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 the 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.