Last week, the Select Board discussed tentatively scheduling the Special Town Meeting this fall for the evening of Monday, November 3rd.
The Warrant is expected to include zoning bylaw changes. It is likely to also include an Article related to the initiative to add Wastewater Treatment capabilities along Route 9.
Less likely, but also possible, is inclusion of an Article related to the ongoing debate on next steps for a school building construction/maintenance project.
As I wrote earlier this week, the Select Board has yet to finalize a charge for a new committee to research the K-8 school building situation. One idea that had been floated by Chair Andrew Dennington was a non-binding ranked choice vote of options at a Fall Town Meeting. But it’s too soon to know if that is a path the board will pursue taking.
As for the Wastewater Committee’s potential Articles, I’ll hold off on getting into those today. You can read more about the general initiative here. (And stay tuned for an update on what the committee has been pursuing with potential support from a state grant.)
Zoning Changes
The Planning Board is expected to work towards bringing two different zoning Articles to voters at the Special Town Meeting. One follows up on the failed zoning for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Another pursues changes the board had postponed working on related to updated Industrial Park Zoning to better attract commercial uses near Route 9.
The Planning Board discussed both at their June 2nd meeting.
ADU Bylaw Changes
Last week, the board discussed whether to revise and bring back the proposed ADU Bylaws they proposed in April.
Given the feedback from voters at Annual Town Meeting, the majority of members decided that they should instead focus on simply cleaning up the Town’s outdated zoning language.
The state law that went into effect this past winter conflicts with language in Southborough’s bylaws.
The law entitles owners of single family homes to add an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADUs) up to 900 sq ft to their property. (It can be attached or detached.)
There are some restrictions, but as long as they fall within the state law (and meet local zoning restrictions for height, setbacks, etc.) they are considered by-right.
Although state law supersedes local bylaws, the outdated provisions in our code could mislead homeowners to think that legally allowable projects are prohibited in Southborough or require getting approval for a discretionary Special Permit.
The Articles the board brought to Annual Town Meeting in April, would have fixed discrepancies. But changes were also included to take advantage of the flexibility Towns were given to add some process and rights restrictions. And they proposed revising the special permit process for accessory units not covered as by-right under the law.
Town Meeting voters rejected the Articles. The biggest critiques had related to adding a requirement for Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board.
There were also debate about the proposed prohibition on rentals shorter than 30 days. And for the by-permit projects, some criticized changing the approval authority from the Zoning Board of Appeals to the Planning Board.
The Planning Board had recommended the authority change to streamline the process. Under the current bylaws, permit applicants have to first seek feedback from the Planning Board which is then provided to the ZBA before that board votes.
Those who objected to the change simply argued they were against changing the status quo for the authority. (They never publicly clarified why the current process is better.)
Last week, Planning member Marnie Hoolahan opined that if they tried to bring back a revised, simplified version of their bylaw it would fail. She proposed working on just “administrative” cleanup of the conflicting language in the Town’s bylaws.
Member Lisa Braccio voiced that at some point down the road, she would like to make another effort to pass a revised bylaw. But she agreed that in the short term it didn’t make sense to do that this fall. She noted that right now when voters so focused on the school building issues it would be hard to get them to “grasp” details of the zoning initiative.
Chair Meme Luttrell agreed on taking the simpler path. She noted that it was difficult to decipher “what message was being sent” by voters. They voted against amendments proposed from the floor to eliminate the bylaws prohibition on short term rentals and to change the voting authority. But then the main Article also failed. So she didn’t “know what to take from that”.
Industrial Park Zoning Changes
Earlier this year, Atlantic Management purchased two parcels on Coslin Drive, within the property formerly owned by Dell/EMC.
The properties cover over 30 acres in the Industrial Park zone, tucked back behind Madison Place off of Route 9. (You can read more here.)
According to Luttrell, the new owners reached out to the Town about the zoning restrictions. They are apparently working on a business development plan that would require some zoning changes.
Luttrell said she informed the business that if they want changes brought to a Fall Town Meeting, they would need to provide information soon. She explained that the board doesn’t hold zoning hearings in the summer, since voters tend to think officials are trying to slip something past them.
She proposed starting discussions soon, then planning to open hearings in late August.
Hoolahan suggested that it was time to “open back up” the broader zoning changes the board had started to look at for the Industrial Park zoning.
Last fall, the board had planned to work on revising the Industrial Park zoning. They intended to modernize it, including updating the allowed uses. The hope was to be more business friendly.
The effort was started under a working group of Town employees, Luttrell, and two members of the Select Board.
The effort was tabled while the Planning Board focused on trying to get the ADU bylaw ready for Town Meeting.
Town Planner Karina Quinn stated that one of the members, ZBA assistant Lara Davis, had just asked for the Working Group to get going again. The ZBA is interested in changes to allow multiple uses on lots.
Earlier in the meeting, under the ADU bylaw discussion, Luttrell noted that she wanted to get rid of the special permit requirement for Accessory Apartments within the Industrial Park zone. She said that it didn’t make any sense to her to include that since they are allowed in every other district.
Planning member Debbie DeMuria suggested that either she, or new member Alan Belniak, could replace Luttrell on the working group. Belniak suggested that the group, which doesn’t have public meeting requirements, should make an effort to also hold a public session for outreach and feedback.
Updated (6/12/25 3:22 pm): I fixed the misspelling of Alan Belniak’s last name.
