Windward Development and its consultants presented a multi-part application on Sept. 25 to redevelop two downtown parcels at 39 and 49–51 Locust Avenue, seek zoning-text amendments to permit hotels in the Business C zone, and obtain special permits and site-plan approvals for a hotel and related retail and parking modifications.
Developer Elliot Sidorides said the project would combine the two properties (owned by 2 Corners LLC) into an adaptive-reuse master plan that adds a 40-key hotel with ground-floor food-and-beverage space and roughly 600 square feet of new Cherry Street retail at 49–51 Locust, and 4,600 square feet of ground-floor retail or office plus eight extended-stay units above at 39 Locust. The team characterized the plan as a mixed-use, form-based response to site topography, pedestrian connectivity and the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD).
Traffic consultant David Sullivan of SLR Consulting summarized a traffic and safety study that found the project would generate modest new peak-hour trips: for the combined 49–51 site the team estimated roughly 37 trips in the AM peak and 44 in the PM peak, and 54 trips for the Saturday midday peak; 39 Locust generated smaller trip volumes in the firm’s analysis. Sullivan said the study used Institute of Transportation Engineers statistics, compared generated trips with existing uses and tested intersections; overall levels of service at nearby study intersections remained acceptable under the firm’s analysis. Sullivan recommended a suite of pedestrian and public‑realm improvements — curb extensions, realigned crosswalks and ADA ramp upgrades — and the team proposed to close one driveway to reduce curb cuts on Locust.
Windward representatives also told the commission they had identified a narrow town-owned strip of land at the Cherry Street corner (about 1,200 square feet, deeded to the town in 1975) and said re-acquiring that strip would resolve a roughly 792-square-foot floor-area-ratio (FAR) overage in the developers’ calculations; they asked the town to consider deeding the strip back to the owner so the proposed Cherry Street retail could proceed as designed. The applicant said that if that parcel is not deeded back the commission could still approve the project but certain retail elements or the overage must be revised.
The application seeks two related text changes: to add “hotel” as a permitted use (subject to special permit) in Business C and to allow heights above a 30-foot standard up to a capped height (the applicant requested up to four stories in the Business C context) when the commission finds specified public benefits, including improved pedestrian access, contextual design and other criteria. The developer also proposed that basement area used chiefly for storage or parking not be counted as an additional story if a defined portion of the basement lies a minimum depth below average grade.
Commissioners asked for narrower, project-specific zoning language rather than broad, cross-zone changes, and they emphasized the need for clear caps on height expressed in feet rather than story counts. Staff and commissioners asked the applicant to remove residential-usage text (the commission said the application is effectively a commercial hotel proposal and should be packaged as such), to clarify special-permit findings, and to tighten the scope of requested relief so the amendment would not enable unrelated future projects without additional review.
Planning staff requested scaled civil drawings that overlay the proposed curb-line and public-right-of-way changes, and the commission asked the applicant to work with the town engineer on curb and right-of-way revisions. Commissioners also asked the applicant to provide comparisons of proposed building heights to adjacent structures and to refine continuous wall-length elevations (the zoning has an 80-foot wall-length limit in some contexts). The commission asked for a peer review of the traffic study; the town’s typical process is to select an independent reviewer and require the applicant to deposit a fee to cover that consultant’s work.
The applicant and staff agreed the public comment period would be held at the next meeting (the hearing was continued to October). Commissioners listed specific material requests for the next hearing, including civil/site plans at full scale, refined text for the zoning amendment narrowed to hotels, clarified height caps in feet, revised elevations that address the 80-foot wall-length rule or a drafted special-permit route for relief, and peer-review results for traffic and right-of-way design. No action was taken on approvals at the Sept. 25 hearing; the commission continued the application to the next meeting and left public comment open for that session.