[Ed note: My Southborough accepts signed letters to the editor submitted by Southborough residents. Letters may be emailed to mysouthborough@gmail.com.
The following “Open letter to the Town of Southborough” is from Julie Connelly.]
To the Editor:
Eleven years ago, seeking to contribute to the wonderful town where I was growing my family, I joined the newly formed Economic Development Committee, with the goal of supporting businesses and amenities to both enrich our Town and help stabilize the residential tax burden. Chris Robbins, the founder of the EDC, said something that I didn’t fully understand at the time: “Southborough has a reputation for being unfriendly to businesses”. Unfortunately, more than a decade later, his words ring truer than ever.
Stronger Uprising, an independently owned gym, opened and operated with great effort and care on Route 9 in 2019. The two owners weathered the Covid storm and through consistency and hard work built a successful business with 200 members, including over 100 residents of Southborough. “Stronger” became not just a gym, but a source of community where residents met, worked our bodies, built connections, and forged relationships. The owners were committed to becoming part of the Southborough community, participating in local events like Story Bridge and sponsoring the Gobble Wobble. Stronger thrived, and so did its members. As gym’s lease term came to an end, the owners were committed to staying in Southborough hoping to find a larger space to meet their growing needs. Cue the Town and its systemically horrific zoning laws, processes, and sprinkle in a dose of disengaged property owners, and here we are, with our beloved gym opening its doors at its new location – in Westborough.
The owners started their search for a new location more than a year ago. They visited sites, signed a lease in what was advertised as a commercial space on Route 9, and sat back and waited for the landlord to complete its promised work in accordance with their deal. One month before their scheduled move date, the owners realized the Landlord’s work had not started. The prominent local property owner, who now lives in Florida, became nonresponsive. Finally, with just weeks to spare, the Stronger owners learned that they could not move into the ground floor of an office building on Rte. 9 because the property was zoned for “Residential” use only. On Route 9. At the base of an office building. You literally can’t make this up.
On the verge of losing their livelihood, the Stronger owners reached out to the Town. The weeks that followed were chaotic, confusing, and largely unhelpful. A desperate effort to find a different location in Southborough ensued, and ultimately failed. As I watched the play-by-play unfold in real time, Chris Robbins’ words rang in my head: “Southborough is not business friendly”.
In my view, the failure is multi-pronged. Some parts were controllable and others were not. Some can be fixed relatively easily and some will take much longer term efforts. But the starkness between the several week period which the Stronger owners bent over backwards to try to stay in Southborough, and the ease of which, within about a week’s time, they secured a move-in-ready space in neighboring Westborough could not be more blatant. That is to say, it doesn’t have to be this way, but we just choose not to make it better. And while this example is top of mind for me now, it is not an anomaly – I could provide so many examples – a home grown artist, a chef looking to start a catering business – who could not make vacant space work for them in Southborough.
The real underlying issue is that the Town zoning bylaws that govern Southborough and Rte. 9 in particular are absolute garbage. They are an antiquated patchwork that are not at all conducive to this century, or frankly probably to last century. Zoning laws are made of two parts – first the “map” that tells us what types of uses are allowed where, and second, the language that dictates what approvals are needed and what the process for obtaining the approvals entails to construct and use a particular property. Our bylaws fail miserably on both parts, and make it unnecessarily difficult to use property on Rte. 9 in Southborough. For example, one of the many hurdles Stronger owners ran into was that a separate permit (over and above construction, use, and building permits) is needed to allow for two different (but each allowed) uses on the same parcel. For a developer or tenant, this additional hurdle adds financial burdens, extends timelines, and makes it riskier to bring a project forward. The Town needs to ask itself serious questions about the process and determine what benefits it derives from adding steps such as this. The laws are so convoluted that the owner of the property that Stronger originally planned to move to did not know that a gym was not a permitted use in the space (although he probably should have).
The zoning bylaw needs to be changed on Rte. 9, but I’m not optimistic. I’m not optimistic because as a member of the Economic Development Committee, we, in collaboration with the Select Board and Planning Board, spent more than 3 years trying to make very minor changes to about a 1/4 mile stretch on Main Street to allow for basic things such as mixed use and limited “by right” zoning uses to reduce hurdles for certain types of businesses that multiple surveys have shown are the types of businesses residents want. The Town’s Planning Board, which is the elected body with responsibility for zoning bylaws, fought our efforts each step of the way. We worked together, made compromises to help get everyone comfortable, and they ultimately voted against it, against us and our multi-year effort. I am so grateful that our community came together to vote 70% in favor of accepting the revised zoning for the Downtown anyway, but it is frustrating that the Board responsible for “Planning” has been a barrier to just that.
Periodically the Town is required to create a “Master Plan”. Huge amounts of resources go into this effort. Revising Zoning on Rte. 9 has been part of the Town’s Master Plan for decades, with zero progress. We again revised the Master Plan in 2022, and again added revising Rte. 9 zoning as a goal. This is foundational to improving our business ecosystem, fulfilling our mandates for affordable housing, and filling vacant space to help offset the tax burden on residents. We need people on the Planning Board and other town leaders and employees who will support this effort proactively.
And while our boards, committees, and town hall employees are hamstrung by the current zoning laws, the image of Southborough being unfriendly to businesses is compounded by poor communication, finger pointing, and condescending tones toward business owners. For years I have attended Planning Board meetings where I’ve felt actual embarrassment at how proponents of projects were treated and spoken to. When the Stronger owners tried to navigate the complex system in an attempt to remain in Southborough, they were sent on a circular chase from one department or official, and back again. They were met with conflicting information and finger pointing, and were told by representatives of some departments that other departments were wrong. At one point they were told they didn’t have the right permits to operate in the space they’d been operating in for 5 years, even though they had gone through all of the proper channels and received all of the required permits. At the end of the day, I think the town officials who responded were well meaning ultimately and could not have made it happen for Stronger because they were limited by the current laws. However, the experience from the business owners’ perspective was at best confusing and disorganized, at worst condescending, but either way, a huge failure. And while I’m particularly frustrated by this particular experience, it is not new or unique – even within the past year I can think of multiple examples of local residents, artists and chefs, our neighbors and friends, who have struggled mightily to secure space in Southborough due to our unworkable zoning laws and unnecessarily complicated process.
So what can we, as residents, do? We first need to recognize that zoning on Rte. 9 is one of the primary problems of our community. It is hard, it is boring, but it is fundamental. We will continue to lose businesses and amenities, our taxes will continue to go up, and our desirability as a place to live will go down if we don’t decide to change. It is possible, and our peer towns have figured it out, so we can, too. We need people on the Planning Board who are willing to engage in big picture, long-term planning. This is a hard job, and as ineffectively as I think it has been done, I also respect that these are volunteers, and zoning is difficult, detailed, and very time intensive. In this upcoming election, there are no challengers to the Planning Board incumbent (acknowledging that I’m one of many people who didn’t choose to step up and run, because it’s a difficult and time intensive position). We also must collectively become more involved in our local government. Town elections are coming up on May 14th. Historically, only about 10% of residents even come out to vote in town-only elections, which is reflective of our overall disengagement in local affairs. Until we collectively check in and promote change, we’ll continue to operate reactively and will not follow through on long term planning efforts.
When I was on the EDC and working on Downtown zoning, we released a survey asking residents what they wanted to see in Southborough. Unsurprisingly, there was overwhelming support for restaurants, coffee shops, gyms, small scale retail, mixed use, walkability, housing diversity, and green space. We’re in agreement on this, but our zoning bylaws do not align with our vision – in fact, they actively inhibit it. Until the bylaws are changed, nothing else will in any meaningful way. Until we collectively decide to put pressure on our Town, to step up, be informed, engage, and vote, then the bylaws won’t change. Until then, thank you Stronger Uprising for all you have done for Southborough, I am so sorry we were not able to reciprocate the positivity you have given to our community over the past 5 years. We know you will be successful in Westborough and we hope to be able to woo you back someday.
Julie Connelly
26 Granuaile Road
Thank you for this very detailed reporting and review of our zoning issues. I hope the planning board takes your letter to heart.
I read your long ramble and see the common demoninator in your argument is the inability of one organization to comply with Southborough’s by-laws. Since you named them, if Strong Uprising keeps running afoul of the by laws, they should seek the advice of a good real estate attorney. Also who is this “commercial” property owner who does not understand their property is in a residentially zoned area. This is more of a comedy than a fault of the town.
Now when is the EDC going to address the inequity of commercial property owners paying a low tax rate while the residents are paying a high tax rate to subsidize this privilege. This privilege has been costing residents of Southborough roughly $4,000,000 each year for over a decade.
Carl, thank you for reading my long ramble. To be clear, there was zero non-compliance, just a difficult system with plenty of room for improvement. I’m sorry you feel that Southborough’s inability to retain a small business is a comedy, I think the small business owners in this situation and the 100+ residents who utilize this business found it more frustrating than funny. And also, please don’t misrepresent the taxation issue. Businesses pay the same as residents; you have historically advocated for a split tax rate where businesses would pay more than residents.
If you going accuse me of false representations you should be prepared to substantiate your claim. So the question is how am I misrepresenting the issue.
You stated “commercial property owners paying a low tax rate while the residents are paying a high tax rate”. This is not my area of expertise, and not at all the subject of my article, but my understanding is that residential and commercial property owners pay property taxes at the same rate. Am I incorrect?
Driving businesses (such as Stronger Uprising) out of town means we lose out on collections of personal property taxes for equipment that will now go to Westborough, and we continue to have vacancies on Rte. 9 which lower the assessed value, and therefore the property taxes for those parcels and buildings, so being anti-business has a negative effect on town revenue (no matter what rate commercial property is taxed at).
Hello Judy
Let me explain. In Massachusetts 80% of the commercial and industrial property is subject to split tax rate policies. Associated with this 80% is 66% (2/3) of the residential property in the state. The effect greatly changes the landscape of the Massachusetts tax base.
So when Southborough mandates a single tax rate they create the condition of our residential tax rate being higher than tax rate paid on 87% of the assessed residential property in the state while the commercial and industrial tax rate is lower than the tax paid on 71% of the commercial and industrial property in the state.
Without gong through all the math, if Southborough now had a commercial and industrial split tax rate that was near the average rate in the state, it would relieve the residential property owners the $4,000,000 burden they carry right now. Even with this change, not to worry, residents would be paying a higher than average real estate tax rate.
So when you come along and say the commercial and industrial tax base is so down trodden, I only roll my eyes.
I don’t see anything wrong with an average commercial and industrial tax rate with an above average residential rate.
Hi Carl.
Despite the discourse, I believe both you and Julie are more closely aligned than you might think in a desire to relieve residential tax burden. However, the premise that a raise in commercial tax rates can relieve residential owners of a $4,000,000 burden assumes we can hold all other factors constant – which we cannot.
A popular illustrative model in economics – the Laffer curve – shows that tax increases beyond a certain point actually decrease aggregate tax revenue. In this case, that would be the point beyond which incremental revenue from increased rates fails to offset decreased revenue from a diminished taxable base, through a weakened economic atmosphere for current and future business.
The effect of an increase in tax rates on total tax revenue is not always linear, and in fact can have in inverse effect, dependent on the health of the local economy.
Thanks for the input, but we are not talking about increasing the total revenue to the town. What I am advocating is a leveling of the tax burden to bring it in line with the rest of the state.
I am not going to drone on here about this, but the Laffer curve actually reinforces the need for a split tax rate in Southborough.
“Southborough has a reputation for being unfriendly to businesses”.
With all due respect, I don’t think this statement accurately reflects the broader view of town residents on what makes Southborough special, and a healthier place to live, in spite of the gym loss.
I’m willing to bet that many town residents who have recently driven through Westborough, Marlboro, Northboro, Hopkinton, Sudbury, Wayland, Framingham, are more inclined to be thinking:
“I sure am happy to be living in Southborough”. :-)
I hope we don’t lose sight of how well we have done in this regard, and the quality of life we enjoy in this Town, as we address future needs.
Sincerely,
Andre Fortin
It is a shame that we lost a business that was already IN Southborough and wanted to REMAIN in Southborough because of antiquated and complex zoning. Southborough IS difficult to work in – this is not (necessarily) my opinion, but this is what I hear within and from the buzz around people considering business opportunities in Southborough as well as watching some of our own meetings via Zoom. I’ve heard the argument before and reading it right here in these comments: “We don’t want to be another Framingham!” Aside from the less-than-covert insult to Framingham (not super ‘neighborly’), permitting a gym to move from one location in Southborough to another does not make it a Framingham. Permitting small- or right-sized development in our downtown core does not make it a Framingham.
Ms. Connelly references the more-than-three-year struggle to make the minor changes to our bylaws. If I recall correctly (full disclosure: I’m a former member and Vice Chair of the EDC), we had more than SEVEN versions of this document. There’s a fine line between collaboration and nitpicking, and it ultimately resulted in concessions that I don’t think either side really enjoyed, but rather settled.
The overview of Southborough’s Planning Board states, “[…] From time to time the Planning Board proposes and amends zoning bylaws for Town Meeting approval.” As a comparison, there’s been an exhaustive and repeated movement from our Planning Board about tree bylaws. Town Meeting votes, however little they are, have spoken that residents are not for those matters. Yet the town IS interested in, “…restaurants, coffee shops, gyms, small scale retail, mixed use, walkability, housing diversity, and green space.” This is from the data that Ms. Connelly referenced in her letter, and at one point was available on the Town’s website (it may still be). So, I ask: where has the Planning Board been in terms of looking at that data and examining, discussing, or updating bylaws to permit or encourage the kinds of business that our very own residents are saying we’d like? If this is indeed one of the charges of the Planning Board, why is nothing being done?
Finally, it seems as if our taxes may be increasing to cover the rising costs of what it takes to run a town. I don’t claim to be a real estate tax expert, but when I read that in fiscal year 2019, a whopping 87% of Southborough’s Town Revenue came from residential property taxes and only 13% came from commercial property taxes, I was astounded. We collectively decry how much it costs to live here, yet we also collectively do very little to change that by accepting in more businesses to shift the balance to lessen the tax burden on residents. Not only to we do very little to attract businesses in Southborough, it sadly seems as if we are actively repelling them.
Alan Belniak
5 Boswell Lane
Please note: I lived there 12+ years. I think that entitles me to a little leeway and to include it in rebuttal to your snarky comment.
We do?
If so, maybe it’s worth taking a look at property tax rates in other towns across the county, and the state, before collectively decrying some more.
Here’s a sampling. These are 2023 values according to the source (mentioned below).
Longmeadow 22.92
Acton 17.56
Westborough 16.84
Wayland 16.65
Sudbury 15.77
Northborough 14.79
Southborough 14.76
Average in Massachusetts 14.34
Framingham 13.09
Marlborough 11.54
Edgartown 2.52
Source: https://suburbs101.com/massachusetts-property-tax-rates/
Looks like Southborough comes in at just about the average.
Seems like a bargain to me considering how nice it is to live here.
It *is* nice to live here! It’s why I (and likely you) chose and choose to do so. But I tire of always having to travel north, south, east and west to grocery shop, spend money at retail that is not offered in my town, and more. Clearly I don’t want every single store/business I go to in my town (that’s city life, and that’s not what I want), but I’d like to spend less in other towns and more in mine.
Andre
Using the tax rate is not a particularly good basis of comparison. This is because of the great differences in assessed value and differences in how assessed value are calculated from one community to another.
For example the average home in Longmeadow, which you accurately cite as having a high tax rate, only paid $10,391 in property taxes in 2024 vs Southborough’s $12,427.
A better, and much more meaningful measure is the average property tax bill. In this matter Southborough ranks as among the top 10% in the Commonwealth. In 2024 our rank was 33rd out of 351. Our rank is, unfortunately, likely to rise as more and more of the tax burden is shifted to our homes as the current trend of declining commercial and industrial base.
https://dlsgateway.dor.state.ma.us/reports/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=AverageSingleTaxBill.SingleFamTaxBill_wRange
Alan
Your source may need some remedial math lessons. If indeed the average residential tax rate in 2023 was $14.34 per thousand it would mean only 17% of the assessed residential property in Massachusetts paid a tax rate greater than $14.34.
I cannot figure out where $14.34 came from, even just a naive straight average of the published residential tax rate yields just $13.91. The actual (asset weighted) average paid by residents is $11.38 per thousand. You need to account for who is actually paying the published rates.
It is the same reason only 13% of the residential property in Massachusetts paid a tax rate greater than Southborough’s $14.76 while 71% of the commercial and industrial property in paid a real estate tax rate greater than Southborough’s. As I continually state, we have a high residential burdensome tax rate in part because we provide our commercial property owners with economically advantageous tax liability.
If the average tax rate in Massachusetts was $14.34, that would have cost the residential tax payers in Massachusetts an addition 4 billion dollars (a whopping 26% increase).
If you need verification, download the data from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue’s Data Bank website and do the calculations for yourself.
We agree that Southborough in recent years has been unfriendly to businesses, We lived through it and is a bad memory for us that took a lot from my parents. The initial complaint which caused the commotion regarding our property @40 Mount Vickery Road was guise for a land grab by same person mentioned above ,residing in Florida,utilizing town attorney and stirring up neighbors to shut our businesses down.
Since we have been good neighbors to everyone in town, the townspeople came out and unanimously supported rezoning our property so we could remain here. Special thanks go to the townspeople for doing so and not the sitting boards. Planning board was only board that tried to help.
Mind you we didn’t need to do any of this .
To refresh people memory of what we went through
https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/story/news/2013/08/24/owners-southborough-machine-shop-beat/37912471007/
https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/story/news/2013/08/09/southborough-fines-shop-126k-for/37908482007/
https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/story/news/2013/08/10/gulbankians-in-southborough-poised-for/37908462007/
https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/story/news/2013/05/31/gulbankians-denied-requests-to-ease/37898750007/
https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/story/news/2013/06/07/gulbankians-to-shutter-machine-shop/37897353007/
https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/story/news/2013/11/28/gulbankian-lawyer-southborough-s-ticketing/37889216007/
https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/story/news/2011/01/07/southborough-commission-says-gulbankian-property/37888015007/
https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/story/news/2013/11/28/gulbankian-lawyer-southborough-s-ticketing/37889216007/
All of the above bordered on harassment front then town attorney and sitting members of the ZBA .
I guess Southborough still hasn’t learned anything from the townspeople.
Thank you Julie for highlighting this issue. Although I’m not in a position to determine the final responsibility for the Stronger Uprising situation, I think it is important for Southborough to be business friendly.
Can’t we all agree that the zoning situation for commercial use on Route 9 needs optimization? I believe that the 2 biggest obstacles for businesses along route 9 are less than optimal zoning as well as limited options for sewage.
Let’s work together on improvements!
Michael, I completely agree with you and thank you for your comment. I think a focus of zoning changes should be (1) mixed use development; (2) by right uses for the types of businesses (and/or mixed-use developments) we want to encourage, and (3) streamlining processes to reduce superfluous rules that don’t serve a material purpose. There are grants available from both federal and state sources which could help with both infrastructure needs and zoning changes. Unfortunately, we have not committed resources to apply for them.
Julie,
Thank you for your letter.
As for your recent comment on tax rates you are correct. The same tax rate applies to all taxable property in Sboro. I also agree that the better way to reduce the tax burden on residential property is to add to the commercial base desirable businesses – not increase the tax burden on the small commercial base we currently have. We need to attract good businesses – not discourage them.
Kathy Cook
Take a drive along Rt 9. What don’t you see? A Grocery Store? Entertainment Venues? A Hardware Store? A Department Store? Think about all the goods and services you regularly need to acquire in a neighboring town because they are not available here.
Now look at what we do have. Half filled office buildings. Dilapidated buildings that have been empty for at least a quarter of a century. An industrial park, with easy access to 495 and the Pike that should be filled with technology and biotech businesses but is largely empty.
Rt 9 is an asset we are squandering. It should be a vibrant commercial and industrial area that generates far more tax revenue than it consumes and helps us fund the many initiatives that the townspeople want.
Our zoning ordinances are antiquated and many boards and commissions in town have a clearly anti-business attitude. We need to rethink both our regulatory environment and our attitudes. We also need to begin to face the issue of providing sewage systems to attract industrial and certain retail businesses.
If we do not do these things, then the property tax burden will continue to shift from our remaining commercial and industrial properties to our residential properties as we fail to utilize this valuable asset we have been blessed with. It is time to re think our relationship with the business community and with Rt. 9
Well said Al
So, you want to be more like Westborough where the residential tax rate is higher than the rate paid by 95% of residential property in the state. Where do you get the idea commercial and industrial development means lower tax rates. I know you dislike split tax rates, but take note, almost all the communities with a percentage of their tax base as commercial and industrial properties higher than Southborough’s have split tax rates. Your bravo reminds me of General Custer.
Carl
The average residential tax in Westborough is $11,641 vs our $12,427. That is nearly an $800 difference! So yes it does make a difference. Westborough is a nice community with excellent schools not really all that different from Southborough.
(Source is the same as my post above)
OMG. The average 2024 assessed value of a residence in Westborough was $711,740 with a tax rate of $16.41 per thousand. Southborough’s average value was $893,361 with a tax rate of $13.91. If you had a home in Westborough with a value at the average Southborough assessment your tax bill would be $14,654. That would be a $2,000 addition burden. So what is it you are trying to say ?