Sudbury commission issues negative determination for 120 Longfellow Road rebuild, sets conditions

The Town of Sudbury Conservation Commission voted to issue a Negative Determination of Applicability (RDA No. 25-2) for work at 120 Longfellow Road, allowing a demolition and rebuild on the existing foundation while concluding the project "will not alter the resource area," contingent on four conditions the commission ordered.

The vote followed a presentation by staff and comments from the applicant and a neighboring resident. Commission staff described the proposal as a tear-down and reconstruction pinned to the existing foundation and within the 100-foot buffer zone (and potentially the 200-foot riverfront area) under the Wetlands Protection Act and the Town’s wetlands bylaw. The commission instructed the applicant to limit earth disturbance, install erosion controls, meet with staff before work begins and provide an as-built plan and photo documentation after completion.

The project applicant, William Curley, said the work would involve "0, 0 excavation on the lot" and that the house would be taken down "by hand" to avoid heavy earthmoving. Curley said the existing foundation is in good condition and that the new structure would not expand the current footprint, including existing decks. He said some marginal foundation plantings and a small birch tree would be removed and that demolition material would be placed in dumpsters; he also said he may use a small rubber-track loader (a roughly 9,000-pound machine) only to lift material into dumpsters.

Neighbor Anna Newberg, who lives at 112 Longfellow Road, asked whether the proposed work would affect a row of tall pine trees along the lot line and whether roots or tree health might be disturbed. Laurie (staff member) and the applicant said the proposal does not include tree removal on that shared boundary; Curley offered to communicate directly with Newberg and provided a phone number so they could discuss any concerns.

Commission staff said the applicant had indicated no change to septic system capacity (Title 5 compliance and unchanged bedroom count) and that no upgrade to the system was proposed. Staff requested the following conditions be included in the determination: a pre-construction meeting with the contractor to verify erosion-control installation; as-built plan showing that the footprint (including decks) was unchanged; post-construction photo documentation confirming compliance; and that any new or replacement landscape plantings be native species.

After discussion and a motion to issue Negative Determination No. 3 with the four staff conditions, the commission approved the motion by roll call.

The commission chair thanked the applicant and the neighbor and noted staff would follow up on implementation steps.