The Planning Board on Monday focused the bulk of its four-hour meeting on which zoning overlay proposals it would put forward at the Nov. 18 Special Town Meeting to allow Hopkinton comply with the MBTA Communities Act. After entertaining public comments and deliberating the merits of the four options under consideration, it voted to present — but not recommend — the original plan narrowly voted down at the May Annual Town Meeting and a recently proposed plan that included The Preserve, the Walcott Valley condominium development and a portion of downtown.

The board was deadlocked 4-4-1 on recommending either option to the STM. The first option, which had been vetted by the state, would be more amenable to those seeking town housing stock to grow because the Carbone’s Restaurant land and its two adjacent parcels would be the most likely land to be developed in the near future. The other option achieves paper compliance with the state’s requirement. Member Vikasith Pratty voted to abstain on both votes, although his vote would have broken the tie and allowed the board to make a recommendation to the STM.

Members Lucia Lopez, vice chair Matthew Wronka, Parker Happ and Jane Moran voted in favor of recommending the first proposal. Chair Rob Benson, Karen Wills, Elise Mihajloski and Michael King voted against it.

Benson, Lopez, King and Moran voted in favor of recommending the alternative, while Mihajloski, Wronka, Happ and Wills voted against recommending it.

“The Planning Board is proposing this,” Mihajloski said. “And if we have something we don’t recommend in something we’re proposing, it kind of makes us look disorganized.”

Public comment revolves around ‘hypotheticals’

The public comment period revolved around concerns from the condominium owners in the developments previously proposed — The Preserve, Walcott Valley and Indian Brook. Speakers asked questions about hypothetical situations where they thought the state could take their land by eminent domain, developers could purchase the majority of condos in a complex and force people out, that these were rezoning proposals, and that condo property values would fall, among other conjectures about future development.

Before the public spoke, Benson acknowledged Select Board member Amy Ritterbusch. She had received a letter from Senate president Karen Spilka’s office that addressed some of these concerns and wanted to share this correspondence.

“The MBTA Communities Act was designed to help resolve our housing shortage by requiring communities near public transit routes to add zoning for multifamily housing,” the letter stated. “Nowhere in the law does it allow the state to take a residence or business property by eminent domain, and there have been zero conversations in the Legislature about that hypothetical, or anything remotely close to it.”

It concluded: “The goal of this law is to help add housing to our state, and by doing so, bring down the skyrocketing cost of housing for all our residents so people can afford to stay in the communities they love, like Hopkinton.”

Despite the message against eminent domain put forth in this letter, several people voiced their distrust of state government.

Lopez clarified for the audience that these were not rezoning proposals but proposals for zoning overlay districts. Despite her statement, the term resurfaced in several comments.

Shane Diaz, the president of the board of the Indian Brook condo owners association, said that he spoke with a majority of the complex’s board members and residents of the 112 units. He said that the consensus was to oppose the zoning proposal that included Indian Brook.

Residents of The Preserve continued to be adamantly against their development being included. Eric Wieland, a board member of The Preserve’s condo owners association, expressed concerns about attempts at developing this property in future years.

“I want a letter from the governor telling us that our property is safe,” he said. He later said that the Planning Board should ask the state for an extension of the Dec. 31 deadline to submit the proposed overlay district.

Joyce Michel, who lives at Walcott Valley, said she feared the property values would drop. Benson said that, over time, he saw the property values actually increasing, if there is any effect.

Sharon Reynolds said she thought the inclusion of the condo communities forced them to “bear the burden” of the MBTA Communities Act for the whole town. She also called creating the zoning overlay districts “a meaningless exercise.”

King countered that the entire town will bear the burden if a zoning overlay is not passed because it would lose access to state grants and be sued by the state.

Benson said it was “not financially viable” for a developer to purchase all the condominiums in a complex, demolish them and build a new complex.” Some speakers thought that this could be done, perhaps if developers did it in concert or over a period of time.

“I don’t think any of us want to see more development and more growth in town to this extent,” said Mihajloski. “And the reason why we picked these parcels is that we believe that you guys are happy in your areas. … Part of the reason why we want to zone these areas because we don’t think this will happen in these areas.”

Lopez asked if there was a way that the condos’ owners associations could amend their documents to increase the percentage of residents needed to dissolve their respective associations before a sale can happen. Diaz said that a two-thirds vote would be needed to change the bylaws at Indian Brook.

Ken Weismantel asked if the board had done a thorough look at the parking requirements for the proposed districts they put forward. He also stressed that if the condo residents turn out in force, “You guys got a snowball’s chance in hell in passing it at Special Town Meeting.”

“The MBTA Communities Act was something that was done at the state level,” Benson said. “Nobody on the Planning Board went out to establish an MBTA Community district on their own. We’ve been trying to come up with the best proposal and put it before Town Meeting.”

Benson later added: “We are out of time.”

Key discussions postponed

The discussion about the road damage of Wilson Street said to be caused by The Trails was postponed. Engineer Peter Bemis was unavailable to present responses to the peer reviewer.

Also, the hearing regarding the redevelopment of the former Hopkinton Drug building at 48-52 Main Street and a neighboring home at 6 Cedar Street was continued until the next meeting on Dec. 2 at the request of the applicant. A major site plan review and a stormwater management permit review will be conducted at that meeting.