The select board met on Tuesday, October 29, 2024, to sign a Special Town Meeting (STM) warrant that has a “placeholder article” for adopting MBTA Communities Zoning. This is the principal reason for calling the Special Town Meeting. Never in over 40 years has a zoning article been placed on a warrant without the full text. The purpose of the warrant is to clearly warn the citizens about what is going to be voted on.
The Special Town Meeting should not have been called until a zoning change was finalized. Also needed is enough time for the citizens to understand the details of the proposal. Why call a Special Town Meeting, at some expense to the Town, if the proposal is likely to fail? The lack of transparency and the rush to call the meeting gives voters another reason to be suspicious of a state mandate that they do not like and is unfair to Hopkinton.
>> RELATED: “Not in My Back Yard” say Voters at Town Meeting
Clearly, the Planning Board failed to make a timely recommendation and draft a complete article. I sense they are just now understanding the reasons that it failed to get a simple majority vote at May’s Annual Town Meeting (ATM). A new article that alleviates the concerns expressed by the voters needs to be written. In past studies, the cost of services used by apartment complexes exceeds the real estate taxes collected.
The majority of the Town wants a zoning by-law that meets the letter of the law (to keep state grants) but not the spirit of the law (build 750 more units and more expensive school additions with higher taxes).
The key to zoning district location to prevent the multi unit housing being built is to put it in areas of town where the current valve of the land and buildings exceeds the price that a developer would pay for a site to build apartments. An additional road block to deter this development is complicated ownership.
No rational developer would invest the resources to try to buy out the majority of the owners of a condo, especially when the value of condo units exceed the price that a developer would pay for a site. I think the fears expressed by some condo owners about the possibility of eminent domain by the state or hostile takeovers are not realistic. If this is to pass at STM, the Planning Board must win condo owners over in just a couple of weeks.
I hope the Planning Board understands that just because an area is lacking infrastructure that will not preclude the units being built in the near future. Developers are very good at solving infrastructure issues.
So far much of the public discussion has focused on where to locate it, but the details of the zoning matter also. What is the current proposal?
The May proposal had a minimum lot sizes of 5,000 square feet for the downtown subdistrict and 15,000 square feet for in the Upper Cedar St subdistrict. These seem small to me. If the minimum lot size was larger, several lots might need to be combined which again complicates ownership.
All of the other zoning requirements also matter—such as height, frontage, set backs and etc. The warrant does not specify maps either. Since the warrant does not create any four corners to the article, maps and requirements are open to amendment at STM. Could get very messy.
I hope that residents pay attention to this issue, understand the details when they are finalized, and attend the Special Town Meeting on November 18 to vote.
Ken Weismantel
145 Ash Street
Former Chair of Planning Board and Zoning Advisory Committee
I believe that much of the issue is that, if this goes through, will result in further burden on the taxpayers in Hopkinton as well as traffic and deforestation of that area of town. What’s also alarming is the states heavy hand in forcing a policy based on the proximity to a train station that has been there for 20+ years. When state lawmakers can swoop in and enforce more control in a community with a threat to stop funding of any further necessary infrastructure that sounds like extortion and should be challenged. Sweeping changes that impact our town by people who sit on Beacon Hill and don’t even reside in Hopkinton is not acceptable.
Ken’s summary is very good and well researched. I have two major issues as a condo/home owner and a Board member. First, if we are to be rezoned, even with us asking no to be considered, there will be an impact on our property values and it won’t be positive one. Secondly maybe eminent domain would never happen, but never is a long time. Who is to say the state pushes back on Hopkinton for rezoning properties that may never or for decades not be developed? These are the concerns of the three condo communities the Planning Board has targeted. It is not right and should not be approved.
Right next door to us in Ashland, the state is pressuring the town to accept a developer-friendly proposal. I know this via a friend of mine who lives there.
I am not so sure just how unlikely it is that the state won’t use the pressure, up to eminent domain, on us too.
What bothers me is that the same people who vote time and time again for progressive lawmakers who sponsor this legislation at the state level complain when it impacts their lives and community. The front line to prevent laws like this from happening is on election day.
Sad to say that Massachusetts voters are getting what they deserve. Hopkinton too. The chickens are coming home to roost.
Your comment wasn’t banned. All comments have to be approved before they post. Apologies for the delay!