Tensions Flare in Kingston Over Cushman Farms 40B Approval and Alleged Open Meeting Law Violations
KINGSTON - June 2, 2026 - The Kingston Board of Selectmen received a dramatic update regarding the long-contested Cushman Farms 40B housing project, exposing deep procedural rifts and a potential Open Meeting Law complaint within the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). While ZBA Chairman Paul Dahlen announced a 3-0 vote to approve the comprehensive permit with heavy restrictions, dissenting ZBA member Marsha Meekins raised serious alarms over an unpublicized “private meeting” with the developer. The dispute has left town leaders bracing for potential legal appeals or a direct investigation by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office.
The Full Story
The Cushman Farms project—proposed near Marion Drive and adjacent to the local elementary school—has frustrated town officials and neighbors for several years. On June 1, 2026, the ZBA finally rendered a decision. Chairman Paul Dahlen reported that the board successfully leveraged conditions to scale back the development’s impact.
The approved conditions mandate wider access roads at the Marion Drive entrance, restrict building heights to three floors, completely block emergency road access to Copper Beach Drive, and enforce strict parameters around groundwater and local floodplains. Most notably, the ZBA forced a 35% reduction in density, chopping the developer’s original proposal of 162 units down to 105 units.
“[The developer] made very clear that they would not yield on density, and we diminished their approved density of 162 units by 35% down to 105 units. We’ll see if it sticks.” [01:28:04] — Marsha Meekins, ZBA Member
However, the regulatory victory was instantly overshadowed when ZBA member Marsha Meekins took to the microphone to explain why she abstained from the vote. Marsha leveled a stunning accusation against her own board’s leadership and Town Counsel, revealing that a private meeting had been held with the developer from which the public was completely barred.
Meekins argued that because the public hearing officially closed on March 18, 2026, state law mandated a final decision within 40 days (by April 27). She alleged that a critical extension agreement from the developer was not filed with the Town Clerk until April 30, meaning the project may technically be “deemed approved” via a procedural lapse, rendering the ZBA’s newly imposed conditions legally vulnerable.
Chairman Dahlen vigorously defended the process, explaining that the applicant requested the continuation to negotiate concessions after realizing the board was prepared to deny the project over a 100-year floodplain issue. Dahlen asserted that because the developer provided written consent to waive the deadlines via email, the cancellation of the public meeting was entirely legal, adding that a meeting could not have been held anyway due to the difficulty of securing a voting quorum.
