One of the most heated topics was the proposal to convert a property on William Street into a sober house managed by Victory Programs, Inc. This proposal faced significant opposition from residents who expressed concerns over the safety and appropriateness of the location for transitional housing for individuals recovering from substance abuse. Public comments highlighted fears of increased crime rates and the potential negative impact on neighborhood safety. A resident presented a petition with 300 signatures opposing the facility, arguing that the concerns were practical rather than prejudiced and that the opposition was not against low-income housing per se.

Amidst this opposition, a board member emphasized the importance of not discriminating against individuals based on assumptions of harm. They referenced the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prevent discrimination against individuals with substance use disorders, framing the decision to support the lodging house as a commitment to progressive values. The board noted that conditions would be attached to the right of first refusal for Victory Programs.

The discussion also touched upon a past incident at a Victory Programs location, raising questions about safety and community concerns. The chief operating officer of Victory Programs addressed these concerns, clarifying that the incident involved a mental health crisis and was not indicative of the overall safety of their programs. They stressed that the proposed lodging house would serve a different population than other recovery homes operated by Victory Programs.

The Select Board reiterated their commitment to ongoing dialogue with the community, assuring residents that they would consider concrete ideas and address concerns regarding the proposal. Despite the differences of opinion, the board seemed inclined to approve the conveyance of the town’s right of first refusal to Victory Programs.

Another point of contention during the meeting was the 40B housing proposal on Harvard Street. Residents raised concerns about the project’s potential to bypass local zoning laws and the removal of mature trees, which the developer claimed were diseased. A resident argued that the board should enforce existing zoning regulations, questioning the rationale behind potentially abandoning them in favor of a new proposal.

The conversation also delved into the implications of the 40B housing production process, highlighting the state’s authority to intervene when a community falls below the mandated threshold for subsidized housing. The board debated whether to reject the proposal outright or negotiate conditions that would align closer with local zoning preferences. A member pointed out the benefits of the proposal, such as affordability for families at 50% AMI and limited parking requirements.

However, another member argued that accepting the proposal, even with modifications, would undermine the extensive community input and consensus achieved in developing the form-based zoning plan. They stressed that the Select Board must uphold the community’s vision for Harvard Street development, as articulated during town meetings where the form-based zoning was approved.

The meeting also addressed the Select Board’s broader goals and objectives for the upcoming fiscal year, with a focus on town-owned properties and the potential establishment of a Real Asset Board. Discussions centered around the need for a phased approach to implementation and funding, with members examining potential actions to generate additional property tax revenue.

In addition to these topics, the board discussed information technology policies, including a new generative AI policy and updates to the information security framework. The importance of these revisions was emphasized in light of new Massachusetts data privacy regulations, with the speaker recommending approval of the policies to improve the town’s cybersecurity program.