Developers ask to continue Southville Road apartment Notice of Intent as riverfront impact and alternatives remain under review

Representatives for the proposed Southville Road apartment development asked the Town of Southborough Conservation Commission to continue its review so consultants can resolve questions about riverfront area calculations and alternatives analysis.

James Tetro of Expedited Engineering, speaking for Apartments at Southville Road LLC, told the commission the site contains about 47,372 square feet of riverfront area and that the proposed drainage and infiltration measures would alter “4,500 and change square feet” of riverfront area — a number the applicant said is just under the 5,000‑square‑foot threshold in state and local rules. Tetro asked the commission for a continuance while the applicant addresses peer‑review comments and final plan edits.

Commissioners and staff said they needed Lucas Environmental’s peer‑review assessment and an on‑site inspection before accepting the applicant’s calculation. A commissioner summarized the concern: because the proposed alteration is close to the allowable maximum, small differences in how the project counts the width of drain lines and setback buffers could change whether the proposal is permissible. The commission’s consultant will verify the boundary and the commission asked staff to arrange a site visit.

A public commenter, Freddy Gillespie of 78 Southville Road, contested portions of the applicant’s alternatives analysis and raised several technical and policy points. Gillespie argued that areas described as “previously disturbed” likely resulted from a prior unauthorized clear‑cut and should be treated as areas requiring restoration rather than as exemptions from riverfront protections. Gillespie also disputed the applicant’s characterization of how the MBTA Communities Act credits unit capacity on the lot and noted that parking and setback requirements under local zoning could affect feasible on‑site alternatives.

Commissioners discussed how the alternatives analysis intersects with planning‑board waivers the applicant may seek, particularly parking location and septic/infiltration offsets. Commissioners cautioned that while zoning and conservation review are distinct, an applicant’s assertion that an alternative is infeasible because of a zoning requirement brings zoning issues into the commission’s consideration of alternatives.

The commission voted to continue the Notice of Intent. Staff reminded the applicant that revised materials should be submitted well ahead of the next meeting; the commission indicated May 14 might be possible but flagged that a June 4 date could be more realistic if the peer‑review letter cannot be completed in time.

Next steps: the commission will ask Lucas Environmental to review the revised plans, staff will arrange an on‑site inspection, and the applicant will revise and resubmit materials to address peer‑review comments.