Letter: David Parry’s response to Bill Boland’s letter

[Ed note: My Southborough accepts signed letters to the editor submitted by Southborough residents. Letters may be emailed to mysouthborough@gmail.com.]

To the Editor:

I wish to respond directly to the long letter appearing in My Southborough on April 15, written by Selectman Boland.

He begins with the statement: “It is unfortunate that this issue of the Main Street Reconstruction Project has taken on such a negative tone”. Then he proceeds to attack me personally, many times over. In reply, I will simply stick to the facts about Main St.

I will begin each issue with a quote taken directly from Mr Boland’s letter, and I will follow it with the actual facts.


Mr Boland’s quote: “I believe he (Mr Parry) has taken this approach because there is not enough support for his desire to have all the utilities placed underground”.

Response: It was Selectman Boland himself, accompanied by Karen Galligan of DPW, who have demanded, repeatedly, that there should be a Warrant Article for “Undergrounding” of utilities. Boland and Galligan spoke before the Planning Board on a Monday evening in March, and before the Board of Selectmen on the following Tuesday evening. On both occasions they both requested a Warrant Article for Undergrounding. It was broadcast on TV and is recorded. Neither the Planning Board, nor the other members of the Board of Selectmen, could understand the reason why Mr Boland was pushing Undergrounding, since there was no public support and it was unrelated to the issue at hand, the SURFACE road design proposed for Main St. I spoke at the Selectman’s meeting and stated emphatically that I did not support Undergrounding, because of the cost, $11 mn. I even used the term “red herring”. Another person termed it an attempt by Mr Boland to confuse the voters. Not even one vote was put forth by the Planning Board and Mr Boland was the sole member of the Board of Selectmen to support a Warrant Article calling for Undergrounding. Those are facts and they are on TV.


Mr Boland’s quote: “The original plan did not include work west of Fay School to Sears Rd. This was added after considerable concern and requests by residents. “

Response: The “concern” came from a “resident”, an official at Fay School. The problem was flooding at Fay School after a heavy storm a few years ago. I recently met with Fay School officials and their civil engineer. We reviewed the site plans for the specific location of the flooding. It became clear that the flooding was not caused by Main St itself, but by tennis courts and faculty parking lots, installed by Fay School, on the north side of Main St. These impermeable areas were installed without any storm water detention basins. The cause and the results were immediately obvious — in a heavy storm, the water flows fast, in thick sheets, off the paved areas, from north to south, straight across Main St, over the “U” shaped guest parking lot on the south side, and on down the outdoor steps across the lawn and straight into the buildings of Fay School. 

My recent meeting with Fay and their engineer, was held on April 3, the day after the Town’s public presentation of the State road plan, because the Fay official present at the April 2 meeting was concerned about my portrayal of their drainage issue. We agreed to meet the next day, April 3, to get to the facts. Fay and their engineer acknowledged, after examining the actual site situation, that Fay’s tennis courts and parking lots were the probable cause. I suggested that Fay hire engineers to determine the remedy, which could be as simple as a swale to catch the water north of the street, on Fay property, and guide it into a large pipe before it even hits Main St. Thus the Fay flooding problem can be dealt with independently of the Main St project.

I suggested to the Fay School official and their engineer, that many residents of Southborough might not think it appropriate for the Town to pay for engineering fees to solve a flooding problem at Fay which was caused by Fay, nor would they consider it apppropriate that the Fay flooding problem be used as a reason to extend the reconstruction of Main St all the way to Sears Rd, effectively doubling the length of the project.


In fact, the flooding problem at Fay was the ORIGIN of the State road plan being extended to the west, all the way from the Town Common to Sears Rd. The Town DPW Superintendent, Karen Galligan, who is an alumnus of Fay and is responsible for the planning of the State-funded road, instructed VHB engineers to extend the State project westward, to take care of the flooding problem at Fay, caused off-road by Fay, and to extend the drains under the new road all the way to Sears Rd.

There was never any notice given to the other residential abutters living west of Fay about this extension. They were completely ignorant of the plans and they said so at the April 2 presentation by VHB engineers.

Very few, if any, of the residents living west of Fay School, all the way to Sears Rd, is in favor of the State highway. In fact they are annoyed about it. They want the road left just like it is: A country road: the original General Henry Knox Trail, with its curves and bumps and rural character. They stated that they do not want the new wider, straighter highway, and they do not want the street under-drainage, because it will divert water flow away from their existing wetlands, causing them to dry up. That is called “environmental damage”, it is considered “bad practice”, and it will probably require an Environmental MEPA filing, causing more delays and costs for the Town. In addition, the State plan requires extensive drainage settling basins, situated along the west side of Parkerville Rd, on private property, to handle all the storm water coming from the proposed street drains under the new State highway. From the settling basins, the water will then flow into a very old, stone-sided stream, which leads directly into the reservoir. That item alone will probably require another MEPA filing.


Mr Boland’s quote: “All the abutters were notified of the meetings”.

Response: The abutters were notified once, at the start of the review process, with SEA, and again when the review process started (all over again) with VHB engineering consultants (after SEA were effectively fired). The meetings were “continued” without further notice, for years.

The fact that no residents west of Fay school attended any review meetings for years is testimony to the fact that the huge change in the project scope (extending it from the Town Common to Sears Rd) was made AFTER the initial public notice. Therefore those residents living west of Fay had no reason to think that this project has been expanded to include their road frontage. That is the reason these residents are now so annoyed to find that the State project is affecting their properties, when they haven’t even had the courtesy of a proper notice, until just this April.


Mr Boland’s quote: “The road does not become significantly straighter and wider”.

Response: What is “significant”? That is Mr Boland’s opinion. The admitted fact is that the State road WILL be all new, straighter, wider, and it will be entirely different. It will change the character of the entire Town Center, for over 1 mile, for ever.


Mr Boland’s quote: “The Plan does suggest a much wider intersection than we currently have. However the left turn lanes, improved turning radii, cross-walks, improved traffic lights, and other improvements, will make this a much safer intersection for everyone, and not just for motor vehicles”.

Response: The new intersection will double the area of asphalt, double the distance that pedestrians have to walk to get across the intersection, greatly increase the volume of traffic passing through downtown, speed up traffic because of the wider lanes, and add four (4) traffic signals on two giant metal booms extending over the huge intersection. (We now have just one signal, on one slim arm.). In addition there will be another signal at the Police Station, over the street, on another boom arm, which is proposed because the stacking lane heading west extends all the way back to the Police Station entrance, so that traffic is likely to block the police exit. The reason the stacking lane extends all the way back is that State rules require that the intersection must be able to accommodate all future traffic for decades into the future. That is the reason the State is willing to fund this project. – to vastly increase traffic volumes and act as a relief valve for Route 9. I have this in writing. For instance:

Quote: “The project enjoys strong support of the community … Given its close proximity to Route 9, Route 495, and Route 90, Main Street and the Route 30/85 intersection are used by many commuters to reach, and in times of congestion to avoid, those major routes”. (Letter to Chairman of Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization, Sept 6, 2011, signed by Willam J. Boland, Chairman, Southborough Board of Selectmen.

Therefore, Mr Boland’s statement this will be “a much safer intersection for everyone” is not true. It is going to bring a whole more traffic through downtown. It is ugly, and it does not enhance our historic and rural character which is called for in our official Town Master Plan.


Boland’s quote: “Regarding trees. More trees will be planted than those that are removed.”

Response: All trees in the right-of-way, (plus many trees outside the right-of-way) are to be cut down, and the “offer” of new trees is contingent on private property owners agreeing to plant them on their private property, because there is not sufficient space left inside the right-of-way, after the wider State highway has been installed with all its new asphalt.

In addition, the new trees will be small, 2 or 3 inch diameter, garden nursery trees, not equivalent to the mature canopy trees some of which are being cut down.


Mr Boland’s quote: “Changes are allowed between the 25% and the 75% design stage. … An agreement was reached on the Plan to forward it to the State with the knowledge that we should be able to fine-tune it before we reached 75% design.”

Response: The “road alignment” is locked in firmly at the 25% level of design. “Alignment” includes the road center line, the road width and edges, the cross-section, and the turning lanes at the intersection with Rte 85, including the length of “stacking” lanes extending from the intersection all the way back to the Police Station, and down to Woodward School driveway.

After the 25% level is reached and approved, you can only change items on the periphery — such as sidewalks, trees, etc. You can never change the alignment after the 25% design has gone through the 25% Public Hearing, and been approved by the State and the Selectmen. The Selectmen have the power to withdraw completely, but they cannot change the plan. The reason for that is because the work load increases exponentially after the 25%, and it costs far more for the State to administer and review.

The Town fees to VHB engineers sat at $450,000 at the April 2 presentation. Those fees have now risen to well over $500,000 in just in 3 weeks. Eventually, before this project is finished, the cost to the Town, just in engineering fees alone, may approach $2,000,000. Just figure that we are at the 25% level and most of the work, and legal issues with easements and MEPA filings, has not even started.


The fixing of the alignment is why the State Public Hearing, held at the 25% level of design, is so important. The purpose of this Hearing, which is required by State Law, is not for Town officials to voice their opinion, because the State has already heard their opinion. The purpose of the State Hearing is for the property owners who are affected by the project to voice their opinions, and to do so honestly and openly, not to fake it in order to preserve the State funding by pretending that everything is OK, when in fact it is not OK at all.

This State Hearing is very formal. There will be stenographers present. There will be official forms available to fill out for 7 days after the Hearing. It is very official, and once the Town has passed this State Hearing, then the Town is locked into this particular design, for ever afterwards. The new 5 member Board of Selectmen can vote to cancel the project at any time, but they cannot change the alignment. Note that last sentence.


Mr Boland’s quote: “We have already had a peer review or second opinion, as the VHB plan is the second consultant to work with the Town”.

Response: We have not had a peer review. Here is the history of our engineering consultants: SEA engineers were first hired to prepare a plan, which they tried to make work within our small town center, by bending the State rules. Some residents supported the SEA effort because SEA tried so very hard to make the plan sensitive to the context of Historic Southborough. But the State refused to waive the rigid State rules, and the SEA plan was rejected. Ironically, after trying so hard to fit a State highway into a sensitive context, SEA was effectively fired by the Town DPW. SEA former engineers who worked on this plan harbor a lot of bitterness about their treatment. I have spoken to them about their experience and they are reluctant to talk about it now, 5 years later.

The Town DPW then hired another engineer VHB. The plan now before this Town was prepared by VHB. That plan has never been peer- reviewed.


Mr Boland’s quote: “We are talking about easements, not land takings”.

Response: These are permanent easements, equivalent to land takings. It is like having a section of road running across your front lawn, but you cannot stop the public using it. You own it, but they use it.

There are seven (7) easements. All of them require a 2/3rds super-majority vote to be approved, at a future town Meeting , in 2016. Any one of them may be fought over. I would think that Town Meeting might want to receive some advice about this critical matter. Without easements this project cannot proceed.


Addressing the easements is one of the principal purposes of the Warrant Article – to establish a Review Committee, and have that Committee review the situation and make recommendations to Town Meeting. The Committee will be established by the Town Moderator to ensure the Committee is as expert as possible, and to ensure there is no more political interference. Two of the members on the Committee will have to be St Marks School and Fay School, simply because they own the vast extent of the road frontage.

The Committee can report back to the new 5 member Board of Selectmen at ANY time. For example:

(i) They could report before the June 18 State Hearing;

(ii) They could have a local public hearing in 6 months, to include a presentation of a fine-tuned State Plan, as well as a first draft of a Local Plan;

(iii) They could have a final report to Town Meeting in 2015, when Town Meeting could be offered a real choice. If they vote for the State Plan ( fine-tuned), then they will still have to wait many years for State funding, if it ever comes. If they vote for a Local plan, then the work can begin immediately.


It is important for the voters to understand that the Review Committee can fine-tune the State Plan, and also prepare a Locally funded plan – a genuine alternative plan which would be under Town control, without any State rules. The Local Plan might be very inexpensive, a small fraction of the State project, it can deal with the original issues, which are very few: one sidewalk from Middle Rd to Latisquama Rd, and a couple of small changes to the intersection, to allow 2 left turns, (1) heading west on Main and turning south down 85, and (2) heading north up 85 and turning west along Main) without adding more than 100 sq ft of asphalt at each left turn (as opposed to acres and acres of asphalt under the State Plan, which has 4 left turns and long stacking lanes).

(The drainage at the Library parking lot is unrelated to the road, but it could be added as a separate project, and done at the same time, if Town Meeting approved)

The entire remainder of a Local Plan can be standard resurfacing, but only of those portions of the street in need of immediate repair. Not resurfacing all of it. The abutting residents have asked for no more Town funding than is due to any road in Southborough. That sounds quite fair. No special treatment.

The design rule that applies to a Local Plan is that we must maintain the same level of safety as exists today (as opposed to having to follow the thick book of State rules, that have controlled the State highway plan from day # 1).

Unfortunately, there have been no legitimate alternatives to this State project, in all these years, because every single one of the review meetings had to live within those rigid State rules, and no Local Plan was allowed to be discussed. That is why so many residents simply gave up, in sheer frustration and battle fatigue. “You can’t fight Town Hall”. But in this case also “You can’t fight Town DPW”, because it is our DPW that has controlled this project from day # 1, and our DPW that controls the Town consultant, and our DPW that fires them too.

Let me ask you: Have you received one clear answer to any of the major questions raised at the April 2 meeting? For instance, it was asked repeatedly: Can the turn lanes and stacking lanes be removed, or not, while keeping State funding? It is two weeks later, we have no answers, and we are on the eve of a major vote. Welcome to the frustration of citizen participation as practiced in this project. The abutters have had to tolerate this “participation” for 8 years.


I suggest that whether you are for or against the State highway, you should carefully consider the benefits of a Review Committee.

Those in favor will need the Committee to guide them regarding the significant 7 easements, requiring a 2/3 rds vote. Those against will need the Committee to prepare a “Local Plan”. In other words you ALL benefit from having a Review Committee.


I ask that you also help support the Gulbankian family which faces a remarkably similar theme – the preservation of rural character in the form of a family-run Garden Center, which has been in existence for 50 years, and which fits the very definition of rural character in our Master Plan. They are struggling to survive and they need your support on Article 30, the very last Article. So please do not leave after Article 27.


Tip O’Neill famously stated “all politics is local”. It certainly is !

Thank you,

David Parry

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
who is embarrassed now?
10 years ago

Mr Parry, there seems to be one glaring ommission in your response. Can you confirm that you misrepresented yourself to the State?

10 years ago

Mr. Parry, Your documented misrepresentations, intimidation, threats and overall unethical conduct gives you zero credibility. You have done tremendous harm to the town and have intentionally made this an ugly debate. Your aim all along is to single handedly cause the town to loose millions of dollars and you have gone to the lowest of lows to do that. Your post here does nothing to refute the fact that you have misrepresented yourself as a selectman, that you have threatened town officials and boards, and anyone who believes a single thing you say I feel sorry for. How can anyone with a good conscious support someone who believes the end justifies the most unethical means. For someone who speaks about “our community” and “our town” you have done more in the last few weeks to destroy all that is good.

Beth Melo
10 years ago


I don’t want to take sides in a battle. I do want to clear up one fact though – as I have knowledge that seems only fair to share with readers. (I just can’t ignore knowledge of several emails, conversations and witnessed exchanges at unrecorded public Planning Board meetings I attended.)

It seems that both your side and Mr. Boland’s side of argument about the source of utilities undergrounding article are over simplified.

The truth is that this winter you were pursuing (per public Planning Board meetings and several public emails including me on the distribution) “a possible ALTERNATIVE scheme for the removal of utility poles and overhead cables from Historic Main Street.”

You wanted to explore options for moving utility poles with some possible limited undergrounding. You had gone as far as sketching plans that you “spend a huge amount of time” on and discussing possible easements for underground on private land:

“The issue of whose house lots the underground vault MIGHT pass under, on each side of Latisquama Rd APPEARS TO BE SOLVABLE, so do NOT let this issue stop you from proceeding with a review. Obviously there are other easement issues, but all appear solvable because they are almost ALL owned by Fay and St Marks and the town.”

You did express concerns about what you considered to be the enormous scale of the Main Street project and people not knowing what was “coming down the pike”. But you also made it clear that a large area of your concern, and an item you wanted a committee to consider, was to avoid missing an opportunity for moving the utility wires.

You reported to the Planning Board that the town employees advised you (based on Karen Galligan’s advice) that given project timing, utility undergrounding bylaws should be passed at the upcoming Town Meeting if you wanted any undergrounding to be included in the Main Street project. You asked the Planning Board to sponsor the articles.

As discussions continued over multiple meetings, the issue seemed to be complicated. Neither you or Planning Board were sure if those bylaws made sense to pursue at this Town Meeting.

Meanwhile Mr. Boland spoke against undergrounding based on past response from community. But he advocated moving forward and letting the voters decide if they want undergrounding (with related expense) or not so issue could be put to rest.

That’s when who wanted what became muddied. I’ll let the two of you argue about intentions (red herring, etc.).

I just wanted to clear up some confusion for readers as you each point fingers at the other about where the proposed undergrounding bylaw came from. As often is the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

10 years ago

Due to Mr Perry’s erratic behavior, the fact that he misrepresented himself to a state agency and the fact that it took less time to read some of the responses to his rebuttal rather than reading his rebuttal itself I will be moving on now. I just hope he can find a condensed version when he speaks at the town meeting tonight.

Tim Martel
10 years ago

I find it odd that the Selectmen would choose the day before Town Meeting to release this voice mail to the press. Coincidence? Are their arguments for the Main St project so weak that they have to resort to a smear campaign?

I hope at least one of the Selectmen responds to this message – however briefly. To date, I have held each member of the BOS in high regard for their service and dedication to the town. But this seemingly foul tactic is about to cause me to lose respect for them.

Frank Crowell
10 years ago
Reply to  Tim Martel

Better to have the tape released now for him then just before the election. I am wondering when Mr. Parry will apologize to the BOS and town. Better for him to do that now then just before the election as well.

10 years ago


I heartily agree….
David Coombs certainly has his hand full tonite!

10 years ago

Mr. Martel You honestly have to be joking? You believe the truth is a smear campaign? By whom? Think about what you are saying. If you don’t have respect for the truth, that is your choice. Most people I know just prefer honesty. You may be one of the exceptions.

10 years ago

Now, I am one disappointed voter who doesn’t know whom to believe. Both sides are performing immaturely, deceitfully and counterproductively.
It has become Boland v Parry/

David Parry
10 years ago


Beth — thank you for attempting to clear up all the confusion about the Undergrounding of utilities along Main St. .

Here is the blow by blow account. It is quite simple, and there is are very clear conclusions:
(1) That I do not support Undergrounding,
(2) Tthat Mr Boland does not support Undergrounding,
(3) In other words neither of us support Undergrounding.
(4) But for some reason Mr Boland keeps trying to trying to confuse the voters, by telling them my “secret agenda” is to promote Undergrounding.

To prove this conclusively, let us go through the record:

In January, I put forth a Warrant article for Main St , to establish a Review Committee created by Town Meeting, to decide whether or not the State-funded highway plan was “in the best interest of the Town”.. The word Undergounding is not mentioned.

In later January , the new Town Planner dug out old information about Undergrounding which she found in the files of the previous Town Planner. The current Town Planner proposed, on her own initiative, that an Article could establish a procedure, required by state law, which all towns must go through BEFORE any town can consider Undergrounding — (the rules for notice to utilities etc). She wrote up a draft Article and discussed it with very briefly with Mr Mark Purple, (the Town Administrator) and myself. She asked me if I had any concerns. I said I thought it was very premature, but I am not on the Planning Board, so why not put it before them and see what they think.

In February, the Planning Board discussed her suggestion. They were concerned because there was no public support, no study about where it would start or end, and no accurate cost. The previous figure (from a 5 year old mini-study), had been $11 mn. — An astronomical sum that nobody would ever support. The Planning Board realized, correctly, that even though this draft suggestion, proposed by the Town Planner, was a non-money Article about procedure, nevertheless all these questions about cost were certain to come up at Town Meeting. The result would be confusion and failure. The Planning Board voted not to support the draft Article. I agreed with their decision.

In February Mr Dennis Flynn came up with another idea. Instead of Undergrounding, which is very expensive, why not consider a much cheaper alternative — namely moving the poles far away from Main St, and keeping the cables above ground. This has not been studied and remains a possibility.. .

In later February DPW and Mr Boland then got involved in Undergrounding in a totally different way. They both appeared before the Planning Board to promote an Article for Undergrounding, (despite the cheaper Flynn alternative of move-the-poles-away). Ms Gallligan said there was a need to move ahead fast with Undergrounding now, because the road engineers’ schedule could mesh with Undergrounding, but only if it could be done now, this year. The Planning board were not persuaded.

The next evening, Ms Galligan and Mr Boland again promoted the idea, of starting Undergrounding soon, by asking the Board of Selectmen for support. A detailed presentation was made by Ms Galligan about the timing. Selectman Rooney and several Advisory Board members present questioned the timing. Mr Rooney refused to endorse it. I spoke against he proposal, calling it very premature, and a “red herring”. Someone else called it an attempt to confuse the voters.

Mr Boland persisted, and said he personally wanted the Article voted on at Town Meeting, now, this year, for one principal reason: — Because he opposed Undergrounding very strongly, under any circumstances, and he believed that most residents agreed with him, and the voters should be given the opportunity to vote against it, and kill it forever. Mr Heggarty of the Advisory Committee said this is why nobody bothers to come to Town Meeting, because they are asked to vote on such nonsense Articles.. “Enough” he said. . The Board of Selectmen did not support Mr Boland.

But since then, and continuing still, Boland keeps trying to paint me with the “secret agenda” of promoting Undergrounding. He has this “conspiracy theory” he won’t let go of. This would all be laughable, if it wasn’t so serious. Because it IS an attempt by Mr Boland to confuse the voters, deliberately.and repeatedly.

And that is the reason why I have to write down in every document, and say at the very start of every meeting, that Article #27 (setting up the Review Committee) has NOTHING TO DO WITH UNDERGROUNDING). Yet every time I say this, Mr Boland tries to cut me off. But I will keep on saying it, loud and clear.


If fact, I will say that first thing tomorrow night, at Town Meeting, for the umpteenth time.

Beth Melo
10 years ago
Reply to  David Parry

This may seem a bit nitpicky – just a correction to your timeframe explained above.

In late January, you spoke at a Planning Board meeting about the removing utility poles, then emailed the alternate utility plan you had been working on for a huge amount of time. So the utili.ty plan which did include some undergrounding was in discussion before February.

10 years ago

Unfortunately, town politics has reared its ugly head. I can understand that follow-up statements need to be made to counter accusations and misrepresentations. My response here though is not to add commentary to the he said/he said issues.

Rather, I want to remark on a couple of issues in Mr. Parry’s original letter at the top of this chain. It highlights many of the yet unresolved issues of this project. The proposed easements are chief among them. It would seem that the proposed easements are required for the successful implementation of the state plan since the state plan requires a specified road alignment and width. If easements are not obtained then there will not be enough land for the proposed road width and sidewalks. Furthermore, the alignment and widths are fixed once the 25% design is submitted and approved. Given the many surprises in the past many years of this project why would anyone think easements would be “taken for granted” (pun intended). Therefore, it would be imperative to resolve the easements prior to the 25% design submission.

Second, I’m very disappointed that there has been no response to the many action items that supposedly were taken at the April 2nd public meeting, which I intended. Many questions could not be answered at that meeting. How does one make an educated decision about this project without answers to important questions by residents who specifically went to a meeting to understand the project and request information that was not available or forthcoming?

If I am in error regarding either of my issues, I apologize. A response would be appreciated.

Beth Melo
10 years ago

I have been asked to share this in this comment stream. Because the letter is long and includes attachments, I am posting the introduction and an excerpt, followed by a link to the pdf for full letter and attachments:

Below is a letter from Mr. John E. Thomas, Vice President of Beals + Thomas, Inc., to Alan Clarance, Director of Finance and Operations at Fay School, with a reaction to the above blog post/letter by Mr. Parry.

April 24, 2014

Dear Mr. Clarance,

Thank you for forwarding Mr. Parry’s letter of April, 2014, which, among other issues, outlined his understanding of the Route 30 drainage improvements as they relate to the Fay School Campus. We are writing to correct the statements made by Mr. Parry and his description of how the Route 30 roadway improvement project has evolved and the nature of the drainage conditions in the area of the Fay School Campus. Mr. Parry’s misrepresentation and interpretation of the discussion we had at a meetings with him on Aril 3rd, 2014 is particularly troubling as the purpose of that meeting was to clarify some of the drainage issues and statements that were made by Mr. Parry at a public meetings several days prior to April 3rd. Consequently, it is imperative that we provide the factual information for the record and correct the erroneous statements made by Mr. Parry in his letter.

(To read this letter in its entirety, plus pertinent attachments, visit https://mysouthborough.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/20140505_comment_Beals+Thomas-letter_of_-4-24-14.pdf.)

Resident Charlie
10 years ago

I’m really upset with all the misleading information David Parry is putting out on this site. I think he needs to tell the truth and stop attempting to confuse people.

  • © 2024 MySouthborough.com — All rights reserved.