WESTFORD – The Planning Board voted unanimously to approve the definitive Kinloch Drive subdivision plan despite continued objections from neighboring property owners during its Nov. 2 meeting. The decision marks a significant development in a dispute that has increasingly drawn the attention of nearby residents.
Residents’ concerns include the proposed third residential lot, stormwater drainage, tree replacement, property rights, road safety and the historic character of the town center. Although the board discussed several of those issues and agreed to certain follow-up actions and plan revisions, it ultimately approved the subdivision certificate.
Residents return with unresolved concerns
The vote followed weeks of public scrutiny, including a contentious Oct. 5 hearing in which Westford resident, John Conway, directly challenged the board’s responsibility to neighboring property owners, telling members: “You are supposed to protect the property owner, not the developer.”
The application involves a proposed third residential building lot on property at 64 Main Street. The project has been the subject of an extended review process, with residents questioning whether earlier approvals and agreements adequately anticipated the additional development.
Resident Emily Burn again expressed opposition to the third lot, but said she wanted the board to consider additional safeguards if it intended to approve the third lot.
“As you probably know, I oppose this application,” Burn said. “I don’t believe a third lot should be approved, but if the board is inclined to approve it, I would like to ask you to consider some additional changes to the conditions.”
Burn focused first on the stormwater calculations. She said the model presented for the subdivision assumed particular house sizes and impervious surface areas, and she wanted those assumptions clearly recorded so future owners could not submit building plans that departed from them without scrutiny.
“I’d like … those numbers that were used in that model to be recorded,” she said. “So that at a future point when a construction set for a new house comes before the board to review, it’s very clear that it’s within the original sizing that was used in the model.”
Burn also asked for more specific requirements for replacement trees, including their size, species and location, and wanted dead trees replaced.
“I just like to see some teeth in that condition so that they actually get established and planted and aren’t seedlings that just continue to die,” Burn said.
Another concern was how long construction could continue. Burn said she wanted to avoid a situation in which neighbors were still dealing with construction years later.
The board explained that the proposed decision requires the applicant to return after an initial two-year period with a progress report. The town could also reassess the financial security held to ensure completion of the road and other required infrastructure, taking increases in construction costs into account.
Property rights, access and safety remain points of discussion
Conway returned again to raise a series of concerns about how the subdivision could affect his property and the surrounding neighborhood.
He questioned whether future residents would have the right to place trash and recycling containers, snow or signs on his private property. He asked the board to clarify the distinction between his property, the subdivision’s 30-foot-wide right-of-way and the town-owned area along Main Street.
Board members agreed to seek guidance from Town Counsel on questions involving signs and other materials within the easement.
Conway also spoke about neighborhood safety. He said vehicles using the subdivision road travel close to his home and areas used by children, pedestrians and cyclists. He suggested speed bumps as a possible way to slow traffic.
“It’s a heavily pedestrian-centric environment,” he said, adding that he believed vehicle speeds on the road had become a safety concern.
His other requests included repairing the historic stone wall, adding privacy plantings to reduce headlights shining into his home, improving access to the rear of his property and considering building-height restrictions for the proposed third lot.
Another issue raised by Conway involved an existing pool house or cabana that had reportedly been advertised as having a full kitchen and bathroom. He questioned whether the structure could qualify as a separate dwelling under town zoning regulations and asked that the matter be examined.
Planning staff responded that determining whether the structure constitutes a separate dwelling would fall under the building commissioner and zoning enforcement, rather than the subdivision review itself.
Conway described the financial impact of the changes to his property’s access. He said landscaping work would require more than $2,000 just to have loam delivered, before labor costs.
“These waivers you guys approve, they have impact on people like us,” he said. “They have impact on your constituents. It’s really difficult, but that’s the reality of the situation I’m in today.”
Historic character and tree removal add to the discussion
The proposed street name also became part of the discussion.
Conway suggested honoring Mary Agnew, whose historical connection to the property and involvement in establishing Westford’s Conservation Commission could be recognized through a name such as Mary’s Way or Agnew Lane.
“I think it would be a nice opportunity to bond a little bit with the existing community,” Conway said.
Resident Ellen Harde also supported recognizing local history through street names. She reiterated her own opposition to the third lot, recalling earlier discussions about the property and arguing that the town should respect the understanding that the land would accommodate only one additional home.
“The agreement was that so much of it would be put into conservation, but that Mary’s house would be the only house that was ever on that land,” Harde said. “I think we must honor that.”
Resident Regina Conway described an earlier effort by residents to purchase and preserve the property for conservation. The applicant’s representative disputed aspects of that account, emphasizing that the current proposal should be considered on the basis of the application before the board.
The board also reviewed a landscaping plan calling for 21 replacement trees, each at least 12 feet tall and 2.5 inches in diameter.
Residents questioned whether those plantings could adequately compensate for mature trees removed during earlier construction. Board members acknowledged that replacing a mature tree canopy is not an immediate process and that new plantings would take time to grow.
The applicant said landscaping would be considered as the design for the third lot advances, but agreed to make a minor plan modification after board members questioned grading and a steep slope near the Conway property.
On drainage, officials explained that individual house plans would undergo additional engineering review. If a future proposal increased runoff or required additional drainage measures, the engineering department could require mitigation before the necessary approvals were granted.
Unanimous approval despite objections
After closing the public hearing, the Planning Board voted unanimously to approve the definitive subdivision certificate, incorporating comments and changes discussed during the meeting.
The approval was not the same as an immediate final endorsement of the plans. Board Chair Bob Shaffer is to review the revisions after board members complete them, and the applicant must make the agreed-upon plan modification before the plans are formally endorsed.
During the discussion, the board emphasized that it must operate within the authority granted by state subdivision law and local regulations. The board cannot simply deny an application because residents or board members would prefer a different development outcome, particularly when doing so could expose the town to legal challenges.
Residents, meanwhile, continued to raise questions about how the development could affect their properties and neighborhood.
While the board agreed to several follow-up actions and revisions, the approval means the proposed third lot can move forward through the remaining plan-review and endorsement process despite the objections raised at the hearing.
