by Valerie Hurley and John Osborn ·
Friday, April 24, 2026
May 2 will mark Article 28’s third appearance on a Town Meeting warrant, following its debut in May 2025 and its reappearance on the September 2025 warrant.
Its purpose is to update rules for development in the town center, a proposed zoning change several years in the making. But instead of the third time being the charm, consideration of the article will once again be put off: The Planning Board voted April 16 to make a motion on the Town Meeting floor to “take no action” on the article. The move came in response to the Select Board’s 4-1 vote, April 7, against recommending the zoning change.
Select Board Vice Chair SusanMary Redinger was the only member to vote in favor of recommending the bylaw. She argued that the Planning Board had been working on the overlay for years at the town’s direction, that the proposal had already been revised in response to public comments, and that it was unfair to “come in at the last second” with new reservations. Redinger said she believed the article deserved a positive recommendation.
The remaining four members praised the work but said they were not comfortable recommending the article.
Member Eve Wittenberg said the town center is “such a precious part of town” that she is wary of voting for a complex bylaw when she is not confident that most voters understand what it would mean in practice. She and others suggested the town needs clearer “what-it-could-look-like” visuals before asking residents to decide.
Members Eric Ward and Ahmet Corapcioglu both questioned the long-term effect of expanded mixed-use permissions on the balance between residential and commercial uses in the center, and whether that outcome is well enough understood or explained.
Chair Kara Minar raised technical concerns, including dimensional standards for small lots, parking and lot coverage, and how the overlay would interact with the Historical Commission’s authority and design expectations. She said she fears “unintended consequences” in an area that many residents see as central to Harvard’s identity.
Planning Board Chair John McCormack told the board that the Planning Board had done extensive outreach over the past two years, including mailings to affected property owners; public sessions at the library, Harvard Senior Center, and General Store; and a reopened public hearing this year. He said recent feedback led to some changes to last year’s version of the bylaw, including increased setbacks from neighboring primary structures, and new operational standards limiting hours and outdoor seating for commercial and mixed-use projects.
Several days after the Select Board’s vote, McCormack told the Press he didn’t see any reason to proceed. “If the Select Board doesn’t support the article, it will never go through,” he said. As a next step, McCormack said he would talk to fellow board members about hiring professional help or asking the town planner, when that position is filled, to create a business plan detailing the possible uses, or a “vision plan” that could show what the center might look like. “But it can’t look that much different” under the proposed zoning, he added.
By April 16, the Planning Board had hastily scheduled a meeting to vote on a course of action, and with three of the five members present, voted unanimously to “take no action.” Member Richard Abt asked how the bylaw could have gotten so far along only to be rejected by the Select Board so close to the May 2 Town Meeting. “What if we dropped the whole thing?” he asked. McCormack replied, “Nobody is demanding it, it’s not required by the state, but it’s nice to have.” The bylaw change originated with the 2005 Town Center Action Plan, he said, and the 2016 Harvard Master Plan had recommended that the Planning Board pursue new zoning for the town center to preserve its vitality.
Efforts to pass new zoning for the town center have been rocky. Last May, the proposed zoning sat at the tail end of a 44-article warrant, and time ran out before Town Meeting could take it up. Four months later, at a continuation of the May Town Meeting, consideration of the bylaw was again tabled amid concerns from the public and the Select Board that new zoning could facilitate a new use for the General Store building, which was for sale at the time.
Article 28: Its effect on town center
Would adjusting the zoning in town center unleash unwanted development?
Planning Board Chair John McCormack told the Press the bylaw would simply “put reasonable boundaries” on changes instead of essentially disallowing them by default. As for preserving the appearance of the center, the Historical Commission will retain authority over changes in buildings’ design or materials because the Harvard Center Historic District largely overlaps the proposed 87-lot overlay district.
The proposed bylaw tries to solve the biggest obstacles people face when they try to make changes to their properties. One is the inability to meet setbacks, minimum distances required between structures and property lines. The other is the near impossibility of changing a building’s use, which according to Harvard’s 2016 Master Plan, fails to “promote the continued usefulness and relevance of homes and businesses in the town center.”
Many lots in the center are too small to meet the existing setback requirements. For example, a basic “type 1” lot under agricultural-residential zoning generally requires a 40-foot side and rear setback and a front setback of 75 feet. But the average town center lot is one-fourth of an acre, and at least one is only a tenth of an acre. This mismatch between the small lots of town center and zoning tailored to 1½-acre lots renders most parcels (schools are exempt) “legally existing nonconformities.” And the variances required to build any accessory structure on such properties are rarely granted, as the state limits the Zoning Board of Appeals’ scope of authority to cases of “substantial hardship.”
The setbacks proposed for the overlay district would create new standards proportional to the center’s small lots. For example, the rear and side yard setbacks would be 10 to 40 feet for primary structures. And for accessory structures, setbacks would be 5 feet from any property line, 15 feet from the nearest structure, 30 feet from the main building on an abutting property, and no taller than 20 feet.
The overlay district would also allow specific commercial uses and mixed use, in which residential and commercial exist in the same building. Multifamily homes with up to four units per structure, a condition that already exists in several structures in town center, would be allowed by right.
The following small-scale commercial uses would be allowed by special permit in a primary or accessory structure: personal or business services (beauty salon, tailor, locksmith); medical and dental office; inn or bed-and-breakfast; dry cleaning and laundry pickup; recreation, dance, or fitness facility; nursery school, kindergarten, or day care; catering service, deli, or other food market or permitted eating establishment; restaurant or other food service with primary business of prepared food; pharmacy; grocery or farm store.
A mix of residential and any of the above commercial uses would be allowed by special permit. For example a homeowner in the district could apply for a permit to open a candy shop on their first floor and live on the second floor.
—Valerie Hurley