Editor’s Note: This story was originally published on March 17, 2026. Arlington voters approved the ballot question of whether to add two licenses to sell liquor by a vote of 9,497 in favor and 3,833 against, according to the official election results. The 71.25 percent yes vote comes after more than a year of town officials working to increase the number of off-premises licenses. Leia Green’s story here explains how it came before voters.
UPDATED, April 3: Following a chain of legislative hurdles, a question proposing the addition of two more off-premise liquor licenses to Arlington’s roster has been tacked onto the spring ballot.
If passed, the town could welcome two new all-alcohol package stores. “This would become a tool for further economic development in support of small businesses,” said Town Manager Jim Feeney during a Select Board meeting last month.
The question has received mixed reviews from the community. While some believe fresh business would spur economic growth, others fear it could oversaturate a market that has struggled in recent years. “It takes a pie and just breaks more places [a] piece of that pie,” said Eric Faiola, owner of Mystic Wine Shoppe. “If another store opens up, there’s a good chance that another store will close.”
The measure was only approved to face voters on Feb. 20, the last day questions could legally be added to the March 28 ballot. The close call was preceded by a monthslong legislative process driven by the state’s controversial liquor laws. Massachusetts’ Liquor Control Act, or Chapter 138, strictly regulates the sale and distribution of liquor licenses for both on-premise and off-premise establishments. The same law — created in the wake of the Prohibition era — forbids happy hour and limits the hours bars and clubs can keep their doors open.
“[It’s] coming up on about 100 years old,” said Adam Barnosky, an attorney specializing in liquor licensing and hospitality law. “Most businesses are working within the confines of a law that was enacted at a time that was much different.” If a municipality wants another liquor license for a package store, the act requires it to go through the home rule petition process. This means a legislator must introduce a bill authorizing more licenses, which then must be enacted by the Legislature.
The town clerk has published a precinct-by-precinct breakdown of the election results.
License process
“Logjams” along the way can delay the process, said Barnosky. “You have people in local government and state government that are working diligently, as best they can, to comply with the state law, which is in many ways an archaic law,” he said. “There are certain constraints that just create inefficiencies.”
Barnosky said the process — from application to approval — can stretch on for four to five months. The process was initially kickstarted by town officials, who said they had heard at least one presentation from a hopeful business owner looking to set up shop in town. “The business would have offered not only alcohol for off-premise consumption, but also other goods and services,” wrote Katie Luczai, Arlington’s economic development coordinator. “Without a license available, the business had to pursue other opportunities outside of Arlington and their intended storefront remains vacant to date.”
During the 2025 legislative session, Town Meeting members voted to ask the state permission to grant Arlington two additional all-alcohol liquor licenses for package stores, hiking the town’s total from six to eight. State law limits Arlington to a total of 20 off-premise licenses, wrote Luczai. “Arlington has historically chosen to set a lower local quota,” she added. Arlington forbade alcohol sales until 1978, decades after the end of nationwide Prohibition in 1933.
Over the last 50 years, the town has “incrementally” raised the number of licenses in its docket, wrote Luczai. Town Meeting members ultimately passed the measure 112-92, leaving it in the hands of legislators. Bill 4815, an act authorizing Arlington to place the question on the town’s spring ballot, was introduced Dec. 8. The legislation then lay in limbo until mid-February.
“When the deadline to have the question placed on the ballot was approaching, we urged the delegation to expedite so it would be possible for Arlington’s voters to consider the measure this year,” Town Manager Feeney wrote in an email to YourArlington.
In anticipation of the fast-approaching Feb. 20 deadline, state Representative Sean Garballey pushed the measure through the legislature on Feb. 17, and the bill was signed into law by Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll Feb. 19. The next day, the Select Board voted 3-0 to add the measure to the March 28 ballot during a specially scheduled meeting.
“Much of the credit goes to our representative Sean Garballey for ferreting us through the process, but also our Town Clerk [Juli Brazile] for so diligently keeping track of this and making sure that we were able to deliver this on time,” said Feeney during the meeting. Voters will vote yes or no on the following question later this spring: “Shall the Select Board of the town be authorised to issue 2 additional licenses for the sale of all alcoholic beverages not to be drunk on the premises?”
“If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.”
Only a slim majority expressed support for additional licenses at last year’s Town Meeting, with about 54 percent of members voting yes. Adam Lane, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 3, voiced concerns about whether the increased availability of alcohol could spike underage drinking rates. “It’s important that we maintain a small amount of friction in the acquisition of alcohol to prevent it from easily falling into the hands of the young people in this town,” he said.
Others said they simply didn’t see the need for more package stores. “I’ve never seen a line out the door and down the street at any of the existing package stores,” said Peter Fiori, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 2. “Nobody’s ever said to me, the problem with this town is we don’t have eight package stores. …If it’s not broken, don’t fix it,” he added.
Demand for off-premise liquor sales has ebbed and flowed in the past, said Faiola. While purchasing rates soared during COVID-19, he said they’ve “waned” in recent years. “There’s been a big push for the dry Januarys and those sober Octobers,” he said, adding his selection of non-alcoholic wines has quadrupled in the past year and a half. All in all, he believes the level of demand in Arlington does not justify a new wave of stores.
“It’s not going to draw in more business to the area,” he said. “It’s just going to take away business from another store.” Town officials claim expanding the number of licenses will do more than just heighten economic opportunity. Luczai said raising the town’s quota would shield Arlington from exploitative private markets that arise amid a scarcity of available licenses. When communities reach their quota limit, secondary markets where licenses get bought and sold between private parties at overinflated prices, tend to thrive, according to Luczai.
The phenomenon has plagued hospitality hubs statewide. In Boston’s private market, the cost of a single liquor license can climb to $600,000. “The private market limits economic opportunities for small business owners and causes municipalities to lose control over license issuance,” wrote Luczai. Barnosky said a new license simply gives a municipality the leverage needed to enliven its commercial sector. “It now has another tool in their toolbox,” he said.
This story was published on March 17, 2026, and was updated on April 3 to reflect the official election results.
