Residents continue to push back against State Road Apartments

The proposed 56-unit apartment building at 802 through 806 State Road raised concerns about rock blasting, drainage on the lot, the added traffic and potential privacy issues.

The applicant applied for three variances: lot coverage from the 2,500 square feet allowed to 91,167 square feet, a use variance to build apartments in an office zone and a height variance to build a taller building than typically allowed. 

Rock blasting is regulated by state codes and would be overseen by the District 3 fire chief Richard Arruda. The developers would be required to alert people living within a 250-foot radius, and they promise to alert those within a 500-foot radius. This alert includes the opportunity for homeowners to have photos of their houses taken for proof if the blasting damages their properties. 

Residents raised concerns with how this could destroy their property. Christine Donnelly, whose mother lives within a couple hundred feet of where they would be rock blasting, is especially concerned as to how this could impact the foundation of their 116-year-old house. 

Initial preliminary testing of the drainage in the area deemed the property acceptable. However, S&K Engineering, with the town overseeing, will be conducting further initial drainage screening tests. 

Donnelly felt that since this was an incomplete test, the Zoning Board of Appeals should not move forward with the project until a more complete screening test has been completed. Donnelly also mentioned that a friend in the area had to dig about 15-feet down for a project but was delayed months due to the amount of rock in the way.

The traffic study conducted found that there will be a maximum of a 2% increase in traffic during peak hours. The representative for the petitioner, John Markey, pointed out that they could either turn this property into a housing development, or a fast food restaurant such as a Dunkin’ that would generate much more traffic. 

Residents raised concerns that the height of the building could mean inflicting on their privacy. The building would be three stories in the front and four stories in the back. The height variance is not for where the building’s height would end but rather the elevator shafts. 

Michael, a resident who lives on Reed Road, was concerned about the privacy the height would cause. He suggested that a screen be placed on the roof for privacy purposes. This would normally be handled by the planning board but he was concerned this may not happen unless it was a condition of the Zoning Board of Appeals’s approval. The Zoning Board of Appeals asked that this condition be included in a draft of the request. 

Other concerns raised were the noise of dumpsters, the sewage capacity and how this would affect taxes. 

The Zoning Board of Appeals asked that the petitioner and Markey write up a draft for their decision on whether to grant them their use variance, which will be voted on on Jan. 8, 2026. This would include conditions surrounding a screen for privacy and hours on when dumpsters can be picked up.