The Zoning Advisory Committee on Wednesday voted 6-0 for a zoning plan that would allow Hopkinton to meet compliance requirements under the MBTA Communities Act. According to its chair, it would “build a bridge” between two current zoning subdistricts in the least invasive way possible out of the options the committee considered.

Under the MBTA Communities Act, 177 cities and towns in the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority’s service area were required to approve new zoning that requires multifamily housing near public transportation. It was signed into law Jan. 14, 2021. Several communities balked and were threatened with losing some state funding if they did not comply.

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 was designated as an MBTA-adjacent community because of its proximity to the Southborough commuter rail station. In order to comply with the law, the zoning districts must accommodate 750 units at a density of 15 units per acre on 50 or more acres of developable land in addition having one district meet the 50% contiguous area stipulation.

At the 2024 Annual Town Meeting, voters rejected the proposed plan by eight votes. This prompted the need for a Special Town Meeting (STM) in November 2024.

After a contentious process, STM approved the article by a 236-167 vote. The plan included The Preserve and Walcott Valley condominium developments and the downtown area. While it created a zoning overlay district, it does not mandate housing development.

But this plan was not vetted beforehand by the state because of a time crunch before STM, noted Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) chair Ted Barker-Hook. The state determined it to be missing one crucial element, putting the town in conditional compliance until May 29, 2026.

Principal planner Aneri Patel pointed out at the Dec. 8 ZAC meeting that the town’s plan failed to meet the 50% contiguous area requirement. At least one of Hopkinton’s districts must be 27.3 acres, according to this condition. Walcott Valley, The Preserve and the downtown subdistricts equal 10.8, 22.9 and 15.5 acres, respectively.

An option that meets the requirements must be voted on at ATM on May 2 in order to be sent by the state and approved by the deadline. The warrant opens Jan. 2 and closes Feb. 1. This provides a window for the Planning Board to recommend a zoning article. ZAC was charged with creating a plan that would be viable for Planning Board and ATM approval.

ZAC weighs options

Patel presented four alternative options to the current zoning plan. Plan B proposed adding approximately 10 parcels between the downtown and Walcott Valley. It would merge these two areas to create a contiguous subdistrict of about 31.7 acres.

This plan also would remove approximately nine parcels south of South Street from the current downtown district. According to Patel, a concern with this plan is the inclusion of properties near Claflin Street.

Plan C would add approximately 13 parcels along A Street and Walcott Street to build a wider connection between the downtown area and Walcott Valley. This design creates a district of around 28.6 acres and a 51.5% contiguous area.

Barker-Hook noted that Plan C would remove CVS and the fire station from the previously approved zoning. Patel said this change would affect the gross density and unit capacity, making it less workable.

Two newer options were considered to be more amenable to committee members. Both would add a strip of parcels on Walcott Street to connect the downtown area with Walcott Valley. Plan D would add three parcels between A Street and Walcott Street to Plan E. While Plan D would equal about 33.218 acres, Plan E would consist of 32.718 acres.

Patel recommended both of these options because they would add a small number of parcels without removing anything that was approved previously.

“All we really need to do is build a bridge,” stressed Barker-Hook, noting that Patel created the last option that afternoon.

He added that while Plan D creates “a stronger bridge,” that may make that area “a bigger enticement to developers.”

Chair shares zoning observations

Barker-Hook performed his own analysis of zoning in the downtown business district. He pointed out that Hopkinton allows mixed-use developments by right. This would be like the apartment building currently under construction at the former Hopkinton Drug site. Retail is included on the first floor, with apartments on the upper floors. A “purely residential building,” he added, would need a special permit.

In contrast, the MBTA Communities zoning directive allows “only residential by right.”

Barker-Hook gave a hypothetical example. If CVS and Marty’s Fine Wines were to move out of their current locations on Main Street, that land could be developed as housing without a retail component.

“I think that’s worth keeping in mind,” he said.

Another point Barker-Hook made is that the minimum lot size for residential development is 15,000 square feet. But the minimum lot size in an MBTA lot size is 5,000 square feet. He displayed a couple of lots on A Street near Cedar Street (Route 85) that are more than 5,000 square feet and potentially developable.

Plan E chosen as most agreeable

After discussion, Plan E was chosen to present to the Planning Board because it builds a connection via a narrow strip.

Barker-Hook expressed some concern that the state may see this area as “too thin a connection.” But it would prevent including properties along A Street that would be more likely to be developed.

“I think the minimal change is going to be the easiest to sell,” said Matthew Wronka, the Planning Board’s ZAC liaison and vice chair.

This would apply to both the Planning Board and Town Meeting, he noted. There also is “a clear explanation” for this decision.

“People don’t want more development,” added fellow Planning Board member Elyse Mihajloski. “I think it would have the most minimal impact in the short term, at least.”

Patel said a draft proposal could be submitted to the state for review. Once the review is completed, the Planning Board can evaluate its options.