Developers and abutters spar over wetlands, septic and unit count at 250 Turnpike Road 40B hearing

The Town of Southborough Zoning Board of Appeals heard extended testimony April 15 on a comprehensive permit (M.G.L. Chapter 40B) application for 250 Turnpike Road. The applicant, represented by Brian Charville of Ferris Group, said revisions have reduced the project from prior larger proposals to a 32‑unit townhouse plan and that the board of health approved the septic layout on Dec. 23.

Charville and the applicant’s consultants told the board they addressed peer‑review comments from Howard Stein Hudson (HSH) and Lucas Environmental and agreed to add several plan details requested by reviewers: updated pre/post drainage rates and volumes charts, erosion‑control and grading details, native buffer plantings, retaining‑wall design alternatives, and documentation for phosphorus removal in stormwater treatment. The applicant also said the wildlife crossing previously shown at about 65 feet has been shortened to roughly 53–54 feet and that a grate and fencing can be incorporated to help light and moisture reach the crossing.

Lucas Environmental and the conservation commission raised concern that several lots (notably units 29–32 and some sideyards) encroach into the town’s 20‑foot no‑disturb buffer. Consultants recommended limiting disturbance, adding a site‑wide invasive species management plan, and using split‑rail buffer fencing and native plantings to protect wetlands. The applicant said retaining walls and grading changes would minimize encroachment and that some encroachment is a usual part of the balancing test for a 40B application.

Several abutters, represented by attorney John St. Andre and speaker John Palmer, said the project will remove woodland, raise privacy concerns, and could worsen drainage that feeds a tributary of the Sudbury Reservoir. Abutters proposed adding a six‑foot privacy fence and supplemental plantings — offered by the developer where neighbors request them — and suggested the board consider removing units 29–32 (reducing the project to 28 units) to lessen buffer impacts. Abutters also asked the board to review project waivers and the applicant’s financial pro forma to confirm unit count is genuinely required for feasibility.

Applicant representatives said on‑site screening and plantings will be provided and maintained by the developer, and reiterated that 32 units reflect economic feasibility under current construction costs; the team said prior iterations included 28 units but rising costs drove the present design to 32.

Technical peer reviewers (HSH and a civil engineer identified as Patrick) listed remaining plan edits — corrections to HydroCAD routing, minimum roadway slope confirmation (applicant confirmed 1% achievable), retaining‑wall cross‑sections, and updated infiltration/runoff calculations — and offered conditions the board could include in a conditional decision. The applicant agreed to provide revised plans and responses to those comments.

After deliberation planning and agreement on a set of conditions to be drafted, the board voted to close the public hearing and move into deliberations and drafting of a conditional decision, with the board’s draft decision to be circulated to members ahead of a planned May 6 session and likely additional follow‑up meetings. The applicant and consultants will submit updated plans and documentation addressing peer‑review technical items prior to the board’s final decision.