Last week, the Select Board voted on dates for the fall Special and spring Annual Town Meetings. Both will take place on Saturdays.
While voters should mark their calendars, they should also stay tuned. It’s very possible that an extra Special Town Meeting (date TBD) will be organized to vote on a Neary School building project.
The currently planned dates are:
- Special Town Meeting: Saturday, October 17, 2026
- Annual Town Meeting: Saturday, March 20, 2027
Both will open at 10:00 am at Trottier Middle School.
At the Select Board’s meetings, members discussed
While a lot of work is needed between now and finalizing of Warrants, I can give a brief update on some of the items the meetings may address. Plus, I’ll update on Articles previously discussed as headed to the fall meeting that aren’t any longer.
Wastewater District Financing Article
The Wastewater Committee is hoping to bring an Article to Town Meeting this fall. The proposal would be to define a district comprised of properties that may benefit from an envisioned future municipal wastewater system.
In the future, the Town would potentially be able to divert a percentage of increased tax revenues from new growth in that district to help offset the project costs.
The concept is different from a user fee or other fees for properties that have access to the system. The properties would still be assessed at the same tax rate as other properties across town.
I’ll share more details about the committee’s proposal and initiative status in a future post.
Community Preservation Act Articles
A few Articles that were originally slated for this past Annual Town Meeting were postponed to this fall. At this point its unclear if any will be ready in time for that.
The most promising is the Fayville Park Upgrades. That’s the project that would add a splash pad, dog park, and make other improvements at the playground area on Central Street.
The Recreation Commission still needs to work through a parking plan for the area. If they can get that ironed out in time, that’s likely to go to the Fall Town Meeting. (Click here to read more about the project.)
The timing of other projects is even more in flux.
Based on higher cost estimates than originally expected, the Golf Course Irrigation Project for the Southborough Golf Club may get pushed off. The CPC recently suggested the Golf Course Committee may need more lead time to organize and gain community support.
The Trails Committee has been seeking to bring voters a request to change details of the previously approved Peninsula Trails Project. As things currently stand, it sounded like the CPC wasn’t ready to support the application. The two committees have more details to work out.
[Note: It sounds like proponents have hit pause on the application for a CPA project related to the historic water tower in the rural cemetery. The recently created Cemetery Expansion Committee needs time to do its research and make recommendations that may impact the project.]
Zoning Bylaw Changes
The Planning Board isn’t currently in the process of pursuing new zoning bylaws. But in their Monday night meeting, the talked about which ones might be on the horizon.
Short Term Rental Restrictions
According to Chair Lisa Braccio and Town Planner Karina Quinn they heard from both the Building Commissioner and Town Clerk about the potential of bringing a bylaw changes for Short Term Rentals. (One reference mentioned ADU short term rentals.)
Apparently, the town has received complaints from residents about issues related to people renting out units (through AirBnB, etc).
The implication seemed to be a suggestion to eliminate the ADU right. According to Quinn, Town Clerk Jim Hegarty pointe to another town’s bylaw that he thought would be “perfect” for copying.
Under the state law for ADUs, towns do have the right to restrict the short term rentals through zoning. But member Marnie Hoolahan reminded the board that voters had strongly opposed that restriction in the past.
Hoolahan warned the board that getting a short-term rental ban passed would be a heavy lift.
The short term-rental ban was one of the details some voters opposed in the first (unsuccessful) version of ADU bylaw changes brought to voters.1
When Planning presented its first ADU proposal to voters, some touted shorter term rentals as potentially helping financially strapped residents remain in their homes. Another criticism was that it was arbitrary to limit the ban to ADUs vs all homes.
However, the motion to amend the Article to strike the short-term rental ban failed before the overall zoning Article failed. Some, like former Planning Chair Meme Luttrell had argued that using ADUs for short term rentals takes them off the market for their primary intent under state law — increasing affordable, diverse housing options.
At the time, the potential nuisance from neighbor rentals was a hypothetical. Now that some residents have apparently been irked by it, the turnout in favor of a restriction could be higher.
On the flip side, there may be opposition from residents who invested in building an ADU for the purpose of short-term rentals.
Sign Bylaw Revision
Building Commissioner Mark Robidoux apparently suggested that the Planning Board consider a bylaw to improve handling signs on Route 9. The proposal is to have the signs go to site plan instead of to the Zoning Board of Appeals as a non-complaint structure.
Details are TBD. Braccio and Quinn planned to discuss it with Robidoux when they sit down to discuss how the departments and board can better work together.
55+ Housing Bylaw Revisions
Earlier this year, the board paused its work on revising zoning bylaws to increase opportunities for 55+ housing. They aren’t currently prioritizing that to bring to voters this fall.
The board also discussed Freddie Gillespie’s critiques and warnings about a draft proposal earlier this year. They noted that she had raised good points that needed to be addressed. And member Marnie Hoolahan confessed that there was some work she had promised to do on the proposal that she hadn’t gotten to yet.
The effort might end up scrapped all together. Vice Chair Debbie DeMuriah reiterated to the board her belief that:
the state doesn’t really support um expanding the use of 55. It’s considered exclusionary zoning. And so the idea now is to really think about zoning in a way that includes families. . .
I just really wonder whether that’s where we want to put our effort. . .
It’s on the books. Maybe it’s not perfect, but I think we should probably leave it alone for now.
No one expressed disagreement.
