Above: A very slight majority of Town Meeting voters approved the new zoning law to comply with the state law. (image cropped from live streamed video on vote to “move the question”, cutting off further debate)
50.7% of residents who cast votes at Special Town Meeting approved the MBTA Zoning Bylaw.
Initially, Moderator Paul Cimino called the motion as having failed. After several voters demanded a recount. That prompted a headcount which resulted in 281 in favor and 273 opposed.
The meeting is still continuing at this time, with 10 more Articles to go.
Stay tuned for coverage with more details on Article 8 and other votes tomorrow.
Updated (10/1/24 6:50 am): My apologies. I was off on the headcount by a full 200! It was a long night. The count was 281 to 278. But I incorrectly recalled 181 to 178 when I wrote my initial post!
Updated (10/1/24 8:27 am): I clarified what the screenshot was of. The vote by raised hand on the Article itself wasn’t shown in the video. This was the vote on the motion to end the long discussion.
Hi – I think your voting tally is off by a very large number – can you please verify? I believe there were over 500 people at the meeting. Thx.
I just got up and just rechecked that even before seeing your comment. You are absolutely correct. I was way off. It was 281 to 273.
I apologize for causing confusion. The egg on my face is what I get for trying to write a quick post on the fly during the meeting (while keeping track of what was still happening) rather than waiting until the meeting was over.
Looks to me the vote was very close on all key articles? But as in the past does it really accomplish anything. I feel folks in this great town are not really aware of the devastating effects both article 8 and 9 will have on the town. You are being led into actions that the state house is either dangling in front of towns or threatening us if we don’t comply they will file lawsuits and also cut out all state grants! This is not Democracy !
There was only one really close vote. There were enough people opposed to Article 10 for the Moderator to ask for a repeat of hands raised to double check. But there still was a clear majority. The others voted on easily passed, but there are still seven more to tackle tonight.
I need to make a correction to information I presented to Town Meeting
The Southville Road property owner only paid 2.5 million not the reported 7.5 million.
I was mistaken.
I’d been provided information at the last minute that looked legitimate showing that 3 parcels were purchased for 2.5 million each.
I should’ve investigated further.
In fact all three parcels were purchased for 2.5 million total which is in line with realistic evaluations.
I have reached out to the property owner and apologized and he graciously accepted.
I regret the misinformation and rumors that this likely started.
There was no ill intent on my part or the people who gave me this information.
It was a mistake and I will do my best to correct it publicly.

I had accidentally forgotten to tag my story covering the article discussion for MBTA zoning and Special Town Meeting. I just updated that and noted your clarification with a link to your comment.
Hi,
There were several of my neighborhood folks including me who left after first round of voting. We did not know there was going be a revote right after. The small margin win by the ‘Yes’ side could be different had we knew there would be a second round of vote. We think our town ship should schedule another meeting for vote, particularly, if Middleton win their case. Thanks!
John
I think there has been some confusion about what happened as Article 8 was voted on.
There was never a “Revote” there was a “teller count” of the original vote when 7 town meeting members questioned the Moderators determination based on a showing of hands. This is standard procedure in town meeting.
I rewatched the vote which is available on youtube. From the time that the moderator called the vote, based on a showing of hands, until he determined that enough people questioned his call to require a “teller count” 43 seconds had elapsed. From the limited view on youtube I saw no one get up and leave. Certainly anyone on their way out could have easily returned to their seat.
The “teller count” was conducted by tellers who counted the number of people standing in each row. They did not count hands they counted people standing. Two tellers had to agree on the number of people standing in each row. I think it was a fair count.
There was no “revote”. The matter ended after the “teller count” had been tabulated. The option to have a revote was available. If 60 or so people who wanted a different result had attended the Tues meeting they could have asked for “Reconsideration” if 2/3 of the hall agreed (there were barely 100 people there) and voted for reconsideration the article would have come up again and may well have failed. The opponents of Article 8 did not avail themselves of that option. The advocates of reconsideration would have had to have a reason to do so but questioning the count may have crossed that bar.
You certainly have the option to bring an article to repeal Article 8 at some future Town Meeting but I think the vote on Monday night, close as it was, was fair. We have had closer votes.
Hello Al,
Your comment here is generally correct, i.e., about the fact that there was no “revote” of Article 8, and that a hypothetical Article at a future Town Meeting to repeal Article 8 would be in order. I prefer, however, to be very clear with Beth’s readers about the limited scope of a motion to Reconsider.
First, while it is true that there was a time in our Town’s history when Reconsideration motions were used as a game by the winning side to lock in a favorable result, those days are long over. (I realize that was not your suggestion above.) In the past I have been asked a lot about my “standard” as Moderator for allowing a motion to Reconsider, and the answer every time is that such a motion would only be in order if new or different facts or circumstances had come to light that were not known or available at the time of the first vote. (I was asked and gave this answer to numerous interested people between the first and second sessions of STM last week.)
Now, how would this have applied in the case of Article 8? You have already pointed out above that we have a voting process that was followed, i.e., call the vote, rise for a recount, recount with tellers, etc. That process having been followed, I don’t know what you mean by suggesting that folks thereafter “questioning the count” might have supported a motion to Reconsider. But in any case I can say definitively that it would not have, there being no new substance on the Article to speak of. Anybody reading your comment and wondering about Reconsideration need not.
As always, my thanks to all who attended and participated at Special Town Meeting last week. And also as always, I invite any Town resident to contact me at any time about Town Meeting or any other topic of interest. I monitor ‘moderator@southboroughma.com’ every day, and I love to chat. So please feel free to drop me a note any time!
Cheers,
Paul Cimino
Moderator