Trustees agree to clarify preservation restriction language for historic facade, will draft changes with attorney review

SOUTHBOROUGH, Mass. — The Southborough Library Board of Trustees on Sept. 15 discussed a draft preservation restriction tied to Community Preservation Act funds for the library's 1912 building and agreed to refine the language so future readers clearly understand what the restriction covers. The trustees directed a small drafting team to prepare specific wording and run it by the library’s attorney and the proposed restriction holder, Preservation Worcester. The board did not adopt the restriction at the meeting. Trustees expressed a common concern that the draft used the word "facade" without a clear definition and that a future reader could interpret "facade" to mean any exterior wall. Trustee Janet (last name not specified) said she preferred spelling out "south‑facing facade" to prevent confusion. Trustee Jane (last name not specified) and others argued against including broad landscaping or grounds controls in the restriction because that could limit routine maintenance and future accessibility improvements. Library staff said the preservation restriction as drafted referenced the original 1912 building and excluded later additions, but trustees asked the document to make that point explicit and to state whether the 1978 parcel conveyed by St. Mark’s is included. Attorney John Parent (on the call earlier but left during discussion) was identified as the person who will review changes with legal counsel for the town and the restriction holder. Trustees agreed on process steps: create a consolidated list of proposed edits, have Marguerite (staff) and Janet prepare a single redline to submit to attorney John Parent, and circulate the revised text to the full board before any formal approval vote. The conversation covered specific features included in the draft — stairs, original exterior walls, windows and certain openings paid for with CPA funds — and disputed sections in the appendix that would have required approval for landscape changes, archaeological work and other ground‑level interventions. Several trustees said they want the restriction to protect the historic front while preserving flexibility for future accessibility work, parking lot modification or repairs that could be necessary if the library were expanded. No formal vote on the restriction was taken at the Sept. 15 meeting; trustees asked staff to return a revised draft after legal review.