Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Sidewalks Wetlands topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Conservation commission continues public hearings on Woodland and Richards Road sidewalk projects

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Southborough Conservation Commission opened notices of intent for sidewalk installations on Woodland Road and Richards Road but continued both hearings because DEP file numbers were not available and peer-review/plan revisions remain outstanding.

The Southborough Conservation Commission opened public hearings on proposed sidewalk installations along Woodland Road and Richards Road but continued both notices of intent after applicants said DEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection) file numbers and updated plans were not yet available.

The projects would add sidewalks connecting to the Mary Finn School and include new crosswalks and driveway adjustments. Scott Morrison, presenting the Woodland Road plan, said the Woodland work places the sidewalk on the east side of Woodland Road from Richards Road to Oregon Road and that he shifted the alignment to leave a grass strip to save roadside trees. He said the work “is located within the hundred foot buffer zone or outside of the buffer zone,” and described driveway saw‑cut and replacement to meet ADA requirements.

Commission peer review and commissioners’ questions focused on wetland buffer impacts, a requested waiver from the town’s 20‑foot setback, and tree removal. Joe from Lucas Environmental flagged inconsistencies in flag numbering and pointed to a small isolated vegetated wetland near 129 Woodland that could add buffer‑zone impacts. The Richards Road plan, presented as a north‑side sidewalk with crossings over perennial/intermittent streams, includes erosion controls and a waiver request for a small incursion into the town’s 20‑foot setback near an intersection. The applicant requested the waiver “because it is in the public interest” and noted a portion of work is on maintained roadway shoulder.

Commissioners and the applicant said construction timing depends on available funding. Greg Russell (DPW referenced in the presentation) said funding timing could push construction into next year; Morrison said the intent is to bid both projects together if funds allow. Resident Tim Lipp raised pedestrian routing concerns and crossing button accessibility at Signal/85; Morrison and Greg said the project includes signal modifications and push buttons and that the design trades—utility poles and drainage—favored the selected sides of streets.

Because DEP file numbers were not yet issued for either NOI and peer‑review comments remained open, the commission voted to continue both hearings to the next meeting on June 12, 2025. The roll call vote recorded in the transcript was unanimous among members present (responses recorded as: Zulek — yes; Farrington — yes; Upton — yes; Barbara Glovsky — yes; Passamato/Posnamato — yes).