Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pedestrian Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants present Linked & Livable Littleton Road plan; residents prioritized sidewalks, crossings and protected bike lanes
Summary
Consultant Dylan Sussman presented the Linked & Livable Littleton Road area plan to the Planning Board, highlighting public engagement that ranked pedestrian safety first, a call for a crosswalk at Nashoba Tech High School, and 25% design work proposed for Robins Road to connect to a future greenway.
Get email alerts on the Pedestrian Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dylan Sussman of Dodson & Flinker presented the Linked & Livable Littleton Road plan, describing the study area, significant public engagement and the project’s key deliverables, including conceptual maps and a 25% design for a Robins Road pilot site.
Sussman said pedestrian infrastructure emerged as the top public priority in outreach, followed by bike infrastructure and outdoor community spaces. He told the board respondents specifically flagged the lack of a crosswalk and sidewalk connections at Nashoba Technical High School and asked the planning board to consider those needs as the town advances TIP and local projects.
The plan includes two alternative designs for a shared‑use path on Robins Road (Option A widens the existing sidewalk footprint and creates bioretention buffers; Option B stays within the existing right‑of‑way with a narrower buffer). Sussman recommended Option A for its larger buffer and stormwater benefits but noted property negotiations may be required where the existing path runs onto private land.
Sussman also presented guideline language for implementing the MiC MOD block standards: design approaches that preserve pedestrian connections when developers request waivers (for example, requiring pedestrian pass‑throughs in long buildings or equivalent internal pedestrian networks where head‑in parking is used). He recommended the planning board use the plan to share concept plans with applicants, advocate for town funding for public‑realm projects, and guide permit review to align private benefits with public improvements.
Board members offered technical edits and asked for clarifications — notably a suggestion to remove or reword a line in the report that appeared to show zero change in student generation despite large multifamily build‑out figures; the consultant agreed to revise the document and incorporate committee feedback.

