The Braintree Planning Board on Jan. 14 heard a detailed presentation and public comment on the proposed Hawthorne Preserve, a 51‑unit, age‑restricted (55+) townhouse condominium project on parcels at 7 Hawthorne Road and 338 Elm Street, and voted to continue the site‑plan review hearing to Feb. 11 to allow peer review and department comments.

Attorney Michael Modestino and developer George Clements presented the project as a 51‑unit condominium community with a community room, private association maintenance of roads, snow removal and trash, and a plan to preserve roughly one‑third of the site as open space. Clements said the project would replace under‑maintained, timbered parcels and that his team has removed asbestos and started demolition of existing school buildings; he estimated the development would generate new tax revenue for the town.

The development team described drainage work intended to correct historic local flooding by repairing and, where necessary, extending a decades‑old town drain that the applicant camera‑inspected and found partly obstructed. Civil engineer Sean Hardy said the site slopes from about elevation 128 to about 53 and that the design attempts to match existing grades while minimizing extensive cuts and fills. The team said it would loop the water main on‑site, provide emergency access, and include green buffers and additional tree plantings along abutting streets.

Neighbors and residents raised multiple concerns at the public hearing: traffic and sight lines at the Old Elm Street entrance, parking pressure on narrow neighborhood streets, stormwater and downstream drainage (several speakers reported historic flooding and urged robust mitigation), the extent of tree removal and replacement, emergency vehicle access and the location of visitor parking. Several speakers asked whether open space would be donated to the town; the developer said the plan currently envisions private ownership via the condominium association and tax revenues to the town. Residents also questioned the traffic counts used in the study and whether Saint Thomas More Church and the former school had skewed baseline traffic figures.

Planning staff said the applicant filed a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission and that the town will run a combined peer review for stormwater and wetlands. Staff indicated department heads will meet with the applicant and peer reviewers to produce comprehensive comments; staff also noted that Section 135‑710 (a specific lot‑coverage provision) does not apply to a residency zone and that multifamily in multiple buildings is an allowed use under the adopted residency zoning. The board voted to continue the hearing to Feb. 11 to allow peer review and responses to department comments.

Member Kent moved to continue to Feb. 11; Member Connolly seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The board closed the hearing for the evening.