ConCom at odds with EMC over wetlands crossing
By Catie Foertsch Community Reporter

Westborough - EMC met with the Conservation Commission (ConCom) Aug. 14 about the company's plan to obtain a permit to build a 445-acre business park development on the Westborough- Southborough line. As planned, the project includes a road through two acres of wetland off Flanders Road. The meeting was contentious, as Assistant Conservation Agent Derek Saari indicated that the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) may not allow the ConCom to issue the permit to build that road.

EMC needs the wetlands crossing to connect the two parcels that make up the 445 acres. The northern parcel is in Southborough and the southern parcel is in Westborough, and EMC wants the crossing to connect the two parcels so traffic can drive from the Southborough parcel to the Westborough parcel directly, thus reducing the traffic impact from the project on area roadways.

But, Saari said, the WPA has does not allow better neighborhood traffic flow as a consideration for allowing wetlands destruction. The WPA allows a wetlands crossing only if the property can't be accessed from a public way unless the crossing is built. And, prior to allowing the crossing, the WPA requires the developer to look for other ways to access the property.

"Have we denied EMC any ability to use upland from a public way?" Saari said to the ConCom. "No, we have not."

He referred to EMC's ability to use Flanders Road as the access for the southern parcel.

And, Saari said, the Con- Com would not deny a wetlands crossing if that were the only way to build on the property's uplands, but in EMC's case, the wetlands crossing is at the very edge of the Westborough parcel, and denying the crossing does not reduce the buildable area on the Westborough parcel.

Much of the meeting was taken up with EMC attorneys complaining about several issues. The first was their contention that the ConCom appeared to be changing the rules by amending the original list of wetland resource areas by adding more wetlands. Saari justified the addition by saying the ConCom was in the process of conducting several site walks because one walk was not enough to understand the entire 176 acres. If additional wetlands were found, he said, they were allowed to be placed on the list, as the form for reporting the list included a section for modifications.

Attorney Leigh Gilligan, of McCarter English, told Saari that while "EMC is not denying your intent in being thorough," Saari's action was "tantamount to a carnival game" where the rules constantly changed, and "this has got to cease."

The second issue was Saari's observation that a submission by an EMC consultant did not contain the information required by the WPA. Gilligan said it was Saari's responsibility to tell the consultant what information to submit.

ConCom member Gerald Cushing defended Saari and told Gilligan and attorney Chris Toomey, also of Mc- Carter English, that it was not Saari's responsibility to ensure the consultant know the requirements of the WPA.

Toomey insisted that ConCom members tell him whether they planned to issue the permit or not, because if they weren't, "we ought to know now if the ConCom is not in support of the crossing." Then, he said, the question would be: "Are we better off talking about this here or talking about it elsewhere?"

The ConCom did not answer his question. The hearing was continued to Thursday Sept. 13 at 8:15 p.m.