Planning board extends Sherman Terrace subdivision completion date to May 22, 2025 after debate over easements, materials and bond funds

The Woburn City Planning Board voted 4–2 Oct. 22 to extend the completion deadline for the Sherman Terrace subdivision to May 22, 2025, after a lengthy update from the developer’s attorney that spelled out two possible paths to closure.

Attorney James Giuliano, representing Sherman Terrace LLC, said his client’s contractor was unable to complete required work because of health problems but that neighbors were amenable to either restoring the originally approved turnaround or recording revised easements to match the existing, built condition. Giuliano told the board he had draft easement language and a revised plan but had not filed them, seeking board guidance instead.

Board members pressed engineering concerns raised by the developer’s design engineer that the current surface would not meet H‑20 loading standards for heavy apparatus. "If he comes to us and tells us this would not sustain it, we should not ignore that component of his design," one member said. Giuliano countered that in practice heavy trucks may not routinely use the turnaround and that revised, stamped plans could address drainage and stability if the board accepted the as‑built condition and recorded easements.

Members discussed three options: require the developer to remove and rebuild the turnaround to the originally approved specifications; accept the as‑built turnaround and record easements; or take the remaining bond money and have the city finish the work. Giuliano estimated roughly $180,000 remained in the project bond; during discussion a different figure of $188,889.50 was also cited as the amount available in bond funds.

A motion by Jim, seconded by Dave, to extend the completion date to May 22, 2025 and require conformance to plan or appropriate easements passed on a 4–2 roll call. One member proposed a six‑ to seven‑month extension to allow a contractor to complete the work in construction season; another urged the city not to take on the work itself and to let the developer find a contractor.

Staff noted that even with the extension the applicant could later submit a minor‑modification filing or an amended plan; members discussed whether the change would require a formal revision under the subdivision rules (public notice, abutter notification and hearing) or could be treated as a minor modification or waiver under Section 6 of the rules. Several board members recommended drafting a minor‑modification provision in the subdivision regulations to clarify such situations.

The board agreed the matter will be revisited in May 2025; staff said the vote gives clear direction for next steps.