Last updated October 29, 2026, with the board’s second deliberation session and the November 2 agenda. This page is updated as the board acts.
The Zoning Board of Appeals closed the public hearing on the 250-apartment proposal for 194 Lowland Street on October 15, after 13 meetings since February, and has since met twice to deliberate. On October 21 two of its three members said they lean toward approving the project with conditions and the third said she remains skeptical, and on October 28 the board finished its first pass through the draft decision and the waiver list without a vote, leaving open the condition the chair called “probably the most critical component of the entire decision,” which would require the developer to test the stormwater leaving the site for contaminants. The board meets again on Monday, November 2, at 6 p.m., in what the chair hopes will be its last session, and it has until Wednesday, November 4, to file a decision with the Town Clerk approving the permit, approving it with conditions or denying it; if it misses that date state law treats the permit as granted. Anyone can listen to the deliberations, but now that the hearing is closed the board cannot take public comment or new evidence. Fall Town Meeting passed amendments to the town’s groundwater protection bylaw on October 19, though town planning staff have said zoning changes generally cannot reach an application already filed.
As the hearing closed, the town’s engineering reviewer still could not make a positive finding on the sewage system, the Conservation Commission had said it could not support the wetland waivers as documented, the Board of Health had questions it said were still unanswered, and the developer maintained that the sewage plant is MassDEP’s to judge. The town’s project page holds near 90 filings with no summary, and the discussion has run through the Zoning Board, the Board of Health, the Conservation Commission, the Planning Board and the Select Board, so this page gathers all of it in one place, issue by issue and meeting by meeting, with links to the records.
What happens next
Deliberations continue Monday, November 2, at 6 p.m. Remote only, on Zoom (meeting 856 494 793, password 13579) or by phone at 1-646-558-8656 (agenda). Town Counsel is to send the members a revised draft decision by the close of business Friday, October 30. Still open are a new finding on the Zone II, the testing of the stormwater outfalls, the cap on the developer’s payments toward traffic fixes, construction days and hours, the winter maintenance plan and the timing of a sidewalk contribution, and after those the board votes on each waiver the developer has requested, possibly in groups, and then on the decision itself. The chair hopes it will be the last session, and it is the only one scheduled before the deadline.
Decision due November 4. The developer agreed in writing on September 24 to this deadline for filing the decision (letter), and any later date would need its written consent. If the board misses it, state law treats the permit as granted.
Appeals, within 20 days of the filing. The developer can take a denial, or conditions it says would make the project financially unworkable, to the state Housing Appeals Committee. Others who say an approval harms them can appeal to Superior Court, which hears the case anew.
State permits, after any approval. The project would still need a MassDEP groundwater discharge permit for its sewage plant, an order of conditions from the Conservation Commission under the state wetlands law, and MassHousing’s final approval.
Where the board stands
The board has not voted, but at its first deliberation session on October 21 the members said where they stand (recording). Chair Jay Peabody said the board had been working toward an approval with conditions and had never drafted a denial, and asked whether anyone thought that was the wrong direction, since this was the time to change course. Clerk Vladimir Nechev said he leaned toward approval with conditions, and Peabody noted that two of the three votes would decide the matter. Vice Chair Elizabeth Dembitzer said she remains skeptical because the site sits in the Zone II that feeds the town’s wells, and she listed what she wants kept away from them, among them leaking cars, de-icing chemicals, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and rodenticides, firefighting foam, pet waste and PFAS. Peabody said MassDEP’s review, together with the conditions in the decision, should protect the town against much of that, and that a flat denial could leave the town with no control over the project at all, though he said of the location, “I actually think it’s crummy to have multifamily in an industrial park.”
At the second session, on October 28, the discussion turned on one condition (recording). Dembitzer said she would vote no on any decision that did not require the developer to test the outfalls where the site’s stormwater empties into the pond and Bogastow Brook, and Peabody, who called that condition “probably the most critical component of the entire decision,” said removing it “probably doesn’t make a lot of sense,” a view Nechev shared.
Town Counsel Brian Winner told the board what a denial would have to rest on: evidence in the record, such as expert testimony the developer never rebutted, showing that a local concern for health, safety or the environment is more likely than not to be real and outweighs the regional need for housing, rather than apprehension about what might happen. If the board denied the permit and the developer appealed, he said, the Housing Appeals Committee could issue its own approval with its own conditions, leaving the town an advocate rather than the decision-maker. If the board approves with conditions, the developer can appeal any of them, others who say an approval harms them can appeal to Superior Court, and the conditions run with the land and bind any future owner.
The members first described where they were leaning at the September 24 session, when the hearing reached the end of the developer’s second extension and Winner asked them for a straw poll (minutes, recording). Winner laid out the order in which the board would have to think it through: first whether the project could be approved as filed, which he said the peer review suggested it could not; then whether conditions could make it approvable; and only if no condition could, whether to deny it.
Peabody said he was inclined to work toward an approval with conditions. He said the board has been thorough, that he believed the developer was a responsible one, and that the board has never approved a comprehensive permit without conditions, and he described the choice as one between conditions the town writes now and losing control of the outcome on appeal. Dembitzer said that if she had to vote that night she would vote no, because she found the town engineer’s concerns valid and was frightened by the project’s closeness to the town’s wells, but that it would be irresponsible to rule out a condition she had not seen. She said she would not oppose the project somewhere else, and that she would want a sidewalk to the rail trail as a condition. Nechev said he leaned toward exploring an approval with conditions rather than a flat no.
On that basis the board voted 3-0 to continue the hearing to October 15, with the 40-day clock for its decision running at the same time, and asked Winner to draft a decision, including conditions on the sewage and stormwater question, for the members to see before deciding anything. The draft went to the developer on October 9, and the developer’s markup came back at about 6:07 p.m. on October 15, too late for the board to read before the final session.
What happened on October 28
The Ledger’s report on the second deliberation session has the full account:
Over more than three hours the board finished its first pass through the draft decision, from condition 21 on, and then the waiver list, where Winner had drafted answers to the questions members raised on October 15, without taking a vote (agenda, recording).
The longest discussion was over condition 58, which would require testing at the outfalls where the site’s stormwater system empties into the pond and Bogastow Brook. An earlier draft listed contaminants to test for, PFAS among them, at least once a year, and Karen Sherman, the former town planner who is consulting on the project, said the list came from the town’s stormwater consultant, CEI Engineers, and mirrors what the town must test for at its own outfalls under its federal stormwater permit. The developer struck the list and proposed instead to do whatever testing any statute, regulation or bylaw requires and report the results, which Dembitzer said would do nothing if no regulation requires testing, calling it “a sneaky lawyer thing.” Peabody let the developer’s attorney, Jonathan Silverstein, speak briefly on a legal point though the hearing was closed, and Silverstein called that suggestion “unfounded and frankly offensive,” saying the state’s drinking water, septic and hazardous waste cleanup rules all set out what triggers a test, how it is done and what limits apply, and that the developer objects to costly testing “without reference to any standard, without reference to any regulation,” which he said is “not imposed on any other development I’m aware of in the town.” The board asked Winner to redraft the condition by naming the state and federal testing programs that apply and what each requires, and to show where they overlap with CEI’s list, so the members can see whether anything the consultant recommended goes beyond the regulations and why.
Dembitzer pressed through the evening for the decision to reflect that the whole site lies in the Zone II, and Winner agreed to add a finding near the front saying so and stating that the conditions are meant to protect it. She asked that the limits on fertilizer, pesticides and rodenticides in condition 57, which the Conservation Commission supplied for land near wetlands, apply to the whole property, and that the decision cite the state’s Groundwater Protection List, part of a Department of Agricultural Resources regulation, 333 CMR 12.00, that bars applying a listed pesticide in a Zone II without a state-approved integrated pest management program (regulation); Winner said he had not seen the list and would look at it. The board also changed the winter maintenance plan to use best efforts to “reduce or eliminate” salt, extended the testing of imported fill to crushed stone and septic sand, required outdoor cleaning products to be EPA Safer Choice certified “or more protective,” added pet waste bag stations around the site, and required that the management company get a copy of the decision.
Condition 62 bars a building permit until MassDEP’s groundwater discharge permit for the sewage plant is final, requires the developer to copy the board on its correspondence with DEP as it happens, and lets the board and the developer each send DEP a written statement on how the stormwater and wastewater systems work together, “to ensure the subject does not evade review.” On the land the developer will not build on, the developer has accepted keeping it in a predominantly natural state for passive recreation under a management plan, but not a permanent restriction recorded at the Registry of Deeds, and Winner said no one had identified a regulation that would support one, though the permit itself runs with the land and binds future owners. He also offered to add safeguards in case the developer later decides to blast, which the draft treats only as a change it would have to bring back to the board.
The rest of the session went to traffic, construction and walking. The draft requires traffic and parking monitoring after the apartments are occupied, with the developer paying up to $25,000 toward fixes if set thresholds are crossed, and the board wants that cap raised to at least $50,000; the developer has proposed striking a condition that would have tenants pay for parking separately from rent. The board leaned toward barring construction on weekends, bank holidays, Holliston school holidays and July 4, possibly allowing interior work on Saturdays as it did for Concord Street. The draft has the developer pay up to $150,000 toward a Lowland Street sidewalk if the town applies for a state MassWorks grant within three years of the permit becoming final; staff suggested dropping the MassWorks reference, members want the three years counted from a later milestone such as a building or occupancy permit, and Winner said the money must stay tied to a sidewalk serving this project. On a sheltered school bus stop, Sarah Scott said the site is outside the walk zone for the K-8 schools, and the board removed the words “within the project” from the condition, leaving the location open, and held the rest. Dembitzer also pointed out that at 250 units the project falls just short of what the state’s rules treat as a large project, explained below under “How a 40B works in Holliston.” The board held over its October 15 minutes because not all members had read them.
What happened on October 21
The Ledger’s report on the first deliberation session has the full account:
. Over about three hours the board worked through the findings and the first 20 conditions of the draft decision, from a version that included written comments the developer’s attorney, Jonathan Silverstein, had sent that afternoon. It agreed that one finding should say a residential project at this location and density is not consistent with neighboring development, which Peabody said would support later conditions on traffic, trucks and sidewalks, and it struck sentences saying the developer had worked in good faith and been cooperative, after Dembitzer objected that the town’s peer reviewer had asked for more analysis of how the stormwater and sewage systems interact and the developer had declined to provide it (agenda, recording).
Most of the first 20 conditions are standard requirements for final plans and for how construction is run. The board gave itself and its engineer 30 days from a complete submission to confirm that final plans conform to the decision, where Silverstein had proposed 14 and Sarah Scott, the town’s director of planning and community development, 45. It moved the pre-construction meeting to at least 30 days before any site work, because contaminated and excess material will come off the site early, and at Dembitzer’s request it asked that the construction and landscaping plans explain how the developer will meet the decision’s limits on petroleum leaks and pesticides. Peabody also asked Winner to rewrite the wetlands condition so that no permits of any kind, not only building permits, issue for work in wetland areas until the state wetlands approvals are final.
Three exchanges showed the limits of what the board can require. Winner said the permit regulates the use of the land, not the personal conduct of the people living there, although anything the permit prohibits is the permit holder’s to answer for, and Dembitzer replied, “Oh, well, that’s a big problem then.” The draft keeps the land the developer does not plan to build on undisturbed, and Winner said the developer accepts that but not a permanent restriction to passive uses, which Silverstein wrote is not imposed on market-rate developments or required by any local rule. “So what we can’t do is manufacture regulations and conditions. We can only impose ones that exist,” Winner said, and without a recorded restriction the developer could later ask the board to modify the permit to use that land. Dembitzer also wants the fill brought in to raise the site tested against the chemicals the Water Department wants kept from the wells, and Winner will report what MassDEP’s rules for Zone II areas require, though Peabody said he did not think the board could go beyond them. The board left the undeveloped land and the fill question for next week.
What happened on October 15
The Ledger’s report on the final session has the full account:
Zoning board closes hearing on 250-unit Lowland Street project, with a decision due by November 4
The Zoning Board of Appeals voted 3-0 on Thursday, October 15, to close the public portion of its hearing on a comprehensive permit for 250 rental apartments at 0 and 194 Lowland Street. The board will take no further testimony from the public or the developer. It now moves to deliberating and writing a decision, which must be filed with the town clerk …
In brief, the town’s peer-review engineer, Stephen Cabral of Crossman Engineering, said he is still not convinced that the stormwater and wastewater systems will work together, while the developer, represented by Mike Scannell of Marcus Partners, held that the remaining question belongs to MassDEP. Scannell said the developer has deliberately held off applying for DEP’s groundwater discharge permit, the stage at which the treatment plant itself is designed, until it has a local permit. Almost all of the residents who spoke opposed the project at this location, most because it sits in the Zone II for the town’s wells. The board walked through the requested waivers without voting on them, discussed conditions it could attach to any approval, among them oversight of the fuel cleanup by the town’s environmental reviewer, copies of the state monitoring results, limits on pesticides and fertilizer, and a restriction keeping the unbuilt land undeveloped, and then voted 3-0 to close the hearing (agenda, recording).
The proposal
MP Properties IV, LLC, a development company tied to Marcus Partners of Boston, wants to build 250 rental apartments, 63 of them income-restricted, on a 42-acre former sand quarry on the east side of Lowland Street that the town zones for industry. DCAB, LLC of Holliston owns the land, and the developer controls it through a purchase agreement. MassHousing, the state agency that screens these projects, found the site eligible on November 25, 2025, which opened the way to the local hearing (MassHousing letter).
Buildings: four four-story apartment buildings up to 61 feet tall, set around a one-story amenity building and a green, with detached garages along the edges of the site (architectural plans, site plans)
Affordable apartments: 63 of the 250, for households earning up to 80% of area median income, which MassHousing put at $132,300 for a family of four, at proposed rents of $2,171 for one bedroom, $2,577 for two and $2,941 for three. The developer’s attorney told the board on October 15 that up to 70% of the affordable apartments could be reserved for local residents when the building first leases up, subject to state approval.
Market-rate apartments: 187, at proposed rents of $2,838, $3,250 and $3,975, which MassHousing’s appraisers found to be above comparable local rents
Parking: 425 spaces, about 1.7 per apartment, in surface lots and garages
Land: 42 acres, 18.5 of them buildable, with about 23.5 acres of wetland or flood hazard area along a pond to the north and Bogastow Brook to the south. The developer says the site’s grade would rise about seven feet on average, mostly with clean fill brought in from outside, that the mulch berm along the road would be tested and hauled away, and that the land it cannot build on would be left natural.
Sewage: a private treatment plant on the site, discharging up to 48,060 gallons a day of treated wastewater into underground leaching fields (MassDEP letter)
Water and access: town water from Lowland Street, and the existing driveway plus a second one for emergency vehicles
Schedule: about 17 months from the start of site work to the last occupancy permits, by the developer’s tentative estimate (schedule)
Industrial uses sit across Lowland Street to the west and along Jeffrey Avenue and Everett Street to the north, and the Marilyn Street neighborhood lies beyond the brook to the south. When the town commented to MassHousing in October 2025, it described the site’s history of contamination, limited cleanup and repeated enforcement problems, and said it hoped a responsible project could put that history behind it (town comments). The developer laid out the plans at the first hearing in February (presentation).
How a 40B works in Holliston
Because fewer than 10% of Holliston’s homes count as affordable under state rules, Chapter 40B lets this developer ask the ZBA to set aside local zoning and other town rules, and a state panel, the Housing Appeals Committee, can overrule the board if it denies the permit or attaches conditions the developer says would make the project unworkable. The state’s inventory counts 269 of Holliston’s 5,544 year-round homes as affordable, or 4.85% (state inventory). In a rental 40B like this one the state counts every apartment toward that figure, not only the 63 restricted ones, so by the Ledger’s arithmetic this project would bring the town to about 519 units, or roughly 9.4%. The same board approved a smaller 40B this spring, Concord Street Apartments, about 50 units at 180–206 Concord Street, and a Planning Board member said on October 14 that the two projects together could bring the town to 10%, the point at which a zoning board’s denial of a later 40B is generally treated as consistent with local needs. The project’s size also sits at a line in the state’s rules, as Dembitzer pointed out on October 28: in a town with between 5,000 and 7,500 housing units, which includes Holliston, a comprehensive permit for more than 250 units counts as a “large project,” and a board that follows the required procedure can have a denial of a large project upheld on that ground, so at exactly 250 units this one falls just short (760 CMR 56.03).
The ZBA acts in place of every local board, so it can waive the zoning bylaw, the town’s wetlands bylaw and Board of Health regulations, but it cannot waive state law, which means the project would still need an order of conditions under the state Wetlands Protection Act, MassDEP’s groundwater discharge permit for the sewage plant, and a building permit under the state code. If the developer appeals, the Housing Appeals Committee asks whether the board’s decision is “consistent with local needs,” weighing the local concerns the board relied on, such as health, safety, the environment and design, against the regional need for affordable housing, and whether any conditions leave the project unable to earn the limited profit the state allows a 40B developer. The town’s 40B page links Town Counsel’s presentation on the process.
Holliston has been through this before. In 2011 the Appeals Court upheld a state order that the ZBA issue a permit it had denied to Green View Realty, holding that a board may deny a permit by identifying a local concern, such as health, that compliance with state standards does not adequately address and that outweighs the regional housing need, and finding that Holliston’s board had not made that showing (decision). The Board of Health, and on October 15 several residents, have pointed to Reynolds v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Stow, a 2015 Appeals Court decision that draws on the Holliston case. It revoked a permit for a 37-unit elderly housing building after the trial judge found the project more likely than not to push nitrogen above 10 parts per million at a neighbor’s private well, even though it met state standards; the Stow site, unlike this one, had no public water. Winner told the board he would brief it on the Stow case, cautioning that it is one case in a large body of 40B law.
How the board handled Concord Street offers a guide to what deliberation looks like. It closed that hearing on March 24, after Town Counsel walked the members through a draft decision with its findings, conditions and list of waivers, and at a single session on April 9 it voted the requested waivers in groups, waiving the town’s wetland and stormwater bylaws only as to their procedural requirements, plus the wetland bylaw for one access drive and mailbox area, refusing to waive fees, and then approving the decision as counsel and staff had drafted it (March 24 minutes, April 9 minutes).
The developer’s attorney, Jonathan Silverstein, has argued the other side of that standard. At the September 24 session he said the peer reviewer had not identified any bylaw, regulation or written standard that the stormwater system fails to meet, and that under the state’s rules a denial must rest on a local concern tied to a local requirement the project does not satisfy, not on a general concern about risk.
What the developer has asked the board to waive
The developer describes most of these as customary for a 40B. These are the ones that bear most on the issues below; the full list runs ten pages (waiver list, revised through September 1).
Industrial district uses: allow 250 apartments where apartment buildings are not permitted
Building height: up to 61 feet and four stories, where the limit is 40 feet and three stories
Pond setback: build inside the 200-foot setback from the high-water line of a natural pond of 20 acres or more
Private sewage plant: allow one inside the Zone II that feeds the town’s wells, where zoning prohibits them
Groundwater Protection District: skip the special permits required for sewage flows over 15,000 gallons a day and for private treatment works; the developer estimates about 47,470 gallons a day from 434 bedrooms, to be reviewed by MassDEP instead
Flood Plain Overlay District: raise the ground with fill so the buildings sit outside the mapped floodplain, where the district bars new buildings, filling and excavation
Town wetlands bylaw: meet only the state Wetlands Protection Act, in place of the town’s 50-foot no-disturbance zone, 100-foot buffer and stricter riverfront rules
Board of Health wastewater rules: the town requires five feet between leaching fields and groundwater, monitoring wells the board approves, an operator on site three hours a day, a one-year operating guarantee and no part of the system within 100 feet of wetlands; the developer asks to defer to MassDEP, which requires four feet of separation and sets monitoring and financial guarantees in its own permit
When the board walked through the list on October 15, members also asked about two entrance signs set one foot from the property line, where the rules allow one sign set back 10 feet, light poles with a 22-foot mounting height, where the limit is 15 feet, and a waiver of the 10-foot separation between buildings and accessory structures, which the developer’s engineer said covers retaining walls and dumpsters, not buildings. The board will vote on each waiver during deliberations, after the conditions, and Town Counsel will add a column to the waiver list recording each decision. On October 28 the board briefly reviewed the list, where Winner had drafted answers to the members’ questions, and it plans to vote on the waivers on November 2, possibly in groups.
The questions before the board
Most of the hearing has turned on water: what the on-site sewage plant could mean for the wells that supply the town, how rain and treated wastewater will move through the same ground, and how much of the site floods. Traffic, a sidewalk to the rail trail and old fuel contamination fill out the list. On each point below, the developer’s consultants and the town’s reviewers are named so you can see who is claiming what.
The town’s wells
The site lies inside the Zone II recharge area for three of the town’s public wells, 05G, 06G and 07G. The closest, 05G, is about a mile southeast, and MassDEP estimates that treated wastewater would take about 1.6 years to travel through the ground to it; because that is under two years, DEP will hold the plant to its stricter limits for discharges close to drinking-water wells (MassDEP letter, earlier DEP comments).
The Board of Health, writing to the ZBA on September 25, said it was not trying to duplicate DEP’s role but wanted a complete record before the hearing closed. It said it had seen no analysis of how much nitrogen or nitrate would actually reach the town’s wells after traveling through the aquifer, asked that the record spell out what the treatment plant and stormwater systems are not designed to remove, naming PFAS, pharmaceuticals, solvents and detergents, and recommended enforceable monitoring, reporting and cleanup provisions backed by a financial guarantee, while noting that it was not presuming harm would occur (Board of Health letter).
The developer’s answer is that MassDEP alone regulates a plant of this size. Its consultants say nitrogen limits will be set in the DEP permit based on the travel-time analysis, that the state has no numeric limits for PFAS or pharmaceuticals and the ZBA cannot impose treatment requirements of its own, and that the plant will provide more treatment and oversight than ordinary septic systems, under a permit renewed every five years (response log). It has proposed a condition that no building permit for the plant issue until DEP grants the discharge permit, with copies of its DEP filings going to the ZBA and the Board of Health (developer’s September 23 letter), and Scannell said on September 24 that the developer would share its DEP filings but would not give the board a final sign-off. DEP has approved locations for three monitoring wells, one uphill of the leaching fields and two downhill, and requires baseline sampling before any discharge begins, and Crossman said on October 15 that monitoring is typically required for the life of a plant. Condition 62 of the draft decision bars a building permit until DEP’s discharge permit is final and requires the developer to copy the board on its correspondence with DEP as it happens.
Asked by a resident on September 24 whether the plant was sized for typical rather than peak flows, Cabral said the developer used the maximum-day, per-bedroom rates that DEP and the town require and sought no waiver of them, and that he was satisfied on that point.
In deliberations the board has turned to what the decision itself can require. On October 28 Dembitzer said she would vote no on a decision without testing at the outfalls where the site’s stormwater empties into the pond and the brook, which the developer opposes beyond what regulations already require. Winner agreed to add a finding that the whole site lies in the Zone II, and Dembitzer asked that the draft’s limits on fertilizer, pesticides and rodenticides apply across the property and that the decision cite the state’s Groundwater Protection List of pesticides, as described above under “What happened on October 28.”
Rain and treated sewage in the same ground
The longest-running technical dispute is whether rainwater soaking into the ground from the parking lots’ underground infiltration systems, on top of the groundwater mound beneath the sewage leaching fields, could slow the flow of treated wastewater away from those fields. By the developer’s figures, the leaching fields alone would raise the water table by up to 2.71 feet nearby and a 100-year storm would add 0.73 feet, for a combined 3.44 feet. In an October 6 memo its hydrogeologist, GeoHydroCycle, modeled 2-, 10- and 100-year storms and found the water table under the leaching fields rising 0.4 to 0.8 feet, peaking two to six days after the storm begins, with groundwater still draining toward the pond and the brook and no backup into the system (GeoHydroCycle memo). The developer’s engineer, Carlton Quinn of Allen & Major, told the board the stormwater systems were designed on top of the wastewater mound, with the groundwater beneath them raised a foot or two to account for it.
Crossman wrote on September 21 that stormwater mounds would alter flow around the leaching fields for one to four days after a large storm and that the developer’s own exhibits showed half or more of the modeled flow path could be temporarily obstructed, and it said DEP’s review had not considered the stormwater systems (Crossman memo). At the September 24 session Cabral told the board that in 40 years of peer review it was the first time he could not support a project because of a technical concern he did not think had been addressed, while saying he believed it could be addressed with more analysis. In its October 13 reply, which the town has posted as its final review, Crossman agreed the flow would never be fully blocked and that partial diversions would pass within one to three days, but argued that GeoHydroCycle’s method of adding the two mounds together assumes wastewater keeps moving freely away from the fields in every direction, which Crossman says the modeling itself shows will not hold for a few days after a large storm, because by its count six infiltration systems surround the fields. It recommended a more detailed analysis and said it still could not offer a positive finding on public health, safety and welfare or the environment (Crossman final review).
The two sides also disagree about whose question it is. The developer says the stormwater system was never in doubt and that how well the sewage plant performs is for DEP alone. Cabral said on October 15 that he sees it as more a stormwater question, which the town reviews, than a wastewater one, and Winner told the board on September 24 that the two systems are coupled, so that while DEP alone issues the discharge permit, the board can judge whether the town’s stormwater bylaw has been met. Each infiltration system has an overflow pipe that empties into the pond or the brook in a major storm, after treatment that Crossman says meets state standards. On October 21 Winner told the board that a special condition later in the draft addresses whether the stormwater and the sewage discharge work together, and when the board reached that part of the draft on October 28, condition 62 let the board and the developer each send MassDEP a written statement on how the two systems interact, “to ensure the subject does not evade review.”
Flooding and wetlands
About 23.5 of the 42 acres are wetland or flood hazard area. The developer plans to raise the building sites with fill so the buildings sit outside the floodplain, which requires creating equal flood storage elsewhere on the site, and filed revised flood storage calculations on September 24 (calculations).
Which flood map applies has been disputed. The developer’s survey and plans rest on FEMA’s 2010 flood maps, under a wetlands boundary determination the Conservation Commission approved in January 2025, while FEMA’s current maps took effect July 8, 2025. Crossman’s August 27 review said the town’s floodplain zoning, which bars new buildings, filling and excavation in the district, is defined by the 2025 maps, and reported its understanding that Town Counsel had told the developer in a meeting that this part of the bylaw applies to the project, in which case building or filling below the current flood elevation would need a waiver, with mitigation required even if one is granted (Crossman review). The developer treats which map governs as a legal question for it and the town to settle (developer’s reply), but the Conservation Agent told the commission on September 15 that the developer had agreed in August to provide compensatory flood storage based on the 2025 maps, and Crossman said on September 24 that it had not yet confirmed that mitigation was in the plan set the board would act on. DEP’s review of the groundwater model found the sewage discharge would raise the water table 0.1 to 0.2 feet at the edges of the wetlands along the pond and the brook and leave the small perched wetlands on the east side untouched.
The Conservation Commission, in a September 17 letter written by Conservation Agent Tyler Skrzypiec, told the ZBA it has difficulty supporting the developer’s wetland bylaw waivers as documented, because they lack the alternatives analysis, mitigation plans and expert evidence its regulations require for any waiver, and because the revised waiver list reached it the day before a meeting. It reported that an isolated wetland of about 4,703 square feet, protected only by the town’s bylaw, appears to be filled under the developer’s flood storage plan, and said a waiver there would leave that wetland with no protection under town or state law; on October 15 the developer’s engineer said the plans do not fill it. The commission also pointed to rare-species habitat mapped next to the property and downstream on Bogastow Brook, and to the effects of site lighting and mosquito control on the birds and bats that feed near the pond, and asked that any permit note that a Notice of Intent under the state law will still be required (Conservation Commission letter, agent’s earlier comments). On October 15 the developer’s attorney said the commission’s documentation requirements do not apply to waivers under 40B, and Winner said a waiver does not exempt the plans from review.
Old fuel contamination
The site has a known petroleum release from former underground fuel tanks. According to the Board of Health, about 2,000 cubic yards of soil were dug out and more than 200,000 gallons of groundwater treated, and a final cleanup report was filed in August 2015. Test pits dug for this project in 2025 and 2026 turned up strong petroleum odors, and the developer’s environmental consultant, Haley & Aldrich, concluded the contamination is confined to about 324 square feet, five to ten feet down, that a small removal is planned and that the wastewater discharge would not move it, which DEP accepted on condition that any new information be reported.
The town’s environmental peer reviewer, Coneco, wrote on August 27 that a January 2025 test pit found gasoline compounds and MTBE above state reporting levels, which started a 120-day reporting clock, and that because the removal had not been done and the release had not been reported, the site was out of compliance with the state cleanup rules. Coneco recorded the developer’s plan to do the removal or report the release within 120 days of taking ownership (Coneco review); Scannell told the board on October 15 that the developer would be legally obligated to remove it within 180 days. The Board of Health has asked whether the contamination analysis accounted for stormwater and wastewater soaking in together, and the developer says a June 18 memo from Haley & Aldrich did. On October 15 the board discussed having Coneco oversee the cleanup, and the developer agreed to share its report. On October 21 the board required the pre-construction meeting to take place at least 30 days before any site work begins, at the request of Karen Sherman, the former town planner who is consulting on the project, because contaminated and excess material has to come off the site early.
The town’s water supply
On September 24, DPW Director Sean Reese told town planners that MassDEP’s draft water withdrawal permit would cut what Holliston may pump beyond its grandfathered 1.41 million gallons a day from 0.27 million to 0.04 million, or 230,000 fewer gallons a day, a cut the town is appealing but expects to see in some form. He wrote that this project and a proposed 50-unit project on Concord Street could push the town past its permitted amount, which would trigger DEP enforcement, and that an outside consultant’s study of the added demand would take a few more weeks (Reese email). This spring Reese had told the Select Board the town could meet the project’s anticipated pumping needs (CitizenPortal summary).
Traffic and walking
The developer’s traffic study projects 1,136 vehicle trips on a weekday, with 92 in the morning peak hour and 97 in the evening. Lowland Street is about 24 feet wide with no sidewalks or shoulders, and most drivers on it stay under 35 mph. Whitney Street’s approach to Washington Street already rates F, the lowest grade, in the morning peak, and the study projects the wait there growing to about two and a half minutes with the project (traffic study). At residents’ request the study was extended to Woodland Street and Fawn Road, where state records show no reported crashes from 2022 through 2025, and the town’s traffic reviewer accepted the developer’s proposal to move the Fawn Road stop sign forward to improve sight lines (Crossman traffic review).
The clearest open disagreement is over a sidewalk along the roughly 1,300 feet of Lowland Street between the site and the Upper Charles Rail Trail, which Crossman expects residents to use to reach the elementary and middle schools on Woodland Street. Crossman estimated two simpler designs at $400,000 to $500,000, against an earlier estimate of more than $2 million, and noted that the town’s 2021 pedestrian study did not flag Lowland Street, though no 250-unit project was planned at the time. North of the rail trail a sidewalk already exists, finished by the DPW in December 2023 along the stretch the Select Board renamed Fawn Road that month (minutes), so the gap in dispute runs from the site to the trail. The developer has declined for now, citing a July 7 statement by Crossman’s own traffic engineer that sidewalk extensions were beyond the scope of a project like this, and at the September 2 hearing its attorney argued an off-site sidewalk could make the project financially unworkable.
In a June 4 letter signed by Chair Ben Sparrell, the Select Board strongly recommended that any permit require sidewalks from the site to the rail trail and the town’s sidewalk network, citing the Complete Streets policy it and the Planning Board adopted in 2020 and the town’s Climate Action Plan, and asked for better sight lines at Jeffrey Avenue and Lowland Street, where a berm blocks the view (Select Board letter). MassHousing had also urged better walkability and a safe school bus stop. Dembitzer said on September 24 that she would want a sidewalk as a condition, and Peabody said on October 15 that the board is considering mitigation, including a sidewalk or a contribution to a sidewalk fund. The draft decision has the developer contribute up to $150,000 toward a Lowland Street sidewalk if the town applies for a state MassWorks grant within three years of the permit becoming final, and on October 28 staff suggested dropping the MassWorks reference and members asked that the three years run from a later milestone, while Winner said the money must stay tied to a sidewalk serving this project. The draft also calls for a sheltered school bus stop, to be built once the school department confirms in writing that it will serve it, and Sarah Scott told the board on October 28 that the site is outside the walk zone for the K-8 schools. It also requires traffic and parking monitoring after occupancy, with the developer paying up to $25,000 toward fixes if set thresholds are crossed, a cap the board wants raised to at least $50,000.
Fire access and schools
Fire Chief Michael Cassidy reviewed the June plans and wrote on July 2 that if the project is approved, his department will work with the developer to confirm that the driveways and access points can handle its trucks’ turning radii (memo). The town had told MassHousing in 2025 that the layout seemed to limit access all the way around the building closest to the pond. MassHousing noted that the effect on school enrollment, which residents raised, falls outside what it is allowed to review.
What the other boards have said
The ZBA issues the one local permit, but the sewage plant needs a state permit of its own, the wetlands work needs a state-law approval from the Conservation Commission, and several town boards have taken up the project at their own meetings.
MassDEP permits the sewage plant and its discharge. It approved the developer’s groundwater study with conditions on June 11 and invited a full discharge permit application, which the developer says it will not file until it has a local permit, and the plant cannot be built until that permit issues.
The Board of Health would normally govern the plant under its own wastewater rules, which the developer asks the ZBA to waive in favor of DEP’s. In February the board noted that the plant falls under DEP’s jurisdiction but that it could comment to the ZBA, and flagged the fuel contamination DEP had reported (minutes). In April the town’s health director, Scott Moles, told the board he had concerns but could not judge how serious they were without the plant’s design, and said he would like the stormwater and the nearby waterway tested, as is done at the Reworld waste facility in town, formerly Covanta (minutes). In August the board discussed a draft of its first letter to the ZBA, with Vice Chair Peter Liffiton urging that it go out soon because of ongoing criticism of the board’s lack of participation (minutes); it wrote on August 14, August 20 and September 25, and Liffiton and member Audrea Szabatura pressed the groundwater questions at the September 2 hearing (ZBA minutes). At its September 22 meeting, a member said the developer’s answers had left several of the board’s questions open, on the ground that the Board of Health has no authority over them, and the board was told its earlier letter had already gone to the DEP staff reviewing the project.
The Conservation Commission issues the order of conditions under the state Wetlands Protection Act, which the ZBA cannot waive. It confirmed the site’s wetland boundaries in January 2025 (minutes). On March 3 the developer gave the commission an early look before any formal filing: Scannell said about 31 of the 42 acres would stay undisturbed, with building concentrated on about 11 acres that were mostly already disturbed, and that the buildings would be all-electric, while commissioners objected to garages planned along the pond, and one said the plan did not respect the town’s wetland bylaw, particularly its 50-foot buffer (minutes). On March 31 the commission agreed to put its concerns in writing, noting residents’ worries about wells, including in Sherborn (minutes), and the agent’s comments went to the ZBA on April 22. At its September 1 meeting the Conservation Agent reported that the developer had moved two garages farther from the pond, though the waiver list still asked to waive most of the town’s wetland protections, and said the commission could hire its own environmental peer reviewer when the project comes before it. On September 15, while drafting the letter it sent two days later, commissioners called the project larger than anything the board had faced, and raised mosquito control, the pesticides it would bring, and light from four-story buildings beside the pond and wetlands. On September 29 commissioners were urged to attend the October 15 session, when the waivers were reviewed.
The Planning Board has no role in the permit, but its staff has tracked the hearing in their updates, and on October 14, during its discussion of the groundwater bylaw amendments going to Town Meeting, a member asked how the changes would affect the Lowland Street project. Sarah Scott, the town’s director of planning and community development, said an application is protected from zoning changes once it is filed, and Barbara Peatie, who ran the meeting, noted that a 40B can bypass local rules in any case. Town Meeting passed the amendments 123-25 on October 19, and they go next to the Attorney General for review (amended text); no one raised them at the board’s October 21 deliberations.
The Select Board has no vote on the permit. It approved the town’s comments to MassHousing in October 2025, described below under “Before the hearing,” and on May 18, 2026 it directed letters, sent June 4, urging the ZBA to require sidewalks to the rail trail and asking MassDEP how it permits and monitors sewage plants in Zone II areas (minutes, letter to the ZBA, letter to DEP). Residents, Liz Theiler most often, have pressed the board through the year to take up the water question; in April Chair Ben Sparrell agreed to put water quality and the project on future agendas, and in July Vice Chair Tina Hein asked the town manager whether more agenda items on the 40B would be appropriate (April 27 minutes, July 13 minutes).
The Water Department supplies the water and runs the wells, and is studying the added demand while it appeals a proposed cut to its state withdrawal permit. The subcommittee drafting the town’s wellhead protection rules has raised the broader worry: at its October 8 meeting a member said the parking and rooftops proposed for Lowland would cover a fair amount of aquifer, and town staff presenting the amendments told the Planning Board on October 14 that the groundwater protection zones cover about a quarter of the town and that the Lowland Industrial Park is the only one of its industrial parks inside them. At Town Meeting, where the amendments passed, Select Board Vice Chair Tina Hein said a 2023 MWRA study put the cost of connecting Holliston to the regional system at about $60 million, and then only if the town were accepted, a figure Dembitzer also raised on October 21.
The Fire Department will confirm truck access with the developer if the project is approved, and MassHousing must give final approval before construction; its eligibility letter is good for two years.
The ZBA itself has three members: Chair Jay Peabody, Vice Chair Elizabeth Dembitzer and Clerk Vladimir Nechev. Its reviewers are Crossman Engineering for civil, traffic and groundwater questions and Coneco for the site’s contamination, Town Counsel Brian Winner of Mead, Talerman & Costa advises the board, and Karen Sherman, the former town planner, is consulting on the project.
Earlier proposals for the site
The apartments are at least the third proposal for the old quarry in a decade. The Planning Board turned down every earlier one: the owner’s plan to sell and truck out stockpiled fill in 2017, and an auto auction’s overflow parking lot in 2020 and again in 2022, after a Land Court appeal sent it back to the board. In 2020 the ZBA also upheld a zoning violation against the owner. In its denials the Planning Board pointed to heavy trucks on residential streets near the rail trail and noise reaching the homes across Bogastow Brook, and in 2020 to the risks of an industrial use inside the Zone II.
2014 and 2015, dumping and composting. The Conservation Commission, the building inspector, the state Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and the Board of Health issued violation notices between November 2014 and May 2015. On June 2, 2015 the Middlesex Superior Court, in Town of Holliston v. Brumber, issued a preliminary injunction barring the owner from processing compost or removing material from the site (Planning Board findings, 2017).
2015, the owner’s first application to process and remove the material. The Planning Board could not act after its chairman stepped aside and a member had missed a session, and the owner withdrew the application without prejudice on December 3, 2015 (minutes).
2016 to 2019, the Brumber special permit. The owner, Michael Brumber, sought to screen and sell about 35,000 cubic yards of compost and fill he had brought to the site without permits, with up to 80 heavy trucks a day over five months. The Planning Board denied the special permit 5-0 on February 2, 2017. Its findings, printed in that night’s minutes, cite the residential neighborhood next door, the trucks’ risk to pedestrians, children and rail trail users, untested fill inside the Zone II, and noise in an industrial park where, the board found, the owner’s operation at 157 Lowland Street already exceeded state limits (minutes with findings). The Land Court upheld the denial on February 21, 2019 (decision).
2019, removing the stockpiles. In November 2019 the Board of Health was told the owner had a 90-day agreement with the Conservation Commission and the ZBA to remove the material, with police details to manage traffic and noise (minutes). A June 2020 Planning Board memo says the material was removed in 2019 under a settlement agreement with the town.
2020, the owner’s appeal of a zoning violation. On May 4, 2020 Building Inspector Chris Canney issued a notice of zoning violation, citing uses on the site, among them outdoor storage of materials and equipment, that need special permits the site does not have, and that month the Planning Board also cited the owner for building earthen berms without a land disturbance permit. The owner appealed to the ZBA, arguing the town was imposing restrictions it did not impose on similar properties nearby, and on June 24, 2020 the ZBA voted 4-0 to deny the appeal, finding the notice a reasonable reading of the bylaw (appeal, Planning Board memo, ZBA minutes).
2020, ADESA Boston. The Framingham car auction sought a paved lot of about 5.23 acres to store some 500 cars awaiting auction, plus a security building, on the 43-acre site. The Planning Board denied it 5-0 on December 3, 2020, along with its stormwater and land disturbance permit, finding the trucks, noise and diesel exhaust would significantly alter the neighborhood, that limiting haulers ADESA did not control to a truck route would be ineffective, that the trucks would threaten pedestrians, schoolchildren and rail trail users on a road with no sidewalks, and that refueling, vehicle fluids and de-icing in the Zone II could not be reliably limited (decision). The town’s annual report for fiscal 2021 lists a Conservation Commission order of conditions for “a parking lot for used car storage on Lowland Street” (report, p. 80).
2021 to 2022, ADESA’s appeal and second application. ADESA appealed the 2020 denial to the Land Court. At a joint closed session on September 27, 2021, Town Counsel laid out three paths, one of them a by-right version of the project under a used-car dealer license from the Select Board, and the Planning Board voted 5-0 to rehear the application on remand (minutes). The second application, for what ADESA’s attorney called essentially the same lot, now for 585 cars, added a redesigned driveway, a sound barrier and an offer to give the town the 37 acres it would not use. The rehearing ran from January 13 to February 17, 2022 (Local Town Pages), and on April 28 the board denied the application again by unanimous roll call, along with its stormwater permit (minutes).
2022, the town’s search for a new public works yard. In August 2022 the town administrator told the Select Board that 194 Lowland had recently been brought forward as a possible site for a new DPW facility, one of several the town was weighing (minutes).
Those denials rested on findings the Planning Board must make for a special permit under local zoning, which a 40B permit can waive, so the ZBA’s decision turns instead on whether local concerns outweigh the regional need for housing. Several of the concerns are the same ones the ZBA has heard this year: traffic on Lowland and Woodland streets with no sidewalks, the rail trail about 1,300 feet away, and the Zone II. The 2019 Land Court decision describes 194 Lowland Street alone as a 15-acre site, while ADESA’s application and the current one both cover “0 & 194 Lowland Street,” two parcels totaling about 42 to 43 acres. Brumber’s company, DCAB, LLC, bought the land from Barbara and Judy DiCarlo in 2017, while his Land Court case was pending, and still owns it.
Before the hearing
The water question that has dominated the hearing was already loud in town before the developer filed. In 2025 the town weighed a site on the other side of Lowland Street, at 157–165, for a new public works garage, one of four parcels offered in its search that spring (minutes), and neighbors, several of whom later took part in the 40B hearing, told the Select Board in August that oil and fuel from a public works yard’s trucks and equipment would put at risk the aquifer that feeds the town’s wells (minutes). Yard signs reading “Save our Water” went up around town (Board of Health minutes), and on September 29 the Select Board chose to rebuild on Arch Street instead, with member Tina Hein saying water quality had come to the forefront during the Lowland Street discussion and would be addressed as a separate issue (minutes). Lowland Street had come up before: when a resident asked in March 2025 whether the town had looked there, Sparrell said a property on the street had been considered in 2022 but its cost at the time made it undesirable (minutes), and 194 Lowland was among the sites raised that year, as the section above notes.
The apartment proposal came into view the same season. The Conservation Commission had confirmed the wetland boundaries at 0 and 194 Lowland Street in January 2025, and MassHousing scheduled a site visit for September 10 (Economic Development Committee minutes). On September 8 Winner walked the Select Board through the 40B process, and the board heard that Holliston, at about 4.8% affordable, had three 40B proposals in view: Geoffrey Park, Concord Street and Lowland Street (minutes). On October 6 the Select Board voted 3-0 to send MassHousing the town’s comments, which Town Manager Frank Gervasio drafted to cover the environmentally protected area, traffic, density, sidewalks, infrastructure and the preservation of the industrial park (minutes, the town’s comments). In November DPW Director Sean Reese suggested that MassDOT, which is planning a redesign of the Washington and Whitney Street intersection, assess the project’s effect there (minutes). MassHousing found the site eligible on November 25, Gervasio told the Select Board in December that the ZBA hearing could begin as early as February (minutes), the developer filed on January 20, and the hearing opened on February 11.
The hearing, meeting by meeting
The public hearing ran through 13 meetings from February to October 15, all held remotely on Zoom, and the developer agreed to extend it three times; deliberations began on October 21and continued on October 28.. Newest first, from the board’s agendas, minutes and recordings, along with the filings and other boards’ meetings that fed into it (ZBA agendas and minutes):
November 2: Deliberations continue at 6 p.m., in what the chair hopes is the last session, with votes on the waivers and the decision (agenda)
October 28: Second deliberation session. The board finishes its first pass through the draft decision and the waiver list without a vote, Dembitzer says she will vote no without testing at the stormwater outfalls, and Peabody calls that condition “probably the most critical component of the entire decision” (agenda, recording)
October 21: First deliberation session. Peabody and Nechev lean toward approval with conditions and Dembitzer remains skeptical, and the board works through the findings and the first 20 conditions without a vote (agenda, recording)
October 19: Town Meeting passes the Groundwater Protection District amendments, 123-25
October 15: Final session. Crossman and the developer remain at odds over stormwater and the sewage plant, almost all of the residents who speak oppose the project, the board reviews the waiver list without voting, and it votes 3-0 to close the hearing (agenda, recording)
October 14: At a Planning Board meeting on the groundwater bylaw amendments, staff say zoning changes cannot reach an application already filed
October 13: Crossman replies to GeoHydroCycle in what the town posts as its final review, still without a positive finding on the sewage system
October 9: Town Counsel’s draft decision goes to the developer, which returns a markup on October 15
October 6: GeoHydroCycle memo on storm mounding under the leaching fields
September 29: Conservation commissioners are urged to attend the October 15 waiver review
September 25: Board of Health sends its updated groundwater letter
September 24: With the hearing at the end of its extension and 26 people attending, down from 50 or 60 earlier in the year, Crossman says it cannot recommend approval, the developer says the question is DEP’s, the members give a straw poll, and the board votes 3-0 to continue to October 15 with the decision clock running (agenda, minutes, recording); the same day, Reese warns about the town’s water withdrawal permit
September 22: The Board of Health discusses the developer’s answers to its questions and its letters to DEP
September 21: Crossman memo on stormwater and wastewater mounding
September 17: Conservation Commission tells the ZBA it cannot support the wetland waivers as documented, after discussing the letter on September 15
September 2: Session; Crossman presents its peer review, the developer’s attorney disputes the off-site sidewalk, Town Counsel explains what makes a condition “uneconomic,” and Board of Health members press on nitrogen and PFAS; the developer extends the hearing to September 24 (minutes)
September 1: The Conservation Agent reports that two garages have been moved farther from the pond
August 27: Crossman civil review and Coneco environmental review
August 19: Session; the developer updates its plans and waiver list (minutes)
August 11: The Board of Health drafts its first letter to the ZBA (minutes)
July 28: Session; the developer offers a 30-day extension (minutes)
July 14: The Board of Health takes up a resident’s request for stormwater testing at the site (minutes)
July 7: Session on drainage modeling, floodplain mitigation, the Woodland and Fawn traffic analysis and a sidewalk to the rail trail; the developer agrees to study a sidewalk to the rail trail, and the town planner reports it has approved the scope of an environmental audit of the site (minutes)
July 2: Fire chief’s access memo
June 11: MassDEP conditionally approves the groundwater study
June 9: Continued at the developer’s request without discussion (minutes)
May 18: Select Board directs letters to the ZBA and MassDEP, sent June 4
May 14: Session
May 5: Session on site plans, stormwater, the revised traffic study and groundwater mounding; the board seeks added groundwater and contamination review, which the developer agrees to fund (minutes)
April 22: Session; revised site plans entered (minutes); the Conservation Agent sends the commission’s first comments (comments)
April 14: The health director tells the Board of Health he has concerns but needs the plant’s design to judge them
March 31: The Conservation Commission agrees to send the ZBA written comments
March 24: Session on DEP permitting, added soil borings and the traffic study (minutes)
March 3: The developer presents the project to the Conservation Commission ahead of a formal filing
February 24: Session; the board directs staff to hire Crossman as peer reviewer, at the developer’s expense, and decides MassHousing’s technical assistance would not meet its needs (minutes)
February 11: Hearing opens with the developer’s presentation (recording)
February 10: The Conservation Commission discusses the project the night before the hearing opens (minutes)
January 20: Application filed
November 25, 2025: MassHousing finds the site eligible
October 6, 2025: The Select Board approves the town’s comments to MassHousing
September 10, 2025: MassHousing visits the site
September 8, 2025: Town Counsel explains the 40B process to the Select Board
January 7, 2025: The Conservation Commission confirms the site’s wetland boundaries
Residents who have spoken or written during the hearing include Liz Theiler, Karen Apuzzo-Langton, Ellen Trolland, Cherie Hafford, Mary Beth McGaw, Keefe Bailey and Alex Check.
The filings, by topic
The town’s project page lists all 88 filings, newest first, with no summary. If you read only five, read the MassHousing letter for the project and the town’s early concerns, the waiver list for what the developer wants set aside, MassDEP’s June 11 letter for the wells and the sewage plant, the Board of Health’s September 25 letter for the open groundwater questions, and Crossman’s October 13 review for where the town’s engineer landed.
The project
Wells, groundwater and the sewage plant
MassDEP conditional approval, June 11 and MassDEP letter of comment, March
Crossman supplemental review, September 21 and final peer review, October 13
Developer’s response to Crossman, September 23 and GeoHydroCycle memo, October 6
Flooding, wetlands and contamination
Crossman civil peer review, August 27 and developer’s reply, September 24
Conservation Commission letter, September 17 and Conservation Agent comments
Traffic, access and town letters
Traffic impact study, September 2025 and Crossman’s fourth traffic review, June 30
Select Board letter to the ZBA and to MassDEP, June 4
Law and background
ZBA agendas and minutes and the town’s 40B page
Zoning Board of Appeals of Holliston v. Housing Appeals Committee (2011)
760 CMR 56.03, the state’s 40B rule on local needs and large projects and 333 CMR 12.00, the state’s Groundwater Protection List rule
Sources and method: this page is built from the filings on the town’s project page, the posted minutes of the Zoning Board, Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Select Board and other boards from 2025 and 2026, earlier minutes and decisions, court records, and the Ledger’s transcripts of meeting recordings. Where minutes have not yet been posted, accounts of meetings come from the recordings, which are linked.