium development on Green Street until October, at the earliest.Board members met with Attorney Paul Lynch to discuss the status of the development, which he expects to come before the Conservation Commission in September and October, and postponed their discussion of the project until Nov. 8 – but they could have the Green Street traffic report before them in time for their Oct. 11 meeting.?We won?t come back Oct. 11 unless it?s needed,” Lynch told the board.Town Planner Becky Curran said the board wants a peer review of the traffic plan and the effect the development will have on the wetland area at the rear of the property.Since the board?s May 7 site visit Lynch has provided them with a traffic study and a report on the wetland area at the rear of the property and the development?s environmental impact. Curran noted that the environmental effects will be studied by the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board, and Lynch said the traffic study is “in process.”Other reports the board requested – a drainage plan and revised plans showing guest parking and an access road that emergency vehicles can use – have already been filed.The development is the first to use a 1990s incentive zoning bylaw to build 20 two-bedroom condominium units at Green Street and West Shore Drive, in 10 townhouse structures, seven on the street and three at the back of the lot. Two units will be affordable.A change in ownership caught the eye of board member James Bishop.The application was originally filed in the name of Redstone Building Corp. An abutter pointed out when the hearing process began in April that Redstone might no longer exist, according to records at the Secretary of State?s office. Lynch confirmed Tuesday night that Redstone is “history.”The new owner listed on the revised plans is Green Street Realty Trust. Bishop asked Lynch for the name of the owner. “Don?t we have a right to know?” he asked.Lynch said the trust represented a group of people, not a single person.Curran said in the past the name of the property owner has not been relevant. “When we permit things it?s for the property,” Curran said.Bishop persisted and Curran said she would try to find out for the board.