UniBank Leader Sept 2024
HomeOpinionLTE: Shouldn't the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) and Town Planner be Impartial?

LTE: Shouldn’t the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) and Town Planner be Impartial?

Published on

I have closely followed the ongoing debate surrounding the rezoning proposal to convert the corner of South Street and Hayward Street from residential to commercial. This issue has surfaced repeatedly, and each time, the residents have overwhelmingly voted it down during town meetings. Yet, we find ourselves here again, fighting the same battle.

I have been following this topic since last year. After reading recent coverage, including the article and the comments found here and here. It seems clear that there are concerted efforts, particularly by Marguerite Concrete and the town planner, to push this proposal through the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC). Marguerite is seeking assistance from the town planner to influence the ZAC despite the consistent opposition from the community.

What’s most troubling is ZAC’s praise of Marguerite’s proposal and recommendation to the Planning Board for approval. While Ron Foisy of ZAC accurately pointed out that the committee is merely advisory and has no power to approve zoning changes directly, this raises the question: Why isn’t ZAC considering the people’s will? Every time this proposal has reached a town meeting, the residents have soundly rejected it. Yet, ZAC seems intent on advancing it.

This leads me to ask: Does the town planner truly work for the benefit of our town—a town that we, the residents, care deeply about? And what exactly is ZAC trying to achieve by going against the clear wishes of the community? It is essential that these bodies, which are meant to serve the town and its people, act in line with the will of the residents, not the interests of a few developers.

It’s time the ZAC and town planner listened to the voices of the Maspenock (and Hopkinton) residents and understood the weight of the decisions made at town meetings. Anything less would be a disservice to our community, which is defined by its residents’ collective decisions.

20th Century Homes

Latest articles

Catch up with a briefing of the most important and interesting stories from Hopkinton delivered to your inbox.

11 COMMENTS

  1. A few things to consider…
    1) The proposal has only been brought to the town only one time, via citizens petition. The planning board at that time opted to not support the article, largely because it was being rushed through the wrong process.
    2) Just my two cents, but I think the PB and the ZAC ARE thinking of the town by considering it. All of South Street is already zoned commercial or industrial, and 3 of 4 corners on that intersection have commercial buildings on them. Given the financial position the town is in, I can’t think of many better properties for an office building that will generate tax revenue for the town and have virtually no impact, aside from losing some trees. Personally, I am not a fan of some of the past tactics of the applicant, but at the end of the day this is good for the town even if not desirable for a few abutters.
    3) If people want to keep land undeveloped, then they should purchase it.

    • Hi Gary,

      There is more negative than positive effects if this proposal is implemented. However the town officials want listen and to any of the residents concerns even if they are backed by the data.
      Let’s list some of the concerns
      1) traffic will dramatically change on the streets heading to the lake. Indeed, trucks willing to exit to the left will turn right to Hayward and exit using Downey. That is obvious. There has been an article analyzing this particular situation l.
      2) storm water will run off to ten stream heading to the lake. All the oils, gasoline will add up to other pollution. Did you see that the concrete company had a fire at their other locations ?
      3) financial profit is minimal. Not bigger if two residential houses are built. With much less disturbance though. Make the town to attract business to empty buildings on South street instead of that!
      4) Deep impact on the abutters. Would you like something like this at your door steps?
      I know one perfect place where no one complains ever – why does not Mr Margauirite rezone a part of his residential lot and build his office!

      And finally, he bought this land fully realizing that is residential and citizens should not be responsible for his business decisions

      Rustem

    • Gary—this building will bring a whopping 31 cent tax break. Also, put yourself in the resident’s shoes—how would you enjoy it if a building went in right at the edge of your neighborhood, especially after this was already unanimously voted down? Not only will this cause major issues for this neighborhood, it negates the vote at town meeting. It disrespects the people who voted and it nullifies the entire voting process. At that point, what is the point of voting on this or anything else at town meeting if the votes are completely ignored?

    • A couple of additional things to consider….
      1) The last town vote is still very recent and precedent of town committees blatantly ignoring voter mandates is a poor one. Further, making individual zoning exceptions is a poor approach to community planning.
      2) How can anyone say we need additional office space on South St. when there is a glut of it sitting empty right now? There is a huge office building right next door that has been empty for years (and no, you don’t need to rent the whole thing, that’s not how commercial office leases work). Regionally we’re seeing issues with office space being under utilized as hybrid work is becoming the norm, not the exception. Why isn’t the Town working with Marguerite to move into the empty Dell Building and creating a construction incubation center there for local design and building firms?
      3) Specifically on South St. the commercial properties that are doing well are those that offer services for the neighboring residents, you have PriceChopper Plaza and Ko Sushi plaza. Again, we don’t need more office space. Even the parcel across the street has converted to residential landscaping operation. It’s the residential services that offering commercial opportunities in this area, not office space.
      4) If you really need to develop the parcel in question, it would be best as a mutli-family apartment building that would be walk-able to multiple restaurants, a grocery store, a town beach, and multiple employers.
      5) Agreed that if people want to keep land undeveloped, they (or the town) should purchase it. But make no mistake we are going to see a decline in the water quality of Lake Maspenock if we keep turning wooded (naturally filtering) areas withing that watershed into lawns and pavement. Just look at the overdeveloped lakes to our east in Framingham and west in Worcester. The only fix if this trend continues is going to be costly to the Town. It means more expensive stormwater management infrastructure (and the associate maintenance) to capture road sediment/nutrients from runoff and a routine street sweeping program. And that cost will quickly outpace any short-term corporate tax benefit.

  2. Gary, Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It’s concerning that we find ourselves revisiting this debate, especially given the community’s repeated rejection of the proposal through the proper channels in the past. As a town planner you know how many times it was voted down, it’s surprising to see this being advanced again, raising questions about why we are still discussing this issue.

    1. While I understand the significance of following the right procedures, it’s disheartening to witness continued efforts to push this proposal forward despite consistent opposition from residents. It is essential that any process reflects the clear will of the community, which has been demonstrated multiple times.
    2. While I respect the financial rationale for developing the land, the persistent opposition suggests that the character and preservation of the area are of greater importance to the community. I wonder whether this proposal truly serves the long-term interests of the town if it ignores the preferences of those who live here.
    3. Although purchasing land is a means to preserve it, we should also consider whether other solutions exist that align with the community’s repeated decisions against development.

    Ultimately, along with you, our town officials—including the Zoning Advisory Committee and the Planning Board—must listen to the collective voice of the residents. Advancing a proposal that has been rejected time and again undermines the democratic process and the trust of the people who care about our town’s future.

    • Could you kindly clarify which members you’re referring to? Based on your initial comment regarding the PB’s consideration, it appears you may have some additional insight. Are you suggesting that residents live west of 495 should be treated as second-class citizens?

      • I am not the Gary on the PB. I have lived in town for over 50 years and west of 495 has historically been ignored. Ive spoken to people in town over the years and they were surprised to find out that west of 495 is part of Hopkinton.

  3. THIS IS WHAT I FOUND IN THE BYLAWS, AND WHAT THEY SAY UNDER 210-152- A, “VARIANCES” AND WHAT MUST BE FOLLOWED BY THE BOARD IN ANY VARIANCE DECSION. ITS THE LAW. I’m NOT TAKING A POSITION JUST TRYING TO HELP TO FOCUS ON THE BASIS OF THESE DECSIONS BY THE ZBA .

    §210-152. Standards. [Removed 5-6-2015 ATM, Art. 39]
    A. Variances. [Amended 4-13-1978 ATM, Art. 39; 5-3-1999 ATM, Art. 24]
    HOPKINTON ZONING BYLAWS: CHAPTER 210
    Page 102 of 148
    (1) A variance from the terms of this chapter may be granted only where the Board of Appeals
    specifically finds that:
    (a) Owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography (but not size)
    of such land or structures, and especially affecting such land or structures (but not affecting
    generally the zoning district in which it is located), a literal enforcement of the provisions of
    this chapter would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner; and
    (b) Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and
    without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of this chapter.
    (2) Failure to establish any of the standards shall constitute grounds to deny a petition for a variance.
    A variance may not be granted if the circumstance creating the hardship was self-created or the
    hardship is unrelated to the premises for which the variance is sought. The loss of the protection
    afforded a nonconforming use under § 210-127 of this chapter is not a substantial hardship
    justifying the grant of a variance. [Amended 5-4-2009 ATM, Art. 2009]
    (3) If the Board grants a variance, it may impose conditions, safeguards and limitations, both of
    time and of use, including the continued existence of any particular structures. The Board may
    not impose conditions, safeguards or limitations based upon the continued ownership of the land
    or structures by the petitioner or any owner.
    B. In all matters on which it has jurisdiction to act, the Board of Appeals shall give due consideration to
    promoting the public health, safety, convenience and welfare, shall encourage the most appropriate
    use of land and shall permit no building or use injurious, noxious, offensive or detrimental to a
    neighborhood. To this end, it may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in each case.

  4. Gary, Check out the Town Bylaws on
    §210-152. Standards. [Removed 5-6-2015 ATM, Art. 39]
    A. Variances. [Amended 4-13-1978 ATM, Art. 39; 5-3-1999 ATM, Art. 24]
    HOPKINTON ZONING BYLAWS: CHAPTER 210
    Page 102 of 148
    I think its very helpful in bringing context to what the Board is supposed to do when considering a Variance or “use” change.

  5. There are a few things that need to be unpacked here (in the letter and the comments). I will preface this with the information that I do not want the corner re-zoned either, but I also think that frustrations are being directed to the wrong places by many of those who do not want to see this kind commercial/industrial development near residential areas. There has been growing confusion especially with the very different project over on West Main Street that is under discussion as well and I think that if we are going to make sure that energy is flowing to the right areas if we are going to be successful in maintaining the health of our neighborhoods and natural resources.

    First, in the comments there are a few people referencing §210-152 of the Town Bylaws. A variance isn’t currently part of the discussion as the current zoning wouldn’t allow the use to be changed to an industrial property. This is not being heard as a variance by the ZBA, this is being proposed to voters as a change in the zoning and only 2/3 of Town Meeting voters can authorize a change in our zoning. Appointed and hired members of government are not intended to be accountable to voters and make well rounded recommendations so that they can make informed decisions.

    The second is of course to remember that Town staff are not against you and are not taking sides, they are given directives by their own bosses to work with certain goals in mind. The Select Board, Planning Board, and every advisory committee that has looked at growth in town has said that they should be attracting more business development that will have less impact on our overburdened schools, without the loss of tax revenue that comes from other uses. They have been directed by the Town for the Town to help prospective new businesses navigate the intricacies of the process to get their plan to fruition and you will find that they do the same for you when you are trying to find how to make an addition on your home. In the same vein, it is not the practice of Town staff to be obstructionist when residents are operating within the boundary of the law.

    Currently, Mr. Marguerite is following all of the rules, a year and a half ago he was as well, but it wasn’t necessarily done in good faith. Perhaps that good faith has been lost and the voters of Hopkinton will not let him alter the zoning of that corner. But that is not a decision that Town officials are making and frankly I don’t want them making it nor do I want to have them interpret the will of the voters in a way that would, that is a decision for the voters. We choose if this lot changes and if we are still unanimously against it then that will not change.

    tldr: Voters are the ones who can make the change. Don’t waste energy casting blame and vilifying public servants, vote for the change you want to see in your community.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

More like this