Southborough’s annual election is on Tuesday, May 14th. Yesterday, I reminded readers of the details. But a new detail just popped up — an unofficial campaign for the Planning Board.
Incumbent Marnie Hoolahan will now face opposition from Alan Belniak who is asking people to write-in his name as their choice.
This close to the election, it felt unfair to post a Candidates’ statement from Belniak before the weekend, without giving his opposition notice. Instead, I am sharing the news and giving readers notice that I will be posting his statement on Monday morning. (If Hoolahan provides one, I will also share hers at that time.)
For the details on the other races and candidates officially on the printed ballot, click here.
I look forward to writing-in Alan and bringing some new energy and ideas to languishing issues around zoning and some of the heady issues ahead for Southborough that require experience and diversity of discussion.
Alan, my question is why now, days before the election, instead of pulling papers on time? I don’t know you well or your positions, and that’s what bothers me. You didn’t give us or the non-challenged incumbent, Marnie Cameron Hoolahan, a chance to understand the differences in how you both intend to fulfill the positions or your opinions until……today? Less than a week before voting?
This leads me to ask, on the heels of the Select Board NOT getting the vote they wanted LAST WEEK (April 29) from the Planning Board to the Site Plan Modification being requested by a developer, taking land required to be donated to the town and developing a 4-story building alongside Breakneck Hill….. is this timing just a coincidence or do you support this project?
Also, I’m curious on your opinion about the Northborough Road properties; two parcels that the Select Board tried to make a decision about whether the town would want to acquire it without consulting with the public or any town committees.
We shouldn’t have to scramble like this last second as citizens who take their votes seriously. Please explain what motivated you to all of a sudden run for Planning Board this week versus last month. This is not a personal issue I have with you as a candidate because we don’t know much about your positions other than you want change, but I personally have lost a lot of trust in much of town government, so please talk me out of this conspiracy theory!
I do want to make clear that Alan was willing to post a letter on Friday – which I assume would have stated his reasons and positions (although I don’t know if it would have addressed your specific concerns).
The additional delay on him sharing those with readers was my decision, to instead give Marnie Hoolahan notice and allow her to also post a candidate’s statement.
Kristin, I appreciate the question. I had not planned to do this, but as Julie pointed out, it was last minute due to some recent events, including the displacement of the Stronger Uprising gym from Southborough to Westborough.
Our Planning Board has acted and voted almost single-mindedly for a long time. In the past almost 30 months, there have been fewer than five times there has even been a split vote. There is no specific current issue I’m trying to stop; my catalyst for running for the open seat is to advance modernly our position on zoning and infrastructure goals that have been neglected for far too long. In fact, Saturday at the transfer station, someone asked me, “Why are you trying to pick off [the incumbent]?” And my response was, “I have no ax to grind. I would’ve done this same thing were it to be any of the other four members running.” I’m looking to change the status quo, and am using this open seat opportunity now.
I have watched over the years – both on my own and as a member of the EDC – proponents come before our Planning Board with projects, or seen other committees try to work with our Planning Board, and be treated rudely. Casual conversations with others as recently as this past weekend confirmed this is not a singular opinion.
Part of my focus, if elected, is to stop falling behind our peer communities and neglecting the asset that is the Route 9 corridor. That area is prime for business generation, amenities, and our much needed diversity in housing goals. In another post, I’ll share some data that supports this vision.
I recall from my run two years ago, anyone who pulls papers has an option to speak at candidate’s night to share their views. Additionally, any incumbent’s position on matters can be seen through their actions during their term on the Planning Board. In the interim, if you want to know more about be, you can read this and this – both from two years ago when I ran for a Planning Board seat, and posts that Beth published here on MySouthborough.
[Editor’s Note: The comment was updated with revised text at commenter’s request.]
Kristin, while Alan’s bid for the Planning Board seat is unconventional, I do want help to quell any concerns about conspiracy or a connection to proposed 40B or the thwarting of any other particular current issue. The sudden moving of Stronger Uprising out of Southborough lit a fire under many residents because it was such a stark example the negative impact of decades-long neglect of important issues. At the time Alan decided to launch a write-in campaign, hundreds of Southborough residents had already cast their ballot by mail or in early voting (and in a town where municipal election turnout is exceedingly low, 400+ votes is not insignificant). Believe me, if he were planning for a “gotcha” he certainly wouldn’t have waited until that point to do so.
Beth, thanks for posting this. Unfortunately the write-in process does not permit a more comprehensive public vetting of the candidates, especially given the timing since the election is tomorrow.
One question I would ask the candidates is transparency regarding any potential or perceived conflicts of interest. Given that one of the candidates has experience working with towns and their planning boards, it would he helpful to understand if his firm is/has done business with Southborough.
I’m not all suggesting any conflicts exist but transparency is always helpful in my option.
Hi, Erik. Thanks for weighing in and for the question. This very question was actually asked two years ago in my earlier run. You can get to it from the second link above, but I’ll share it here for convenience. In short, engineering – like many other professions – has a code of ethics to abide by, and if violated, license revocation is possible. So disclosure and other methods are in place to help avoid that. You can read more here: https://www.mysouthborough.com/planning-board-candidate-qa-alan-belniak/
I am a former Library Trustee and one of the founders of Candidates’ Night at the Library. I was one of the organizers and served as Moderator for the 2022 event. I handled the invitations to the candidates and the candidates’ responses. Two years ago, speaking about Candidates’ Night, Mr. Belniak stated on this site that “Candidate’s Night wasn’t able to include a live Q&A for the Planning Board...” That is not entirely true.
The Library invited all candidates in contested races, including Mr. Belniak, to participate in “a live Q&A” at the event. Mr. Belniak did not attend Candidates’ Night, thus, there was no live Q&A with Ms. DeMuria. Mr. Belniak requested that we set up a live Q&A with him remotely, something we had not done before and which we were not able to coordinate with Southborough Access Media (who records the event) on short notice. It may be a minor detail but I don’t think it is accurate to say that the Library “wasn’t able to include a live Q&A,” as we provided a live Q&A and it was Mr. Belniak who wasn’t able to attend.
As a result of Mr. Belniak missing Candidates’ Night, there was a question, unanswered, about whether Mr. Belniak had a conflict of interest with regards to his then-employer doing work for the Town. He answered that question but only after it was posed on this website. In recent comments about this race, Mr. Belniak has linked to that discussion from two years ago, so I assume he is still employed by the same firm he was employed by two years ago, with the same potential for conflict-of-interest and need for recusal (disclosure: I was the one that submitted the question.)
Yes – two years ago at the time of Candidate’s night, I tested positive for Covid. I thought it better to not sit in a room with other citizens. Had I not tested positive for Covid, I would have attended. Not being there in person certainly did not help my candidacy.
Thanks Alan. It’s certainly helpful that the on-boarding process requires ethics training. And indeed I do recall the question being asked 2 years ago by some residents.
My specific point is not so much around the compliance process once a candidate is in office but rather the upfront disclosure and more thorough vetting that may be missed as part of a write-in process.
In light of the short timeline there has been little time for a public airing and discourse of broader views on numerous critical issues that the planning board touches in addition to the specific zoning headache that is mentioned as the basis of the candidacy.
The way other colleagues of mine handle this and the way I recall other engineers/professionals handle this is that if/once it becomes clear that a project is to be before a board or Commission (Planning Board, Conservation Commission, and so on), and where the employer of the consulting firm is presenting the work and also employs the board member, the board member recuses themselves. In fact, we’ve seen similar activities right here in Southborough. I recall Ms. Braccio recusing herself from a Select Board discussion about snowplowing in Town because her husband snow plows for the Town. That is indeed the ethical action to take, and I’d do no differently.
As far as broader views, the candidate statement I linked to from two years ago still holds true. This time, it’s just updated and refreshed.
There seems to be some misinformation on the Stronger gym. The Planning Board does not make zoning decisions period. The former zba provided a use variance for the property in question. The variance request from the owner was for office space to my understanding. The use variance granted excluded a gym as part of the zoning under the regulations. The planning board can’t overturn a use determined by the ZBA for a business looking to rent from a landlord. The landlord requested the zoning variance. Pointing the finger at Planning is completely misleading and in my opinion dishonest. I understand wanting to support your gym and the owners, but focus your frustration toward the landlord. It doesn’t matter in that situation who is on the planning board there is a process in place and for good reason, We as a town eliminated use variances for good reason.
You are correct. However, the point that Julie Connelly was making was that she believes the Planning Board should have previously put more effort into updating/revising zoning bylaws.
I think her pointed attack would be better suited for the ZBA that granted a use variance. Planning didn’t do that.