[Ed note: My Southborough accepts signed letters to the editor submitted by Southborough residents. Letters may be emailed to mysouthborough@gmail.com.
The following letter is from Michael Weishan.]
To the Editor:
For more than five years, the Southborough Historical Society has worked to complete a project that nearly everyone in town supports: a new History and Arts Center at 40–42 Central Street in Fayville. This is not a speculative development or a private commercial venture. It is a community resource—designed to preserve our shared history, host cultural programming, and provide a gathering place for residents of all ages.
Yet despite that broad support, the project has faced repeated obstruction from the Southborough Planning Board, led by its outgoing Chair, Meme Luttrell, with support from member Lisa Braccio, Luttrell’s neighbor and ally, who has a long and well-documented history of conflict with the Society during her prior tenure on the Select Board.
In 2023, the Planning Board approved a Master Site Plan for the property but imposed a series of conditions that went well beyond what the law allows. Under the Dover Amendment, nonprofit educational and cultural institutions like the Historical Society are protected from precisely this kind of overreach. Regulations must be limited to reasonable dimensional controls. Instead, the Board imposed restrictions on lighting, landscaping, and hours of operation, among others—conditions that were identified at the time as inconsistent with governing law.
In July 2025, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office issued guidance clarifying the limits of local authority: non-dimensional restrictions, and those that impose financial harm without clear municipal justification, are unreasonable and unenforceable. The Society promptly shared this guidance with the Planning Board, expecting a good-faith effort to resolve what had become an untenable situation.
That effort never came. Instead, Chair Luttrell maintained that the 2023 decision—left unappealed due to the prohibitive cost of litigation—must still be enforced. The result has been continued delay in receiving a final occupancy permit, increased costs, and unnecessary strain on our nonprofit organization working for the public benefit.
At the same time, Chair Luttrell has taken an unusually active role in monitoring the property—privately photographing the site from her car and reporting alleged violations despite not serving in a professional inspection or enforcement capacity, or having any construction, architectural or design credentials. This level of personal involvement, and the lack of objection from certain other board members, raises serious concerns about impartiality and judgment.
The situation escalated further in December 2025, when the Society sought a temporary occupancy permit from the Building Commissioner. In an extraordinary step, Chair Luttrell intervened in a process outside the Planning Board’s authority, attempting to block the permit by invoking a bonding provision that does not apply to Dover-protected uses. These actions were not only unfounded; they also contributed to two Open Meeting Law complaints now under review by the Attorney General’s Office.
Even after the bonding issue was dropped—and three months of additional hearings at which SHS Board member Jon Delli Priscoli attempted every possible accommodation with Lutrell—the Planning Board has continued to impose conditions and renewal requirements on the Society’s temporary occupancy that patently exceed its authority. Other projects in Southborough have not been subjected to comparable treatment. The disparity is striking, and it has had real financial consequences for the Society.
This pattern of conduct is not just frustrating—it is inconsistent with both the Dover Amendment and Southborough’s own bylaws, which prohibit boards from imposing requirements outside established regulations without proper public process. No such process occurred here.
On Monday, May 11, the Historical Society will file a modification to the 2023 site plan. This filing does not expand the project or introduce new elements. It simply seeks to remove unlawful conditions and bring the plan into compliance with Massachusetts law. The only physical change is a modest adjustment to the parking lot to improve ADA accessibility.
Southborough deserves a permitting process grounded in fairness, consistency, and respect for the law. It deserves public officials who facilitate community and community-supported projects—not ones that hinder them.
The Society remains committed to compliance and cooperation. But it cannot accept continued interference with its lawful right to operate. If necessary, those rights will be defended—at a cost not only to the Society, but to taxpayers, whose resources fund these unlawful proceedings, and at the expense of cultural programming for the community.
This outcome is avoidable.
Fortunately, Chair Luttrell’s tenure on the Planning Board ends this Tuesday with the town election. We, along with many concerned residents, call on the Board—and its new leadership after the 12th—to correct past mistakes, follow Massachusetts law, and allow this long-delayed community asset to fully reopen its doors after a 50-year absence.
If you agree, please contact the Select Board and Planning Board and make your voice heard.
Planning Board: kquinn@southboroughma.com
Select Board: selectboard@southboroughma.com
Michael Weishan
President and CEO
Southborough History and Arts Center
The Southborough Historical Society (SHS) should be commended for the work done on Fayville Hall. The building looks beautiful on the outside and pictures I have seen from the inside are also quite impressive. That however, does not exempt the SHS from complying with their approved site plan and the conditions thereof, and certainly is not an excuse to pedal disinformation and engage in bullying tactics.
The facts are:
· 40-42 Central St project was treated the same as all other projects before the Planning Board and was permitted in compliance with applicable sections of the Southborough Zoning Code and Massachusetts General Law (MGL)
· The Planning Board accepted that this project was a Dover protected use and the project was approved under the confines of MGLc40A s3 (AKA the Dover Amendment), with Southborough’s Town Counsel and the proponent’s attorney present to ensure that. The Major Site Plan conditions were reviewed line by line at a Planning Board meeting and agreed to by the SHS and their attorney. The Planning Board has approved many site plans for other Dover protected educational uses and all have complied with the conditions of their approved site plans.
· The Dover Amendment protects certain uses from being overly regulated and in effect prohibited. Municipalities can require Site Plan review for Dover protected uses as long as the regulation is in relation to one of 8 categories listed in the statute. Parking is one of the categories a municipality is allowed to regulate in the site plan review of Dover protected uses. The Major Site Plan site conditions for 40-42 Central Street all relate to parking and are therefore allowed under the confines of the Dover Amendment.
· The Southborough Zoning Code codifies how the town is developed and is approved by the residents of Southborough. The Planning Board works to ensure all projects that come before us comply with the code as approved by the residents of Town and MGL.
· The Town Zoning Bylaw (chapter 174) requires projects:
· be constructed in accordance with the approved site plan
o 174-10 B. (2). (c) The construction of the work as detailed on the site plan shall not deviate from the work shown on the approved site plan.
· changes from the approved site plan shall be approved by the Planning Board
o 174-10 H. Minor departures from the site plan as approved may be authorized by the Building Commissioner after approval of the Planning Board if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time of plan approval. Any change increasing the size of any building or structure, changing the location of any building, parking or access road by more than 10 feet or reducing landscaping or screening or increase to site lighting levels may be made only through review by the Planning Board following the same procedures as for an original submittal.
· Compliance with the approved site plan is required
o 174-10 J. Compliance. The issuance of an occupancy permit will not be given prior to the satisfactory completion of all elements and conditions of the approved site plan. A temporary occupancy permit may be issued after the satisfactory completion of all items essential to public health and safety and sufficient bonding acceptable to the Planning Board is provided to the Town to cover all outstanding items
Although SHS’s Site Plan was permitted within the legal confines of the Dover Amendment and the SHS agreed to the conditions at a public hearing (7.24.23 Planning Board meeting on You-Tube), sometime after the approval they decided it was “illegal”. The SHS had two avenues to remedy what they erroneously believed was an illegal Major Site Plan Approval: 1) Appeal the decision or 2) File for a modification to the site plan. They did not file an appeal; therefore, the site plan approval and conditions govern, a fact confirmed by Southborough’s Town Counsel. To date they have also not filed a complete submission for the modification of the approved site plan, so again the approved site plan and conditions govern.
The SHS has not complied with any site conditions of the approved site plan, which were to be implemented to safeguard public safety, lessen neighborhood impacts, and limit the town’s liability. The only site work completed deviates from the approved site plan, which is in violation of 174-10 B. (2). (c) . These changes were made without approval of the Planning Board as required by our zoning bylaw (174-10 H).
The SHS did not appear before the Planning Board until January of 2026 to request the Board’s sign off on a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. As a gesture of goodwill, the Planning Board agreed to not require a bond for the incomplete aspects of the approved site plan in exchange the SHS agreed to comply with certain conditions. The SHS failed to comply with those conditions. The exception being monthly status updates, to inform the board of steps taken toward compliance, although commitments made within the status updates were not carried out.
The SHS had not complied with any of the site conditions of the approved site plans (violation of 174-10 J), site work is not in accordance with the approved site plans (violates 174-10 B 2. (c) and 174-10H), failed to comply with the agreed upon conditions of the Temporary Occupancy permit and has even failed to designate and install signage for the parking spaces for Fayville Park as required in their deed (yet they were able to install a private property sign that removes some of the parking rights afforded in the deed). The SHS has shown zero evidence of their supposed commitment to compliance and cooperation which is the only thing the Planning Board has been asking for three years.
Meme Luttrell
This would be laughable if it were not grounded in such a profound misunderstanding of the law, procedure, and the zoning exemptions afforded to small Dover-protected institutions. It illustrates, with striking clarity, how a small cabal of like-minded crazies can take over a town board, turn it on its head, and leave the rest of us to deal with the consequences.
The probable result? We appeal—and win. The practical result? The cancellation of a month or two, or three, or more of cultural activities in Southborough, including our planned 250th celebration, an antique car show, and the complete closure of the parking lot across from Fay Memorial Park for the duration (no open building means the lot must be closed to the public for liability reasons).
We remain committed to developing our Center, but if the embittered positions outlined above continue to reflect Planning’s stance after Luttrell’s (thankful) departure, we will need to reconsider.
Folks: we are a volunteer organization, and we are reaching the end of our patience. If this History and Arts center is not wanted, we can easily sell/donate the collections, sell the building to a private developer, place the proceeds into a trust for historical preservation in Southborough, and move on. We have spent five long years bringing this Center to life. We will not continue to battle utter nonsense like the above while wasting everyone’s time and resources.
By all means, let us hear from you: we would like to hear your thoughts: info@fayvillehall.org
Mr. Weishan,
By all accounts the project you completed at Central Street is BEAUTIFUL.
HOWEVER, would you consider speaking kindly to others? Use the elegance you possess in restoring beautiful architecture with your words and treatment of others. You may not intend to be vituperative, but that is how you come across.
Peace