SAUGUS — After more than a year of public hearings before both the Planning Board and Conservation Commission, a proposed development at 180 Central St. is inching closer to becoming a reality.
The idea of constructing apartments on the historic Pranker Mills site was first proposed by developer 180 Central Development LLC and Steve Boccelli in the fall of 2021 when a notice of intent was filed with the Conservation Commission for the beginning of work in jurisdiction areas of the Wetlands Protection Act. The commission opened its public hearing that November, and issued a lengthy order of conditions earlier this month. The Planning Board opened its public hearing the following January and appears on the verge of approving the project, according to a draft decision provided to The Item.
At the Planning Board’s meeting last week, members reviewed the draft decision and the order of conditions imposed by the commission but indicated that more time was needed for members to make a final decision. And, with Department of Public Works Director Brendan O’Regan signaling that the town wants the developer to foot the bill for replacing the “unreliable” water main in the area, the board continued the hearing until its November meeting to allow the developer to work out an agreement with the town on the water-main issue.
The Planning Board will also likely request an opinion from town counsel on its role as opposed to that of the Conservation Commission, as both boards have the authority to impose conditions on the development, though the Planning Board is not bound by the commission’s actions.
Under the proposal, the site would be redeveloped into a 22-unit apartment complex. At one point, the Planning Board had issued a denial to the developer, but ultimately reconsidered that decision and reopened the public hearing in July 2022.
The draft decision, written by Planning and Economic Development Director Chris Reilly, cites increased “open space on the site, decreased impervious area on the site, and better access and circulation for residents” in approving the project. That decision also imposes a number of conditions on the developer, much like the Conservation Commission, which issued a whopping 95 conditions.
Among the conditions suggested by Reilly in the draft decision is a “monetary contribution to be determined by the DPW director for necessary improvements to the water main in Central Street associated with the development.” Boccelli, during the meeting, had expressed concerns about that condition essentially representing a “blank check.”
The Conservation Commission order, which constitutes a special wetlands permit, requires the developer to deposit $15,000 with the commission secretary prior to the start of construction, which will then be returned once construction is completed.
Taken together, the conditions in both documents represent a series of highly specific and stringent requirements the developer must follow prior to, during, and after construction.
And, should the project win approval from the Planning Board, that might not mark the end of the road for the developers.
Special Town Counsel Jesse Schomer suggested the board include a condition that the developer determine compliance with a zoning bylaw regarding the nearby location of a cell tower. While he determined the project was permittable under the bylaws, Schomer said development would “result in expansion of existing nonconforming use” and the cell-tower operator would have to go before the ZBA to get approval for expansion.
A message left with Attorney Nelson Chang, who is representing the developer, seeking an update on the project was not returned Monday. The Planning Board will likely vote on the decision during its next meeting, slated for Nov. 2.
