After nearly 90 minutes of debate, Special Town Meeting members Monday night approved Article 8 in a 236-167 vote. The Planning Board last week recommended this proposal for Hopkinton to be compliant with the MBTA Communities Act.
This article was moved up to first, as it was anticipated to be the one prompting the most debate. The proposed zoning overlay district included The Preserve and Walcott Valley condominium developments as well as the downtown area.
This vote concluded an arduous process over the past two years by the Planning Board and the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) to bring forth a plan that would balance the competing needs of creating zoning for new housing without causing immediate impacts to the school system and traffic. Its passage also prevented the threat of a state lawsuit against the town if it did not submit a proposal to the state by year’s end.
History of process described
Under the MBTA Communities statute, also referred to as 3A, 177 cities and towns that are in the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority’s service area need to approve new zoning to permit as-of-right multifamily housing near public transportation options. The denser housing, in theory, would encourage more people to take the T and depend less on cars. It also would help meet the state’s demand for more housing.
Hopkinton has been designated as an MBTA-adjacent community because of its proximity to the Southborough commuter rail station. It would be required to zone for 750 housing units, a density of 15 units per acre for 50 developable acres. There could be no restrictions on age or the number of bedrooms in these units.
In his presentation to voters, Planning Board chair Rob Benson described the steps taken to reach this point. He stressed that this is a zoning measure and does not require housing development. The town is not required to provide any water and sewer infrastructure in the event that units are developed.
Benson also noted that there have been 22 meetings held by either the Planning Board or ZAC on the topic over the past two years.
“We wanted to develop a plan where [the zoning overlay district is] not likely to be developed in the near future,” he explained, saying that immediate development would strain the school system and police and fire personnel. “They are viable areas, and we wanted to comply with the law.”
The inclusion of The Preserve, Walcott Valley and the downtown area in this overlay district brought it size to 54.6 acres with a unit capacity of 782, exceeding the state’s mandate.
Initial discussion veers toward not approving article
Initially, several Town Meeting members spoke negatively about the article. Eric Weiland, a resident of The Preserve who has been critical of its inclusion in the zoning overlay district, noted that more than 100 residents of The Preserve and Walcott Valley would be affected. He stressed that they are private homeowners with mortgages living in developments that include multiple generations.
The Preserve had also been included in a similar proposal that was narrowly rejected at May’s Annual Town Meeting by eight votes. Some residents balked at their community being considered a second time.
Benson said he didn’t believe developers would find it financially feasible to buy all the condos, raze them and redevelop them in the near future.
Ken Weismantel, a former Planning Board member, criticized the plan. He said the article as written “is so bad that it’ll harm the future of Hopkinton.” He asked that the body take no action on the proposed article, saying it was poorly constructed. The vote to this effect failed, with 111 in favor and 269 opposed.
Momentum shifts toward reasons for approval
Proponents spoke about the cost of a lawsuit against the state if another proposal could not be generated in time. They also said the Planning Board did due diligence by picking properties that would not be redeveloped for years, if at all.
Residents expressed concerns about losing state funding for the town’s potential connection to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority system as well as the threat of being sued by the state for noncompliance. Jamie Wronka pointed out that Burlington received $3.5 million in state funds for a similar water utility connection. She added that taxpayers would have to fund the MWRA connection as well as fund a potential defense against a state lawsuit if Hopkinton voted not to comply with the state mandate.
Geoff Rowland, chair of the Sustainable Green Committee, indicated the SGC’s support. He noted that dense, multifamily housing would minimize environmental impacts and use less building materials. It eventually also would lead to the use of public transportation rather than cars.
Nate Eckman commended the Planning Board for its work on the plan, saying that if development occurs, it will not “come as a giant tidal wave that’s going to overtake the town.”
Mason Haber questioned if the pushback against approving the plan was “some form of NIMBYism.” He added that approving the article seemed like “the least we could do” to help alleviate the state’s housing crisis.
I live in Walcott valley and this is my home. It may not be a 1.5 million home but it’s all I have. It may not happen soon but it may. I wonder how you people would have voted if it was your home. Thanks, neighbors.
I would vote yes. Nobody will kick you out, unless your HOA is dissolved. In hindsight, if you were concerned, you should’ve worked against the state law. For the future, work towards “toxic pill” HOA rules that will make it unappealing or difficult to dissolve HOA and force higher majority votes.
Just recently I voted for a school that my 6 year old will never go to and that is build right across my dead-end street.
The existence of these “toxic pill HOA rules”, as you phrased it, is
in fact one of the safeguards the planning board is counting on to potentially curb any actual development. The high threshold of voters needed to approve a developer to come in and purchase within these associations protects, for now, the homeowners, arguably more effectively than the town itself was willing to do.
While this brings us in line with the language of law, the planning board seems to be opposed to any actual development. What recourse exists, if, in time, the state mandates that physical development of these zones must occur.
Twenty students per 100 units seems absurd to me. Whoever made this estimate is clearly trying to deceive.
I am disheartened to see so many voters worry about their pocketbook more than the security and stability of over a 100 fellow homeowners. It is a sad day to see the state strongarm local communities. Property rights are a thing of the past.
Security and stability also means conformity and stagnation. There is a typical Soviet old lady response to changes that goes roughly like this: “don’t change anything, just let me live out my days in peace”. So everything can burn in hell once that person is gone.
Change is constant and, hopefully, incremental, the older I am the less I am willing to adapt as well. This is NOT a death sentence, eviction notice or a robbery. This is the other side of property rights, what other people have a right to once you decide to sell.
Straight racism.
Welcome to Hopkinton, where your vote only counts if it aligns with the wishes of the Town representatives. You may be asked to vote repeatedly until the outcome matches what THEY want. If the town cannot support essential infrastructure, such as ems, PFAS free clean water and the demand on the school systems then adding more demands to an already overwhelmed town should be viewed as a crisis. We should not be pressured into these situations.
Two votes half a year apart is not pressure, it’s a result of education, public outreach and changing of opinion. First vote failed 118 to 126 (8 votes that could just be stuck in traffic). This one passed 236 to 167, a rather decisive change.
As was said in a meeting school burden would be 20 students per 100 units (less existing students in all those areas). EMS service woes may actually be alleviated by making denser communities. It will reduce crash rate per fleet miles to start with. The fire station is literally WITHIN the downtown overlay district.
Your vote counted, it was just not the winning one. Don’t be grumpy. All towns evolved with high density housing in downtown and near transportation centers. In a decade or so, more spread-out development will happen and downtown will evolve further based on reachability.
You are certainly new to town, PERHAPS GIVE it a few years or research the legacy farms history.
in light of the zoning overlay approved last evening, I don’t think any homeowners — of condos or single family houses — should be in the position of not knowing if and what changes are coming down the line that could upend their lives. I also wonder if those who voted yes would have done so if their homes were included in the overlay.
I completely agree! Walcott Valley is my only home, and I’m very grateful to live here. There are many wonderful people in this community. We all need to look out for each other. The State needs to develop a different type of plan. I’m not comfortable knowing there is a possibility a developer could come after our property.