Sudbury zoning board continues Harvey Farm Lane appeal to April 7 after competing stormwater analyses

The Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday heard lawyers and property representatives present competing technical and legal views in an appeal by Connie Stewart challenging a Planning Board site-plan and stormwater approval for Lots 1 and 2 at Harvey Farm Lane and voted to continue the appeal to Monday, April 7, 2025, at 4:00 p.m.

Board members said the postponement would give them time to review a late-submitted engineering letter and to allow the parties an opportunity to negotiate. The appeal concerns whether the Planning Board used the correct baseline and whether installed drainage matches prior subdivision approvals and the approved plans.

Counsel for the appellant said the appeal was intended to protect Stewart’s property from potential stormwater impacts. “I view Ms. Steward's appeal, not as opposing the project, but rather trying to protect herself, from potential adverse impacts of the project,” Counselor Silverstein said, and told the board he had retained an engineer who had submitted a letter the same day identifying recommended improvements to the drainage plan. Silverstein also argued, citing the board’s appellate authority, that the ZBA may step into the planning board’s role and make independent determinations: “In exercising the powers granted by this section, the Board of Appeals may, in conformity with the, provisions of this chapter, make orders or decisions, reverse or reform in whole or in part or modify any order or decision and to that end shall have all of the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken,” he read from the statute during his presentation.

Attorney Terry Morris, representing the Mastroianni family, owners of the subject property, said his clients had invested considerable time and expense in the permitting process and that peer reviews and traffic studies had been completed. “We are now approaching the ninth month of having to deal with this issue,” Morris said. He told the board the project team had proposed berms, swales and plantings designed to address runoff and that the Planning Board and the town’s peer reviewers had found the plans appropriate.

Nicholas Mastroianni, identified as a property owner, said the project team had sought to be neighborly and that the plan included buffers and wetland protections. “We're a very family run business, and so it's just it's starting to add up,” he said, noting the schedule and costs his family has incurred while awaiting final approvals.

Board members questioned whether the ZBA should limit its review to procedural issues or consider the substance of the site-plan approval. Member Jen Pankis said she had not seen new, substantive evidence that would indicate the Planning Board had improperly handled the review: “It seems to have been a very thorough and rigorous design process and, and review process,” she said. Counsel Silverstein responded that the appeal properly allows the ZBA to examine the merits and that his client had a right to the appellate process.

After discussion the board voted to continue the appeal to Monday, April 7, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. The chair asked the parties to attempt to resolve outstanding technical issues before that date and directed staff to circulate the late engineering letter and other materials to members. The roll call on the continuance was recorded as follows: Jen Pankis — aye; Frank Reap — aye; John Reardon — aye. The board also said absent members would review the recorded hearing and certify compliance with the Mullen rule so they could participate on April 7 if necessary.

The board emphasized it would favor an amicable resolution if the parties can reach one but left open its authority to make a full merits decision if negotiations do not resolve the dispute.

The board instructed staff to provide a full packet for the April hearing, including the appellant’s engineering letter and the original application materials, and to notify the parties of the scheduled date and time.