WESTFORD – A contentious discussion over the Kinloch Drive subdivision during the public hearing of the Oct. 5th Planning Board meeting brought multiple nearby residents before the Planning Board, with concerns ranging from drainage and access to the impact of a proposed third home on the surrounding neighborhood and historic town center.
Regina Conway of 66 Main Street asked the board to allow residents and the applicant to work out a plan before approving modifications affecting the property. She said water was reaching the Conway property and that the family was having difficulty accessing its land.
“We are getting water on our land. We cannot access our land,” Conway said.
She suggested lowering landscaping and working with the applicant to reach an agreement that would address the access and drainage issues. Conway also raised concerns about the visual impact of a modern home on the historic character and sight line of the town center.
Another nearby resident, Bretton Anderson of 3 Boxwood Road, also raised concerns about drainage. Anderson said installing the final pavement coat would be ideal but questioned whether lowering the drainage basins could provide a better interim solution. The discussion centered on water currently running from the unfinished roadway toward neighboring properties because the drainage system was not yet complete.
Anderson and the Conway family also questioned whether finishing the roadway before resolving the drainage issues could leave neighboring properties bearing the consequences. John Conway said that while earlier drainage concerns had involved water flowing backward, the current configuration appeared to direct water toward Main Street, creating a burden on neighboring property. Anderson and Conway also asked that access to their land be preserved while the roadway work was completed.
The discussion expanded beyond drainage when John Conway challenged the board over the proposed third home and the rights of property owners whose land is affected by the development.
“This is our home. This is the center of town. You are supposed to protect the property owner, not the developer,” Conway told the board.
He also told board members, “You represent the people of Westford,” and warned that the decision could establish a precedent affecting future development.
The Conways argued that previous Planning Board approvals and waivers had been based on two homes, while the current proposal would add a third. John Conway said the additional home would create a greater burden on the neighborhood, Main Street and the town center.
Conway asked that Town Counsel be involved in the process rather than relying primarily on guidance from the applicant’s attorney. He also directly addressed board member Mike Bonenfant, questioning whether board members review meeting videos and raising concerns about what he described as a favorable position toward the applicant.
Conway referred to a previous comment directed toward a resident — “You are wasting our time” — and called the conduct “unprofessional” and “unbecoming.” He asked that his comments be placed on the public record.
Conway later described the Planning Board as being in a “powerful position” to protect local residents and the community.
“This is a powerful position that you’ve been elected to,” Conway said. “It’s not all about the developers. It is about the center of town. It is about the community. It is about the safety.”
He also said he wanted to avoid another lengthy legal battle and the associated costs.
The applicant’s attorney argued that the existing easement permits the proposed development and that the roadway itself was not being changed. The Planning Board also noted that Town Counsel had reviewed the relevant court decisions and documents and found no legal prohibition against the applicant bringing the current application forward.
The board ultimately approved a waiver allowing the applicant to install the final course of pavement before completion of the development, with engineering conditions. At the same time, the broader modification request remained under consideration.
The exchange highlighted a broader issue running through the hearing: how the town should balance the development rights of an applicant with the concerns of neighboring property owners who say their drainage, access, property rights and the character of the town center could be affected by the project.
