Sherborn BOH approves four Farm Road bedrock-disruption permits after residents raise well-safety concerns

The Sherborn Board of Health on May 20 approved bedrock-disruption permits for four Farm Road lots after a public comment period in which neighbors urged the board to require additional study or financial protections for wells.

Co-Chair Julie Dreyfus confirmed that notification requirements under local regulation 305-3.10 were met and that 76 properties within a quarter-mile were identified for notice, representing 67 unique property owners. Staff said certified mailing and green-card requirements were satisfied. The board voted to approve permits for 57, 61, 63 and 65 Farm Road; each motion carried with Steven Constantine and Julie Dreyfus voting yes and Bose Kochupurakkal abstaining.

Multiple residents told the board they had experienced well impacts after nearby ledge removal in prior projects and asked the Board to require an Environmental Health Impact Review (EHIR) or bonds to cover potential remediation. Mary Moore of 49 Farm Road asked the board to “take their public health mandate seriously” and requested an EHIR to provide certainty about potential impacts. Attorney Arthur Fenno told the board it had authority under the bylaws to deny permits if public health could be jeopardized. Neighbor Neil McPherson also raised concerns about low flow in his 500-foot well and limited recourse if wells were affected.

Applicants said the current filings were largely anticipatory; applicant Bob Murchison (who asked to be referred to “Bob” for the record) said ledge is often unknown until excavations begin and that some nearby homes were built with ledge-breaking historically. He urged the board to produce scientific data before changing the notice requirement. Ms. Dreyfus noted that the regulation as written provides notice to abutters and does not include discretionary language that would allow the board to impose additional conditions beyond those authorized by the bylaw.

In deliberations the board emphasized the difference between notice and mitigation. Members said the regulation was intended to inform neighbors so they could pursue baseline testing if they wished; Mr. Kochupurakkal said he worried about approving work preemptively without established need given the number of homes potentially affected. The Board recorded that the regulation defines a 10-cubic-yard minimum for requiring a permit and that different excavation methods (for example, if blasting were proposed) would trigger additional approvals.

The board approved each of the four permits by a 2–0–1 tally (Constantine and Dreyfus yes; Kochupurakkal abstained). The board did not require an EHIR as part of the permit approvals; Ms. Dreyfus directed that broader regulatory review would be the appropriate forum for any changes to the bylaw.

What happens next: with permit approvals in hand, applicants may begin work after the four-week notice period and any additional approvals required for changes in method (for example, blasting). Neighbors concerned about wells were told they can pursue baseline testing and that regulatory review of the bylaw would be the venue to raise changes to notice or mitigation requirements.