In May, the Town’s Building Commissioner issued a letter ordering the Southborough Historical Society (SHS) to “Cease & Desist” holding events at the restored and renovated Fayville Hall without an Occupancy Permit.
Next week, the Zoning Board of Appeals will open a hearing on an appeal filed by SHS as it seeks to reopen its Southborough History & Arts Center (SHAC).
The society is claiming it is entitled to an Occupancy Permit despite not having met conditions of the Site Plan Approval it agreed to through Planning Board hearings in 2023.
The appeal, filed on June 16th, claims that the Commissioner was both wrong for denying an Occupancy Permit and for issuing the “Notice of Zoning Violation”. (Scroll down for more details on the violation.)
Although the appeal is of decisions made by Building Commissioner Mark Robidoux, the underlying complaint is SHS’ ongoing battle with the Planning Board.1.
Robidoux agreed with the Planning Board that under Town bylaws, he can’t grant an Occupancy Permit until Planning signs off on the applicant having met all of the conditions of the Planning Board’s Site Plan decision, and that even a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) needs their approval.
For years, SHS’ President Michael Weishan and their attorney have pointed to state law under the “Dover Amendment” as largely insulating the project from Planning’s oversight.
The dispute dates back to at least spring 2023, when SHS applied for Major Site Plan approval. Weishan pointed to the educational use of the non-profit’s history and arts center as exempting the project from local zoning restrictions.
Under advice from Town Counsel, Planning acknowledged the the projects’ Dover protections. But they highlighted that law still allows the board oversight of the parking lot. And the board has claimed that the conditions they have imposed (including lighting and lot drainage) are for safety reasons and to reduce neighborhood impacts.
Weishan has argued that the amendment only allows for “reasonable” regulation and claimed that the board’s demands were excessive and therefore illegal. And he has publicly claimed that the former Chair and current Chair acted improperly out of personal “spite” against him.
Planning members have stated that SHS agreed to the Site Plan Decision in 2023 rather than appealing it. They describe the board as required to abide by that plan. And, if SHS believes the plan should be changed, it can file an application for a Site Plan modification.
Weishan has publicly pushed back that all of the choices SHS was given were cost prohibitive — the appeal would result in large attorney fees, complying with the plan would be expensive, and he objected to the cost involved in modifying the site plan (including engineer fees).
Weishan has also repeatedly claimed that the board has been singling out SHS by holding it to standards it doesn’t require of other property owners. The board has rejected that, asserting that it has been flexible working with SHS, and only held them to same standards it holds all applicants. Members have noted that until the site plan conditions are met, the project is under their jurisdiction.
Planning members stated that when other properties violate site plan conditions after an occupancy permit is granted, that doesn’t fall under the board’s jurisdiction unless a new application is filed. (Zoning violations are the jurisdiction of the Building Commissioner)
On May 11th, after the TCO expired, Weishan finally submitted SHS’ application for a site plan modification. That prompted another dispute with Planning when Town Planner Karina Quinn informed him that the filing was incomplete/insufficient to move forward. A month later, SHS filed its appeal with the ZBA.
The ZBA hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, August 12th at 7:00 pm in the Town House Hearing Room, with remote access by zoom. You can find the agenda and meeting packet here.
More Details on the Dispute
November & December 2025
Last fall, SHS mailed promotional postcards advertising an Opening and holiday craft fair for Saturday, December 6th. The Planning Board held an emergency meeting to discuss the fact that the applicant hadn’t yet met conditions of the site plan.
At the time, board members were upset at learning that the Building Commissioner and Town Planner bypassed them to negotiate a TCO with SHS. The Planning Chair and some members pointed out that a TCO prior to meeting site plan conditions requires “sufficient bonding acceptable to the Planning Board is provided to the Town to cover all outstanding items.” They argued that meant that the board’s approval is required. (And SHS hadn’t agreed to a bond.)2
In the meeting, members discussed an accusation that Town Planner Karina Quinn had obstructed Weishan from meeting with the board earlier in the fall to discuss the issue. Quinn defended that Weishan hadn’t submitted materials that were required in order for the board to consider the request.
Quinn characterized SHS’s “time constraint” issues as “self-inflicted because of procrastination”. She recapped a combative communications history with Weishan over time. She described him as repeatedly alternating between telling her that he didn’t need to comply with the board’s decision (and threatening to sue) and promising to comply by submitting the “As-builts” required under Town bylaws. (An As-built is the engineering plan that is updated to show what was actually built. Town bylaws specify, that they “shall show deviations from the approved plans, if any, and shall be certified by a professional engineer registered in Massachusetts.”)
Quinn had been calling for SHS to submit the As-builts and the check to cover paying the Town consultant for its peer review. The Town consultant’s role is to check if As-builts comply with Site Plan conditions. If there are “deviations”, they conduct a bond review, to calculate the cost of corrections (using Mass DOT standard costs).
On December 4th, given the short time frame and the community’s interest in SHAC’s December 6th event, the board authorized then-Chair Meme Luttrell to negotiate a bond with SHS.
Although that apparently didn’t happen, Robidoux still granted the one-day TCO. (Following that, Planning and the Building Department have had more communications about the authority of each and how to better work together. Based on updates in recent meetings, the departments and board representatives are continuing to work on improving communications and processes.)
On December 8th, the board again discussed the situation as SHS continued to lobby for an Occupancy Permit or TCO. They said that Weishan was invited to the meeting but declined. The board scheduled to have SHS and Town Counsel attend their January 12th meeting to discuss the path forward.
January 2026
By January 1st, Wieshan was already promoting SHCAC’s “Grand Opening” and exhibit scheduled for January 17th, and classes starting at the center on January 18th.
At the January 12th meeting, Town Counsel Jay Talerman reiterated that Planning had the authority to oversee the parking lot and associated drainage, landscaping, lighting, etc. He noted that the appeal period for the site plan had expired. And Planning members stressed that the site plan had been negotiated with Weishan who had agreed to the terms in the end.
SHS’ attorney Eric Reustle rebutted that SHS had always disagreed with the plan:
I think we made that very clear and that the society tolerated them only because the board insisted on them and they did not want to spend the money to go to court.
Luttrell stated that when Weishan wasn’t able to file the As-builts, they “then just asked for a stamped letter from the their engineer, just saying what was what’s been completed, what’s outstanding, and what changes have been made.” That also wasn’t submitted.
Board members outlined concerns that included changes to the parking lot surface, the plans for the handicap parking and ramp, marking of the parking spaces for public use under the deed, and lack of lighting.
In the meeting, Weishan told the board that the society intended to file a request to modify the site plan. And he promised to install temporary lighting in the parking lot.
Weishan made a presentation showing off the improvements to the renovated building and stressing the major building challenges and cost issues SHS dealt with. He indicated that the financial woes prevented them from following through on the plans as presented in the site plan. Luttrell noted that Weishan was already aware of the building’s ramshackle state when presented his vision in the 2023 site plan hearings.
In a contentious back and forth over the situation, Luttrell stated:
I have concerns because the open house was posted and advertised with full well knowing you didn’t have an occupancy permit. And now there are all these classes that are being advertised and you still don’t have an occupancy permit. So, it doesn’t seem like you’re working with this board in good faith. and we were told that, you know, “the Planning Board has no jurisdiction”. You’re going to ignore the site plan. That that’s not working in good faith.
SHS Board member, and former owner of the property, Jon Delli Priscoli argued for the board to waive the bond to allow a TCO with a time “window”. When told the board didn’t have the authority over the window, he responded that the Building Commissioner did if they allowed, and that SHS would “agree” to it. He assured them that Weishan had engaged an engineer and had “every intention” on working through the issues with the board. He asked the board support the Building Commissioner allowing a TCO with a “window” for SHS and Planning to resolve the situation.
The board agreed. Delli Priscoli also got the board to agree to waive the fee for filing a modification to the site plan. But he assured that they understood they would need to cover the cost of the 3rd party peer review (about $4,000).
The TCO would allow the center to be open through May 1st. But that was contingent on the applicant making monthly progress reports. And the understanding was that SHS would continue to make progress on outstanding conditions not yet met, and work with member Marnie Hoolahan on its lighting plan.
April 2026
When the board discussed issues with Delli Priscoli in following months, they expressed frustration that Weishan wasn’t following through on action items as promised.
In April, the board voted to allow a short extension to the TCO to May 11th. The intent was to allow Delli Priscoli more time to address questions the board raised. A letter to SHS outlined conditions of the extension:
- Review the parking space requirement (28 spaces) to determine if able to accommodate with the current accessible parking space layout
- Address Building Commissioner’s layout requirements of the accessible van parking space
- Address two accessible parking spaces that were required per Approved Site Plans
- Decide on delineation of parking spaces (utilize parking bumpers or the originally approved proposed posts with chains)
- Provide sign age for the designated parking spaces related to Deed Easement
- Provide the peer review retainer fee for the Asbuilt Review
May 2026
On May 6th, Weishan sent an email to Quinn, copying others including MySouthborough and the Select Board. He requested forms for submitting a site plan modification. In the email, he continued to argue that the provisions demanded by Planning weren’t permissible under Dover, and were wasting “charitable dollars, and taxpayer money”.
He also argued that by having previously waived the bond, the board gave up its “jurisdiction over our temporary occupancy”. And he wrote:
Please be advised that a copy of this email has also been submitted as an op-ed to local news outlets, addressing Chair Luttrell’s repeated assertion that we “should have appealed the site plan modification long ago.” This is a callous and dismissive position that ignores the reality that such an appeal would have imposed a $25,000–$50,000 burden on a small charitable organization like ours—only to ultimately confirm what is already clear: the Planning Board had limited jurisdiction over our Dover-protected property and vastly and knowingly overstepped its authority.
Nor does Luttrell’s rote position address the central issue: why certain members of the Planning Board would doggedly continue to pursue conditions they now know to be unlawful simply because a procedural loophole allows them to do so.
My answer is simple—personal spite.
I reached out asking about his “op-ed” reference. I noted that it wasn’t written as one and would be confusing to readers if I printed it that way. I suggested he could submit an introduction to explain the letter that followed.
Instead, Weishan followed up with a separate letter to the editor on the night of May 10th. That letter stated that on the 11th SHS would be filing an application to modify the site plan and asking for public support.
The afternoon of May 11th, Weishan emailed Quinn what he referred to as the official filing for a modification and demanding “the Planning Board cease and desist its illegal attempts to impose any time limit on our temporary occupancy permit.”
The message included a list of attachments starting with a:
Cover letter laying out our view that the actions of the Planning Board to date have been largely extralegal, and detailing our intention to modify specific conditions of the 2023 site plan. It also contains the withdrawal of our offer to cover any peer-review costs for the reasons listed therein.
He wrote that since it was too late for members to review their filing before that night’s meeting, SHS wouldn’t be attending the meeting.
At that night’s meeting, no one from SHS or members of the public made a case to the Planning Board for extending the TCO. Planning members recapped a list of items SHS still hadn’t complied with, including lighting, engineering plans, and a check to pay for peer review. (They also referred to newly submitted but incomplete materials.) They spoke about Weishan’s continuing public claims that the non-profit didn’t need to comply.
Planning’s Debbie DeMuria wanted to give SHS a chance to come in before revoking the permit. Lisa Braccio pointed out they had done that by extending the TCO from May 1st to May 11th. She indicated that SHS hadn’t followed through on the bullet point list. And Marnie Hoolahan said that she felt the board had offered several “olive branches” but SHS hadn’t reciprocated.
The board voted 4-1 to recommend revoking the TCO. Without their approval, Robidoux didn’t act to extend the TCO or grant a new one.
Luttrell’s term on the Planning Board ended on May 12th. (She didn’t run for re-election.)
In days that followed, there was more back and forth between Weishan and Quinn over the documents he filed for the modification and items she told him were still missing. In a May 13th email he wrote:
We consider last Monday’s meeting a deliberate attack on our organization by certain members of your board. The biased, unfounded, and extralegal claims made by several members not only jeopardized public goodwill but created an air of financial uncertainty that is extremely deleterious to business confidence in our organization. This must stop immediately.
And on May 14th, responding to a request from Quinn for specific items, he wrote:
I can do the below, with the exception of the providing another 4K processing fee, for all the reasons I have already cited: 1) our 4K previous payment was egregiously misspent; 2) we have demanded and have yet to receive a refund from Fuss and O’Neil 3) requiring another 4K from us is unreasonable and therefore unlawful under Dover 4) If peer review is required, why don’t you do it Karina? You are a qualified engineer after all, and already on Town payroll. Why are we forcing applicants to make this needless expense? I have checked around and this is not a common practice in other towns.
You can read the email thread here. The thread also includes his stated intent to require that Braccio recuse herself from any matters with SHS given her purportedly long, hostile history with the society. (You can read about some of that history, including an ethics complaint and counter claims here.)
On the evening of May 14th, Lutrell wrote a comment under Weishan’s letter to the editor, defending the board:
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.
(You can read her full defense of the “facts” from her point of view here, along with Weishan’s reply.)
Zoning Violation Complaint
Despite no longer having an active Occupancy Permit, SHS held events in the building on May 16th (and even posted public photos on Facebook the next day.)
On May 20th, Robidoux issued a Cease and Desist letter to SHS, notifying them of a violation:
I received a complaint that the History and Arts Center recently held a function without an Occupancy permit as the temp CO had expired. This letter is to inform you that your property or the property you are in control of at 40-42 Central Street is in violation of local zoning bylaw 174-10 J.
Remedy: Please Cease and Desist all events forthwith: In order to get a Temp CO, Planning needs to first sign off. Please work with the Planning Board to complete Site plan requirements.
In accordance with the statutory provisions for enforcement, whoever violates any provision of this bylaw shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $300. for each offense, and each day that such violation continues constitutes a separate offense.
SHAC hasn’t promoted any programs at the facility since May 16th. However, it looks like they may be optimistic that the ZBA will rule in their favor. Their website is promoting two upcoming exhibits as opening this September. (No specific dates are listed yet.)
- SHS President Michael Weishan has been the public face in the battle. But he has assured that he has been representing the SHS board, which is united on the issue.
- A TCO also requires “satisfactory completion of all items essential to public health and safety”, but Planning member Marnie Hoolahan stressed that determination is at the discretion of the Building Commissioner.
