After a spirited round of public comment from a packed room at the Hopkinton Senior Center Wednesday night, the Board of Appeals voted to continue the hearing on a proposed gas station at 290 West Main Street until Nov. 13.

Residents showed up en masse to speak their minds during the hearing, which was intended to determine whether a variance request should be granted at the West Main Street property.

The lot currently is zoned as agricultural land. Rte 85 Realty Corp. — the potential developer of the site — is hoping to obtain a use variance for a country store and gas station.

The proposed 4,000-square-foot development would feature a store, four full-service gas pumps, four electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, pollinator gardens and blueberry bush plantings that would serve as a transition to the wetlands west of the parcel.

Before the meeting started, Board of Appeals member Michael Riley set expectations on the purpose of the meeting and how board members would be evaluating the variance application.

“Our job is to not to vote on whether it’s a gas station, or an ice cream shop or whatever,” said Riley. “It’s whether the lot itself qualifies for a variance.”

In order to qualify for a variance, the applicant must prove there are conditions on the site, topographical or otherwise, that would result in “substantial hardship” to the applicant should they be forced to abide by the existing bylaws, according to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, Section 10.

Additionally, the applicant must establish that getting relief from those zoning restrictions would not result in “substantial detriment to the public good.”

Neal Bingham, attorney for Rte 85 Realty, began the presentation by laying out his client’s case under these conditions. 

He delved into the background of the property, and how Allan and Kathy O’Connor — the current owners — have had difficulty both with maintaining the agricultural business on the lot and finding prospective buyers.

The O’Connors ran the Evergreen Haven Garden Center on the corner of School Street and West Main Street for more than 30 years. They closed the business in 2022.

“What they want to get across to you is why it is simply impracticable to consider a use for the property that would be among those uses that are currently allowed under the bylaw,” said Bingham.

Citing high costs of living, the O’Connors’ advanced age and inability to find suitable buyers for the property before now, Bingham claimed the family was “suffering a serious financial hardship that requires some kind of relief.”

Allan O’Connor testified to Bingham’s last point, claiming that multiple brokers and developers had told him the property was not viable under the existing zoning.

Other representatives who spoke on the project included Kevin Meehan — owner of Rte. 85 Realty — and Sean Reardon of Tetra Tech.

Meehan stated he believed his project would be a benefit to the town, and that he hoped the proposed gas station and country store would “bring something the town lost.”

Reardon spoke to the technical aspects of the plan and how other potential uses of the site, like single-family homes or townhouses, were “not tenable.” He explained the wetlands on the property inhibit development to the west and north of the lot, limiting what can be built.

Reardon went on to argue that Meehan’s vision for the site would transform the property into something “unique.”

Before the public comment period, board members asked questions about the proposed variance.

Associate member Shawn Masterson dug into the question of the property’s ownership and how the hardship translates to Rte 85 Realty.

According to documents filed with the Board of Appeals, the realty company is in agreement with the O’Connors but does not yet own the West Main Street lot.

Masterson argued that the hardship being argued does not apply to the company because it does not yet own the property. Additionally, he cited concerns over lack of evidence that the owners had repeatedly been unsuccessful in finding a buyer before this project was proposed.

“You’ve presented no evidence other than Mr. O’Connor’s claims,” said Masterson.

Bingham defended Allan O’Connor’s earlier statements to the board. 

“You can choose to disbelieve the testimony, but it is evidence,” asserted Bingham. 

Masterson maintained that the hardship Rte 85 Realty was seeking was created when the owner divided the lot previously. He also pointed out that abutters purchased their property nearby with the understanding that the zoning was agricultural.

Residents wait to speak during Wednesday’s Board of Appeals meeting. PHOTO/NICK SCHOFIELD

Residents speak their minds on variance request

Once the meeting opened up for public comment, dozens of residents provided testimony about the variance request.

While the majority of attendees spoke in opposition to the project, a handful offered support. 

Resident Doug Hunt described the proposal as “a positive for the overall community.” He cautioned the applicant, however, to remain clear about the number of gas pumps to be installed and to take the environmental and safety concerns into account.

Craig Stanley also spoke on behalf of the proposal. Stanley, who said he had a longstanding friendship with Meehan, argued that Meehan’s projects in other towns have improved those communities.

“I’d rather have [Meehan] build something that I know is going to be good where, somebody else, god only knows what we’re going to get,” said Stanley.

The night was dominated by detractors of the plan, however. Many residents discussed how increased traffic and environmental hazards from gas tanks would create a detriment to the community. 

Geoff Rowland, chair of the Sustainable Green Committee, spoke to the environmental concerns. He cited contamination issues that could spread far beyond the lot, given the area’s high water tables. 

Rowland also described how EV usage in town has increased, and that the state has passed new laws to ban gas-powered vehicles by 2035. These factors would mitigate the need for an additional gas station in town.

Rowland also raised concerns that a new gas station would not help the town reach its net zero goal by 2045.

Attorney Jeff Averni spoke on behalf of multiple Dicarlo Road residents, whom he represents. He warned the board to be cognizant about the timing of the project.

Averni claimed that the lot — which started off as a 5.5-acre master parcel — was divided in 2023 through an approval not required (ANR) plan. This plan, he argued, condensed everything at the front of the new lot and created the hardship Rte 85 Realty now is seeking relief from.

“It’s pretty transparent the lot was created for this purpose,” he insisted. 

Added Averni: “How can they claim the lot is unique when they just created it?”

Dicarlo Road resident Eric Green reported to the board that he and others had been in discussion with “hundreds and hundreds of Hopkinton residents” about the proposal. He offered into the record a petition featuring more than 900 signatures of those who oppose the project.

“Board members, please consider the voice of the public in your decision,” said Green.

Regarding the number of signatures collected, Meehan remarked: “Bottom line is, if there’s 1,000 people in the town who don’t want it, we’ll withdraw.”

Others spoke against the notion that nothing else could be done with the lot. Jerry Kazanjian dug into the history of that part of West Main Street, arguing that families have lived at all four corners of the School Street intersection for years.

“As a real estate broker, I’m convinced two modest residential homes would sell in a heartbeat,” Kazanjian said.

At the end of the public comment period, the board thanked residents for their participation and civility through the proceedings.

“I’m very impressed with the amount of research, knowledge and professionalism,” Riley said to the audience.

Due to a time cap on the meeting, the Board of Appeals was unable to conduct further questioning and make a determination on the use variance. The board voted unanimously to continue the hearing.

Because public interest in the hearing remains high, the next meeting will be held in-person at the Senior Center on Nov. 13.