A Southborough resident raised detailed concerns at the golf course committee’s Dec. 2 meeting about the appearance, maintenance and access impacts of a proposed chain‑link fence that will run along a scenic road adjacent to the golf course.

Gail, who identified herself during public comment, told the committee she had sent a letter raising questions about the fence’s color, gauge and long‑term upkeep and asked whether alternative materials or finishes had been considered. “Imagine you buy a house with a water view and all of a sudden this water view becomes not a water view anymore but becomes a water view with a big chain link fence in front of it,” she said, emphasizing the scenic nature of Latusquama Road and asking that aesthetics be considered before approving the budget.

Committee members said the fence design and installation are subject to approvals from Sudbury Valley Trust, the town and the committee, and repeated that the committee itself does not have building‑department jurisdiction. The committee reported that quotes for the fence were submitted to the town and that contractors cited a roughly $5,000 increase over two months because of higher material costs. Committee members advised the resident to contact Mark Purple in the Department of Public Works or the building department for formal review; the committee also said the new fence will match existing fence sections in appearance.

Gail pressed the committee to document who will be responsible for long‑term maintenance and where future maintenance dollars will come from. The committee responded that interior fence maintenance would be handled by the golf course management company, while exterior maintenance would be the town’s responsibility; Gail said she had received inconsistent answers from DPW and the committee in the past and urged that responsibilities be documented in writing.

Gail also raised safety and access concerns, saying that children and neighbors regularly use the purchase‑designated passive recreation land for sledding and other activities and asked how informal access would be preserved once a continuous fence is installed. Committee members said the fence would not run continuously for the entire parcel and that access points exist near the maintenance building and other areas; the committee indicated gates would be minimized to discourage people from going onto playing areas to retrieve balls.

Tony Schonra, identified at the meeting as a committee member and a former chair, offered to meet with Gail after the session and to work through her letter and concerns; Gail accepted the offer and said she would follow up with the DPW and the building department if necessary.

The committee heard the public comment during the general fencing discussion, acknowledged a contractor price increase related to material costs and agreed to follow up with DPW and the building department for any permitting and design requirements. No formal change to the fence plan or budget was adopted during the meeting.

What happens next: committee members advised Gail to make an appointment with DPW (Mark Purple) or the building department for design and permitting questions; Tony Schonra volunteered to act as a committee liaison to walk through Gail’s letter and concerns.