Home Care In Southborough, MA

Reminder — The Rotary Club of Southborough is bringing back its popular Food Trucks series. The weekly “Festival” will open in a week from today.

On Wednesday afternoons – evenings, May 24 – June 14, four dinner trucks and one ice cream truck will be parked on the downtown Southborough field. (That’s St. Mark’s School’s field at the corner of Routes 85 & 30). Scroll down for the food vendor lineup with links.

Rotary’s main purpose for organizing the annual festival is as a feel good, community event — with no admission fee. But they also use it as a platform for their charitable initiatives.

This spring, Rotary is again partnering with Main Street Bank to offer a food vouchers in exchange for a charitable contribution. This time, under the banner “Food for Thought”, the fundraising cause is their own scholarship program:

The scholarship fund was initiated over 20 years ago with a memorial grant to commemorate the life of Annie Laurie Satterfield. As in the past, this year the Rotary Club of Southborough awarded a $4,000 scholarship to a Southborough student who is accepted to one of the Massachusetts’ state universities and has demonstrated a record of academic excellence.

To continue and expand this scholarship program, this years service project is aimed at enhancing the financial position of the scholarship fund.

We are calling this effort “Food for Thought”. Again with the help of Main Street Bank we will be offering the purchase of $10.00 food vouchers that can be used as cash at the food trucks. Vouchers can be obtained from the Rotary Club at the festival for a $20.00 donation. Think of it as a bit of generosity you can sink your teeth into.

Rotary’s announcement includes a thank you to the following sponsors:

Saint Mark’s School Main Street Bank Metrowest Minisplits Middlesex Bank

Cedar Brook Pediatric Dentistry Long Cadillac Falconi’s Oil Southborough Community Fund

The trucks are scheduled for 3:30 pm to 7:00 pm. As promised, here is the planned food vendor lineup. (Note: Sometimes there are last minute adjustments):

For more information on the Rotary Club of Southborough, check out their website here.

There are no rain dates posted. I’ve been told in the past years that events are rain or shine, but I’m guessing that’s within reason. (If weather for one of these events is forecast for torrential rain/thunder for the entire three hours, I’d look for news on cancellation/postponement.)

*It looks like the June 7th lineup will include either The Grub Guru or a ramen truck.

In a case that has made national news*, the state’s Supreme Court today ruled that Southborough’s public comment policy created by the Select Board is “unconstitutional” in Massachusetts.

(The finding by the Mass Supreme Judicial Court is based on language in the Commonwealth’s constitution. The plaintiff previously withdrew a complaint on the violation of the 1st Amendment that would have moved the case to federal courts.)

The state’s highest court remanded the case back to Worcester Superior Court with an opinion that Louise Barron has a plausible case against former Selectman Dan Kolenda for violation of her civil rights.

At a Select Board meeting in December 2018, Barron was threatened with removal after she objected to Kolenda cutting off her comments criticizing actions of the board. In defense of the acting Chair’s actions, the Town pointed to its comment policy which includes the requirement:

All remarks and dialogue in public meetings must be respectful and courteous, free of rude, personal, or slanderous remarks.

The SJC took up the case and solicited amicus briefs on the constitutionality of the policy. During oral arguments in the case, several Justices took issue with the policy’s language. Justice Scott Kafker characterized the restriction as “a lot” and wondered aloud if the Declaration of Independence would violate the provision.

In the opinion issued today, the court rejected the Town’s defense of the policy, clarifying that while the Town has the right to limit residents’ behavior and length of comments, it doesn’t have the right to limit the public’s criticism of officials:

Although civility, of course, is to be encouraged, it cannot be required regarding the content of what may be said in a public comment session of a governmental meeting without violating both provisions of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which provide for a robust protection of public criticism of governmental action and officials. What can be required is that the public comment session be conducted in an “orderly and peaceable” manner, including designating when public comment shall be allowed in the governmental meeting, the time limits for each person speaking, and rules preventing speakers from disrupting others, and removing those speakers if they do.

The judgement reverses an earlier decision by a Worcester Superior Court judge in Barron v. Kolenda, the case filed by Barron in 2020 over her treatment at the meeting:

when Barron alleged that the chair threatened to have her physically removed from a public comment session of a public meeting after she criticized town officials about undisputed violations of the open meeting laws, she properly alleged that he threatened to interfere with her exercise of State constitutional rights protected by arts. 16 and 19 in violation of the [Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA)].

The opinion also offers a clear rebuke for Kolenda’s “unlawful” behavior at the December 2018 meeting, and finds that it was not covered by qualified immunity:

At a public comment session in a meeting of the board, a resident of the town thus clearly has the right to accurately complain about violations of law committed by town officials and object to other town actions, including its spending practices, and to express her views vehemently, critically, and personally to the government officials involved. Such a right is clearly protected by art. 19 as well as art. 16 for the reasons discussed supra. When a government official responds to a resident’s exercise of those rights by accusing her of slandering the board, screaming at her, and threatening her physical removal, it should be clear to him that his conduct is unlawful. Thus, there is no basis for qualified immunity.

Today’s ruling remands the case back to the lower court for a finding “consistent with this opinion” and details:

the plaintiffs’ allegations plausibly suggest that Barron’s rights were interfered with via threats, intimidation, or coercion. Kolenda’s response is not fully captured by the video recording, but, accepting the plaintiffs’ account as true, Kolenda told Barron to stop speaking, started screaming at her, and threatened to have her removed from the meeting in response to her protected speech. If this is proved at trial, she could establish a violation of the MCRA.

To read the full ruling, click here. (For past coverage of the case, click here.)

*Given the wider context of the SJC ruling, I won’t be surprised if this case makes headlines across the state, or even nationally. In January, the Washington Post included Barron v. Kolenda in a story about towns’ grappling with legal issues around “taming” public comments as “meetings grow wild”.

A comment letter issued by the Select Board to Mass Housing states Southborough may now be 77 units short of its 10% Affordable Housing stock requirements. (That’s 11 more units than calculated in 2020.) Until those are filled, the Town remains vulnerable to unwanted 40B housing projects.

Ferris Development has been pitching that their two small scale 40B proposals are a good fit for the Town to help meet the thresholds and could safeguard against a less desirable project. The board agrees with them on at least one of those projects, even urging it be scaled up.

Here’s my update on their comments, residents comments, and those from other committees who were less enthusiastic about having a project sited close to abutting Conservation Land (on land that had been promised to Conservation in 2019).

Town boards and committees have been putting together comments on the proposed 40Bs in time for Mass Housing’s deadline this Friday, August 18th. Since, as I posted yesterday, Town officials were notified changes were coming for the 250 Turnpike Rd project, I’m only covering the discourse around the 120 Turnpike Road project for now.

Last week, the Select Board voted to support the 120 Turnpike Road. Their letter notes an attached memo from the Stewardship Committee, but it doesn’t not that Stewardship’s memo is in opposition to the project or indicate that they share any of its concerns.

Instead the board focused on the benefits to the Town. Those included: progress toward meeting the 10% requirement a site that “appears to be well suited for controlled growth” with minimal impacts on neighborhoods and backroads, access to sidewalks and the developer’s “deep roots in our community”.

The Select Board, which includes two former members on the Zoning Board of Appeals (Andrew Dennington and Sam Stivers), opined that issues raised about this and another 40B should be addressed after Mass Housing approves site eligibility. They referred to the concerns as a standard part of the 40B permitting process the ZBA will oversee.

The board also didn’t raise any questions about the legality of a project at the site. Members opined that Mass Housing would likely just punt the legal questions to the ZBA anyway.

On Monday night, Planning Board Chair Meme Luttrell noted that a Southborough 40B (Park Central) was one only two 40B permits in the state that have been overturned by the courts. She noted the importance that Town officials follow legal process correctly this time. And there have been questions raised about Special Permit with variances which had been granted for the site and state that a third building wasn’t “permitted”.

Bonnie Phaneuf served on the Select Board when the Park Central 40B project first went through ZBA hearings, embroiling her and other officials in controversy over the Town’s handling of it and related issues. Last night she commented that the Town should learn from its mistakes. She recommended the Planning Board flag the legal issues to get a written legal opinion from Town Counsel before the projects ever get to the ZBA.

Luttrell said that they already had some back and fort with Town Counsel on the site restrictions. He opined that the developer would need to seek a subdivision permit from the ZBA in order to split the properties and use the back parcel for a 40B. Noting the subdivision bylaw triggers a 10% set aside of open space, Freddie Gillespie* asked how that would work if a subdivision was used to allow a 40B. Luttrell agreed that was a question worth asking.

During the discussion of their comment letter, Planning members discussed incorporating Stewardship’s concerns as ones they shared. Those included the potential environmental impacts on the Town’s abutting Conservation Land. Members want to ensure the project includes “Dark Sky” lighting conditions to minimize the impacts to wildlife. They also referred to “running water”, a potential seasonal stream that Gillespie captured in video and photos that purportedly runs across where the building would be sited.

At the Select Board meeting, Mike Ferris assured that Ferris Development is a customer of a native Planet trust committee and wants to support initiatives that make sense for the environment.

Despite Phaneuf’s advice, she was mostly supportive of the 120 project in her comments to the Planning Board. She spoke about the need for more rental options for seniors downsizing who want to stay in town. She also highlighted the walkability for residents via the sidewalk that connect the parcel to nearby restaurants and a pharmacy. The residents would help support those businesses and economic growth. Plus resident seniors could stay active by enjoying the abutting conservation trails.

James Nichols Worley spoke in favor of both 40B projects in both the Select Board and Planning Board meetings. (Though he was more enthusiastic about project at 250 Turnpike Road.) He noted that projects for single family homes don’t get nearly as much scrutiny from the public. (You can read his position letter on that topic here.)

Luttrell responded that her personal position on both projects was neutral. She just believes certain issues need to be raised and addressed.

The Select Board’s meeting packet last week included letters submitted by Conservation Agent Melissa Danza to Mass Housing on behalf of the Conservation Commission. The Commission didn’t take a position for or against the project. Instead they listed issues that should be addressed (likely during permitting). It highlighted a previous permit that the developer received a partial Certificate of Compliance for but hasn’t officially withdrawn yet. The same work came up in the Planning Board’s discussion.

Under approvals granted in 2019 for a parking garage to be built on the site, a condition dictated that the developer would donate a a 6.2 acre of open space to the Conservation Commission. According to Luttrell the developer used the site plan to construct some walkways on the site, but then let the approval expire in 2020. (Clearly, market conditions changed for office parks during the pandemic.)

The work wasn’t completed, and the land was never donated. According to Conservation’s letter, that is the spot now targeted as the site of the 40B. The letter specified the need for the developer to close out that permit.

Referring to the retracted land gift (and perhaps the project at 250 Turnpike as well), Gillespie noted last night that residents should know going forward to pursue a Conservation Restriction or Deed Restriction rather than relying on special permit conditions.

Planning member Debbie DeMuria also expressed upset related to the legal situation with both parcels. In each case a developer received approvals granted based agreeing to certain conditions. Years later, buildings that were enabled still exist, but the new owner is trying to ditch the land use restrictions by dividing up the parcels. Speaking during comments for the 250 site she questioned, “If a condition of approval is not taken seriously, then what is it that we’re all doing?”

If the project can legally proceed, most of the commenters would like to see it reduced in size. Phaneuf’s one criticism was allowing a 4 story building in Southborough. She thought should be capped at 3 stories. Planning members also noted criticism of the height. To ensure the public is aware of the visual impacts of a 4 story building in that location, the Conservation, Stewardship and Planning all call for balloons to be flown at the proposed height.

In addition to reducing the height, Gillespie said she had asked the developer to consider scaling down the project to move it further back from Breakneck Hill.

Conservation didn’t specifically comment on the building size, but did have issues with the plans that show grading up to the wetland boundary rather than a “no touch” 20 ft buffer that the Town adheres to. (That wouldn’t impact building height, but could impact the footprint.)

In contrast, the Select Board’s letter urges the developer to increase the number of units in the project (if feasible) to get them closer to their housing goal.

In their August 8th discussion of the comment letter, member Kathy Cook urged telling Mass Housing their board “unconditionally” supports the project. Dennington opposed using that language for any development. He noted that simply supporting a 40B project is pretty rare. You can read their letter, and the Stewardship Committee attachment here.

You can read Conservation’s letter and view their attachments here. Town Planner Karina Quinn said she would draft their letter based on members comments, then send it to members (with a reminder not to reply to all).

*Gillespie is a Stewardship member and the Chair of the Open Space Preservation Commission, however she specified that her comments were her own.

SOUTHBOROUGH – Santa Claus gave the reindeer a well-deserved day off, choosing to visit Southborough on another – more technologically advanced – mode of transportation: the helicopter.

Hundreds of eager families gathered at St. Mark’s Field on Saturday afternoon to witness Santa’s unique entrance, take pictures with him, and double check whether they made it on the nice list.

The crowd restlessly waited until the unmistakable roar of rotors could be heard. The helicopter flew over the crowd of elated children several times, and before long Santa popped out of the chopper. The children could hardly contain their excitement; some started singing Christmas carols.

After he touched down, Santa waded through crowds and headed to the Southborough Community House for photos with families. Food, entertainment, and arts and crafts were also available at the event.

Santa’s visit was just one of several holiday-oriented events in Southborough on Saturday.

At St. Anne’s Church, members of Boy Scout Troop 92 gave children the opportunity (and privacy) to do some holiday shopping for adult loved ones. The Southborough Public Library held several events and St. Mark’s Church hosted its Christmas Bazaar.

WESTBOROUGH – A brisk walk on Westborough trails brings the scent of ripening apples; in the spring a glimpse of pink blossoms appears. Although there’s no orchard in sight, Westborough hills once abounded in the colors and smells of apple trees. Westborough’s frost-free elevations, good soil moisture, and climate were suitable for the fruit to flourish.

There were nearly ten commercial orchards in town by the 1940s. These were Dick Gilmore on Adams Street; the Nourse family on Nourse Street; Ed Emery on Chestnut Street, Kenneth Craig on West Main Street; Walter McTaggart on West Main Street; Carl Henry on Fisher Street; the Baldwin/Whittemores on Morse Street; Mr. Sanford (later George Parker) on Lackey Street; and Perry Arnold on Spring Road.

Apple varieties offered at roadside stands or at the orchards included MacIntosh, Macoun, Baldwin, Cortland, Gravenstein, Empire, and Delicious. In the early 1900s, families earned pocket money by picking these apples. During World War II, however, most farm hands had been drafted.

Jane Forsey Dunphy (age 94) remembered when Dick Gilmore recruited Westborough High students to help harvest Westborough’s largest orchard. After picking the fruit, the teens?managed by Carl Henry?sorted them for packing.

“The apples went by on a long conveyer belt. It had holes sized to let either large, medium, or small apples fall through,” Dunphy recalled. “We packed the apples by size and were very careful to pack them with the red, shiny side up. We had so much fun,” she said. Some orchards later switched to “pick your own” due to labor shortages.

Former Selectperson Leigh Emery recalled stories about her family’s orchard. “For added revenue, my grandfather Ed Emery sent cider to France to make brandy after World War I, and again after World War II, when French grape orchards had been destroyed,” she said.

The Hurricane of 1938 devastated many orchards, Leigh added. “The hurricane toppled about 150 apple trees on our farm,” she explained. “Ed’s sons, Belknap, Richard, and Ra, with Bob Hennessy, Joe and Donald Nason used block and tackle, tractors and horses to pull almost all the orchard back upright. However,” she continued, “the Tornado of ’53 destroyed the orchard as a working one?the trees were not just toppled, they were torn out of the ground or just completely smashed.”

By the 1980s, only a few orchards remained: Zane And Evelyn Arnold on Spring Road and George and Helen Parker on Lackey Street. Joe Quick had bought the Gilmores’ Fay Mountain Orchard in the 1970s. Seems every senior class plotted how to move the tremendous fiberglass steer standing before Quick’s store. Hot cider and doughnuts also enticed folks to Quick’s.

The history of Westborough orchards dates back to 1876 to Benjamin Alden Nourse (1862-1897). “Benjamin was one of the most successful Nourses of the eight generations who have farmed here,” said Tim Nourse.

Benjamin Nourse was elected to the Westborough School Committee, and?from 1882-1886?to the Select Board. In 1885, Benjamin was elected representative to the Massachusetts General Court and was appointed to its Standing Committee on Agriculture.

On his farm, Benjamin Nourse diversified crops by planting a 49-acre apple orchard. “He cultivated as many as 57 varieties of apples,” said Tim. “We still sell a few of them on our farm.”

Benjamin Nourse marketed not only apples but also byproducts like cider and applesauce. “Eventually he sold apples as far south as Atlanta, Georgia, and even overseas to Scotland,” marveled Tim. Besides apples, Benjamin added berries to his crop. “Over the three centuries of the Nourse farm, each generation has changed according to the market, focusing on dairy, fruits, or vegetables,” Tim explained. “Their story reflects the constantly evolving nature of farming in America.”

A house in Southborough that sold for $1.3 million tops the list of the most expensive residential real estate sales in Worcester County between May 21 and May 28.

In total, 117 residential real estate sales were recorded in the area during the past week, with an average price of $470,408. The average price per square foot ended up at $264.

The prices in the list below concern real estate sales where the title was recorded during the week of May 21 even if the property may have been sold earlier.

10. $855,000, condominium at 132 Old Mill Road

The sale of the condominium at 132 Old Mill Road in Shrewsbury has been finalized. The price was $855,000, and the new owners took over the condominium in May. The condominium was built in 2008 and has a living area of 2,766 square feet. The price per square foot was $309. Mitul Kela took over the condominium from Vaishali S Pandya and Snehalkumar D Pandya. The deal was finalized on May. 10.

9. $870,900, single-family residence at 103 Maple Street

The sale of the single-family house at 103 Maple Street, Sterling, has been finalized. The price was $870,900, and the house changed hands in May. Michael Scardigno and Linda Scardigno acquired the house from Robert A Wilson and Christine Wilson. The house was built in 1999 and has a living area of 3,476 square feet. The price per square foot was $251. The deal was finalized on May. 11.

8. $880,000, detached house at 146 Blair Drive

A sale has been finalized for the single-family house at 146 Blair Drive in Holden. The price was $880,000 and the new owners took over the house in May. The house was built in 2008 and the living area totals 2,488 square feet. Jesse Ellowitz and Yana Ellowitz sold the house to Apurv Soni and Nisha Fahey. The price per square foot ended up at $354. The deal was finalized on May. 9.

7. $910,000, single-family home at 7 Dudley Road

The property at 7 Dudley Road in Mendon has new owners. The price was $910,000. The house was built in 2002 and has a living area of 3,607 square feet. The price per square foot is $252. Douglas Kanner and Alicia Kanner bought the house from Louie King and Elisa King. The deal was finalized on May. 9.

6. $912,800, single-family house at 14 Stub Toe Lane

The property at 14 Stub Toe Lane in Southborough has new owners. The price was $912,800. The house was built in 1988 and has a living area of 3,034 square feet. The price per square foot is $301. Toe Rt Stub sold the house to Michael Macura and Elizabeth Macura. The deal was finalized on May. 9.

5. $1 million, single-family home at 62 Westcott Road

The 2,446 square-foot single-family residence at 62 Westcott Road in Harvard has been sold. The transfer of ownership was settled in May and the total purchase price was $1,025,000, $419 per square foot. The house was built in 1971. Peter J Davies and Judith A Smith sold the house to Sara Fanning and Justin Fanning. The deal was finalized on May. 12.

4. $1 million, single-family residence at 27 Brigham Road

The 3,160 square-foot detached house at 27 Brigham Road, Berlin, has been sold. The transfer of ownership was settled in May and the total purchase price was $1,025,000, $324 per square foot. The house was built in 2000. Jose M Freitas and Tracey H Freitas sold the house to Ninozka Garcia and Amin Vidal. The deal was finalized on May. 8.

3. $1.1 million, single-family house at 12 Barred Owl Drive

The property at 12 Barred Owl Drive in Westborough has new owners. The price was $1,116,537. The house was built in 2022 and has a living area of 3,601 square feet. The price per square foot is $310. Llc Jos sold the house to Urvish Saraiya and Jigisha Shah. The deal was finalized on May. 8.

2. $1.2 million, detached house at 9 Darlene Drive

The 2,596 square-foot single-family house at 9 Darlene Drive, Southborough, has been sold. The transfer of ownership was settled in May and the total purchase price was $1,200,000, $462 per square foot. The house was built in 1994. Scott Cataudella and Hayley Kohler acquired the house from William R Wheeler and Karen G Wheeler. The deal was finalized on May. 12.

1. $1.3 million, detached house at 108 Main Street

A sale has been finalized for the detached house at 108 Main Street in Southborough. The price was $1,300,000 and the new owners took over the house in May. The house was built in 1983 and the living area totals 2,793 square feet. Simal Patel and Kaitlin Patel took over the house from Erik C Philbrook and Amy L Philbrook. The price per square foot ended up at $465. The deal was finalized on May. 8.

Real Estate Newswire is a service provided by United Robots, which uses machine learning to generate analysis of data from Propmix, an aggregator of national real-estate data. See more Real Estate News