SHREWSBURY – Though the project has been before the Planning Board since January, the fate of a proposed industrial park on Clinton Street is still uncertain.
After the project was introduced to the Planning Board on January 4, the board met monthly, discussing the project at length in February and March as more residents participated in public hearings.
By April, the potential industrial park had emerged as one of the town’s most debated topics. It was discussed at Select Board meetings, Finance Committee meetings and at Town Meeting in May, following a citizens’ petition to change the zoning of the site.
After over 17 total hours of public meetings relating to the proposed project — including over 10.5 hours allotted to feedback from residents — a decision has yet to be made on the Clinton Street industrial park. After a contentious meeting July 11, the Planning Board voted, 3-2, to continue the public comment process into August.
The industrial park project
The project, proposed for 142 Clinton St., calls for two warehouses — one 515,000-square-foot building and one 375,000 square-foot building — with roughly 500 parking spaces and 170 loading docks. The project would occupy 100 acres of Worcester Sand & Stone land. The developer — 160 Holden Street LLC, an affiliate of Boston-based developer GFI Partners LLC — has not given any information about tenants for the project, though the company said the proposed warehouse may accommodate a 24-7 operation.
In an effort to reduce the scope of the project, GFI in May agreed to decrease the project size by around 30,000 square feet, resulting in an approximately 60,000 square-foot reduction in total impervious surface area.
RELATED CONTENT: Town Meeting votes to keep Clinton St. an industrial zone
Throughout the 10-plus hours of public feedback, residents — many of whom abut the project — have voiced their concerns. The site sits within the Aquifer Protection Overlay District, leading to questions from residents about preserving drinking water and nearby Newton Pond. Environmental concerns were also noted — trucks, especially idling trucks, can cause air pollution, residents maintained.
Traffic concerns were also aplenty. An 838-page report by Vanasse & Associates indicated that the project would create approximately 1,500 daily trips on weekdays, including roughly 500 truck trips. Some residents said that it was too much traffic. For others, the noise from traffic — especially beeping — was of concern.
“We moved to our house specifically because of the neighborhood,” said Kathleen Barnes, who abuts the project. “One of my children has family asthma allergies and eczema — I’m worried about the diesel fumes. My uncle died of an asthma attack. This is really personal for us, and I’m really, really concerned … This doesn’t feel good for residents.”
The opposition to the project has been vocal, holding signs outside of Town Hall and major intersections, starting a Facebook campaign and raising thousands of dollars. The discussion at the July 11 meeting was heated and lasted for almost two hours.
“We’ve made it through eight months. Let’s try to make it through the next couple minutes,” Planning Board Chair Moe DePalo said.
Residents advocated for continuing public comment to an additional meeting, asking for more time to ask questions of the developer. In a 3-2 decision — with Purna Rao, Konstantin Eliadi, and Matthew Kaestner voting “yes” and DePalo and Julie Holstrom voting “no” — the Planning Board extended the hearing into August.
Representatives for GFI voiced their frustrations at the decision.
Mark Donahue, an attorney that represents GFI, said that the developers “believe [they] provided all the information requested by the [Planning Board].” The project has “clean” peer review letters in each studied aspect of the project, he said. At the very least, he said, he’d like to understand what specific information to bring to the next meeting.
The August meeting will likely center around contingencies should Shrewsbury’s water supply be negatively impacted by the Clinton Street development.
