Town meeting on the proposed 44 Main Street project centered on whether the town should authorize sale of up to 3,170 additional gallons per day (gpd) of sewer capacity to allow a developer to tie a proposed mixed‑use building into town sewer. The measure, Article 26, failed after residents raised concerns about scale, traffic, and environmental risk.

The question before voters was narrowly focused on sewer capacity, not project approval. Joel Favaza, an attorney representing the prospective buyers, told the meeting, “the vote tonight is simply about allowing the Costellos to purchase additional sewer capacity. Any positive vote tonight does not authorize the project in whole.” Favaza said further local permitting — a planning‑board special permit and conservation commission approvals — would be required before construction.

Supporters said the capacity request would enable redevelopment and potentially senior housing in downtown. Planning Board Chair Lisa O’Donnell told voters the planning board would hold a public hearing on any special permit application and that “this is voting on sewage and not the project.”

Opponents said the proposed building — described in materials and public remarks as as large as three stories with up to 16 residential units and up to 32 bedrooms — was out of scale with neighboring properties. Resident Tony Bevilacqua, who lives directly across Burnham Court, said the design would create “a giant 3‑floor structure with 16 2‑bedroom units and an unnecessary underground parking garage” and warned of blasting and vibration risk.

Residents pressed the town and the developer on details that would affect long‑term impacts: distance to the river, traffic onto Route 133, parking counts, and protections against construction damage to adjacent older houses. Town Councilor Greg Corbeau outlined how a deed restriction could be recorded in the chain of title to require age‑restricted occupancy; he also observed that monitoring of deed‑restricted units is typically required under state rules.

An amendment to the Article — to require no fewer than two units be deed‑restricted as affordable housing at 60% of area median income (AMI) — was proposed and accepted onto the Article. After a counted vote by tellers the amendment passed 227–106. Despite that amendment and the developer’s concession to record an age restriction limiting occupancy to at least one person 55 or older, the main motion to authorize the purchase of additional sewer capacity failed when town meeting voted the measure down.

Voters also debated process questions: whether the motion’s language matched the warrant copy, whether the additional flow had an explicit cap (the motion stated a maximum), and how the planning board’s special‑permit process would address affordable‑housing or age restrictions. Town staff clarified the specific figures in the motion: the additional allowance was up to 3,170 gpd beyond a current allotment of 550 gpd, based on an estimate of 10 gpd per bedroom used to reach the proposed 32‑bedroom, 16‑unit maximum.

With the main motion defeated, the applicants retain any procedural rights available under town bylaws and state law, and may pursue planning and conservation permits that would be required for the project if they later seek sewer capacity again.