Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board continues Maiden Road subdivision hearing to April 30
Summary
The Sudbury Planning Board continued a public hearing on a six‑lot subdivision known as Maiden Road/Bonnie Brook Estates after the applicant presented updated stormwater plans and board and neighbors raised questions about tree clearing, private wells and conservation review.
The Sudbury Planning Board on March 26 continued a public hearing on a definitive subdivision plan, stormwater management permit and inclusionary affordable housing special permit for a six‑lot development on Maiden Road (referred to in filings as Bonnie Brook/Brooks Estates) to April 30.
The applicant, John Duderian, and engineer Bruce Sullick presented updated plans that centralize stormwater treatment into a single infiltration system located on Lot 3 near the cul‑de‑sac. Sullick said the system includes treatment for removal of total suspended solids (TSS) before infiltration and that the design was run for storms from 1‑inch up to the 100‑year event. He told the board the design “is in strict compliance” with Sudbury stormwater regulations and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection stormwater rules; the plans and a roughly 200‑page report are under peer review.
Board members and staff emphasized the remaining procedural steps. Planning staff said municipal departments including the fire department, Board of Health and Conservation Commission will provide comments that will be routed to the applicant and the peer reviewer; once comments are addressed and conservation’s order of conditions is finalized, the board will make a final decision. Planning staff estimated an April 30 return would allow time for peer‑review comments and internal department responses.
Board members praised changes from earlier submissions and repeatedly urged minimizing the limit of work and preserving existing trees. Member Anish Shah said the revised limit of work is “much preferable to the original clear cut,” and other members asked for landscape plans, no‑clearing easements and clearer depiction of disturbed areas before final action. Julie Perlman and Justin Penicom both said they supported retaining more trees where possible.
Several nearby residents spoke during public comment. Kevin Schwartz (72 Maynard Road) asked how the applicant will ensure septic systems and leach fields are set back from his drinking well; staff replied that septic setbacks and well separation are handled by the Board of Health and that each lot’s septic system will show required separations as part of individual septic approvals. Anna Bhattacharya (84 Maynard Road) asked when covenants or protections for trees on adjacent properties could be required; the chair said the board can condition clearing limits and that landscape/clearing protections typically are finalized as part of the approval process after stormwater and conservation issues are settled.
The board voted to continue the public hearing to April 30. The motion was made during the meeting and recorded as continued to that date so peer‑review comments and municipal department responses can be compiled and returned to the applicant prior to further review.
The board closed discussion on the item for the night; the applicant and engineer said they would await the peer‑review comments and engage conservation staff as needed before the next hearing.
