Above: Last night, two Articles were about zoning changes, but most voters were focused on the business the first Article was targeted to attract to town. (Images from Costco promotions and Planning Board handout)
According to Town Clerk Jim Hegarty, 801 voters checked into last night’s Special Town Meeting. That’s the 4th highest turnout in the past 25 years of Town Meetings. (The third highest was this past May.)
There 18 more voters than votes cast on the Article that drew a crowd. But it wasn’t the only Article that every Town Meeting attendee cared about. According to the Town “several” voters arrived after Article 1 was voted on. It’s also possible that some voters left that decision to voters who were more passionate about the issue than they were.
Today, my recap of last night’s Special Town Meeting will focus on the two zoning articles that passed. (Look for other meeting highlights in a post tomorrow.)
Article 1 for Highway Major Retail Use
Select Board Member Al Hamilton made the presentation I previewed in prior coverage. He emphasized the need to attract more commercial development to help ease residents’ tax burdens. He called the effort to work with the developer and business an important “first step”. He summed up “when opportunity knocks, you got to open the door.”
Matt Probst told voters that when voters answer the annual survey for the Town (issued by the committee he chairs), they ask to attract grocery stores, retail and restaurants. He said that Consumer Reports Costco has best prices in the area, and touted their pharmacy prices, hearing aids, and food court. As for impact on small businesses, he said that he buys discounted supplies from his small business from Costco, which has a dedicated visa for small businesses. And he noted that other towns compete to attract a Costco by waiving taxes.
Karen Shimkus asked Town Counsel how they could be sure that zoning to allow the use only on the parcel at 21 Coslin Drive is legal. Attorney Elizabeth Leiden responded that overlaying an additional zoning use is legal, as long as the Town can establish that there is “a legitimate interest” in the use and it’s not arbitrary. The Planning Board’s report supports that. Upon further questioning, she referred to, then listed case precedents that support the legal opinion.
Shimkus pushed, how could we know the Town wouldn’t be sued by the owner of another Industrial Park zoned parcel for it being prejudicial zoning? She answered, “you can never guarantee that you won’t be sued with anything”.
Answering other concerns that Shimkus raised about traffic and infrastructure, Hamilton reminded that those are the types of details that are considered during the special permit process by the zoning authority. (In this instance, that’s the Planning Board.)
Jack Bartolini said he believed one reason it wasn’t spot zoning was because it also applied to abutting properties, though at a smaller scale. Planning Chair Meme Lutrell clarified that the new Highway Major Retail Use is just at the one lot, but ancillary uses are allowed on abutting lots. (To be clear, the new use would allow permitting a business with a minimum 125,000 gross square feet at 21 Highland Street, while permitted abutting parcel retail/restaurant use would be capped at 50,000 sq ft.)
Elyse Ocnos, who grew up in town, worried about impacts to mom and pop stores that “donate to our schools” and town and whether a liquor license would be taken from one of them. She also worried about the safety impact on biking and walking in the area of the south side of Parkerville Road. She lamented the Town’s lack of action in doing anything to make “that side safer over the years”:
Is it going to be have to somebody gets hit unfortunately to now make it so we do something about the epic traffic that’ll be going through those side roads to get there so they bypass Route 9?
Hamilton’s responses included that the permit process requires conducting traffic studies, Town Meeting voters may be asked to vote on a future liquor license, and that “we cannot freeze the way the town is.”
Jim Colleary, a “4th generation” townie spoke about the deterioration of the Town and the need to bring in more tax revenue to fund the things we need, like a new school. He spoke about the people who can’t afford to downsize in town because of the tax rate. And he summed up:
if we don’t get it in our head then you better be very wealthy, or I said was willing to say, “Put up shut up and write the check,” because that’s where we’re going.
Brian Thornock told voters that he and his family had relocated to Southborough last summer from a small suburb outside of Austin, Texas. He recapped his experience from when a Costco was built about 1½ miles from his old home. He said that the community had similar worries as those voiced last night. But in the five years that Costco was a neighbor, the traffic was less than feared, and there was an “overwhelmingly positive experience” including bringing in “the types of businesses” to his area that wouldn’t before. He followed:
you’d get the weekend rush on a Saturday at 11:00 a.m. where everybody shows up to Costco from the outlying 20 miles. But the benefit is you had everyone from those outlying 20 miles coming in and spending money in your suburb, in your little town, which went a really long way towards providing for the things that we needed. . .
if we kill the zoning now, we guarantee that we cannot have that opportunity in the future. If we pass the zoning tonight, all we’re saying is that we now get a chance to see what gets brought to the table later on by the interested parties.
As I wrote last night, the zoning passed 771 to 12.
Article 9 – ADU Bylaw Update
Planning Board Member Marnie Hoolahan made the board’s presentation on their proposed changes to eliminate discrepancies between the Town bylaws and state laws for by right Accessory Dwelling Units.
She also mentioned that the changes lifted a cap on the number of units allowed by Special Permit. Upon questioning, she explained that was in the spirit of the state law to encourage people to add more housing options. And she noted that the Town hadn’t been tracking the number that were previously approved.
Michael Carroll suggested that in the future the Town should track it. Hoolahan quipped, “Many things we need to track in this town.”
Zoning Board of Appeals Member Michael Robbins raised to voters the potential to use the bylaw change to improve upon the state law by increasing the size of ADU permits allowed by right for smaller homes. He acknowledged that people can still seek a Special Permit, but felt the current law adversely affects smaller homes by not allowing them to have the 900 sq feet that larger homes are entitled to, and he believed less likely to need.
Hoolahan said that she was willing to consider a zoning overhaul to make improvements, but believed that should be done in the future through public hearings and discussions. Robbins replied that he didn’t have an issue with that approach.
The Article passed overwhelmingly. (Under the state law for the ADUs, the compliant zoning change didn’t require a 2/3 vote, so the clickers weren’t used.)
