Gameway Incorporated presented a definitive site‑plan application for property on Green Street, proposing a 74‑by‑100‑foot barn to house classrooms, offices, meeting space and animal‑service areas, plus a 15‑space paved parking lot, at the planning board’s Dec. 9 meeting.

Wesley Flitz McCarty, the project engineer, told the board the applicant received MassDEP review the week before Thanksgiving and submitted revisions that reduced the project’s regulatory triggers. McCarty said the parcel contains existing farm buildings, an Eric Dahl house and areas of isolated wetland; the proposed new building sits between two existing barns and would add a small paved parking area with ADA spaces and an individual septic for the facility’s bathrooms.

The project team described stormwater controls intended to meet the city’s standards, including treated metal roofing, roof‑drain diaphragms, a four‑bay pretreatment unit to achieve about 44% TSS removal before an on‑site basin, and weekly contractor reporting tied to the required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. McCarty said groundwater at the site is high — roughly 18 inches in some test pits — which affects drainage and septic design and will likely require test drilling and DEP approval for any new well or public‑water connection.

The hearing focused on technical review comments from both MassDEP and an outside peer reviewer named Rob, and on differing interpretations of on‑site soils. McCarty said he ran both A‑soil and D‑soil scenarios after a reviewer (Kim) questioned the initial classification; he told the board that because Gardner’s one‑inch city requirement produces a conservative design, the change in soil class did not require resizing the basin. Board members pressed whether additional infiltration devices were feasible given the basin depth (about 1.5 feet) and high groundwater, and whether the pretreatment approach would meet Standards 5 and 6 noted in the reviewer comments.

McCarty said the design team had updated parking calculations at the building inspector’s request to break out office and meeting space and reached 15 required spaces for the new programmatic uses. He asked board members to send any technical questions through Jason so the team could address them before a January meeting.

The board and the conservation commission will coordinate on order‑of‑conditions language and peer‑review feedback. After discussion the planning board voted to continue the hearing to Jan. 13 to allow staff and the applicant to exchange outstanding technical materials and for board members to review peer‑review comments.

What’s next: the applicant will deliver revised calculations, stormwater responses and any requested soil/groundwater data for staff and peer review before the Jan. 13 continuation. The conservation commission will also consider required conditions related to wetlands and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.