Planning Board — March 25, 2026
While the board was unified in its voting, there was notable community pushback regarding the loss of recreational space and concerns over wireless technology.
Public impact
Wireless Services Overlay District Zoning Amendment
Decisions logged
Topics discussed
▶ 01:50 Frank Feeley Athletic Field Phase Two Improvements
A site plan review and stormwater management permit application for improvements to two softball fields, including ADA access, regrading for drainage, new dugouts, seating, and irrigation.
▶ 52:23 Zoning Amendment: Wireless Services Overlay District
A discussion regarding proposed updates to the zoning bylaw to reflect contemporary wireless technology, expand evaluation criteria, increase buffer notifications, and require decommissioning bonds.
▶ 1:07:08 Minor Modifications to Site Plan: 12 Harvey's Farm Lane
A request for minor modifications to an approved site plan and stormwater management permit, involving the repositioning of compost bins, windrows, and a landscape berm for improved drainage and aesthetics.
▶ 1:13:00 Open Space Master Plan Update
An update regarding the progress of the open space plans, including information on an upcoming open house and the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) annual public hearing.
Controversy & dissent
Potentially controversial issues
Frank Feeley Athletic Field Phase Two Improvements
Wireless Services Overlay District Zoning Amendment
Community vs. board tension
Action items
Notable statements
Our Parks and Grounds Division within the DPW will maintain this site. — Victor Garofalo · Responding to a question regarding the long-term maintenance of the athletic fields. ▶ 37:15
The current bylaw is incredibly strict about where and how towers are located... [it] is likely causing strife or stress for residents. — Adam Burney · Explaining the necessity for updating the Wireless Services Overlay District bylaw to accommodate modern technology and improve coverage. ▶ 54:03
The proposed bylaw includes a requirement for co-location prior to the location of a new facility, meaning providers must ensure co-location is not possible before a new tower is approved. — Mr. Berrien · Responding to concerns about the concentration of cell towers in neighborhoods. ▶ 1:04:08
When the board voted on the bylaw, there was no maximum or minimum height included, so I did just transfer the existing hundred feet into the proposed bylaw. — Mr. Berrien · Explaining the inclusion of the 100-foot height limit in the new draft. ▶ 1:05:16
Member positions
Positions marked ~ are inferred from context and may not reflect the member's explicitly stated position.
Public comment
Creating this report cost real money.
MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Sudbury.
Follow Sudbury
One email when a new report is published from the Planning Board — or one weekly digest.
grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-05-30.