Dear Editor,
I attended the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) meeting on August 26, 2024, where Marguerite Concrete’s proposal to rezone the corner of Hayward St. and South St. was discussed again.
Here’s a brief history: Marguerite Concrete purchased these lots, which were zoned residential at the time. Despite being aware of the residential zoning before the purchase, the company now seeks special treatment from ZAC to rezone the area from residential to a rural business district. They aim to build a 35,000-square-foot corporate headquarters rather than renting or purchasing from the many vacant properties along South St.
In 2023, the town unanimously voted against spot-zoning at the Town Meeting. In 2012, when EMC proposed expanding its parking lot, ZAC voted against it, citing that it had been residential since the 1960s.
Despite this, ZAC has now approved the rezoning proposal. This decision promotes further zoning changes for residential areas, increases noise and light pollution, and breaks EMC’s promise to keep the property undeveloped as a buffer zone.
Marguerite Concrete argues that 8-foot trees and dark-sky-compliant lighting will mitigate these issues, but this overlooks that neighboring houses are taller than 8 feet. Imagine having a bright office next to your home, constantly lighting up bedrooms at night when the area was previously dark.
Additionally, the rezoning complicates emergency vehicle access and accelerates pollution of Lake Maspenock, as runoff from the parking lot would flow into an adjacent river and eventually the lake. Remember, Marguerite’s Hopedale headquarters burned down in June 2019 and required Hazmat cleanup. What if a similar incident occurred in this residential area next to a river flowing into the lake?
With so many vacant buildings along South St., why is rezoning necessary now? The financial benefits are minimal, estimated at around $60,000 annually, or just 31 cents per month per taxpayer.
Marguerite’s latest proposal disregards the town’s 2023 decision to vote NO on this issue. Town officials appear to be encouraging Marguerite to ignore the residents’ will. Again.
Is it worth disregarding the voices of Hopkinton residents, altering a 60-year precedent, and impacting an entire neighborhood for the benefit of one entity? Should a corporation’s interests outweigh those of approximately 300 households?
I urge residents to oppose the rezoning proposal. Consider how you would feel if a similar situation occurred in your neighborhood.
Town officials appear to be encouraging Marguerite to ignore the residents’ will. Again.
Whats the purpose of a town meeting if they ignore the people. No vote then a yes.
Hope they figure out the water situation run off into the lake for sure.
Point of clarification: the writer of this letter states that “ZAC has now approved the rezoning proposal”. ZAC is an advisory board and has no power to approve a zoning change. ZAC recommended to the Planning Board that they should consider the proposal from Marguerite Concrete to rezone the property.
That’s a good clarification but it still doesn’t change the fact that the ZAC recommended the Planning Board consider the proposal despite the recent and very clear results of the town meeting vote. If Marguerite had initiated another question for the next town meeting and had the voters support, then I could see how the ZAC could make their recommendation, but that’s not what happened. Instead we had a multi-meeting evaluation of a proposed redevelopment plan that in no way binds the applicant to build what was discussed and precedent that near unanimous votes at town meeting can be ignored by town committees in the months following the actual vote. We also have the ongoing issue of single parcel zoning changes which seems to be a major problem if the goal of zoning more broadly is to have some control on community development. We’re swinging the door wide open for every random request, which seems to render town planning through zoning irrelevant.
Ron, are you saying that ZAC is an obsolete committee because it approves zoning changes not taking into account 1) the rezoning voted down unanimously a year ago on the town meeting, 2) numerous arguments of the citizens such as lake pollution, traffic hazard, safety of the neighborhood and etc, 3) the proponents worked with town (as it was said and answered on the last Zac meeting) to make the proposal more attractive to the public. Yes, that was one of the concerns and it was just one of may others.
Zac seems not be able to make unbiased decisions!
Ron,
As background, I’ll factually recap the reasons why I wrote this article:
-The general opinion of some folks around town is–(1) this would just be 1 more building on South St. No big deal, Right?, (2) this would be needed a break on tax revenue. This also seems to be the opinion of the ZAC board (based on the vote on 8/26)
-The people of this town unanimously voted “NO” this lot re-zoning at the May 2023 town meeting, as well as voting “NO” to this lot re-zoning at several previous town meetings. Our votes were deliberately & willfully ignored once the ZAC board members voted (on 8/26) that this re-zoning should now be recommended to the planning board. Again: your vote ignores our votes. That is not democracy.
-The people of the Lake Maspenock neighborhood are directly affected by this re-zoning decision. This will ruin the lake and ruin our neighborhood.
-We can barely offer any rebuttals to this at ZAC & Planning board meetings. We are told which points that we can & cannot bring up with our comments. When we are able to talk at these meetings, we are gas lighted, our comments marginalized & shrugged off, ignored or simply cut off in the middle of speaking
-our only means of rebuttal is via outlets like Hop News. We write articles (which takes time!), apply the editing suggestions from the editor, make those edits in the article, then agree upon a final article with the editor. Still, those articles are then edited down & re-written, losing the entire point of the article. I’m citing my experience with (not this article) a follow up article which I submitted Friday 9/6, saw the article online on Sunday 9/8, then had to ask the editor to take the article off the web site as the content now made little sense after the editor re-wrote my article & put my name on it.
-Therefore, we as citizens seem to have no voice in this town! We don’t matter to any of the powers that be. Clearly.
-Further, my points in this article, are all 100% fact-based, researched & valid. I couched my points as “concerns”. But, all of my points are the actual real outcomes if this lot is re-zoned, including dangerous traffic issues. I would be happy to take this offline & amicably (and factually) debate each point with you in person.
-The ZAC board (including yourself) are willing to recommend this, literally ignoring your own neighbors for $60k per year, aka 31 cents per household (the actual number, not $100k per year which would still approximately be a whopping 53 cents per household and definitely under $1.00) tax break. That’s enough money for 1 gum ball, but not even enough for 1 US postage stamp. But, somehow, it still makes perfect logical sense to the ZAC board.
To those reading my article and this response, what if this happened in your neighborhood? We need you at the next town meeting. Stand with us!
This situation makes one wonder who the ZAC and other town officials represent. It certainly has the appearance they they are representing certain parties and not the majority of the citizens of Hopkinton.
1. A member of the ZAC misrepresented public concerns, suggesting that not all land could be preserved for conservation. However, the neighborhood’s opposition was not against constructing two houses as permitted by the correct zoning but rather against commercialization.
2. A few weeks ago, a ZAC member asked the planning board to reject a citizen’s petition to convert a residential lot to a business, citing concerns about increased traffic and other potential impacts on his neighborhood. However, despite repeated requests and facts provided by affected residents, he conveniently ignored the same concerns for Lake Maspenoeck residents.
3. The ZAC should focus solely on rezoning the lot, not on the proposed building plan. However, the town planner assisted Margurite Concrete, who openly stated they worked with the planner to move the proposal forward, diluting the entire discussion.
I am always surprised, I guess I should not be, that everyone shows up and votes at town meeting, and then these initiatives move ahead outside of town meeting until they find a way to go directly against the will of the people by holding meeting after meeting. Again, I think we are very poorly represented by these committees. The Zoning Board recommendation should be denied as it completely disregards the vote at Town Meeting and all of the valid concerns of the affected neighborhood. I wonder how the Conservation Commission feels about the negative effect on the lake? Again, this process is so broken.
This land was purchased under the assumption that this would happen. We can not reward this by allowing this Zoning change to pass. Please respect the vote.