The Zoning Board of Appeals chose on Wednesday, October 21, to keep building a decision that would approve the 250-apartment project at 0 and 194 Lowland Street with conditions, rather than turn toward a denial. Two of its three members, Chair Jay Peabody and Clerk Vladimir Nechev, said they lean toward approval with conditions, and Vice Chair Elizabeth Dembitzer said she remains skeptical. The board took no vote. Over about three hours it worked through the findings and the first 20 conditions of the draft decision, and it will pick up at condition 21 on Wednesday, October 28, at 6 p.m. That is the only session scheduled so far before November 4, the date by which the decision must be filed with the Town Clerk.
The public hearing closed on October 15, so the board, meeting remotely with all three members present, took no public comment and could not accept new information. The developer, MP Properties IV, LLC, could not speak either, although its attorney, Jonathan Silverstein, was listening and had sent written comments on the draft that afternoon. The Ledger’s page on the project has the background, filings and history:
194 Lowland Street: The 40B Apartment Proposal, in One Place
Last updated October 17, 2026. This page is updated as the board acts.
Two members leaning toward approval
Peabody opened by saying the board had been working toward an approval with conditions and had never drafted a denial. He asked whether anyone thought that was the wrong direction, because, he said, this was the time to change course if the board was going to.
Dembitzer said she remained skeptical because the site sits in the Zone II area that feeds the town’s wells, noting that connecting to the regional MWRA system would cost $60 million or more, if the authority would take the town at all. She said the developer had answered residents’ fears mostly by saying MassDEP would take care of them or that the board could not consider them. She then listed what she wants kept away from the wells, among them leaking cars, de-icing chemicals, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and rodenticides, firefighting foam, pet waste and PFAS, the long-lasting “forever chemicals,” including those used in building materials. She also asked who would make sure, years from now, that tenants were not pouring chemicals down drains or changing oil in the parking lot.
Peabody said MassDEP’s review of a project this size, together with the conditions in the decision, should protect the town against much of what Dembitzer described, and that a flat denial could leave the town with no control over the project at all. He did not hide his own view of the location. “I actually think it’s crummy to have multifamily in an industrial park,” he said. Nechev said he leaned toward approval with conditions, and Peabody noted that two of the three votes would decide the matter. Nechev added that even if Dembitzer stayed a no, having her press her concerns would make the conditions stronger, and when he called hers “the no position,” she offered another name for it: “How about the skeptical position?” Nechev agreed. She had said at the outset that she had not made a decision.
What the town can and cannot require
Board counsel Brian Winner, of Mead, Talerman & Costa, explained what a denial would have to rest on. The board would need to point to 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. He said a decision cannot rest on apprehension about what might happen. If the board denied the permit and the developer appealed, he said, the state 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, and other parties who say an approval harms them can appeal to Superior Court, where the case is heard anew. Whatever the board decides, the permit’s conditions run with the land and bind any future owner.
The limits of a land-use permit came up again later in the evening. When Dembitzer worried that the way tenants use the property could still put contaminants into the groundwater, Nechev said the board has no ability to restrict tenant use in its conditions. “Oh, well, that’s a big problem then,” Dembitzer said, and asked whether that meant the management company could spray pesticides on the landscaping, or tenants could wash cars and change oil in the parking lot. Winner said the permit regulates the use of the land rather than the personal conduct of the people living there, but that its conditions run with the land, so any activity the permit prohibits is one the permit holder must answer for, and the draft’s limits on pesticides and fertilizers come later in the decision.
The same question arose over the part of the site the developer does not plan to build on. A condition in the draft requires that this land stay undisturbed, and an earlier draft would also have restricted it permanently to passive uses. Winner said the developer accepts the first part but not a permanent restriction, which Silverstein wrote is a requirement “not imposed on market rate developments and is not required under any local requirement or regulation.” Winner told the board it can impose only conditions that rest on rules the town actually has. “So what we can’t do is manufacture regulations and conditions. We can only impose ones that exist,” he said. Without a recorded restriction, the developer could later apply to the board for a modification to use that land. The board left the question for next week.
The same principle shaped a discussion of fill. The developer plans to raise the site about seven feet on average, mostly with fill brought in from elsewhere, and Dembitzer wants that fill tested against the chemicals the Water Department says should be kept from the wells. Winner said any such standard has to come from MassDEP’s rules for Zone II areas, and he will report back on what they require. Peabody said he did not think the board could go beyond what MassDEP requires.
What changed in the draft
The board revised several findings before reaching the conditions. Members agreed that one finding should state that a residential project at this location and density is not consistent with neighboring development patterns, which Dembitzer tied to her request for a sidewalk so residents can walk to the rail trail and on to school, and Peabody to later conditions on traffic calming and trucks. They struck sentences saying the developer had worked in good faith and been cooperative, which Winner said are not legally required. Dembitzer had objected that the town’s peer reviewer asked for more analysis of how the stormwater and wastewater systems interact and the developer declined to provide it. They also removed the word “non-discretionary” from the description of the board’s later review of final plans.
Most of the first 20 conditions are standard requirements for the plans the developer must submit and for how construction is run, covering drainage, stormwater, architecture, lighting, tree clearing, as-built plans and upkeep. One of them, the construction mitigation plan, would require trucks to travel in and out of the industrial park by way of Whitney and Washington streets, and would bar blasting unless the developer comes back to the board for a modification. Winner said the conditions written specifically for this project come later in the draft, among them one on whether the stormwater and the sewage discharge work together, one restricting pesticides and other chemicals, and one providing a place for children to wait for the school bus. The changes the board made on October 21 were these:
Plan review (condition 2): the board and its engineer will have 30 days from a complete submission to confirm that final plans conform to the decision. Silverstein had proposed 14 days, and Sarah Scott, the town’s director of planning and community development, had suggested 45.
Construction practices (condition 11): at Dembitzer’s request, the construction plan must explain how construction vehicles will comply with the decision’s restrictions, such as on petroleum leaks. Town staff also asked that the decision require a copy of the federal stormwater permit for construction and show the erosion and dust controls on the plans.
Signs (condition 12): the signage package must now include the developer’s monument signs at the entrances, whose number and setback are among the requested waivers.
Pre-construction meeting (condition 13): at the request of Karen Sherman, who assists the board, the meeting must take place at least 30 days before any site preparation or construction begins. She said waiting until foundation work would be too late on a site where contaminated and excess material has to come off early.
Landscaping (condition 14): at Dembitzer’s request, the landscaping plan must explain how the developer will comply with the decision’s limits on pesticides, rather than staying silent on them.
Wetlands (condition 23): Peabody asked that no permits of any kind, not only building permits, issue for work in wetland areas until the state wetlands approvals are final, and Winner will rewrite it.
Scott will also check with the building commissioner on how occupancy permits should be sequenced if the buildings are finished at different times.
Washington Street office approved
Earlier in the evening the board approved a special permit for Martins Cleaning and Painting, Inc. to use 1286 Washington Street, a former car dealership, as an office and for indoor storage of non-hazardous painting, cleaning and carpentry supplies, tools, ladders and equipment. The permit allows no retail sales, manufacturing, vehicle repair or storage of flammable or hazardous materials. Sherman cautioned that an unpaved area behind the building should not end up holding vehicles or equipment. At Dembitzer’s suggestion, with Nechev pointing out that a storage ban alone would not cover parking, the board added conditions barring parking in the rear of the building and all outdoor storage.
What happens next
Winner will revise the draft with the evening’s changes and keep talking with Silverstein. The board meets again on Wednesday, October 28, at 6 p.m., starting at condition 21. Still ahead are the special conditions on the sewage plant, stormwater and pesticides, the undeveloped land, a vote on each of the developer’s requested waivers, and the final vote. Anyone can listen, but the board cannot take public comment. The developer agreed in writing on September 24 to November 4 as the deadline for filing the decision, and if the board misses it, state law treats the permit as granted.
This report is based on the recording of the October 21 meeting. Minutes had not been posted at the time of writing. Agenda · Recording · Extension and decision deadline letter · Waiver requests
Correction, October 27: An earlier version of this article misstated the context of two remarks by Vice Chair Elizabeth Dembitzer. She called the permit’s limits on tenant conduct “a big problem” in response to Clerk Vladimir Nechev, not board counsel Brian Winner, whose explanation came afterward, and she proposed “the skeptical position” as a description of her stance after Nechev called it “the no position.”