Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Foxborough commission issues negative wetland determination for 166 Central Street with erosion-control conditions

Foxborough Conservation Commission · May 19, 2026
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 Conservation Commission issued a negative determination for Mark Revard’s proposal to replace and enlarge a deck at 166 Central Street, requiring a silt sock/erosion control on the plans and that all footing excavation be done by hand.

The Foxborough Conservation Commission voted to issue a negative determination on May 18 for work at 166 Central Street, approving the homeowner’s request to replace a failing deck and extend it around half the back of the house, subject to erosion-control conditions.

Mark Revard, the applicant, said the existing deck is failing and that the replacement will extend roughly 12 by 18 feet around part of the rear of the house. He told the commission the work will be done by a contractor and that footings are expected to be excavated by hand. Commissioners noted large boulders near the brook and asked that a silt sock (erosion-control device) be placed around the entire work area and included on the plans; Revard agreed to add the detail.

A motion to issue a negative determination with the two conditions — installation of a silt sock and hand excavation (no heavy machinery) — was made and seconded and carried with one member recorded as opposed. The commission recorded that, had it been a positive determination, the applicant would have needed to file a Notice of Intent and a full filing under the Wetlands Protection Act.

The applicant agreed to add the erosion-control detail to the hand-drawn plans for the record. The commission’s action finalizes regulatory jurisdiction for the work as described in Revard’s request.