Woburn planning board keeps mural zoning hearing open, limits proposal to downtown business district

The Woburn Planning Board on March 26 continued a public hearing on proposed zoning amendments that would allow murals in the city, narrowing the draft to the downtown business district and leaving detailed policymaking to the city council and further comment.

City economic development manager Casey Haggerty told the board she reduced the number of zoning districts where murals would be permitted to the BD (downtown), provided an updated zoning table and described enforcement limits: the building commissioner can use the nuisance section of the zoning ordinance to levy fines (Haggerty said the ordinance allows up to $300 per day for each day a mural is out of compliance). "We've made the murals not allowed in all zoning districts except for the BD, which consists of our downtown, business district," Haggerty said.

Why it matters: board members and members of the public raised repeated concerns about how expressive content intersects with the First Amendment, how to enforce maintenance and removal, and whether allowing murals will invite politically charged or otherwise divisive imagery on prominent downtown walls. Several speakers urged caution, saying broad permission with few content controls could create long-term enforcement headaches and locally unwelcome results.

Public speakers underscored those concerns. Rosa DiTucci, a homeowner who said she had attended multiple hearings, urged the board to be wary of "opening Pandora's box" by allowing murals without tight oversight and provided examples from other communities where murals had provoked controversy. "If you open up Pandora's box, if you allow this to happen here without any sort of oversight ... this is what you will get," DiTucci said.

Board debate reflected the tension between zoning as a technical function and mural policy as a broader legislative choice. Several members said mural policy is largely a policy choice best addressed by the city council, while others said adopting a limited overlay for downtown could provide clarity and preserve local control over size and placement. The board also discussed the practical limits on regulating mural content: Haggerty told the board that content is largely protected by the First Amendment and that municipal regulation is therefore focused on objective controls such as size, location and lighting.

Action taken: Jim moved to continue the public hearing and to notify the city council that the planning board was unable to give a recommendation at this time but was available to assist; Claudia seconded. The motion to continue the hearing to April 23 passed 4-3.

What happens next: the public hearing remains open; the planning board and city council may coordinate further work, and the board asked to be kept informed as the council considers committee-level review. The next scheduled update on the matter is the board's April 23 meeting.