HomeMy Public PortalAbout20161121 - Planning Board - AgendaTOWN OF HOPKINTON
PLANNING BOARD
Monday November 21, 2016 7:30 PM
Room 215, Town Hall, 18 Main Street, Hopkinton, MA
AGENDA
7:35 Public Hearing - Master Plan Update
Business to be considered by the Board at any time during the meeting:
●Approve Minutes (October 11. 2016)
●Board member comments, reports, liaison reports, or future agenda items
●Correspondence
TOWN OF HOPKINTON
DEPARTMENT OF
LAND USE, PLANNING AND PERMITTING
TOWN HALL
18 MAIN STREET
HOPKINTON, MA 01748
508-497-9745
www.hopkintonma.gov
DATE: November 16, 2016
TO: Planning Board
FROM: Jennifer Burke, Principal Planner
RE: Items on November 21, 2016 Planning Board Agenda
1. Public Hearing – Master Plan Update
I have enclosed the most recent draft of the Master Plan Update for your review. Also enclosed
are any written comments received to date:
1. Cindy Chesmore, Senior Center Director
2. Amy Beck, Asst. Director, Senior Center
3. Hopkinton Historic District
4. Board of Selectmen/Town Manager
Enclosed are 4 draft maps proposed for inclusion in the Master Plan. Map 1 is the Land Use
Map, Map 2 is the Zoning Map, Map 3 is the Wildlife Resources Map and Map 4 is the Water
Distribution System Map.
As a reminder the following Board members worked on the following chapters:
Economic Development – Frank D’Urso, Fran DeYoung
Community Facilities and Services – John Ferrari, Claire Wright
Transportation – Matt Wade
Land Use – Brian Karp
Housing – Ken Weismantel
Natural, Cultural and Open Space Resources – John Ferrari
After discussing it with Elaine, it probably makes the most sense to hear from the people who are
present first, since it is a public hearing. Then after that the Board can add any additional
information or have more discussion.
2. Annual Goals
I have updated the list of goals with your names by the ones you have taken on.
2
3. Updates
At the last meeting the Board had asked for updates on a couple of issues:
The 4 way stop at Legacy Farms North/Wilson Street – The Board of Selectmen
reviewed your recommendation and would like a traffic professional (engineer) to review
the intersection and provide a recommendation. I believe Elaine is working on that.
The Left turn signal on West Main Street onto Lumber Street – The traffic study does not
meet the warrants to activate the signal. The study was reviewed within the last few
months as part of the MPSP conditions. John Westerling also had it peer reviewed and
no changes were proposed at this time. It will be reviewed again when the 100th
residential CO is issued. That is anticipated to happen this Spring.
4. Future Meetings
December 5
79 Hayden Rowe – Minor Site Plan Approval
52 Wilson Street – Minor Site Plan Approval
66 Fruit Street – Modification to existing Site Plan Approval
December 19
January 9
Legacy North Villages – Changes to Site Plan Approval
January 23
As a reminder I will be on vacation Friday November 18-Wednesday November 30. I will be
back in the office on December 1. Elaine and Cobi will be at your meeting on Monday and
should be able to address anything that might come up.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!!
1
2016 Hopkinton Master Plan –Draft – 10/14/16
Contents
Vision ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 4
Master Plan Goals ........................................................................................................................ 5
Land Use ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Natural, Cultural and Open Space Resources ........................................................................ 20
Housing & Residential Development ...................................................................................... 30
Economic Development ............................................................................................................ 40
Community Facilities & Services ............................................................................................. 48
Transportation ............................................................................................................................ 61
Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................. 73
2
Vision
Hopkinton Overarching Vision
Hopkinton is a vibrant welcoming community centrally located in New England and
nestled 26.2 miles west of Boston.
We are endowed with open space, natural resources, facilities and programs that
promote a well educated and healthy community.
We are respectful of our past, engaged in our present, and actively
preparing for our future.
Based on our history, our values and our creativity,
we the citizens of Hopkinton will:
Foster a culture of respect, collaboration and communication among Hopkinton
citizens using an array of innovative methods and new technologies to make bold
forward thinking decisions on Town issues over the next ten years.
Actively build consensus for a citizen-focused, well managed, fiscally sound, open and
fair town government.
Sustain and support an educational system of excellence.
Maintain Hopkinton as a safe community through continued support of public safety
functions.
Encourage new growth and redevelopment consistent with our values and d esires to
protect the unique features of the town while allowing expanded employment, housing
and revenue opportunities.
Ensure future growth that provides an appropriate balance of distinct residential,
commercial, institutional and government buildings and public spaces reflecting the
attractive and historic town character of Hopkinton.
Encourage public/private partnerships that revitalize and invigorate the downtown,
creating a more vibrant and walkable center with an exciting mix of stores, offices,
services, and restaurants.
3
Collaborate with local and regional officials in the MetroWest area to increase
transportation options for all residents, including the creation of a biking system
throughout Hopkinton that provides a safe mode of travel and a healthy and valued
activity.
Promote sustainability and energy conservation throughout our town plans, actions
and public investments to maintain Hopkinton’s status as a green community leader.
Protect open spaces and natural resources, build upon the town’s history and cultural
heritage, and treasure our beautiful and special places as they define our community
identity and character.
4
Acknowledgements
The Hopkinton Master Plan is a blueprint for our future that will help to guide our choices and
decisions as a Town. The Plan discusses current and projected needs, establishes goals and
identifies some of the ways we can achieve these goals together. The Board feels that the Plan is
realistic and optimistic – we can achieve these goals if there is a collective will to do so, and if
we do, Hopkinton will continue to be the place we are proud to call home.
The Planning Board thanks all those who participated in this update of the Master Plan,
especially the Hopkinton Visioning Steering Group, current and past members of the Planning
Board who have worked through many complex issues, Elaine Lazarus and Jennifer Burke, who
have put in many hours to translate our ideas and thoughts into words, and the public, without
whose thoughts and insights this Plan would not have been possible.
Hopkinton Visioning Steering Group
Tim Kilduff
Tom Terry
John Coutinho
Peter LaGoy
Deb Thomas
Mavis O’Leary
Kristin Dykstra
Susan Marshall
Planning Board Members
Ken Weismantel
Vincent Cerulle
Fran DeYoung
Frank D’Urso
John Ferrari
Brian Karp
Clifford Kistner
David Paul
Matthew Wade
Past Planning Board Members
Claire Wright
Deborah Thomas
Frank Sivo
John Coutinho
Dick MacDonald
Todd Holbrook
Mark Abate
Christian Ollenborger
5
Master Plan Goals
Land Use GOals
Coordinate Town services to keep pace with development.
Protect critical natural resources.
Encourage commercial and industrial uses that are compatible with surrounding
neighborhoods and Hopkinton’s community character.
Monitor the Town’s land use regulations to facilitate desirable growth, including
encouragement of private redevelopment of property in the Industrial Districts
and the downtown area.
Natural, Cultural & Open Space Resources goals
Retain the rural and historic fabric of Hopkinton. Facilitate and encourage
historic preservation.
Preserve and enhance large tracts of privately owned open land in agricultural,
recreational, or undeveloped use.
Link public, private and semi-public open spaces together to form corridors for
wetlands, wildlife and recreational uses and preserve wildlife corridors.
Document the Town’s natural resources and features and encourage responsible
land planning.
Housing & Residential Development goals
Monitor housing development and create new affordable rental housing when
needed so that the Town remains above the 10% affordable housing goal.
Maintain a balanced housing stock, and modify the Zoning Bylaw as needed to
guide future residential development.
Study ways to create lower priced dwellings for first time home buyers.
Develop formal policies relating to the development of back lots, the creation of
dead end streets and the process for construction of paper streets.
Economic Development goals
6
Improve transportation access to Hopkinton’s business “nodes”.
Provide more downtown parking.
Maintain zoning regulations that reflect the Town’s wishes for commercial
growth and development.
Manage economic opportunities.
Diversify the tax base.
Improve access to information.
Provide adequate infrastructure, including water and sewer, in commercial and
industrial areas to facilitate growth.
Community facilities & services goals
Protect land around existing and future public water supplies.
Require aquifer recharge.
Provide adequate space for Town facilities.
Provide sewer service to areas of greatest need; Study and plan sewer build-out to
support land use planning.
Maintain and improve existing recreation facilities and create new facilities to
serve the needs of Hopkinton residents.
Transportation goals
Improve & maintain the existing transportation system to provide adequate
service to accommodate future growth.
Provide alternatives to automobile transportation, including bicycle and
pedestrian facilities and networks.
Improve public safety by addressing problematic and hazardous intersections.
7
Land Use
The Land Use element of a master plan provides a policy framework for managing growth and
change. Land use refers to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional development,
along with open land, natural resources and roadways. The location, physical arrangement and
intensity of land uses come together to create land use patterns, which tell the story of a
community’s physical evolution from rural settlement to modern suburb.
The majority of the land in Hopkinton is wooded and is about evenly split between developed
(46%) and undeveloped (54%). Most of the vacant land is zoned for residential use, but zoning
alone does not determine how land is used now or will be used in the future. Other laws and
regulations that work in conjunction with zoning, such as wetlands protection and Title V, exert
considerable control over the development of land and the intensity of land use. For example,
Hopkinton’s multi-family and townhouse developments usually have fewer units than allowed
by zoning because wetland constraints and the difficulties of providing on-site wastewater
disposal systems made the maximum permissible density unattainable. Developers of single-
family homes often encounter the same kinds of challenges. In addition, factors such as
ownership, deed restrictions and perpetual conservation restrictions may prevent or substantially
limit future land use change.
Planning for the future requires an analysis of how land is currently zoned for various uses and
how much development the available supply of land can support. A mismatch of zoning, land
supply and future needs for homes, businesses, municipal or school facilities, parks and open
space means that communities need regulatory and non-regulatory techniques to implement their
master plans. A good example is Hopkinton’s long-standing commitment to open space zoning
and open space acquisitions, which together have helped to preserve the community character
that residents cherish.
HOPKINTON TODAY
Hopkinton’s landscape includes a rich collection of ledges, hills, open and forested land, several
large bodies of water, and streams that run throughout the Town. These features define
Hopkinton’s natural beauty and contribute indelibly to its physical form. Nodes of early
In 2025, Hopkinton has appropriately scaled, well designed and sited new commercial
development including retail, service and office uses in the town center and along the I-
495 corridor and also a mix of housing types that serve to enhance Hopkinton’s
community character.
8
settlement can be seen in
Woodville and Hopkinton
Center, while historic homes and
the agricultural outbuildings of
farms and wood lots still stand
here and there, including on Pond
Street, Fruit Street and Elm
Street. Although a considerable
amount of development has
occurred since the early 1990’s,
Hopkinton still has large tracts of
vacant land that provide color,
texture and a mosaic of rural
imagery in a changing town.
Community Character
Hopkinton’s family-oriented
traditions are reflected in its land use pattern, for in many ways the Town has evolved as a
community built for families. Spacious single-family homes, schools and places to play form a
dominant impression of Hopkinton, much like its open space and scenic vistas. The large,
expensive new homes built in Hopkinton today address market preferences for the same type of
product in other affluent suburbs, yet the Town’s recent subdivisions belie the diversity found in
its single-family home inventory and the distinctive character of its older neighborhoods. The
street network hints at these differences, for Hopkinton roads document the Town’s evolution
from rural village to industrial center and modern suburb.
Land use in Hopkinton is framed by long, radial roadways that converge in the downtown area
and run outward to the region’s historic economic centers, notably Framingham, Milford and
Marlborough. The linear village of Woodville is nestled along one of these roadways, Wood
Street, just east of Whitehall Brook and north of the small ponds that became Lake Whitehall in
the late 1800s. Woodville evolved around water dependent industries that tapped the hydro-
power of Whitehall Brook. Today, many of Hopkinton’s older roads double as rural arterials
carrying through traffic and local streets serving residential land uses. Historic homes stand
along Pond Street, West Elm Street, Lumber Street and Hayden Rowe, often surrounded by
newer houses that were built as farming became increasingly uneconomic.
In contrast, Hopkinton Center’s compact development pattern includes a grid of interconnected
streets with a shape that bears an unmistakable relationship to the curve of the old Milford-
Woonsocket railroad tracks. The image of a thriving, densely settled commercial center
surrounded by rolling hills and farms inspired O.H. Bailey’s 1880 panoramic map, which depicts
a Hopkinton that differs significantly from the place many people describe as Hopkinton today.
Only two years after Bailey’s map was published, a fire destroyed 14 manufacturing buildings
and all but assured the collapse of Hopkinton’s shoe and boot industry. Nonetheless, the imprint
of Hopkinton’s industrial period endures in the unique configuration of streets in Hopkinton
Center.
9
As development gradually extended into outlying rural areas, a new street hierarchy with roads
reflecting the design principles of their day was etched into the land. Hopkinton’s suburban
transition can be seen in the curvilinear looped roads that serve postwar subdivisions such as
Eastview Road and Robbern Road, or Priscilla Road. Sub-collectors such as Briarcliff Drive and
Thayer Heights Road followed, along with numerous culs-de-sac thought to encourage
neighborhood identity, provide privacy and separate residences from through traffic. Teresa
Road, off Hayden Rowe Street, is a classic 1970’s subdivision, comprised of a deep access road
that serves multiple interior culs-de-sac, all surrounded by single family homes. More recent
examples of the same type of street hierarchy exist throughout East Hopkinton and south of Lake
Whitehall in the western part of town, attesting to the conversion of large tracts of land to new
development.
Not surprisingly, the views from the road change dramatically from one end of Hopkinton to the
other, and these views shape the town’s character. From the vistas across Lake Whitehall or the
former Weston Nurseries to the intimacy of Woodville and the deep forests along Winter Street,
views from the road reveal the mix of historic and contemporary land uses that make Hopkinton
so inviting to those who live and work here.
LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS
Residential Development
From 1993 to 2015, the total number of housing units in Hopkinton increased from 3,700 to
5,849, or 2,149 new units. Nearly all of the 6,235 acres of land in residential use today consists
of detached single family homes (90%), the predominant form of development in Hopkinton. A
comparatively small amount of land was developed for multi-family use until 2012, when
construction on the south side of Legacy Farms began. While still a small area in comparison, it
is more noticeable. The Town also has some older, two-family and three-family homes and a
small collection of older multi-family buildings, located mainly in downtown neighborhoods, on
Hayden Rowe and in Woodville. In addition, the Housing Authority owns a small senior and
family housing development on the periphery of downtown Hopkinton.
Hopkinton’s single family residential development pattern is not homogeneous. Many streets in
Hopkinton are lined with single family homes, yet the houses vary considerably by age and style,
such as historic residences that lie close to the road and face the street, and newer homes with
fairly uniform setbacks that reflect the impact of zoning. Although most developments built
since the late 1980’s include clusters of single family homes and common open space, the Town
also has some large-lot development, such as estate lots, and approximately 600 acres in very
large parcels that have some potential for future subdivision. Several of these large, potentially
developable parcels contain existing single family homes that are quite old.
10
Residential Land Use
Residential Use Acres
Single-Family Homes* 5,660
Condominiums 346
Two-Family Homes 59
Three-Family Homes 11
Multi-Family 60
*Includes single family homes with accessory apartments, mobile homes, congregate residences, multiple single
family dwellings on one lot.
Commercial and Industrial Development
Commercial uses occupy approximately 175 acres of land in Hopkinton. The commercial
property inventory includes small retail establishments, supermarket, pharmacy, restaurants,
office space, a lumber yard, warehouse and distribution facilities, auto repair facilities, and dry
cleaners. A majority of Hopkinton’s commercial development exists in and adjacent to the
downtown area and around the I-495 interchange. The Hopkinton Square development at the
corner of West Main Street and South Street is the newest addition to the commercial inventory.
The development is fully occupied.
Over time, the Industrial A District on South Street has attracted a number of industries, notably
EMC Corporation, Hopkinton’s largest private sector employer. Industrial uses occupy about
718 acres, most of which is on South Street. Uses include manufacturing, warehouses,
biotechnology, research and development facilities and a recycling facility. A gas production
plant, natural gas storage and other utilities account for another 103 acres of land in industrial
use.
Mixed Uses
Hopkinton has a relatively small number of properties with multiple uses, such as housing units
with an associated business or commercial buildings with upper floor apartments. There are 27
properties with a mix of residential and commercial uses, most of which are a single family
home with an attached business or professional office: larger than home occupations and
operating in residential neighborhoods, mainly as nonconforming uses. Other properties in the
mixed-use inventory include commercial buildings with apartments, a separate residence or a
small industrial use on the same parcel. Hopkinton’s mixed-use properties tend to be old and
well-established, for most of the buildings date to the late 19th century. Although limited in
number, these properties comprise a recognizable part of the land use pattern in areas such as
Hayden Rowe, Wood Street and portions of Main Street.
Institutional Uses
As a small suburb, Hopkinton does not have large amounts of land devoted to institutional uses:
schools, colleges or universities, libraries, museums, churches, hospitals or nursing homes, non-
profit charitable organizations, cemeteries, or government buildings. For the most part,
institutional uses in Hopkinton consist of schools, churches and a limited number of non-profit
services. Approximately 320 acres of land are used for public and private educational uses, 76
acres for religious uses, 33 acres for cemeteries, and another 127 acres for various municipal
uses, non-profit cultural organizations, and supportive housing. Many of the institutional uses,
11
notably the public schools, include land used for other purposes such as outdoor recreation
facilities.
In 2015, a plan was approved that would allow 20 acres of a 57 acre parcel of former agricultural
land to be reutilized as a solar photovoltaic farm. There are plans for future solar projects in
Hopkinton in the future.
Open Land
Open land refers to undeveloped parcels in private or public ownership, including land used for
conservation, parks and recreation purposes, and future town or school facilities. Today,
Hopkinton has 8,789 acres of open land, of which approximately 4,896 acres are privately owned
and potentially available for development. Although many parcels have development potential,
other parcels are constrained by covenants or deed restrictions, inadequate or no access,
wetlands, or soils unsuitable for development, and these conditions limit the probability of a
change in use or simply prohibit it. It is important to note that open land is not the only land
available for development because large parcels with a residence and enough land for further
subdivision may also generate growth in the future.
Chapter 61, 61A and 61B. About 1,030 acres of Hopkinton’s open land consists of land
under Chapter 61, 61A or 61B agreements and related large parcels that include the home or
business of the property owner. Virtually all of the Chapter 61, 61A or 61B inventory in
Hopkinton is zoned for residential development. The amount of land in this category has
decreased dramatically with the withdrawal of most of the Weston Nurseries land from the
Chapter 61A program. In 2006, the Town had over 2,000 acres in this category.
Vacant Residential Land. Hopkinton has 2,659 acres of vacant, privately owned land
zoned for residential use. About half of the acres in these parcels have severe development
constraints.
Vacant Commercial & Industrial Land. Hopkinton has about 183 acres of vacant land
zoned for commercial and industrial use. Most of the remaining vacant land is in the
industrial districts (45 acres), Neighborhood Mixed Use District (56 acres) and office
districts (74 acres). The commercial districts are small, and there only a small percentage of
them are vacant. These are areas where redevelopment is more of a possibility. Some of the
industrial, professional office and office park zoned land has limited use potential due to
wetlands, access or other constraints.
Public Open Space. The Town of Hopkinton, state agencies and non-profit land trusts own
a considerable inventory of open land that is protected from future development, or very
unlikely to be developed due to the public purposes for which the land was originally
acquired. In addition to land used for schools and municipal facilities (institutional uses), the
Town owns approximately 1,323 acres of open land, much of it perpetually restricted for
conservation and open space, and about 20% of it restricted to protect existing or future
drinking water supplies. Land acquired for public water supplies remains protected from
development unless or until the wells are permanently decommissioned.
12
The Towns of Ashland and Upton collectively own 31 acres in Hopkinton: Ashland, for
water supply purposes and Upton, for conservation land (Peppercorn Hill).
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts owns more than 2,500 acres of permanently
protected, state-owned open space in Hopkinton, mainly in two areas: Whitehall State Park
around Lake Whitehall and the Hopkinton State Park adjacent to the Hopkinton Reservoir.
These properties are managed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).
Land Trusts. Conservation organizations such as the Massachusetts Audubon Society,
Sudbury Valley Trustees and the Hopkinton Area Land Trust (HALT) own about 400 acres
of land in Hopkinton for conservation and open space purposes.
Common Open Space. There are 955 acres of common open space in private developments,
nearly all created under the Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development (OSLPD)
bylaw. In fact, open land preserved as a direct result of new development increased by 295%
from 1992-1998 and another 48% from 1998-2004. In many cases, these parcels are owned
and managed by HALT, while homeowners associations manage other parcels.
LAND USE REGULATION
Zoning
Hopkinton has twelve zoning districts at the present time (Map ___). About 67% of the Town is
in the Agricultural District, a traditional, large-lot residential zone, and 28% in the Residence A,
Residence B and Residence Lake Front Districts combined, where smaller minimum lot sizes
tend to reflect development patterns already in place when Hopkinton adopted zoning. The
remaining 5% is in the Business, Downtown Business, Rural Business, Industrial A and B,
Office Park, Professional Office and Neighborhood Mixed Use Districts combined. Hopkinton
also has four zoning overlay districts: The Floodplain District, the Hotel Overlay District, the
Water Resources Protection Overlay District (WRPOD) and the Open Space Mixed Use
Development (OSMUD) Overlay District. The Floodplain district covers areas within the 100-
year flood plain as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The
WRPOD covers the Zones I, II and III contributory to all of the Town’s existing and permitted
wells and Zones A, B and C around Echo Lake, one of Milford’s drinking water sources. It also
includes the radii around condominium development water supplies and the entire Zone II and III
for wells serving the Towns of Ashland and Holliston. Within each district, activities are
regulated which could potentially harm drinking water supplies.
The OSMUD Overlay District covers Legacy Farms, about 733 acres of former Weston
Nurseries land. When built out, up to 233 acres of the District will be developed and a minimum
of 500 acres preserved as open land.
In Hopkinton, the Planning Board has authority to issue a Special Permit for alternatives to
conventional single-family home development. In 1988, Town Meeting established the OSLPD
bylaw to encourage “cluster” housing in layouts that preserve land as permanent open space.
Owing to the Planning Board’s success at encouraging developers to apply for OSLPD permits
instead of filing conventional subdivision plans, most developments built during the 1990s
13
included permanently protected open space. In 2000, Town Meeting changed the bylaw by
making OSLPD a mandatory process unless the Planning Board agrees that a site is not suitable
for OSLPD design.
Hopkinton has allowed multi-family housing in all residential zoning districts since the early
1970s, beginning with the “Garden Apartments in Residential Districts” bylaw. This concept
was adapted later to create a Senior Housing Development bylaw. Together, the Garden
Apartments and Senior Housing bylaws have produced about 369 condominium units in
Hopkinton (condominiums have also been produced through comprehensive permits). A similar
theme led to the Campus Style Development bylaw, which promotes building clusters around
urban and natural open space on larger sites in the Industrial A, Industrial B and Rural Business
districts. These bylaws have been modified over the years in response to the Town’s housing
needs, and the Senior Housing Development bylaw was repealed in 2016.
Other Regulations
The Planning Board, Board of Appeals, Conservation Commission, Board of Health, Design
Review Board and the Historic District Commissions all have roles in reviewing and approving
development in Hopkinton. Under the Zoning Bylaw, the Planning Board and Board of Appeals
have authority to issue special permits, and the Massachusetts Subdivision Control Law gives the
Planning Board jurisdiction over any division or subdivision of land.
The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (G.L. c.131, Section 40) and the Hopkinton
Wetlands Protection Bylaw, both administered by the Hopkinton Conservation Commission,
help to protect wetland resources from adverse effects of new development. By law, the
Hopkinton Board of Health has authority to review, approve or disapprove on-site wastewater
disposal systems, not only as administrators of Title V of the Massachusetts Environmental
Code, but also through its own wastewater regulations. Hopkinton also has a Stormwater
Management bylaw which is administered by the Planning Board.
The Design Review Board conducts advisory reviews of all Site Plan submittals to the Planning
Board. Site Plans are submitted for non-residential projects, but the Board also reviews all site
plans submitted in the OSMUD district, whether residential or commercial. The Board meets
with the proponents and reviews the design, landscaping and site planning, using its adopted
Design Guidelines and the Zoning Bylaw provisions as guidance. The Board works with the
applicant to achieve a site design that meets the vision of the Town in the particular area. The
Board provides advisory recommendations to the applicant and to the Planning Board. Th e
Design Review Board also reviews applications for permanent signs.
Finally, Hopkinton has two local historic districts: the Hopkinton Center Historic District and the
Woodville Historic District. In these areas, construction activity affecting the exterior of
buildings and structures is subject to review and approval by the appropriate Historic District
Commission.
14
LAND USE CHANGE
Measured by population growth,
Hopkinton has ranked among the
state’s most rapidly growing
towns for more than 20 years. It
joined a handful of Middlesex
County communities that had a
higher population growth rate
during the 1990s than in the
decade following World War II,
yet all of the other communities
are cities that lost population to
the suburbs after 1950: Everett,
Cambridge, Malden, Lowell and
Somerville. Compared to
surrounding towns, Hopkinton
has absorbed a large share of the region’s incoming population and not surprisingly, the Town’s
population growth runs parallel to a large amount of new residential development.
Land use change can be measured in parcel acres by class of use or by acres covered by various
uses. Land coverage is a more accurate way of representing what people see on the ground or in
aerial photographs. It also has the advantage of being measurable over a long period of time, for
land coverage records dating to 1971 have been digitized and interpreted according to a
consistent land use classification scheme. Moreover, land coverage can be reported regionally,
which helps to place local land use patterns and land use change in a larger geographic context.
The disadvantage is that since land coverage statistics depend on periodic flyovers of the entire
state, the most recent data reflect conditions visible from the air in 2005.
In Hopkinton’s region, Framingham is the only community that experienced relatively few land
use changes from 1971-1999, and this is because Framingham has been a maturely developed
economic center for many years. However, growth has extended throughout the region over the
past four decades, mainly in the form of new low-density housing development and to a lesser
extent, new industrial development. In Hopkinton, more than 2,700 acres of forest-covered or
agricultural land were converted to homes and 182 acres to industry, largely responding to the
completion of I-495. The effects of regional highway construction can also be seen in
Westborough and Milford, and in communities served by interconnecting roadways, such as
Ashland and Holliston. The rate of growth and development slowed after 2005 due to the
economic downturn, but has increased since 2012.
15
Land Use Change – Percent of All Land
1974 1992 1998 2007 2015
Residential 14% 28% 32% 33% 38%
Commercial 8% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Industrial 0.50% 6% 4% 4% 4%
Agriculture 8% 9% 7% 6% 2%
Vacant 46% 33% 31% 19% 18%
Protected
Open Space
13% 13% 20% 24% 28%
Other 10.5% 10% 5% 13% 9%
Hopkinton has clearly absorbed a considerable amount of new development since the early
1970s. The vast majority of this growth has replaced forest covered land with low-density
housing. By 1999, however, the Town had lost a larger percentage of its 1971 agricultural land
than forested land – and in 1971, Hopkinton had lost 41% of the agricultural land that existed in
1951. These local statistics mirror the decline in farming statewide, which can be traced to the
acceleration of suburban development after World War II. Additional losses occurred when
much of Weston Nurseries was sold for development.
Residential development is not the only land use change that has occurred in Hopkinton. The
Town has also built new schools and recreation facilities to accommodate population growth,
and nearly all of the industrial development that exists off South Street today has been
constructed since the early 1970s.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Several years ago, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA)
commissioned studies to determine the future build-out potential of every city and town in the
state. The studies used Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to identify developed
land and absolute constraints on new development, estimate the available land supply, and
calculate how much development could occur under a community’s current zoning regulations.
According to EOEA’s analysis, Hopkinton had 7,614 acres of potentially developable land in
1999. The build-out analysis concluded that if all of the land were developed under present
zoning, Hopkinton’s population would reach a maximum of 18,350 people. It also estimated
new-growth impacts of 1,671 additional (new) K-12 students, 2,785 additional housing units, 47
additional road miles, 4,846,298 sq. ft. of additional commercial and industrial floor area,
additional residential water demand of 568,090 gallons per day (gpd) and additional commercial
and industrial demand of 363,472 per day (gpd). Since then, more than 1,000 acres have been
developed or preserved as permanent open space, and the Town’s population has increased from
13,346 (Census 2000) to 14,925 (Census 2010). Significantly, school enrollment steadily
increased to a peak of 3,462 students in 2009-2010. Since this peak, enrollment has remained
consistent with 3,462 students in 2014-2015 and 3,459 students in 2015-2016. The changes
generally track population growth – rapid growth which then slowed down, and a general aging
16
of the population since 2000 countered by growth in new housing units. Total enrollment is
predicted to decline slowly over the next 10 years.
Vacant Land by Zoning District
Zoning District Total Acres % Total Acres in
Zone
Acres
Undeveloped
In %
Residence A 678.98 4.1% 120.9 18.0%
Residence B 3,580.69 21.9% 1,618.15 45.2%
Residence Lake Front 277.02 1.7% 66.77 24.1%
Agricultural 10,989.07 67.2% 6,768.3 61.6%
Business 17.38 0.1% 0 0%
Downtown Business 55.5 0.3% 0.93 2.0%
Rural Business 35.34 0.2% 6.71 19.0%
Industrial A 379.43 2.3% 28.43 7.5%
Industrial B 142.85 0.9% 40.83 28.6%
Professional Office 85.20 0.5% 55.00 64.6%
Office Park 25.99 0.2% 25.99 100%
Neighborhood Mixed
Use
95.99 0.6% 56.28 58.6%
ISSUES & OPPORTUNITIES
Legacy Farms
For many years, Hopkinton’s largest private landowner, Weston Nurseries, owed more than
1,000 acres of agricultural-horticultural land in East Hopkinton. In 2007 more than 700 acres
was sold to Mezitt Agricultural Corp./Legacy Farms, LLC for development purposes and the
operation downsized. Since the property was under Chapter 61A agreements, the Town had a
right of first refusal to purchase the land before it was sold. Given the implications of a large
amount of new development in East Hopkinton, the Board of Selectmen created a Land Use
Study Committee in 2005 to explore the Town’s options and generally address other properties
under Chapter 61, 61A or 61B agreement. Town Meeting subsequently voted to fund an East
Hopkinton Master Plan, which was completed by Sasaki Associates under the direction of the
Planning Board. The award-winning plan outlined the development and preservation options for
the Weston Nurseries property and other large undeveloped land in East Hopkinton, and
provided a fiscal analysis of development scenarios. Two additional studies of the Weston
Nurseries property were completed in 2006. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)
examined redevelopment possibilities for the Weston Nurseries land and prepared an analysis of
regional impacts (Hopkinton, Ashland and Southborough). In addition, MIT graduate students
prepared a site analysis and reuse options as part of a field project directed by Dr. Eran Ben-
Joseph.
The Town did not vote to exercise its right of first refusal, and the property was sold. The
Town’s goal was to work cooperatively with the developer, Legacy Farms, LLC, to craft zoning
for the land that carried out the concepts contained in the East Hopkinton Master Plan. The
OSMUD Overlay District was adopted by Town Meeting in 2008 and furthers the shared vision
17
for the property. A minimum of 500 acres of permanent open land will be created, along with up
to 1,120 housing units and 250,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, at the conclusion of a 10 to 15
year buildout. As of October, 2016, the status of development permitting was as follows:
The Planning Board issued a Master Plan Special Permit for the project in 2010.
A definitive subdivision plan was approved by the Planning Board in 2011, which laid
out a new road (Legacy Farms South) between East Main Street and Clinton Street.
The Site Plan for the Southwest Village development project was approved by the
Planning Board in 2011. It contains 240 apartment units.
The Site Plan for the Private Wastewater Treatment Facility was approved by the
Planning Board in 2012 for land on Clinton Street.
The Planning Board approved a Site Plan for the East Main, Southeast and Southwest
Villages development project in 2012. The project contains 260 simplex and duplex
dwelling units and 15 single family homes.
The Planning Board approved the definitive subdivision plan for the new road between
East Main Street and Wilson Street (Legacy Farms North) in 2012.
The Planning Board approved a Site Plan for a 127-suite Hopkinton Retirement
Residence at 132 East Main Street in 2014.
The Site Plan for the North Club, Northeast, and Northwest Villages was approved by the
Planning Board in 2016. This project will contain 201 simplex units and 224 multifamily
attached units.
Each of the Development Projects must conform to the adopted Design Guidelines and the
provisions of the Master Plan Special Permit. Over 265 acres of Restricted Land (i.e. open land)
was placed under covenant as of October, 2016. The Master Plan Special Permit issued by the
Planning Board and the Host Community Agreement between the Town and developer has
resulted in several off-site improvements and other mitigation, including constructing a sidewalk
on East Main St. between Ray Street and Legacy Farms, leveling a portion of East Main Street,
Rt. 135/Rt. 85 intersection improvements, a donation to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund,
funds for re-striping the Main St./Hayden Rowe intersection, and the installation of the Alprilla
Farm well and conveyance to the Town for municipal water supply.
Issues for the future relate to the commercial component of the project, and whether it will
ultimately be viable. A key piece of the Master Plan for the community is the Village Center, to
be located on the north side of Rte. 135. This is yet to be planned and built.
Fruit Street Property
In 2004, Hopkinton purchased 257 acres on Fruit Street for water supply and other public
purposes. The Town is implementing a Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that
determined the amount of development that can occur on the property and where it would be
located. The property was planned for the following municipal uses: water supply, wastewater
treatment facility, active and passive recreation, a school, affordable housing and a DPW facility.
The Town has installed new water supply wells, and constructed a wastewater treatment facility
and new athletic fields. Athletic fields existing when the Town purchased the property also
remain in use. The passive open space area is permanently protected by a Conservation
18
Restriction (CR), which was granted to Sudbury Valley Trustees. The CR covers 145 acres, 46.5
acres of which surrounds the drinking water supply.
The Planning Board appointed a Fruit Street Subcommittee to examine whether there should be
any changes to the master plan for the property, which was approved in 2003, because of the
passage of time and changing needs of the community. The Subcommittee discussed the Town’s
needs for the future and current utilization of the property with the various stakeholders. The
Subcommittee issued a report in 2015 and recommended changes to the master plan. The
revised master plan was adopted by the 2015 annual town meeting, and is shown in Appendix
___. Growth in the Town’s active recreation needs and changing plans for the location of a
DPW facility and a school resulted in a shift of land areas designated for certain uses. For
example, while the plan no longer shows a location for a future school, there is a 31 acre
undesignated area which fronts on Fruit Street which can accommodate such future needs. The
master plan also shows areas set aside for future wastewater treatment discharge, which were
identified when the earlier plan was prepared but are now shown on the master plan.
New Town Property
At the 2015 annual town meeting, the Town voted to purchase 93 acres of land, consisting of the
Pratt Farm, Irvine property and the Todaro property. The land was acquired, and two
committees have been formed to plan uses for the property. It is anticipated that uses such
including a water supply well (Pratt), Scout House (Pratt), and new elementary school (Irvine)
will be developed, and the additional land will be important in meeting future municipal needs.
LAND USE GOALS
Coordinate Town services to keep pace with development.
Protect critical natural resources.
Encourage commercial and industrial uses that are compatible with surrounding
neighborhoods and Hopkinton’s community character.
Monitor the Town’s land use regulations to facilitate desirable growth, including
encouragement of private redevelopment of property in the Industrial Districts
and the downtown area.
Action Plan
1. Evaluate land to find areas that might be especially suited to preservation or
municipal use, and work toward preservation and/or acquisition as needed.
2. Complete and present Master Plans for the Pratt, Irvine, and Todaro properties to
Town Meeting.
3. Encourage site development which follows the natural features and contours of the
land and minimizes disturbance to the natural environment:
Minimize visual impacts: avoid placing structures in open fields or on ridge
lines and locate residences adjacent to tree lines and wooded field edges.
19
Retain rural features: incorporate existing farm or cart roads into subdivision
designs, preserve stone walls and mature trees, preserve as much as possible
old homes, barns and other rural structures.
Minimize site disturbance: roads should follow existing contours and avoid
boulevard or straight entrances, require more open space in conventional
developments and minimize disturbances on individual lots.
Ensure that future development, especially in the vicinity of Lake Maspenock,
Echo Lake, Hopkinton Reservoir and Lake Whitehall, is appropriate and
environmentally responsible.
4. Review and update the Hopkinton Zoning Bylaw periodically to ensure its
functionality, clarity and purposefulness for implementing the Master Plan.
5. Require annual evaluation by the Land Use Department and Zoning Advisory
Committee of Hopkinton’s zoning to ensure that it facilitates growth that is
consistent with the Master Plan, and encourages private redevelopment of the
Industrial Districts and the downtown area.
6. Limit commercial “creep” between I-495 and the West Main Street/Wood Street
intersection, between downtown and Legacy Farms, and between Legacy Farms and
Ashland. It is important to maintain a separation between Hopkinton’s business
nodes to avoid strip development, allow each area to have a distinctive character,
and protect residential neighborhoods.
7. Implement downtown Main Street corridor improvements, including roadway
improvements, bike lanes and beautification. Bury utility lines to facilitate sidewalk
and parking improvements, street tree planting and landscaping. Provide
centralized stormwater collection infrastructure to allow for buildout under current
zoning requirements, which is presently limited by the need to provide for
stormwater management on-site.
8. Discontinue unconstructed paper streets where possible.
20
Natural, Cultural and Open Space Resources
The Natural, Cultural & Open Space Resources element of the Master Plan addresses three
related planning issues: environmental quality, historic preservation and open space. In
Hopkinton, these issues play a crucial role in defining the Town’s rural-residential character and
the quality of life that residents enjoy. Open space and water resources supply context for many
of the historic homes and agricultural outbuildings that remain today, and provide outstanding
recreational opportunities.
HOPKINTON TODAY
The Planning Board adopted an Open Space and Recreation Plan (OSRP) in 2013, which has
been approved by the Mass. Dept. of Conservation and Recreation. The OSRP should be the
reference for detailed information about open space and recreation land and uses, and water
supply protection. The OSRP provides an action agenda to accomplish the following goals:
Preserve and enhance the Town’s natural resources, in particular, open space, wetlands
and wildlife habitat.
Provide a balanced recreation program that meets the growing needs of the community.
Ensure the protection of water resources.
Hopkinton has experienced continued housing and population growth since the early 1990’s
which has changed, and will continue to change, the ways in which residents experience and
interact with our natural, cultural and open space resources. It also changes the resources that are
available – while vacant land has been developed, more permanently preserved open space
available to the public has been created. Changes in the demographic makeup of the Town are
also important – as our population ages, the needs of residents may change over time.
Water Resources
Watersheds. Hopkinton’s 27.85 square-mile area lies within three major watersheds. As shown
in Map ___, about 75% of the Town is in the Concord River watershed, which includes many
subwatersheds or smaller drainage basins for tributaries such as the Sudbury River, which runs
along Hopkinton’s northern boundary. The rest of Hopkinton is divided in roughly equal
proportions by the Charles River and Blackstone River watersheds. The Charles River
watershed encompasses 35 cities and towns, from the river’s headwaters in Hopkinton to Boston
In 2025, Hopkinton has protected additional lands for ensuring water quality, and for
active and passive open space; created more recreational opportunities for a variety of
age groups; and conserved additional natural resources and view sheds that help define
the rural quality that is characteristic of much of the town.
21
and Cambridge, where it discharges into Massachusetts Bay. Lake Maspenock drains to the
Blackstone River via the Mill River.
Open Water. Hopkinton has four large man-made water bodies: Lake Whitehall and Lake
Maspenock (North Pond), both classified as Great Ponds, along with Echo Lake and the
Hopkinton Reservoir. Small ponds can be seen in other locations, notably Ice House Pond on
West Main Street, Blood’s Pond between South Mill Street and North Mill Street, and Duck
Pond on Saddle Hill Road. Approximately 6% of the Town’s total area consists of open water.
Waterways. Rivers, streams and many small brooks form an intricate network throughout
Hopkinton and contribute to the Town’s natural beauty. Whitehall Brook, which feeds the
headwaters of the Sudbury River in the Westborough Cedar Swamp, was dammed in the late
1800’s to establish the Whitehall Reservoir (Lake Whitehall). Indian Brook runs generally
through the geographic center of town and feeds the Hopkinton Reservoir. Other noteworthy
streams include Cold Spring Brook, which feeds Blood’s Pond in the southeastern section of
Hopkinton and the Ashland Reservoir; and Beaver Brook, which feeds the Charles River. In
turn, these watercourses intersect with smaller streams and brooks all over town.
Wetlands. Wetlands cover approximately 15% of Hopkinton’s land area. Along with their
associated buffer zones and setbacks, wetlands directly influence more than 30% of the town.
Deciduous forested swamps make up most of the wetlands in Hopkinton, but shrub swamps and
pockets of deep swamp occur west and north of Lake Whitehall. In addition, Lake Whitehall
contains floating islands formed from sphagnum moss. Loosely tethered to the lake bottom in
shallow areas, these islands contain a vegetation community similar to that found in quaking
bogs. According to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP), Hopkinton
has 24 certified vernal pools and many more potential (estimated) vernal pools that have not
been certified. A vernal pool is a temporary woodland pond that holds water for a few months
during the spring or summer and dries up for the rest of the year. Since it cannot support adult
fish populations, the vernal pool provides essential breeding and habitat area for certain
amphibians, reptiles and other species.
Aquifers. Hopkinton depends almost entirely on groundwater for its drinking water supply, but
the Town does not have an extensive system of aquifers, and the known aquifers are neither large
nor particularly high-yield except for an area around Fruit Street. Of the 902 acres of identified
aquifers in Hopkinton, nearly 75% are medium-yield, or capable of supplying 100-300 gallons
per minute (gpm).
Public Water Supplies. Hopkinton provides drinking water to residents and businesses from
eight public supply wells: four on Fruit Street, two off Charles McIntyre Lane and Donna Pass
and two off Alprilla Farm Road. Hopkinton also receives water from the Ashland regional
treatment plant just over the town line on Wilson Street, of which 1/6 was paid for by Hopkinton.
Echo Lake is a surface water supply serving Milford. In addition to the lake itself, virtually all of
its watershed and tributaries are located in Hopkinton. Ashland’s Zone II and III, and
Holliston’s Zone III extend into Hopkinton. In 2013, there were 3,100 water service
connections, 71 miles of water main, and 383,000,000 gallons of water was produced and
22
delivered to customers. The amount of water produced and delivered has increased by
70,967,000 gallons since 2003.
Water Quality. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is
responsible for monitoring water quality throughout the state and submitting periodic reports to
the federal government under Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. The latest
report was in 2012. Map ___ shows that DEP has classified several water bodies, streams and
brooks in Hopkinton as “Category 5” impaired waters under Section 303(d). A “Category 5”
water quality rating means the affected water body is already impaired or seriously threatened
and requires a “Total Maximum Daily Load” (TMDL) determination, or an analysis of the
maximum amount of pollutants the water can receive without violating water quality standards.
Hopkinton’s Category 5 waters include:
Lake Whitehall
Hopkinton Reservoir
Sudbury River (Fruit St. bridge, south to Framingham Reservoir #2)
Indian Brook, Whitehall Brook and a portion of the Sudbury River are classified as Category 3
due to lack of sufficient assessment information. Echo Lake is classified as Category 4a due to
the presence of mercury in fish tissue. Lake Whitehall and Hopkinton Reservoir have non native
aquatic plants and dissolved oxygen concerns, and Lake Whitehall also has fish with mercury in
the tissue and total phosphorus concerns. Several Charles River segments are sampled and
assessed, but none in Hopkinton. Lake Maspenock is not assessed for this report.
It is important to note that the impaired waters designation does not mean that the water body is
“polluted”. The important thing is that the waters are likely affected by stormwater runoff with
nutrients, which can affect characteristics such as aquatic plants and animal habitat, aesthetics,
and the desirability of the water body for recreational uses.
In 2025, Hopkinton continues to be a community that values art, cultural and
community based institutions with an array of venues offering citizen centered activities
and gathering spaces for cultural and artistic activities as well as other local and
regional events.
23
Geology, Topography and Soils
Geology. Hopkinton’s hills and
valleys were largely formed by
glacial activity that occurred more
than 120,000 years ago. The
glacier’s retreat 12,000 years ago
left much of Hopkinton bedrock
overlain by glacial till, or poorly-
sorted material that includes
sands, gravels, and rocks.
Approximately 71% of the Town
is composed of glacial till, which
helps to explain Hopkinton’s poor
farming conditions. Hopkinton’s
bedrock consists almost entirely
of granite, and ledge outcroppings
can be seen everywhere. Along
Pond St. and Lumber St. and in other areas, bedrock outcroppings exist as ledges and sheer cliffs.
Much of the Town’s undeveloped land is hilly, with a significant amount of ledge and very little
flat land.
Topography. Hopkinton’s topography descends sharply toward the lakes and reservoirs,
supporting a diverse landscape of rolling hills, open fields and large wetland areas that render
portions of Hopkinton unbuildable. The Town’s highest elevation reaches 590 feet above mean
sea level (MSL), and its lowest point, about 250 feet above MSL. The east and northern sections
of Town are generally lower in elevation than the central and southern sections. Hopkinton’s
overall elevation is the highest in southern Middlesex County.
Soils. Hopkinton soils are sloping, thin and rocky. More than 50% of the Town is covered by
the Hollis, Paxton, Canton and Scituate soil groupings. Mucks are found in wetlands and along
waterways. Generally, Hopkinton’s soil is composed of rocky unsorted loam in deposits up to
38 inches thick, laid over hardpan. The soils are poorly sorted and not well suited for
agriculture. Hardpan is firmly packed, fine loamy sand, and while the soil above the hardpan has
good drainage characteristics, the underlying hardpan is much less permeable. Due to the
thickness of the soil, the amount of water it can contain is limited.
Vegetation
Forests. Despite the amount of growth that has occurred in Hopkinton over the past 20 years,
the Town remains predominantly forested. It’s southern New England hardwood forest is dense
and consists primarily of red and white oak and white pine. The understory includes shrubs such
as huckleberry, mountain laurel, sweet pepperbush, viburnums, and witch hazel, and herbs and
vines such as wintergreen, Canada mayflower, partridge berry, wild sarsaparilla, ferns, ground
pine, cat briar and wild grape.
Many of the tree species in Hopkinton represent climax vegetation, or the ultimate vegetation the
land will progress to absent a change in environmental conditions. For example, the white pine
24
stands will eventually evolve to typical northern hardwood habitat. There are a few hemlock
stands located in cooler areas, such as protected valleys and southern slopes. New England’s
largest certified Hemlock tree is located off Winter Street next to the Town Forest. There are
two significant stands of northern white cedar: northwest of Hopkinton center in Cedar Swamp
and Rice Swamp and southeast of Lake Whitehall.
Plants. Hopkinton supports a variety of common plants and several uncommon plant species,
including the Pink Lady Slipper, Jack-in-the-pulpit, Yellow Lady Slipper, Trillium, and Indian
Pipe. Two rare or endangered plant species have been observed in Hopkinton: Dwarf Mistletoe,
a state-listed species of special concern, and the endangered Vasey’s Pondweed. Both were
found in the Lake Whitehall area.
Wildlife Resources
Priority Habitat. Hopkinton contains significant wildlife resource areas (Map ___). An
extensive network of riparian corridors encompasses more than 2,200 acres of land, notably in
association with Lake Whitehall,
Indian Brook, Beaver Brook and
Cold Spring Brook. NHESP has
classified about 2,000 acres of
land and water in Hopkinton as
priority habitat for rare,
endangered or threatened species.
Approximately 90% of the
priority habitat is also designated
“core habitat”, or critical habitat
areas needing a long-term
protection strategy.
Living Waters. A special state
program focused on aquatic
biodiversity, the Living Waters
Program, recognizes all of Lake
Whitehall as Living Waters Core
Habitat and about 3,700 acres around the lake (extending into Westborough) as supporting
watershed, i.e., areas with a high potential to enhance or degrade Living Waters habitat. In
addition, portions of two Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) extend into
Hopkinton: the Westborough Cedar Swamp ACEC and the Miscoe-Warren-Whitehall Waters
ACEC.
Open Space
Saving open space has been a long-standing priority in Hopkinton, and the results can be seen
just about everywhere. Fields and forests draped across a rolling landscape define Hopkinton’s
scenic beauty and provide many of the images people think of when they describe the “feel” of
the Town. Open space supports wildlife habitat and mobility, protects the quality and supply of
drinking water, and shelters streams and wetlands from adverse impacts of development. It also
25
contributes to the appearance of Hopkinton neighborhoods, for open space preserves a sense of
rural identity in areas that have undergone rapid development.
Unrestricted Open Land. In Hopkinton today, there are approximately 3,019 acres of
privately owned open land with no deed restrictions or other legal mechanisms to prevent
development. Another 697 acres are temporarily protected by Chapter 61, 61A or 61B
agreements, which provide tax incentives for land retained in active agricultural, forest or
recreational use. In East Hopkinton, the New England Laborers Training Center and YMCA
hold 258 acres of open land that is unlikely to be developed, but neither property is permanently
protected.
Protected Land. Hopkinton also has a great deal of open space protected in perpetuity – that is,
land owned by the Hopkinton Conservation Commission and Open Space Preservation
Commission, or private non-profit land trusts, privately owned but subject to a conservation
restriction, or state-owned for parkland or water supply purposes. For example, the
Massachusetts Audubon Society, the Sudbury Valley Trustees and HALT own a combined total
of 342 acres, and private homeowner associations own 302 acres created by the OSLPD bylaw.
In addition, the state owns about 2,494 acres at Hopkinton State Park, Whitehall State Park and
the Upton State Forest. The Town itself owns 1,404 acres for municipal and other uses, though
not all of the land is protected in perpetuity. Since 1992, Hopkinton’s land holdings have
increased significantly due to major purchases such as Elmwood Farm, Cameron Highlands and
the Fruit Street property.
The table below shows land that is permanently protected, temporarily protected and unprotected
open land. There has been a marked reduction in land agricultural, recreation and forestry land
26
temporarily protected under Ch. 61, 61A and 61B. In most cases, the land has been developed,
sometimes with an open space component – shifting some of the land from the forestry category,
for example, to the homeowners association, HALT or municipal open space category.
Change in Open Land Ownership, 1992 - 2014
Acres of Land % All Open Land
Current Use or Owner 1992 2014 1992 2014
Commonwealth of Mass. 2,490 2,560 45% 45%
Agricultural/Horticultural, including Ch.
61A
1,089 296 20% 5%
Recreational, including Ch. 61B 609 311 11% 6%
Municipal open space1 448 1,175 8% 21%
Forestry Ch. 61 453 283 8% 5%
N. E. Laborer’s Training Center 130 135 2% 2%
YMCA 123 123 2% 2%
Homeowners Associations 116 348 2% 6%
Mass. Audubon Society 45 45 1% 1%
Hopkinton Area Land Trust (HALT) 0 303 0% 5%
Sudbury Valley Trustees 0 53 0% 1%
TOTAL 5,503 5,632
1 Municipal includes 17 acres owned by the Town of Upton Conservation Commission
Historic Preservation
The buildings in Hopkinton express the stages of development that make up the Town’s history.
Extant one and two-story dwellings from the 18th century reflect the moderate and utilitarian
lifestyle of the early settlers. Many well-preserved examples from the Federal Period exhibit the
Town’s growing affluence in the early 19th century. Several are of brick construction, and on
East Main Street there are at least two fine examples of the use of local granite to build an entire
building. The predominant style of Hopkinton’s historic homes dates to the mid-1800’s, with
gable ends oriented to the street, defining modest 1 ½ story dwellings as well as in large,
elaborate, templar gable-end Greek Revival and Italianate structures. There are presently 42
buildings in residential use that were built before 1800 and 389 that were built between 1800 and
1900. More than half of the homes that were built before 1900 were built between 1860 and
1899.
As is the case with many New England towns, some early residents of Hopkinton settled in
villages. In Hopkinton, there were three main villages: Hayden Row (in the area of the Hayden
Rowe/Chestnut St. intersection), Woodville and the Center/downtown area. Each village had its
own post office and fire department. In addition, there were smaller enclaves, including
Claflinville/Four Corners (West Main St./Lumber St.), Keaneyville (Walker St./Proctor St.),
Poseyville (Wood St./Elm St.) and Bear Hill (School St./West Main St.).
27
Building activity was sparse at
the end of the 19th century when
the Town’s industrial base and
its growth rate declined, so only
a few buildings date to the
Queen Anne, Colonial Revival,
and Early Modern Periods.
Between the wars (1920-1945),
summer cottages were built
around Lake Maspenock and
Lake Whitehall, but little new
development occurred
elsewhere. Since the early
1970’s, residential development has soared in Hopkinton and this can be seen in the variety of
styles found in new subdivisions today. Hopkinton has taken several steps to protect its historic
resources. Specifically, the Town has formed a Historical Commission, created two local
historic districts, enacted a historic preservation (demolition delay) bylaw, included historic
preservation within special permit criteria and development standards, added waiver provisions
to site plan review bylaws to enable historic preservation, adopted the Community Preservation
Act (CPA), and repaired historically significant public buildings. Access to CPA funds has
allowed Hopkinton to invest in historic preservation to a degree seldom done before. Still, many
historically important homes and businesses remain at risk. From 1998-2004, 33 homes built
prior to 1940 were demolished and replaced with new structures. From 2005-2011, 16 homes
built prior to 1940 were demolished, and 11 were demolished between 2012 and 2014.
ISSUES
Open space, historic preservation and resource protection are important to Hopkinton’s character
and quality of life. Protecting open space, especially near lakes, streams, ponds and aquifers,
helps to ensure clean, unpolluted sources of drinking water and unpolluted lakes, ponds and
streams for hiking, boating and fishing.
Changes in land use patterns from growth and development can dramatically alter a community’s
appearance and the quality of its environment. Not as many large tracts of open land exist in
Hopkinton today. In the future, it will be challenging for Hopkinton to harness the power of
development to meet a growing community’s needs for places to live and work and
simultaneously provide the resources to save its most important open space. The addition of new
apartment complexes, condominium developments, new subdivisions and new commercial
development is obvious to passers-by, and change the landscape. Over time they become part of
the landscape that makes Hopkinton unique. The challenge is in defining what type of
development the Town wants and making that happen, balanced with the need to preserve the
core of Hopkinton’s character and open spaces. This is a continuous dialogue that doesn’t begin
or end with this Master Plan, and in which all residents can be involved.
28
Just as loss of open land affects a community’s visual image and environmental quality, the
gradual loss of older homes alters the view from the road and reduces its housing diversity. In
Hopkinton, 26% of the housing stock is over 50 years old. Older homes contribute to the
Town’s character and streetscape. In many built-out suburbs around Boston, older homes in
deteriorating condition often attract investors seeking new development opportunities. As the
supply of developable land declines in Hopkinton, the Town’s historic housing stock will be
increasingly at risk. Protecting Hopkinton’s historic homes and character will be a continuing
need.
RESOURCE PROTECTION GOALS
Retain the rural and historic fabric of Hopkinton. Facilitate and encourage
historic preservation.
Preserve and enhance large tracts of privately owned open land in agricultural,
recreational, or undeveloped use.
Link public, private and semi-public open spaces together to form corridors for
wetlands, wildlife and recreational uses and preserve wildlife corridors.
Document the Town’s natural resources and features and encourage responsible
land planning.
Action Plan
1. Improve public awareness of historically and architecturally significant structures
through increased education, signage, publicity and events.
2. Increase awareness of the advantages of historic preservation, especially in the early
stages of land planning, development review or improvements to public facilities.
3. Celebrate and commemorate the old villages of Hopkinton, including Woodville,
Hayden Rowe and Claflinville. Erect monuments and markers and promote local
history.
4. Examine incentives and alternate financing mechanisms to facilitate historic
preservation.
5. Implement Town bylaws that encourage, require or reward the preservation of
historic resources.
6. Use GIS resources for planning and resource management. Investigate “green
printing” to identify areas of significance that should be acquired and/or preserved
as open space.
7. Investigate new methods of development that will encourage protected open space
on private land and limit the number of housing units that can be built.
8. Create a Wildlife Corridor Overlay District to protect and enhance important wildlife
habitat areas.
9. Provide incentives for owners of large parcels to maintain their land as open space.
Provide technical assistance and information about tax and other benefits that are
available. Prioritize properties that residents value, such as the Hopkinton Country
29
Club, the fish and game clubs, the New England Laborers Training Center, state-
owned land, and ecologically sensitive areas adjacent to Lake Maspenock, Lake
Whitehall, and Hopkinton Reservoir.
10. Preserve land with partners. Work with organizations such as HALT, Massachusetts
Audubon, The Trustees of Reservations, the Trust for Public Land and Sudbury
Valley Trustees to protect and preserve agricultural and open land.
11. Implement the Town’s Open Space and Recreation Plan.
12. Maintain a dialogue with Chapter 61, 61A and 61B property owners and be prepared
to act quickly if land is proposed for development.
13. Support Town boards and committees whose mission it is to obtain open space and
conservation restrictions for the Town, and provide adequate funding resources for
such efforts.
14. Protect the quality of surface water, groundwater and wetlands by ensuring that
stormwater runoff is managed and is clean.
15. Create open space links and corridors, using tools such as OSLPD, land trusts,
donations of land, and conservation easements. Prioritize pedestrian links between
Whitehall State Park and the Upton State Forest, and between Whitehall State Park
and the Town’s Fruit Street property.
16. Prohibit potentially harmful land uses within aquifer recharge areas and monitor the
effectiveness of the Water Resources Protection Overlay District (WRPOD).
Continue to update the WRPOD bylaw to match state regulations and protect new
public water supply sources.
17. Investigate regulations and/or educational programs to protect water resources from
excess nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, phosphates and viral discharge. Nitrogen and
phosphates are two of the largest contributors to lake pollution and eutrophication
(plant and algal growth) in Massachusetts lakes – usually associated with large septic
systems and stormwater runoff.
18. Require aquifer recharge. Implement methods to recharge groundwater as land is
developed, such as requiring that a percentage of a building lot retain natural ground
cover, include paved areas in calculations of maximum lot coverage, and requiring
on-site stormwater recharge.
30
Housing & Residential Development
The Housing element of a master plan examines market trends, development regulations, the
impact of housing policy on the social and economic make-up of a community, and housing
needs that remain unmet by ordinary market forces. Many small towns and suburbs find it
difficult to plan for future housing needs because residential development signifies loss of open
space, population growth and rising costs of community services.
Hopkinton is a very desirable place to live, and it is a particularly desirable place for families. Its
land use regulations favor traditional single-family home development and the results are
consistent with the Town’s image of itself. The Town has allowed other types of housing for
more than 40 years, and from time to time the development pipeline diversifies. In the last ten
years, major projects with rental apartments and large condominium components have comprised
a significant portion of the forecast for 28% increase dwelling in dwelling units between 2010
and 2020. Hopkinton has met the State mandated goal for providing affordable housing. Market
demand, land cost due to Hopkinton’s location, and the development challenges and cost
associated with sewer and water infrastructure, ledge, steep slopes and wetlands also play a
major role in determining what developers propose and how much housing is actually built in
Hopkinton.
HOPKINTON TODAY
Few statistics provide more evidence of Hopkinton’s desirability than the sheer amount of
residential development that has occurred since the late 1990’s. Hopkinton’s housing inventory
increased by 10% from 1998-2004, and detached single family homes accounted for 97% of all
new units. The number of units has increased by 16% since the 2007 Master Plan was adopted.
Today, Hopkinton has a total of 5,879 housing units, 76% of which are single family homes. A
28% growth in the number of dwelling units between 2010 and 2020 is anticipated.
Hopkinton’s housing growth since the early 1990’s to 2005 occurred primarily in subdivisions.
Nearly all of the town’s subdivisions include open space by design, with homes grouped in
clusters around the site. In February, 2016, seven subdivisions with a combined total of 94 lots
were under construction in Hopkinton, plus Legacy Farms. The vast majority of the single
family homes built in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s were within a subdivision under
construction, but since 2005 most have been built on frontage lots or within older subdivisions
that were completed but which retained vacant lots. Since 2005, the number and size of
In 2025, Hopkinton is an energetic town with a variety of affordable community
services that enrich the quality of community life for all residents from youth through
seniors.
31
subdivision proposals have
decreased, largely in
response to the overall
housing market decline
around 2008 and because
of a reduced land supply.
The number of subdivision
applications declined
markedly after 2000.
Excluding Legacy Farms,
there were 38 applications
to create 878 lots between
1991 and 1998, 14
applications to create 133
lots between 1999 and 2006, and 10 applications to create 65 lots from 2007 through 2015.
The number of townhouse and multifamily dwellings changed very little for many years, but the
Planning Board noted in the 2007 Master Plan that it had seen renewed interest in condominium
development. This interest eventually resulted in several large condominium and apartment
complexes that are now completed or under construction. While single-family homes still
dominated the market, 262 multifamily ownership units were approved between January 2000
and December 2006. Since January, 2007, 532 multifamily rental units were approved,
signaling another shift in the market. Twelve of the units are located at the Housing Authority,
240 units are at Legacy Farms, and 280 units are under construction at Hopkinton Mews on
Lumber Street. All of the Housing Authority units are affordable, and 25% of the Legacy Farms
and Hopkinton Mews apartments are affordable.
Of the 1,120 units planned for Legacy Farms, 260 condominium units and 15 single family
homes have been approved for the southern section, and are under construction. Permitting for
the north side of Legacy Farms began in late 2015. While the desirability of single family homes
has remained strong, the housing market in Hopkinton has greatly diversified in the last five
years, responding to a demand for multi-family housing.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Location and Density
Hopkinton’s history, topography, wetlands and water resources, and zoning policies have
contributed to its varied residential development pattern. By zoning district, the highest-density
housing is found in the Downtown Business District in Hopkinton Center and adjacent
Residence A neighborhoods, where minimum lot sizes are lower. The density and lot coverage
of the Residence Lake Front District is also very high. The small lots that were originally
created for summer camps have mostly all been converted into year round housing, and many are
being demolished and larger homes constructed. Not surprisingly, the Agricultural District has
the lowest-density housing because it requires a larger minimum lot area (60,000 sq. ft.) than
Hopkinton’s other residential zoning districts. A majority of the town’s land - about 67% - is in
the Agricultural District.
0
50
100
150
200
19
9
5
19
9
6
19
9
7
19
9
8
19
9
9
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
20
1
4
20
1
5
Residential Building Permits Issued
Single Family Multifamily
32
Overall density will increase as Legacy Farms is built out. In multifamily projects approved by
the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals, density ranges from less than one unit per acre to
13 units per acre.
Residential Dwelling Units by Zoning District – Building Permits issued thru 12/31/15
Type RA RB* RLF A B BD BR IA
&
IB
P, OP
&
NMU
Total
Detached single family
home
685 1,230 429 2,036 0 33 10 1 0 4,424
with accessory
apartment
10 22 14 22 0 2 0 0 0 70
Condominium/townhouse 66 440 4 207 0 0 0 0 0 717
Two-family home 68 34 2 10 0 8 0 0 0 122
Multi-family dwelling 97 257 0 0 3 130 0 0 0 487
Multiple homes on one
parcel
0 8 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 18
Congregate residence 6 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 11
Total 932 1,992 457 2,281 3 173 9 1 0 5,849
* Includes units within the OSMUD Overlay District (Legacy Farms)
Age, Structural Features & Values
The effects of new growth can be seen in the age distribution of Hopkinton’s homes. More than
half of the town’s single family homes were built between 1980 and 2015, mainly in the more
rural areas south and west of Lake Whitehall and east of I-495 along the southern end of town.
About 27% of the town’s single family homes are more than 50 years old, including 433 homes
built before 1900 and 51 that pre-date 1800. In 1989, Hopkinton completed a comprehensive
historic resources survey that describes the historical and architectural significance of its older
homes. About 200 new single family homes have been constructed since the 2007 Master Plan
was adopted.
Statistics from the assessor’s office reinforce what is visually obvious from the road:
Hopkinton’s new single family homes are larger and equipped with more amenities than most of
its older housing stock. Of the 4,369 single family homes on the tax rolls in 2015, 25% were
built from 1990-1999, 12% were built from 2000-2009, and 3% were built between 2010 and
2014. However, this 40% of all housing units represented generated 58% of the town’s single
In 2025, Hopkinton continues to be recognized and respected for its excellent education
system. The Town carries on its long tradition of support for the people and facilities
that are the foundation for its educational distinction.
33
family home values. The average home constructed in the 1990’s has 8.8 rooms and 2.4 baths,
and the average home constructed in the 2000’s has an average of 9.1 rooms and 2.9 baths. The
homes constructed from 2010 to 2014 have fewer rooms (7.8) and an average of 2.6 baths. The
homes constructed in the 1970’s and 1980’s have an average of 8.1 rooms and 2.1 baths, which
may include additions and renovations made since original construction.
Housing Value
Hopkinton’s housing generally maintained its value during the last economic recession and is
increasing again. This is in part due to the desirability of Hopkinton as a place to live, because
of its key location and the quality of the school system.
HOUSING OPTIONS
Affordable Housing
A state law passed in 1969
requires all cities and towns
to provide their regional fair
share of housing for low- and
moderate-income people.
When less than 10% of a
community’s housing is
affordable under the
comprehensive permit law
(G.L. c.40B, ss 20-23, or
Chapter 40B), developers
proposing to build low- or
moderate-income housing
may seek waivers from
zoning and other local
regulations in order to make
their projects financially
feasible. Hopkinton currently has 720 units on the official Chapter 40B Subsidized Housing
Inventory, or 14.15% of its Census 2010 year-round housing units (5,087). These units represent
a 595-unit increase since 2004, when the town completed an affordable housing plan.
In 2004, local officials recognized that Hopkinton needed more affordable housing and saw
affordability as a major priority for the town. High-growth communities like Hopkinton face
tough challenges when it comes to increasing the supply of affordable homeownership and rental
units: high land values, difficult-to-develop land, and limited access to adequate utilities (mainly
sewer service) serve as real constraints. When the 2007 Master Plan was adopted, Hopkinton
needed 327 more affordable housing units on the Subsidized Housing Inventory to reach the 10%
goal. Due to projects approved via comprehensive permit and through local zoning, the Town
exceeded the 10% goal in 2015, and it is anticipated that the Town will still be over 10% at the
2020 census. We are pleased that we have met our affordable housing goal, which allows
Hopkinton to have more control over what is built. The Town can now craft zoning bylaws and
policies that are geared to continuing to meet the 10% goal beyond the 2030 census.
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Year
Average Sales Price
Single family Condo/townhouse
34
The Hopkinton Housing Authority (HHA) owns and manages rental housing for low-income
families, the elderly and persons with disabilities, and provides Section 8 vouchers to low-
income tenants in private housing. The HHA constructed 12 family housing units (Mayhew
Court) in 2010 on land next to the Senior Center, 6 two-bedroom and 6 three-bedroom units,
funded in part by CPA funds. In 2015 there were 35 families on the waiting list for 6 two and
three bedroom family units at the HHA, 159 on the waiting list for 92 elderly housing units (12%
are Hopkinton residents), and 12 on the waiting list for the 12 two and three bedroom units at
Mayhew Court.
Age-Restricted Housing
Age-restricted housing for “over-55” households has gained popularity throughout the Boston
metropolitan area since the mid-1990s. In Hopkinton, the Planning Board approved one over-55
development under the Senior Housing Development Bylaw, and comprehensive permits were
issued for two mixed-income over-55 developments. In February, 2016, there were 87 age-
restricted housing units within two developments, and the age-restrictions had been removed
from one of the comprehensive permit projects due to the lack of market demand. The developer
of the Legacy Farms project intends to construct at least 180 age-restricted units, which will
significantly increase the inventory of such housing. In the long term, the Town is concerned
that Federal laws preventing housing discrimination may be interpreted in such a way that the
Town can no longer enforce age-restricted housing without host community agreements.
Another concern is the long-term viability of age-restricted housing as the baby-boomers pass
through the housing system, and not enough new eligible buyers may not be found for the deed-
restricted units.
Multi-Family Housing
Unlike many small towns, Hopkinton chose years ago to adopt zoning that provides for a mix of
homes. For example, multi-family housing is allowed by special permit in all residential zoning
districts, and Hopkinton also allows conversions of older homes to multi-unit buildings.
Hopkinton’s long-standing commitment to housing diversity can be seen in these zoning bylaws:
Garden Apartments (1970): The Planning Board may grant a special permit to develop multi-
family housing on sites with 10-30 acres of useable land. Density is controlled by a maximum of
eight bedrooms per acre, which effectively caps the density at four units per acre (2 bedrooms
per unit). At least 30% of the site must be preserved as open space. Although the bylaw is
called “Garden Apartments”, all of the developments have produced for-sale (condominium)
units. The bylaw was adopted shortly after Chapter 40B was adopted, in order to give
developers an alternative to comprehensive permit applications and to serve an identified
housing need. The bylaw was modified in 2016 such that a special permit may not be granted if
the Town is below the Chapter 40B 10% affordable housing goal.
Conversions of Residential Property (1991): Existing residences may be converted to multi-
family rental units by special permit, with up to a maximum of four units.
Accessory Family Dwelling Unit (1993): Accessory family dwelling units (sometimes known
as “accessory apartments”) are allowed inside a single family home, and they must be occupied
35
by a family member or a person 60 years old or older. The size of an accessory unit is capped at
800 square feet.
Duplexes (2003): This bylaw allows duplexes in the A, RA and RB districts by special permit,
provided that one of the units is affordable and protected by deed restriction in perpetuity.
Senior Housing Development (1999): Much like the Garden Apartment bylaw, the Senior
Housing bylaw allowed housing to be built on parcels of 10-30 useable acres at an average
density of eight bedrooms per acre, with 30% of the site held as open space, by special permit.
Unlike Garden Apartment developments, Senior Housing developments were designed to allow
for a larger percentage of stand-alone single-family units in addition to multi-family units. All
units were age-restricted, i.e. at least one of the owners must be 55+. One development was
permitted and constructed under the bylaw, which was repealed in 2016.
Village Housing Development (2004): This bylaw allows the Planning Board to grant a special
permit for affordable housing on 5-20 acres of useable land. The maximum density is 10 units
per acre; the maximum unit size, three bedrooms; and the minimum open space requirement,
15% of the site. All Village Housing units must be eligible for the Subsidized Housing
Inventory and remain affordable in perpetuity. A special permit cannot be granted unless the
Town is below the 10% affordable housing goal and a Host Community Agreement has been
negotiated with the developer.
Flexible Community Development Bylaw (2007): This bylaw, an “inclusionary housing”
bylaw, requires that every residential development of 10 or more dwelling units provide one
affordable unit for every 10 units in the development. The affordable units may be located
within the development or elsewhere in town, or an applicant may contribute funds to be used to
create affordable housing units in lieu of providing the units. Four projects have been approved
under the bylaw, and all four will provide funds in lieu of an affordable unit.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2007 2015
Dwelling Units by Type 2007 & 2015
Detached single family Detached single family with Acc. Apt.
Condo/townhouse Two family
Multifamily Multiple homes/one lot
Congregate residence
36
Open Space Mixed Use Development Overlay District (OSMUD) (2008): Applicable to the
730± acre Legacy Farms development in East Hopkinton, this bylaw allows a maximum of 1,120
dwelling units, no more than 15 of which are single family dwellings. It also requires that 240
housing units be provided that are eligible for inclusion on the Subsidized Housing Inventory;
258 if 180 age-restricted units are constructed. Also required is no less than 500 acres of
restricted (open) land.
RECENT HOUSING INITIATIVES
Despite the town’s efforts, Hopkinton historically had very few multi-family developments and a
housing inventory with a limited mix of options. This changed in the mid-2000’s with two rental
apartment projects and the condominiums at Legacy Farms.
Virtually all new single family homes are beyond the reach of first-time homebuyers. The
average sales price for newly constructed single family homes in 2015 was $936,358, versus an
average price of $596,037 for existing
single family homes. Site conditions
such as topography and wetlands, along
with wastewater disposal constraints,
often make moderate-to higher-density
housing, which may be more affordable,
difficult to develop. The most obvious
residential mix can be found in the
seamless co-mingling of single family,
two-family, and small multi-unit
residences in Hopkinton’s older,
traditional neighborhoods.
Over the last 10-15 years, Hopkinton
has pursued several initiatives to
provide more housing choices in
addition to the zoning bylaws listed above.
Community Preservation. In a public-private partnership, Hopkinton used Community
Preservation Act (CPA) revenue to relocate, modernize and enlarge a single-family house
donated by EMC Corporation (“EMC House”). After receiving Department of Housing and
Community Development (DHCD) approval of the EMC House as a Local Initiative Program
(LIP) unit, Hopkinton sponsored a lottery and sold the home to an income-eligible family in
2004. A second project provided CPA revenue to assist the Hopkinton Housing Authority with
constructing 6 duplexes (12 rental units) at Mayhew Court. The units have been constructed and
are occupied.
Preservation of Chapter 40B Units. Four of Hopkinton’s 19 affordable homeownership units
at Pinecrest Village converted to market-rate housing upon resale because the deed restrictions
were flawed, the town did not receive enough notice that the units were for sale, or DHCD did
not exercise its right of first refusal to acquire units. Similar problems place 12 more units at risk
37
at the Pinecrest Village and Wood Hollow developments. The Town has worked with DHCD to
address these issues and prevent the loss of other affordable units. As some Pinecrest Village
units were offered for sale, DHCD subsidized the purchase price in order to make the unit more
affordable to qualified buyers and to replace flawed deed riders when needed. One age-restricted
unit at Sanctuary Lane was lost to the Inventory when no qualified buyer could be found for a re-
sale. The unit was sold off the Inventory and the Town received the excess proceeds for deposit
into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The preservation of affordable homeownership units is
a significant concern. Meeting the Town’s affordable housing requirement with Hopkinton
Housing Authority units or affordable apartment rental complexes is a better solution.
Fruit Street Master Plan. In 2003, Hopkinton purchased 257 acres of land on Fruit Street. A
Master Plan for the property calls for a variety of uses, including affordable housing on about 7
acres of the site.
Hopkinton Affordable Housing Trust Fund. In 2009 the Town created the Hopkinton
Affordable Housing Trust Fund pursuant to Mass. General Laws Ch. 44 sec. 53C. The purpose
of the funds is to provide for the creation and preservation of affordable housing in Hopkinton
for the benefit of low and moderate income households. In addition to revenues from excess
proceeds as affordable units are sold off the Subsidized Housing Inventory, funding is also
received from payments in lieu of providing affordable housing units pursuant to the Town’s
Flexible Community Development Bylaw.
ISSUES
Cost of Community Services Impacts/Lower Price Range Housing Dilemma
Hopkinton attracted so many new families during the 1990s that its under-18 population growth
rate ranked third in the state. For towns that absorbed a large share of the state’s new housing,
there were profound impacts on the cost of community services on one hand, and housing prices
on the other hand. Although larger lot sizes could reduce future development, residents at the
“Hopkinton at the Crossroads Forum” in 2005 recognized that “large lots drive up acquisition
costs.” Still, they questioned promoting compact development to provide more affordability
because “dense housing drives up service costs.” Since then, the Town has had to face these
issues head-on with the development of Weston Nurseries. In the end, the Town decided to work
with the developer to craft a revenue-neutral or revenue-positive development that addresses
housing needs and provides housing at high densities, in return for open space and other
community benefits. Legacy Farms has provided a revenue positive development as the
bedroom count and types of units was limited for the entire project, thereby limiting the potential
for school aged children and associated town services. However, although Legacy Farms and
other projects provide affordable rental housing units, it does not address a continuing need for
lower priced ownership units. Finding a market-based solution to this dilemma has been
difficult.
Hopkinton’s housing growth has been in part responsible for capital projects, such as land
acquisition, downtown corridor roadway improvements, construction of a new DPW facility,
Public Library expansion, and Center School replacement. The resulting increase in taxes due to
capital projects adds to the difficulty of keeping housing affordable in Hopkinton.
38
Housing affordability is an important priority for this Master Plan. The Town’s existing zoning
tools and other means of creating affordable housing, through new construction or conversion of
existing market-rate homes to permanently affordable units, could help to address the desire for
more rental options similar to that which existed in Hopkinton for many years: units in small,
two- to four-family homes, which fit well with the architectural styles and scale of other
development in established neighborhoods.
Accessory Family Units
A significant jump in accessory family dwelling units since the 2007 Master Plan, most of which
accommodate elderly parents of the owners, may point to an increased need for such living
accommodations. Although there are other options for housing, such as assisted living and
retirement homes, living with family may be more desirable and affordable for Hopkinton’s
elderly population. The Planning Board approved 127 units of retirement living at Legacy Farms
on East Main Street, Golden Pond has expanded its assisted living units, and there are plans for
additional expansion. More assisted living, nursing home and retirement home facilities are also
being built in neighboring communities.
Rapid Growth of Large Apartment Complexes and Large Condominium Projects
The two new apartment complexes and the condominium units at Legacy Farms are significant
portions of the growth the Town is experiencing. Residents and many town leaders are
concerned with the impacts of rapid growth on traffic, schools and community services. Now
that the 10% affordable housing goal has been achieved, the Town can better manage its future
growth rate by restricting the zoning tools and options that were created to respond to the threat
of Chapter 40B comprehensive permits.
Keeping Track of Affordable Housing/Planning for Future Affordable Units
Tracking all affordable housing units, projecting the number of dwelling units and the percentage
of affordable units for the 2020 and 2030 censuses is critical moving forward. The Town needs
to know when it may fall below the 10% requirement as early as possible, so that it can respond.
At that time, the Town will need to reconvene the Housing Committee, task the Housing
Authority to build more units, and/or work with private developers to create new affordable
rental units. Affordable ownership units are more difficult to keep affordable over the long term
and more labor intensive to monitor. Rental apartment projects are an easier way to increase the
inventory because 100% of the units count as affordable as long as 25% of the units are actually
affordable, and they are easier to monitor as long as a management company performs those
duties. In addition, rental housing serves a local and regional need.
HOUSING GOALS
Hopkinton’s goal is to maintain the character of Hopkinton much as it is today, with a mix and
balance of housing options. We wish to keep Hopkinton a very desirable place to live, in
particular a desirable place for families. Hopkinton is building out already permitted rental units
and major condominium projects that have allowed it to meet affordable housing requirements
and diversify our housing options. For the near future it is the goal to emphasize traditional
39
single-family home development and a lower rate of growth in the overall number of dwelling
units, while continuing to meet affordable housing requirements.
Monitor housing development and create new affordable rental housing when
needed so that the Town remains above the 10% affordable housing goal.
Maintain a balanced housing stock, and modify the Zoning Bylaw as needed to
guide future residential development.
Study ways to create lower priced dwellings for first time home buyers.
Develop formal policies relating to the development of back lots, the creation of
dead end streets and the process for construction of paper streets.
Action Plan
1. Use Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds and Affordable Housing Trust funds
to create affordable rental units.
2. Study ways to create lower priced owner occupied dwellings for first time
homebuyers, such as through a special permit process for smaller lots, possibly with
limits on the number of bedrooms and subject to the availability of town water and
sewer.
3. Encourage discussion of the impact of multi-family housing on the character of
Hopkinton, to ensure that single family dwellings remain the predominant housing
type.
4. Monitor the number of affordable housing units and the total number of dwelling
units proposed and planned, and prepare projections for the number of housing
units anticipated in 2020 and 2030. The Land Use Department should provide an
annual report with projections to the Board of Selectmen, Planning Board, the
Housing Authority and any other committees with a housing-related mission.
5. Increase the amount of permanent open space through continued use of OSLPD
while investigating other means to mitigate or remediate the effects of development.
6. Review and improve or eliminate the Flexible Community Development Bylaw so
that it works as intended.
7. Study and consider a new bylaw that allows affordable rental housing with a host
community agreement, which would create such housing if the Town is below the
10% affordable housing goal.
8. Clarify that assisted living and retirement home uses will not include full kitchens so
that they may not be counted as separate dwelling units in the U.S. census, or require
that a percentage of the units must be affordable.
9. Reconvene the Housing Committee if the Town is in danger of falling below the 10%
affordable housing goal at the next federal census.
40
Economic Development
Economic development represents the ongoing efforts of a city or town to improve the well-
being of its residents. Communities need a secure, diverse and growing economic base to
provide employment opportunities for residents of all educational and age levels, to make goods
and services available locally, and to help finance local government services such as public
schools, public safety and public works. Often, “economic development” is used to describe
commercial or industrial zoning or tax base expansion, but these concepts are not the same.
Zoning without a shared understanding of the kind of economy a community wants to build may
enable new business growth, but it does not automatically lead to an economy that improves the
well-being of a local population.
The purpose of a master plan’s Economic Development element is to plan for business,
employment and tax base needs and guide local economic development initiatives. In
Hopkinton, these initiatives should balance the desire for tax revenue with the residential
character that residents value. While economic development through commercial and industrial
growth is important to many residents, others are concerned with protecting the Town’s character
– expressed in words such as “the feel of the town” and “the people factor”. Achieving balance
between these objectives is one of the challenges that Hopkinton has faced in recent years, and
will continue to face in the coming years. Also, Hopkinton’s place in the regional economy and
its employment growth will be shaped in part by conditions elsewhere in the MetroWest area.
The economic characteristics of a region contribute to the success of actions to strengthen and
sustain a local economy.
HOPKINTON TODAY
Labor Force
Just as Hopkinton experienced significant population growth during the 1990s, it also absorbed
significant growth in the size of its labor force. From 1990-2014, the resident labor force in
Hopkinton increased by more than 30%, mirroring the growth in overall population. The Town’s
unusually high labor force participation rate of 83% sheds light on the age make-up of its
population. Among persons over 16, the proportion of working-age adults in Hopkinton is larger
than that of the state as a whole; similarly, a smaller percentage of Hopkinton’s over-16
population is comprised of retirees. From 2000 to 2014, Hopkinton’s labor force increased by
VISION THEME
In 2025, Hopkinton’s Town Center is a vibrant part of the town’s identity where civic
events, including the Boston Marathon are celebrated. It is a hub of community and
commercial activity, with shops, restaurants and an attractive streetscape. It is
pedestrian friendly with new development that respects the character and heritage of
the town.
41
approximately 15%, which exceeded the Town’s population growth rate of 12%.
Hopkinton generally has a well-educated, highly paid labor force. More than 76% of
Hopkinton’s over-25 population holds a college, professional or graduate degree, a statistic that
places Hopkinton far ahead of the state as a whole (47%). Its residents tend to be employed as
managers and professionals in research and development, science and technology, health and
human services, and education. Moreover, the Town’s unemployment rate typically runs below
that of the state or Middlesex County, and this has been true even during recessions since the
1990s. From 2001 to 2011, Hopkinton’s annual unemployment rates ranged from a low of 3% in
2001 to a high of 6.4% in 2010. The unemployment rate for Hopkinton in March, 2016 was
3.5%, compared to 4.6% for Massachusetts.
Labor Force 2014 (Hopkinton Residents Age 16 and Over)
Type of Worker Percent
Private wage & salary workers 82.1%
Government workers 11.4%
Self-employed 6.3%
Unpaid family workers 0.2%
Most Hopkinton residents working out of Town work in Middlesex County. About 84% of the
Town’s residents commute to work by car, usually traveling more than a half-hour each way.
Although 30% of all employees statewide work in the same town they live in, only 20% of
Hopkinton’s labor force has a local job. Since average wages paid by Hopkinton establishments
tend to be very high compared to other communities nearby or throughout the larger (Boston)
labor market area, it would not be surprising to find a larger percentage of locally employed
people in Hopkinton than in other communities. This is not the case, however, and to some
extent the difference may reflect a mismatch between the occupations and career interests of the
labor force and the types of jobs represented in Hopkinton’s employment base.
In 2014, the average annual wage paid by a Hopkinton employer was $105,196. Hopkinton is a
net importer of labor, with about 11,500 jobs and 7,474 resident workers (2014). Growth in the
number and type of business establishments has helped to expand Hopkinton’s economy and tax
base. From 2009 to 2014, there was a 30% increase in the number of jobs in Hopkinton. About
60% of the jobs are in the Manufacturing sector, followed by 10% in Professional and Business
Services and 7% in Trade, Transportation and Utilities.
New Construction
Since the opening of Rt. 495 through Hopkinton, the town has had a strong construction industry.
New residential construction is a key economic indicator, and Hopkinton building statistics show
that the Town is very attractive to new investment. More than 780 residential building permits
have been issued in Hopkinton since 2010, mainly for condominiums and apartment units. Tax
revenue from new growth made up a larger percentage of each year’s tax levy in Hopkinton than
in the state as a whole through the 1990’s, but the gap narrowed in the mid-2000s such that
Hopkinton’s percentage was lower than the state from 2001-2003. Hopkinton’s percentage now
exceeds the statewide average again, due to the growth in Hopkinton and variable growth
statewide.
42
In 2012 the first building permits were issued in Legacy Farms. Through July, 2016, 484
building permits for residential dwellings were issued in the Southwest Village at Legacy Farms
and in the East Main, Southeast and Southwest Village development projects. Over 447 of the
units are now occupied. It is estimated that building permits on the north side of Legacy Farms
will begin to be issued in late 2017.
Household Wealth and Consumer Spending
A community’s economy is shaped by the wealth and consumer spending power of its
households. Due to the amount of growth Hopkinton absorbed in the past three decades, its state
rank for total household wealth, measured by median household income, has changed: from 64
(out of 351 cities and towns) in 1980 to 14 in 2015. Its state rank for equalized valuation (EQV)
per capita is 79. Despite the Town’s substantial household wealth, its base of retail trade has
been traditionally small, and retail expenditures made locally comprise a fraction of actual
household spending power. Annual retail sales in Hopkinton were $6,368 per capita in 2012,
which is about half of the per capita sales in Middlesex County and also statewide. According to
the 2014 Visioning Survey, the Town “leaked” about 83% of its total retail spending to other
communities that offer more goods and services, such as Framingham, Milford and
Westborough. However, 70% of respondents feel that there are not enough retail options in
Hopkinton.
Economic Forecast
MAPC prepared long-term community employment forecasts in 2006. In the region, which
includes 101 Boston area cities and towns, total employment is projected to grow 8% from 2000
to 2020, to over 2 million people. In Hopkinton, employment was expected to grow from 9,357
workers in 2000 to 10,304 workers in 2010, 11,007 workers in 2020, and 11,588 in 2030. The
actual number of workers in Hopkinton in 2014 exceeded the projections for 2020.
EMC Corporation is the largest employer in Hopkinton. Therefore, the Town is particularly
interested in its future, given the agreement to combine EMC and Dell Corporation. Important to
Hopkinton is EMC’s continued location in town. Not only does Hopkinton benefit from the
jobs, it also benefits from
having EMC as a member of
its business community. EMC
and its employees have
participated in the local
Chamber of Commerce, with
Hopkinton schools on
technology initiatives, and in
community projects, such as
the development of EMC Park
and trail development and
maintenance. At the present
time, it appears as though
EMC will continue to be
43
located in Hopkinton, but like any other company, it could relocate at any time.
LAND USE POLICIES
Hopkinton has two primary types of business development today: office park, industrial park
and warehouse space, located mainly in the vicinity of South Street/I-495, and nodes of
commercial space along the West Main Street/Main Street corridor, which includes the
downtown area. The mix and intensity of uses in these areas are quite different due to zoning
and historic development patterns.
In support of industrial and office development, Hopkinton has 522 acres of Industrial Districts
(A and B), and an 85-acre Professional Office District. The zoning bylaw also provides special
permit procedures and development standards for campus-style office parks. Most of the
industrially zoned land is along South Street adjacent to I-495, with smaller pockets of industrial
land on Lumber Street and Elm Street just east of I-495, Wood Street in the northwest part of
town, and on Cedar Street near Hopkinton Center. The Professional Office District, located in
East Hopkinton, currently includes an office development owned by Liberty Mutual. All of
Hopkinton’s industrial and office parks have access to public water except Lumber Street, and
sewer service is also available on South Street and around the I-495 interchange. Water and
sewer service areas could be extended to serve as-yet unserved areas, as the Town has addressed
previous capacity issues. It has been the desire of the Town to encourage more research and
development, technology and biotechnology opportunities through new development and
redevelopment of existing sites. To lure economic growth, Hopkinton has made use of programs
such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF), most recently for PerkinElmer. Hopkinton has partnered
with the Hopkinton Chamber of Commerce in its economic development efforts.
Unlike other towns with extensive nonresidential development along Routes 85, 20, 9, 109 and
126 and near the I-495 interchanges, Hopkinton’s commercial and industrial areas are fairly
inconspicuous, although new commercial development at the West Main St./Lumber St.
intersection is more visible. Hopkinton experienced increased development pressure at the I-495
interchange over the years, and this new development is an outcome. Accommodating more
growth in this area may require additional traffic improvements beyond what is already planned.
The Town will need to decide what makes economic sense for that area, considering sound
planning principles, environmental impacts and sustainable contributions to the tax base.
Hopkinton currently has 126 acres of vacant land for industrial and office park development,
although more than half of it is limited by wetlands, access or other constraints.
Commercial Development
By tradition, commercial development in Hopkinton has been oriented toward service
businesses, small retail and specialty shops, and professional or business offices. The Town’s
small-scale commercial base seems to appeal to many residents, in contrast to larger commercial
developments such as the shopping centers and hotels found in surrounding communities.
At the 2006 annual town meeting, voters agreed to rezone five contiguous parcels at the West
Main Street/South Street intersection to facilitate the redevelopment of obsolete property and
provide for additional commercial uses. Construction began on Hopkinton Square in 2011. Now
44
complete, there is 70,000 square feet of retail and office
space on the site, including a 40,000 sq. ft. Price
Chopper supermarket.
At the 2009 annual town meeting, voters agreed to zone
several parcels along the east and southwest sides of I-
495 under a Hotel Overlay District. This district was
established to encourage the location of hotels based on
proximity to infrastructure. The addition of hotels
within the Town of Hopkinton will provide a type of use
not historically allowed. No hotels have been proposed
since the District was adopted. Tweaks were made at the
2016 annual town meeting in order to reduce barriers to
hotel development.
Other recent additions to commercial zoning in Hopkinton include the Commercial Solar
Photovoltaic Installations bylaw in 2013, which allows commercial solar facilities in any zoning
district with a Special Permit from the Planning Board; Registered Marijuana Dispensaries in
2014 after a new state law allowed the use of marijuana for medical purposes; and a
Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) District in 2014, which allows multi-family residential use
and commercial development in a master planned development off Lumber Street, near the I-495
interchange. Permitted to date are a 32,000 sq. ft. commercial building, 280 apartment units and
a tennis club. As of this writing, all three permitted projects were under construction. Two
vacant developable parcels remain.
For several years, the Downtown Revitalization Committee (DRC) investigated and
implemented opportunities to make the downtown area a more vital, attractive commercial node.
The DRC’s objectives included respecting the historic character of downtown, improving the
downtown’s appearance, developing a village center concept, attracting more businesses,
restaurants and specialty shops, expanding the library, developing a multi-purpose community
center and youth center, solving traffic and parking issues, and creating a distinctive identity for
the downtown.
The DRC prepared downtown design guidelines and worked with the Zoning Advisory
Committee and the Planning Board to propose changes to the Business District regulations.
Through these efforts, town meeting adopted a unique Downtown Business (BD) District for the
downtown area, separating it from the more generic Business District. The BD District
encourages the traditional building forms and uses that are central to a downtown district, such as
buildings located close to the street, upper story residential and office space. The regulations
also allow shared, off-site and reduced parking requirements. With growth and revitalization of
the downtown, however, municipal parking lots may be needed to accommodate visitors to the
area.
The Town appropriated $400,000 in funds to design downtown improvements to the
transportation corridor. The improvements are intended to facilitate safe pedestrian travel,
45
improve aesthetics, and address important traffic issues. The project is at the 25% design stage
and is programmed for state funding in 2019.
In 2015, Colella’s Supermarket, a long time staple of the downtown economy on Main Street,
closed and the property was sold to Crosspoint Associates. Many residents hoped that a new
market/grocery store would open in the location, but Crosspoint signed a lease with CVS
Pharmacy after they stated a search for a market/grocery tenant was unsuccessful. The CVS
opened in March 2016.
ISSUES
Hopkinton residents clearly want to see the downtown area revitalized. From Ash Street to
Wood Street along Main Street and within a block north and south of Main Street, Hopkinton has
an opportunity to create a “hub” for the Town, with shops and services that visually enhance the
character of the Town. Shops, restaurants and businesses will generate additional tax revenue
and supply goods and services used by residents. Since some of this area is within the
Hopkinton Center Historic District, adaptive reuse will be a challenge. However, reuse of older
buildings should be encouraged in order to enhance downtown and guide new commercial
growth toward an area with existing businesses, roads and adequate utilities. The Town has
multiple parties working toward similar yet different downtown goals – historic preservation,
downtown pedestrian and traffic improvements, parking solutions and commercial development.
An important challenge for Hopkinton is recognizing the difference between “economic
development” and commercial and industrial zoning. Economic development is about building a
durable local economy that improves the quality of life for people in a community or a region;
commercial and industrial zoning is an essential tool for economic development and tax base
expansion, but on its own, zoning does not build an economy. Throughout Massachusetts, each
community has unique resources, history and economic opportunities. Local economic
development initiatives can
be tailored to the realities
of the regional economy.
Communities along Rt.
128 have a different
economic reality than
communities along Rt.
495, and so on. Trends in
the region around
Hopkinton will impact
Hopkinton, and the Town
may have unique
opportunities as the
regional economy grows
and changes.
Today, residential
properties generate 83% of
46
Hopkinton’s tax levy and commercial or industrial properties, 17%, compared to an 85%/15%
split identified in the 2007 Master Plan. Depending on the mix of businesses and industry and
the Town’s tax policies, increasing the commercial and industrial share of the tax base to 18% -
20% could require development of 400 acres of land under Hopkinton’s existing zoning, or it
could require significant redevelopment of older commercial properties. The Town would need
to attract and retain the highest value uses in order to make the most efficient use of its available
land supply. Wherever possible, the Town also needs to attract high value uses that also provide
high-quality jobs compatible with the needs of its labor force.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS
Hopkinton’s commercial development has generally been located in distinct areas. Since the
development of Legacy Farms and the Lumber Street/Hopkinton Mews commercial and
residential development, there have evolved three distinct business “nodes”: 1) in the East
(Legacy Farms); 2) Central (downtown), and 3) West (I-495 interchange/South St. area). While
each is in various stages of development, they all have their own challenges in order to align to
the town’s overall vision for commercial development. The Planning Board foresees a bright
future with controlled development meeting the needs of all the citizens of Hopkinton and
maintaining our historical, residential and rural small town.
Improve transportation access to Hopkinton’s business “nodes”.
Provide more downtown parking.
Maintain zoning regulations that reflect the Town’s wishes for commercial
growth and development.
Manage economic opportunities.
Diversify the tax base.
Improve access to information.
Provide adequate infrastructure, including water and sewer, in commercial and
industrial areas to facilitate growth.
Action Plan
1. Future economic growth should be directed to the following areas:
Downtown
Elmwood Park/Parkwood Drive area and Lumber Street near West Main Street
Legacy Farms Commercial Subdistrict areas on East Main Street, including the
Village Center.
South Street.
47
2. Provide municipal water and sewer service to the industrially and commercially
zoned sections of Lumber Street to encourage a hotel, the redevelopment of
commercial properties and to facilitate the buildout of the area.
3. Improve access to online information that will be useful for citizens, developers and
businesses so that people can better understand how to work with town government,
and to communicate the benefits of locating a business in Hopkinton.
4. Organize Planning information clearly on the town website and make it user-
friendly, so that citizens, businesses and developers can understand processes more
clearly and find individuals to speak with if they have questions.
5. Maintain a dialogue with citizens and the business community relative to the amount
and location of commercial development and its impact on the character of the
Town.
6. Work with the property owners in Elmwood Park to revitalize this old industrial
park.
7. Diversify the Tax Base. The Town should achieve a tax base ratio of 80%
residential/open space and 20% commercial/industrial, in order to make sure that
the tax burden on residents does not become onerous. It does not appear that it is
necessary to re-zone residential land in order to achieve this goal. Redevelopment of
Elmwood Park and South Street properties alone may be sufficient, and incentives
should be created to attract more high value development as properties in these
areas are redeveloped.
8. Continue to manage and maintain the commercial zoning regulations such that they
reflect residents’ expectations and the Town’s best interests. The Planning Board
should continue to work with developers to make sure that they understand and are
respectful of the rural nature of the town and the need to enhance its character
rather than detract from it.
9. Consider engaging a Business Development individual with the authority and
mandate to manage economic development. The biggest hurdle in managing
economic opportunities is to identify “who is going to drive” the economic goals of
the town for the next 10 to 20 years. This individual could be responsible for
working with the Planning Board to make sure the right zoning is in place, for having
effective tax rate/incentive tools in place to attract businesses that the Town wants,
and serve as an advocate and liaison between the business community and Town
government.
10. Create sufficient parking in the downtown to meet demand. There is a dire need for
more parking in the downtown area. There have been shared parking solutions,
including a lease with St. John the Evangelist Church to handle overflow parking for
the expanded Public Library. The Town wants an exciting and vibrant downtown
with restaurants or even a “food destination” along Main Street (perhaps a brew pub,
ethnic restaurants, etc.). Without sufficient parking, such ideas will never come to
fruition and the downtown could languish. The Town should look to develop small
municipal parking lots in strategic locations, expand existing parking lots, and work
with local property owners to share parking lots where possible. While more parking
should be provided, it must be done with a balance in mind – the demolition of
commercial buildings solely for the purpose of creating new parking lots is not
recommended.
48
Community Facilities & Services
Community facilities and services are the civic building blocks of a city or town. A community
facility is any municipal property developed and used for public purposes, such as a town hall, a
library or schools, and parks, playgrounds and public utilities. The Community Facilities and
Services element of a master plan analyzes the municipal and school service needs of a
community’s population, institutions, businesses and industry. Its purpose is to guide facilities
planning and capital improvement priorities so that local governments can respond to future
development in an orderly way.
The challenge of facilities planning is that population growth alone does not dictate municipal
and school service needs. The age make-up of a community’s population, where residents live
and work, their household incomes, and what they expect from local government all play an
important role in determining whether a town has adequate public facilities. Like other attractive
suburbs, Hopkinton will most likely find that over time, its facility needs will change not only
due to population growth, but also to changes in the size and composition of its households and
the percentage of its population in the labor force. Moreover, where new development occurs
may affect siting decisions and priorities for new municipal and school facilities.
HOPKINTON TODAY
Public Buildings & Services
Town Hall. All of Hopkinton’s traditional local government services are located in the Town
Hall at 18 Main Street. Built in 1902, the Town Hall is a Classical Revival style building in the
Hopkinton Center Historic District and it is Hopkinton’s only civic building. The present Town
Hall was constructed on the site of its predecessor, an Italianate municipal building destroyed by
the fires that swept through Hopkinton Center in the late 19th century. For Hopkinton, it is
historically important that Hopkinton Center has always served as the seat of local government,
beginning with the first meeting house that was built on the Town Common ca. 1725. Today’s
Town Hall has fairly limited office, meeting and storage space for the number of functions it
supports. It has 17,684 sq. ft. of floor area, including basement and second-floor meeting rooms
that are used frequently throughout the day and evening hours by citizen volunteers and
employees. Most departmental offices are operating at or in excess of their design capacity.
Town Hall is accessible to persons with disabilities.
In 2025, Hopkinton has a system of infrastructure improvements that support targeted
growth and development while protecting the environment through the use of
sustainable practices and materials.
49
Department of Public Works. By special act of the legislature, Hopkinton consolidated its
Highway, Water and Sewer Departments into a single Department of Public Works (DPW) in
1998, and designated the Board of Selectmen to serve as the Town’s board of public works. The
DPW’s work includes municipal water, sewer, cemetery maintenance, and parks and fields
maintenance. Due to the inadequate space and poor condition of the 1960’s facility at 81 Wood
Street, the DPW met some of its immediate needs for office and equipment storage at the Town’s
property at 66 Fruit Street. Construction will begin in 2016 on a new 41,000 sq. ft. facility at the
Wood Street location, replacing both facilities and consolidating operations in one location.
Police Department. The Hopkinton Police Station opened in June, 2004. A state-of-the-art
facility with 18,000 sq. ft. of floor area, the police station is expected to meet Hopkinton’s needs
indefinitely. Dispatch functions for the police and fire departments were consolidated at the
Police Station in 2015.
Fire Department. The Hopkinton Fire Department operates two facilities: its headquarters
(Station 1) at 73 Main Street and a substation (Station 2) at 238 Wood Street. Originally
designed as a public safety building for both the police and fire departments, Station 1 was
constructed in 1955 and upgraded and expanded in 1997. Its administrative space and
vehicle/equipment storage areas are currently being utilized to its full design capacity. In
response to the Fire Department’s space needs, Town Meeting appropriated funds for plans and
construction documents for fire station improvements in May, 2006.
Station 2 was built in 1965 to replace the Engine House Pond station. It includes two bays
facing Wood Street and a small storage bay on the west side. The existing crew quarters,
dispatch area and window and door systems need to be upgraded. Today, Station 2 is not staffed
and is used primarily as a garage and for storage.
An analysis reviewing multiple year incident response data was recently completed by the
Hopkinton/Ashland Collaboration study. This analysis of response data showed that any capital
building expansion should be located in the South Street/I-495 and/or easterly areas of
Hopkinton. All existing Fire Dept. buildings are operating at designed capacity. The
In 2025, Hopkinton continues to have an exceptional quality of life in a vibrant and
sustainable community with an open, democratic and efficient local government, a
balanced budget, and well-maintained town facilities.
50
collaboration study also documented
understaffing of the current Fire
Department operational model and an
inability to safely, effectively and
efficiently respond to multiple incident
responses. This problem will continue to
be exacerbated by growth in the
community, especially the growth of an
older population.
Public Library. The Hopkinton Public
Library was built in 1895 and expanded in
1967 by incorporating an adjacent building
that formerly housed Saint Paul’s Church.
Population growth and significant changes in the types of services supported by public libraries
over the past 30 years mean that Hopkinton’s library has run out of space. Accordingly, the
Town is now expanding the facility from its present 5,000 sq. ft. to about 24,000 sq. ft. The new
facility will offer more space for children and young adults, history collections, as well as a
reading area, meeting spaces and additional parking. The renovation and expansion also will
improve access for persons with disabilities. The plans were developed and funded, and
construction began in 2016. The project was funded in part by a state grant and by private
fundraising.
Senior Center. After operating a senior center in the basement of Town Hall for many years,
the Council on Aging opened a new 15,000 sq. ft. senior center in 2006. The building is located
adjacent to the Hopkinton Housing Authority’s elderly housing on Davis Road. Not only does
the Senior Center serve the program needs of seniors, but it also provides space for larger town
board/committee gatherings than can be accommodated at Town Hall. The anticipated growth in
the elderly population may result in a need to expand the programs and services offered at the
Senior Center and by the Council on Aging. The new programs and services may result in a
need to expand the building itself.
51
Public Schools
Hopkinton has a renowned K-12 public school system that contributes significantly to the
Town’s reputation as a desirable place to live. For example, Hopkinton High School was
recently ranked among the nation’s top 1,200 high schools, and it also received a School of
Excellence award from the Massachusetts Alliance for Arts Education in 2006.
The seemingly relentless school-age population growth that occurred in Hopkinton in the 1990’s
led to major investments in new public school buildings and land to accommodate them,
beginning with the Terry property acquisition on Hayden Rowe in the mid-1990’s. Most
recently, the Town acquired the Irvine property on Hayden Rowe for additional school
expansion. In the 2014-2015 school year, the Hopkinton School Department served 59 more
students than in 2004-2005, although the numbers rose and fell during the intervening years.
Currently operating school buildings include:
Center School, built in 1928, with approximately 52,000 gross sq. ft.
Elmwood School, built in 1964, with 80,000 gross sq. ft. This school currently uses
modular classrooms to meet space needs.
Hopkins School, built in 1997, with 75,000 gross sq. ft.
Hopkinton Middle School, built in 1954, with 140,000 gross sq. ft.
Hopkinton High School, built in 2001, with 189,500 gross sq. ft.
The School administration leases office space at 89 Hayden Rowe, across the street from the
Middle School.
A new elementary school will be constructed on Hayden Rowe (former Irvine property) to
replace Center School as a Pre-K to Grade 1 facility. The 83,250 sq. ft. school was funded in
2015, permitted in 2016 and is anticipated to open in 2018.
Recreation Facilities and Programs
Outdoor recreation facilities exist throughout Hopkinton, yet the Town has a number of unmet
needs. Except for school gymnasiums, Hopkinton does not have any indoor recreation facilities,
such as an indoor pool or athletic complex, or a youth center or community center. An indoor
practice facility was funded at the 2015 special town meeting, and it will be constructed at the
Fruit St. fields complex. The Parks and Recreation Department offers an impressive range of
programs for persons of all ages, including a popular summer program for children, horseback
riding, training clinics in all of the major youth sports, arts and crafts, and sports activities and
leisure programs for adults. Demands for active and passive recreation have changed with
household and population growth, and the Town has at times found it difficult to accommodate
them.
Playing Fields. Residential growth over the years strained the capacity of existing facilities, and
overuse meant that the Town’s fields were not properly rested. In 1999, three Little League
52
baseball fields were developed at the Head of the Charles/EMC Park. While this project
addressed then-pressing needs for baseball fields, the same could not be said for other organized
sports, notably soccer. However, turf and grass fields have now been constructed at the Fruit St.
property, and are well-used for soccer and other sports. Along with the older fields on the Fruit
St. property and the availability of additional land there for athletic facilities, the Fruit St.
property may become the playing fields hub for the community over time. The addition of
restrooms and storage is planned.
Parks and Playgrounds. The Town owns and manages several public parks, and the
elementary schools have playgrounds for young children. In 2000, local volunteers completed
the Hopkinton Community Playground and addressed a long-standing need for large playground
space. Town-owned parks with active recreation facilities include Reed Park (Parker Point
Road), Sandy Beach at Lake Maspenock (Hayward Street/Lake Shore Drive), Carrigan Park
(Marshall Street), the Fruit Street property, and the Head of the Charles/EMC Park (Hayden
Rowe). Sandy Beach was renovated and new facilities were constructed in 2014.
Trails. Hopkinton’s 2013 Open Space and Recreation Plan reports that many residents would
like a bicycle trail and more walking/hiking trails. In 2012 the Board of Selectmen created and
appointed an Upper Charles Trail Committee whose mission is to connect a multi-use
walking/biking trail to the end of the Upper Charles Trail in Milford. The Hopkinton Center
Trail, which is a key component of the future Upper Charles Trail, has been opened and
improved within the last five years. In an effort to increase public awareness of trails that exist
in Hopkinton, the Open Space Preservation Commission published the Hopkinton Trail Guide in
2006, which features several Town-owned properties as well as land owned by the Hopkinton
Area Land Trust (HALT) and the Commonwealth.
Town Common
Hopkinton’s signature public park, the Town Common, serves as the starting point for the
Boston Marathon. The Town Common runs along Main Street from Hayden Rowe to Ash
Street, and includes a gazebo, benches, Veterans Memorials and walking paths. It supports a
variety of cultural events, including Concerts on the Common sponsored by the Parks and
Recreation Department, the PolyArts program, which began in the 1970’s as a public exhibit of
works by local artists and gradually evolved into a major regional crafts show, and a Farmers
Market. In recent years the Common has benefitted by a new landscape plan, new gazebo,
marathon statuary and the Claflin Memorial Fountain, which was restored in 2015. The gazebo
and fountain serve as the important centerpieces of the Common.
Hopkinton Center for the Arts
The Town has leased the Terry farmhouse and barn at 98 Hayden Rowe for the Hopkinton
Center for the Arts, a partnership between the Cultural Arts Alliance, Enter Stage Left and the
Hopkinton Community Endowment. Improvements have been made to the farmhouse, which is
used as gallery, office and class space. Renovations and an addition to the barn were completed
in 2015, funded in part by CPA funds. The barn and the addition are used for classroom and
performance space. Parking facilities are shared with the adjacent High School.
Cemeteries
53
The Town owns seven cemeteries and historic burial grounds. The Cemetery Department’s
office is located at the Mount Auburn Cemetery at Mount Auburn Street and Mayhew Street.
Previous master plans recommended investigating needs for future cemetery space. The Town
has installed drainage systems at the Mount Auburn Cemetery to increase the amount of useable
land, which increased capacity. In 2015 the Town acquired 2.6 acres of land adjacent to Mount
Auburn Cemetery for future cemetery use.
Municipal Utilities
Public Water Service. The Water Department provides drinking water to 3,300 residential,
commercial and industrial customers. The system consists of 72 miles of water mains and 683
fire hydrants. Hopkinton operates eight water supply wells in three areas: wells 1, 2, 3 and 6 off
Fruit Street, wells 4 and 5 off Charles McIntyre Lane and Donna Pass, and wells 7 and 8 off
Alprilla Farm Road. The town owns 219 acres around the Fruit Street wells, 3.7 acres around
wells 4 and 5, and 197 acres in the vicinity of the Alprilla Farm wells for wellhead protection.
In February, 1999, Hopkinton entered into a 25 year agreement with the Town of Ashland to
develop new wells and construct a filtration plant next to the Hopkinton Reservoir. The new
treatment plant went online in 2003, and the new supply source provides up to 500,000 gpd. The
Alprilla Farm wells were developed pursuant to an agreement with the developer of Legacy
Farms, and went on line in 2013.
Like other public water systems, Hopkinton is subject to the Massachusetts Water Management
Act, which regulates the amount of water that can be withdrawn from groundwater and surface
water sources. The town’s water withdrawal permit currently authorizes up to 1,210,000 gpd,
and any increase must be approved by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP). Under criteria established by the Massachusetts Water Resources
Commission, several river basins throughout the state have been classified as “high stress”, a
designation that usually imposes stringent water conservation requirements on communities
seeking to amend their water withdrawal permits. Although Hopkinton is not located within the
areas designated as “high stress”, DEP has reduced water withdrawal permits in the Upper
Charles Basin, a move that affected neighboring communities.
DEP regulations define three “zones of contribution” to a well:
Zone I, the protective radius around a well, is usually 400 feet for municipal water
supplies. Private wells serving more than 25 people also qualify as public water supplies
and they, too, must comply with state wellhead protection requirements.
Zone II is “that area of an aquifer which contributes water to a well under the most severe
pumping and recharge conditions that can be realistically anticipated,” a standard
determined by prolonged pump tests.
Zone III includes the entire area within which groundwater and surface water drain into
Zone II, i.e., the Zone II watershed.
54
Hopkinton owns the Zone I radius around its wells, with the exception of Fruit Street, which
passes through the Zone I of wells 1, 2 and 3. The Town also protects its wells and the water
supplies of adjacent towns through the Water Resources Protection Overlay District (WRPOD),
which prohibits and regulates potentially harmful uses in the watershed. The bylaw and map was
last updated in 2011.
Water Storage Facilities. Hopkinton has three water storage facilities with a combined capacity
of 2.2M gallons, and the average tank level is 1.65M gallons. In 2012, Hopkinton’s average
daily water consumption was 1,100,000. The Town has purchased land for an additional storage
tank off Lumber Street, but currently there are no plans to develop one. The Town plans to
replace the storage tank on Hayden Rowe in 2016.
Public Sewer Service. Hopkinton began to provide municipal sewer service in 1989, through an
agreement with the Town of Westborough. When the initial three-phase system was completed
in 1997, it served 1,122 customers. From 1997-1999, the fourth and fifth phases were built to
serve about 420 homes in the vicinity of Charlesview, Hayden Rowe and Thayer Heights.
Construction of the sixth phase, for the South Street area, began in 1998, and included plans to
tie into Milford’s sewer system. The Town has constructed a wastewater treatment facility on
the Fruit Street property, which went on line in 2012. The facility processes and treats up to
100,000 gpd and is expandable up to 350,000 gpd with additional construction.
Hopkinton’s agreement with Westborough has no room for expansion. The agreement allows
Hopkinton to discharge an average daily flow of up to 400,000 gpd of wastewater to the
Westborough wastewater treatment facility, or any combination of septage wastes and
wastewater, up to a maximum of 42,000 gallons per week of seepage and 350,000 gallons per
day of wastewater, average daily flow.
About 40% of the Town has access to municipal sewer service. Hopkinton’s sewer policy
assigns high priority to areas with the greatest environmental and public health needs, and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan completed in 2004. The
purpose of the state-mandated CWMP is to provide a framework for addressing a community’s
future wastewater needs.
Private Utilities
Residents and businesses at Legacy Farms are serviced by a private wastewater treatment facility
located on Clinton Street. The facility may also serve up to 29 area homes if desired. The 280-
unit Hopkinton Mews residential development on Lumber Street will also be served by a private
treatment facility.
The Overlook Road/Summit Road neighborhood is serviced by a private water supply well, as
are some condominium complexes and other private facilities in Hopkinton. These private water
supplies, which are regulated by the DEP, include The Preserve on Rt. 85, The Village at
Highland Park on Wedgewood Drive, Deerfield Estates on Lumber Street, the YMCA and The
Laborer’s Training Center on East Street.
Town Government
55
In response to the needs of residents and the business community for government services, the
size of Town government has changed over the years. The table below shows budgeted amounts
for certain departments providing a service in 2016. It is important to note that unlike the other
municipal departments providing a service, sewer, water and parks and recreation are funded
through enterprise funds, where the ratepayers/users provide most of the funding. Therefore,
their budgets include costs that include debt payments, employee benefits and the like. For other
departments, these costs are centralized and are not included in the department’s budget. It
should be noted that while each Town department has a separate budget and employees, services
are provided collaboratively.
Service FY17 Budget Number of Year-Round
Employees, part time and full
time, September 2016
Education1 $40,902,901 Number pending
Police2 $2, 354,492 Number pending
Fire2 $2,374,061 Number pending
Public Works (roads, stormwater management,
traffic lights, storm control, tree warden, waste
collection)
$3,963,215 Number pending
Sewer $3,141,667 Number pending
Water $1,938,203 Number pending
Library $415,772 Number pending
Senior Center $290,464 Number pending
Parks and Recreation $637,382 Number pending
1Hopkinton Public Schools only; does not include Regional Technical Vocational School
2Does not include Central Dispatch
Sources: Appropriations Committee Recommendations, Annual Town Meeting, May 2, 2016;
It is important to consider the organizational capacity of the town government when considering
how and whether to provide services.
ISSUES
Municipal Buildings & Services
To maintain high-quality services, Hopkinton has built several public facilities within the last 15
years: the Hopkins School, Hopkinton High School, the Police Station and the Senior Center.
Residents have been willing to finance capital projects, and the town has recently voted to fund
important projects including a new Library, a new DPW facility, a new school, and land
acquisition for general municipal purposes, open space and bike trails.
Hopkinton’s annual debt service has risen dramatically as the Town has voted for these projects,
and is equal to about 6.6% of the total operating budget for FY2016. Residents may hesitate to
authorize more borrowing because the cost of the additional debt service will be borne mainly by
homeowners. However, Hopkinton still has public facility and other needs, including
maintenance of existing facilities. For example, the Town Hall is a pleasant, well-maintained
56
building, but some offices are congested,
there is a need for archive space, and the
adequacy of existing space needs to be
evaluated.
Adaptive reuse of Center School is a major
issue to be addressed within the next five
years. When the new elementary school
opens in 2018, the future of the Center
School building and grounds should have
been determined and plans should be in
place, so that the property does not suffer
from lack of use and upkeep. Needs that could be met at Center School include administrative
offices for the schools and general government, records archive space, a youth center and
parking for activities on the Town Common and in the downtown.
The reduction over time in the number of municipal parking spaces in the downtown needs to be
addressed. Existing on-street parking spaces are not necessarily the proper size, which means
they are not all useable at the same time. In addition, others are located too close to driveways
and intersections. When the Main Street corridor plan is implemented, more parking spaces will
be lost as well. The planned construction of 6 more parking spaces in front of the Police Station
is a start, but the Town should consider constructing a municipal parking lot in the downtown
area and/or seek shared parking solutions where private parking lots are made available to the
public.
The Capital Asset Management Plan is an important tool for ensuring that necessary
maintenance and building projects are planned and implemented. The Town needs to
continuously update and implement the plan in the future.
Governance
Hopkinton voters approved a charter in 2006 which established a Board of Selectmen-Town
Manager form of government. Prior to 2006, the Town was governed under a combination of
general laws and special acts of the legislature, and its form of government was highly
decentralized. The charter introduced more centralization by establishing the positions of Town
Manager and Finance Director, and changing the Police Chief’s position from a “weak” to
“strong” chief. In contrast, the charter preserves the town’s existing elected boards and their
functions remain semi-independent of the Board of Selectmen-Town Manager, e.g. the Cemetery
Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning Board. The 10-year charter
review is planned to begin in 2016, at which time the Town will evaluate its effectiveness and
have an opportunity to identify any changes that should be made.
A change in government structure often brings about significant changes in a community’s
approach to budgeting, capital planning and personnel management, in part by establishing clear
lines of authority. It also tends to change the way boards and committees work, even when a
new charter or special act does not directly affect them. Changes to the charter may have
57
implications for space use and future space planning at Town Hall, and the Town will want to
consider this in any future renovation or expansion plans.
Governance is more than “government”. The Town may wish to consider what services are or
can be provided by other entities, including non-profit organizations and through regional
collaboration.
Municipal Utilities
Public Water Service. Adequate recharge for the aquifers serving Hopkinton and adjacent
communities is very important for protecting the quantity and quality of public drinking water.
As Hopkinton develops, more land area becomes impervious and opportunities for groundwater
recharge decrease. Reduced recharge may result in declining water quality, a condition that
could have adverse impacts on Hopkinton’s long-term economic goals and the health and
welfare of the Town as a whole.
Water mains should be extended for residential service only if the Town has enough supply, the
extensions are consistent with an adopted policy or plan, and an effective water conservation
program is in place. For example, water should be provided to areas with failing private wells
and fire protection needs, and to commercial and industrial users. In fact, attracting commercial
and industrial growth and retaining existing businesses would be nearly impossible without
municipal water.
Demand for access to public water will most likely increase as growth continues and additional
supply becomes available. Hopkinton needs to decide if providing water town-wide is desirable
or achievable. The inability to obtain water from the Town or a private well has not made many
lots unbuildable except where smaller lots can be developed if they connect to the municipal
system. However, while providing Town water may have little impact on Hopkinton’s ultimate
build-out, it could hasten the build-out process.
Public Sewer Service. Future extension of sewer service should continue to be guided by
environmental considerations on one hand, and industrial and commercial development
objectives on the other hand. The costs and benefits of a future expansion need to be weighed
carefully, for any expansion of the sewer system will require major capital investment. For the
most part, sewer service has not spurred a significant amount of residential growth. Areas served
by the Town’s sewer system were largely developed and experiencing severe problems. Often
they included vacant lots that were not large enough to support a Title 5 septic system, but while
some lots became buildable as a result of sewer service, the number was small compared to the
total area served. Generally, lots considered unbuildable prior to sewer had high water tables or
wetlands that precluded development.
The notable exception is Lake Maspenock, which is surrounded by small lots that pre-date
zoning. While municipal sewer service made a number of these lots developable, the modest
amount of new growth triggered by sewer service is less important than the improved water
quality at Lake Maspenock. If sewer service is extended to other maturely developed residential
area, consistent with past policy, the impact on future residential growth will most likely be
small. However, extending sewer lines into areas with significant environmental issues can
58
increase the development potential of abutting vacant land. To assure that the Town understands
the consequences for growth, the Planning Department should always be consulted about
proposed sewer extensions.
Providing sewer service to more commercial and industrial properties would significantly
enhance their attractiveness for new business development. Businesses want sewer service, and
they make siting decisions based in part on access to it. Hopkinton’s available commercial and
industrial land is in short supply. Since these types of land uses often required large on-site
septic systems, sewer service would make it possible to increase the amount of commercial or
industrial development on suitably zoned land.
For older residential areas with failing septic systems or serious environmental problems, the
Town should consider other alternatives. Upgrading existing systems or designing small
treatment facilities would be preferable to extending sewer service, in part to protect already
stressed water resources. In addition, while providing sewer service has improved water quality
in Hopkinton, at some level it may be detrimental to water quantity. Hopkinton is located in
three river basins: the Concord, the Blackstone and Charles. When water drawn from them is
discharged into the Westborough WWTF, local aquifers lose recharge. State regulations make
this kind of inter-basin transfer very difficult and in some areas, nearly impossible. Development
of small treatment facilities and discharge of the water there will increase aquifer recharge in
Hopkinton.
Recreation Facilities
Hopkinton is experiencing demand for bike trails, indoor recreation and athletic fields. Growth
in total population, private sports organizations, and intramural and interscholastic sports
programs in the schools largely explain the additional demand, particularly for playing fields.
Although the greatest demand for recreational facilities comes from organized sports programs
for children and youth, there is also demand for recreational and exercise facilities for adults and
seniors.
Surveys conducted in 2011 by the Parks and Recreation Commission and in 2013 for the Open
Space and Recreation Plan demonstrated significant interest in bicycle trails, walking/hiking
trails, indoor ice arena and a swimming pool. Survey respondents indicated that bike trails and
walking/hiking areas were the two most important recreational facilities needed in Hopkinton. If
designed and constructed to cross through and connect open spaces and neighboring
communities, bicycle trails would also address Hopkinton’s long standing desire for greenbelts,
as identified in previous master plans and open space plans. The survey results also underscored
the need for playing fields, indoor recreation facilities and a dog park.
Since the 2007 master plan, more trails have been blazed and made accessible to the public,
notably the Center Trail. Hopkinton needs to continue to develop more trails and provide
parking a trailheads. Trail guides and on-line information publicizing trail access should
continue to be updated. A more comprehensive trail network which includes pedestrian and bike
trails, however, needs overall coordination and planning for future maintenance. The pool of
funding for such efforts also needs to be managed and prioritized.
59
Town Land Planning
In 2015, Town
Meeting adopted a
revised concept plan
for the Town’s Fruit
Street property,
moving away from
designating specific
areas for a school and a
DPW facility, and
identifying these areas
for future recreation
space. Now that these
areas have been
identified for
recreational uses, the
Parks and Recreation
Commission should develop a plan development and use of those areas. A 31 acre undesignated
use area remains to satisfy a future municipal need.
The Town acquired the Irvine and Todaro properties on Hayden Rowe and the Pratt property on
Fruit Street in 2015. The Town’s use of these properties will be planned in the same manner that
the Fruit Street property was planned and implemented. Committees have been established to
prepare plans for each of these areas, which are opportunities to accommodate several of the
Town’s unmet needs.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES & SERVICES GOALS
Protect land around existing and future public water supplies.
Require aquifer recharge.
Provide adequate space for Town facilities.
Provide sewer service to areas of greatest need; Study and plan sewer build-out to
support land use planning.
Maintain and improve existing recreation facilities and create new facilities to
serve the needs of Hopkinton residents.
Action Plan
1. Services such as water, sewer, roads, solid waste disposal, schools and others should
be expanded as the needs of residents and businesses require them.
2. Acquire and protect parcels that have potential for future water resources or
groundwater disposal. Develop new water supply wells as needed.
60
3. The preservation of Hopkinton’s water supply is of primary importance and should
be considered in the evaluation of any development or use which may impact aquifer
areas.
4. Search for new water sources and protect the surrounding area from harmful uses.
When considering open space purchases, prioritize highly those that protect water
supplies and support aquifer recharge.
5. Provide municipal sewer service to industrial and commercial uses and areas.
6. Provide municipal sewer service to areas of greatest need, including those with a
high percentage of failing septic systems coupled with few repair options. Work
cooperatively to ensure that sewer service is limited to areas with critical needs or
areas targeted for desirable development that meets Master Plan goals. The
Planning Board, Board of Health and DPW should work together to ensure that
sewer is used where and when appropriate.
7. Update the CWMP.
8. Encourage implementation, with input from the Board of Health, of state-of-the-art
sewer solutions or alternative systems, using the CWMP as a guide. For the
Woodville area, identified as a priority for sewer service, consider alternatives such
as small treatment plants in order to discourage over-development.
9. Encourage the development of private package treatment facilities with on-site
aquifer recharge.
10. Improve and develop active recreation facilities as recommended in the Open Space
and Recreation Plan, and encourage enhancements to existing facilities such as at
Fruit Street, Reed Park and EMC Park.
11. Provide adequate maintenance for all recreational facilities to allow for safe
enjoyment and use by residents.
12. Provide recreational facilities that meet the needs of the schools and all residents,
including senior residents. Understand the growth in the over-55 population and its
impact on recreational facilities. Given the dramatic increase in apartment units,
consider that the recreational needs of renters may be different than those of home
owners with dedicated yards.
13. Provide parking and signage where public hiking trails exist or are being developed.
14. Ensure that the Department of Public Works can maintain existing roads and
bridges through an adequately funded maintenance program.
15. Monitor and plan for the anticipated increase in the number of older residents.
Consider impacts on emergency services and handicapped accessibility, for example.
16. Develop a reuse plan for the Center School building and grounds which considers
anticipated municipal needs based on a changing population, regulatory framework
and government structure.
17. Update and implement the Capital Asset Management Plan to assure that the Town’s
physical assets are adequately maintained.
18. Support efforts to create trail development and maintenance policies, and provide
funding for implementation.
19. Plan for the need for future Fire Department substations in areas with new
development or which improve the operational ability to provide emergency services,
and identify and acquire potentially suitable sites.
61
Transportation
The Transportation element of a Master Plan addresses the movement of people and goods
within a community and across regional transportation networks. A transportation network is
comprised of roads, bridges, public transportation facilities – such as airports, trains, commuter
rail, rapid transit, marine terminals and piers – together with pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
The goals of a transportation plan are to serve existing and future land use patterns, provide
mobility options, maximize public safety, make efficient use of public funds, and promote
improvements that protect the built and natural environment. The Master Plan should be used as
guidance for addressing the impacts of local, state and federal transportation policies.
The effects of population and employment growth in Hopkinton and neighboring towns can be
seen in increased traffic during peak and off-peak hours. In the past decade, Hopkinton absorbed
a 12% population increase, a 2% increase in the number of local employers and a 6.6% increase
in local jobs. The number of Hopkinton households with three or more cars also increased by
27%, and the average number of vehicles per household, from 2.03 to 3.4. Changes that
occurred locally and region-wide help to explain the growth in traffic observed on local streets
and regional highways that cross through town.
HOPKINTON TODAY
Roads
Hopkinton is served by 136 miles of roadways, nearly all maintained by the Town. Like any
road network, Hopkinton’s includes a hierarchy of streets that serve different functions, from
long distance travel to commuting to work, shopping errands in adjacent communities or trips
between home and the downtown area, schools, parks and community institutions. The road
network consists of major regional highways, arterials, collector streets and local streets.
Interstate Highways. Two interstate highways cross Hopkinton and connect a major
interchange along the Town’s northern boundary: I-90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) and I-495.
Interstate highways are controlled access roads, i.e. roads with a limited number of access and
exit points, designed to carry large volumes of traffic between states and across metropolitan
areas.
I-90 was built during the mid-1950’s and widened in 1970. I-495 is Boston’s outer-
circumferential highway, extending from the New Hampshire border to Cape Cod at a radius of
about 30 miles from the city. The portion that runs through Hopkinton was completed in 1969,
providing ready access to the region’s employment, retail and service centers. Most of
Hopkinton’s industrially zoned land is near the West Main Street exit off I-495 as well as the
Town’s Hotel Overlay District.
62
Arterials and Collectors. Several major streets carry local and non-local traffic between the
regional highway system and sub-regional destinations. These roadways include a rural arterial,
Route 135 from the Ashland town line to the Wood street underpass; six major collectors, Route
85, Route 135 (Wood underpass to Westborough), West Main Street, Ash Street, Chestnut Street
and South Street; and a minor collector, School Street from West Main Street to Upton, where its
name changes to East Street.
Generally, these roads meet needs for traffic mobility, although some of them double as
roadways serving residential areas, such as Chestnut Street and Ash Street. The difference
between arterial and collector streets can be seen in the relatively small number of access points
to Route 135 from Ashland to Wood Street (except for Hopkinton center), compared to the
frequency with which local or neighborhood streets intersect roads such as Ash Street, Wood
Street and West Main Street.
Local Roads. All of the remaining roads – about 127 miles – are classified as local roads, which
supply access to homes and businesses within Hopkinton. Approximately 115 miles of local
roads have been accepted by the Town and the other 12 miles are unaccepted streets (future
public ways). Local roads can be further classified as subcollectors and “place” streets, or streets
serving a confined neighborhood.
Hopkinton Roads
Jurisdiction Centerline Miles
State Agency
MassDOT 8.85
State Park 0.21
Town of Hopkinton
Accepted Streets 115
Unaccepted Ways 12
Permanently Private Ways
Total 136
Source: MassDOT; Town of Hopkinton
Bridges
Hopkinton has 15 bridge structures, mainly associated with I-90 and I-495 travel lanes and on/off
ramps. The Town has jurisdiction over the Cedar Street Extension Bridge, which crosses the
VISION THEME
In 2025, Hopkinton has a transportation system that offers community choice
regarding travel for a driver, bicyclist, pedestrian, or someone using public
transportation and that has addressed parking, traffic congestion, and other
transportation issues.
63
Sudbury River, but the
other bridges are
maintained by MassDOT.
According to the National
Bridge Inventory (Federal
Highway Administration,
most bridges in Hopkinton
are in good or very good
condition. However, the
railings on the I-495
northbound and
southbound bridges over
West Main Street and
Wood Street do not meet
current standards. The
Route 85 bridge over the
Sudbury River has
recently been reconstructed to repair structural deficiencies. It was also widened to
accommodate a sidewalk.
Bus Service
The MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA) bus system provides fixed-route service
from Hopkinton to Framingham on weekdays, roughly from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Route #5
runs from Hopkinton to Framingham, with stops in Ashland along the way. Passengers in
Hopkinton are picked up at the Rt. 85/Rt. 135 intersection, the Price Chopper at South St./West
Main St., and at the South St./Hayward St. intersection. Schedules for all routes are available at
www.mwrta.com.
Commuter Rail
Hopkinton residents have access to commuter rail service in Southborough and Ashland on the
Framingham-Worcester line. Trains run roughly from 5:00 AM to midnight on weekdays. The
Southborough station is located at the intersection of Route 85 and Cordaville Road. Not
surprisingly, peak-period commuter traffic entering and exiting the station contributes to the
congestion at the Route 85/Route 135 intersection in Hopkinton. Southborough has surface
parking for 364 vehicles, and the average weekday availability of parking spaces is less than
35%. In contrast, the Ashland station on Pleasant Street has parking for 678 cars and 68%
average weekday availability.
Airports
Hopkinton has access to several public airports that provide commercial air service in the region.
Logan Airport, the state’s primary airport in Boston, supports domestic and international travel.
It is a major international airport serving 40 airlines, with five runways and a Federal Aviation
Administration control tower, hospitality and food service accommodations, and a large multi-
level parking garage centrally located to serve all five terminals. From Hopkinton, Logan
Airport is accessible by Logan Express service in Framingham, MBTA commuter rail, or by car.
Regional airport facilities exist in Worcester, MA, Manchester, NH and Providence, RI, and at
64
Hanscom Field in Bedford. Privately owned general aviation facilities are available in
Marlborough and Hopedale.
Pedestrian/Bicycle Paths
Hopkinton has a number of open space trails for walking and hiking, but no bicycle paths.
Recreation surveys have consistently indicated significant interest in bicycle trails in Hopkinton.
In 1997, the Metropolitan Area Planning council prepared a preliminary feasibility study for
construction of an inter-local trail network. The 20-mile Upper Charles Trail would provide off-
road access for walking, bicycling and cross-country skiing in Milford, Holliston, Sherborn
Ashland and Hopkinton via unused or abandoned rail beds. Subsequently, the Town opened up
and constructed the Center Trail, a portion of the future Upper Charles Trail, between Main
Street and Chamberlain Street. Milford has constructed most of its section of the Upper Charles
Trail, and Holliston is actively constructing portions. In 2012 Hopkinton established the Upper
Charles Trail Committee, whose mission is to accomplish the Hopkinton portion. Trail planning
is underway.
In addition to dedicated bike paths, bike lanes on roads in Hopkinton that can accommodate them
would improve safety for bicyclists and reinforce the reality that bicycles and vehicles share the
road.
Sidewalks
Hopkinton master plans since the early 1990’s have encouraged sidewalks throughout the Town.
While there are more networked sidewalks now than there were in 1993, portions of the Town
are underserved by sidewalk infrastructure. With a population of around 16,000 people and busy
roads, sidewalks in Hopkinton are important to keep people safe and healthy, and to provide an
alternative to automobile use. An online sidewalk survey conducted by the Planning Board in
the summer of 2013 yielded in 99 responses identifying 21 streets with specific sidewalk
recommendations. Ash Street, East Main Street, Hayden Rowe Street and West Main Street
yielded the highest number of responses. In response, the Planning Board developed a Sidewalk
Plan, and town meeting voted in 2014 to fund sidewalk construction and maintenance. Many of
the priority sidewalk areas identified in the survey and by the Board have been addressed.
Scenic Roads
Since 1973, Hopkinton has taken an active role in designating scenic roads under M.G.L. c.40,
Section 15C and adopted a Scenic Road Bylaw (Chapter 160, Hopkinton General Bylaws).
Today, 17 streets are protected under the Scenic Roads bylaw. The bylaw requires a public
hearing prior to any cutting of trees exceeding 3” in diameter, altering or repairing of stone walls,
or conducting road maintenance or repair work within the layout of the road.
In order to increase the awareness of scenic roads, the Planning Board, with the assistance of the
Hopkinton DPW, spearheaded the installation of “Scenic Road” street signs at entrances to
scenic roads. In addition, the Town sends an informational letter to all purchasers of homes or
land on a scenic road, and information is posted on the Town website.
Local Traffic Conditions
Hopkinton residents are concerned about increasing traffic congestion in the downtown area,
particularly the intersection of Cedar Street and Main Street (Routes 85/135). They also see
65
more general traffic on side roads, including a significant amount of truck traffic. The overall
length and weight of trucks has increased over time, which makes it more difficult for trucks to
negotiate intersection and turnarounds. In addition, growth in truck traffic adds wear and tear on
roads that were never designed to handle heavy vehicles, which increases the Town’s
maintenance costs.
The conditions at the Route 85/Route 135 intersection were improved with new signalization and
the addition of a right turn lane onto Main Street from Grove St., the “intermediate
improvements” mitigation required of Legacy Farms. Full build improvements will further
modify the intersection as the development builds out. In addition, in 2014, the Town has
submitted a 25% design plan to MassDOT for the Main Street corridor in the downtown area,
which will provide a range of improvements for both pedestrians and vehicles. The Town has a
consultant under contract to complete the 100% design in 2016. The Project is also listed of the
MPO’s TIP list for construction funding in 2019, but additional funds will need to be
appropriated at a future Town Meeting to move forward with construction.
Traffic safety conditions are anticipated to improve in the vicinity of the West Main
Street/School Street intersection now that the construction of a traffic signal at that location is
complete. This should resolve a long-standing problem of safety and congestion.
Change in Average Daily Traffic (ADT): Hopkinton, 2005-
ADT YEAR
Highway Traffic Count
Location
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Route 135 West of I-495 N/A N/A N/A 5,900 5,858
Route 135 Ashland Town
line
7,232 N/A N/A N/A N/A
I-495 Milford Town
line
82,983 83,239 86,400 82,652 108,339
I-495 South of I-90 98,876 99,714 94,058 94,000 113,026
ADT YEAR
Highway Location 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Route 135 West of I-495 5,445 5,559 5,608 5,652 5,827
Route 135 Ashland Town
line
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
I-495 Milford Town
line
109,000 112,271 114,641 114,708 111,840
I-495 South of I-90 113,000 116,232 117,257 118,280 115,323
Source: MassDOT
JOURNEY TO WORK
Highway access clearly matters to Hopkinton. During the 1990’s, local residents became
somewhat more dependent on their own cars to travel to and from work. Census 2010 statistics
show that 77.9% of the Town’s labor force drives alone to work each day, followed by 6.1%
66
using the commuter rail, 2.4% carpooling, 2% walking and 1.06% using the bus, subway, and
other means. This is in contrast to the 2000 statistics where 84.9% were driving alone, 2.1%
were using the commuter rail, 5.6% were carpooling and 1.94% were traveling by other means.
About 8% of the labor force works at home, compared to 5% in 2000.
It is important to note that the MBTA commuter rail station opened in Southborough in 2004,
which likely accounts for more Hopkinton residents using the commuter rail. In addition, some
of the increase in persons driving alone to work reflects growth in the number of residents
working locally. Since Hopkinton lacks town-wide public transportation, residents with a local
job have little choice but to drive to work unless they live close enough to their place of
employment to walk or bicycle. Also, Hopkinton has more home-based workers today than in
the past, which may be due to changes in technology.
Modes of Travel: Hopkinton Labor Force
Census 2010 Census 2000 Census 1990
Employed Labor
Force
Total % Total % Total %
Live & work in
Hopkinton
1,752 23.7% 1,331 20.3% 917 18.8%
Work elsewhere 5,147 69.5% 5,218 79.7% 3,949 81.2%
Total Employed
Labor Force
7,080 100% 6,549 100% 4,866 100%
Means of
Transportation
Car, truck or van: 5,686 5,929 4,487
Drive alone 5,518 77.9% 5,559 84.9% 4,085 83.9%
Carpooled 168 2.4% 370 5.6% 402 8.3%
Public
transportation:
470 164 45
Bus or trolley bus 33 0.5% 16 0.2% 0
Streetcar or trolley
car
0 0 0
Subway or elevated 4 0.06% 13 0.2% 0
Railroad 433 6.1% 135 2.1% 45 0.9%
Ferryboat 0 0 0
Taxicab 0 0 0
Motorcycle 0 0 4 0.1%
Bicycle 0 0 0
Walk 144 2.0% 85 1.3% 85 1.7%
Other means 35 0.5% 37 0.6% 27 0.6%
Work at home 564 8.0% 334 5.1% 218 4.5%
Source: U.S. Census; American Community Survey 2011
REGIONAL PLANNING
For Hopkinton and other communities nearby, planning for major transportation improvement
projects is carried out by the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (Boston MPO), a
67
consortium of MAPC, the Regional Transportation Advisory Council (RTAC), the
Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation, MassDOT, the MBTA and MBTA Advisory
Board, MassPort, the cities of Boston, Beverly, Everett, Newton, Somerville and Woburn, and
the towns of Arlington, Bedford, Braintree, Framingham, Lexington, Medway and Norwood.
Boston has a permanent seat on the Boston MPO; all other municipal representatives are elected
annually by members of MAPC. The Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit
Administration serve as ex officio members of the Boston MPO. A related agency known as the
Central Transportation Planning Staff provides technical, policy and planning assistance to the
Boston MPO.
Regional transportation planning is a complex process involving many constituencies,
considerable public expense and ongoing technical documentation. The significant regional
plans affecting Hopkinton include the BostonMPO’s 25 year regional Transportation Plan, the
five-year Transportation Improvement Program and Air Quality Conformity Determination, the
annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which becomes part of the State
Transportation Improvement Program, and the Unified Work Program, submitted to the federal
government for funding and certification each year. In turn, the state allocates federal funds
from various programs to support roadway and bridge improvements, bicycle facilities, and
pedestrian and streetscape enhancements. Through the TIP process, the Simarano Drive exit off
I-495 was constructed in 2004.
By law, the transportation planning process must culminate in a set of proposed projects that do
not exceed the estimated federal funds that will be available in any given fiscal year. As a result,
many fundable projects have to be excluded from the annual TIP, although they can be restored
by amendment if the actual amount of federal funds exceeds what planning and state highway
officials originally expected to receive. Sometimes, however, the amendment process results in
fewer projects because the construction cost estimates for TIP-approved projects exceed the
estimates used to prepare the original transportation budget.
The 2016-2020 TIP includes the Rt. 135 intersection improvements in the Universe of Projects,
with the replacement of the bridge on Fruit Street over the CSX/Sudbury River programmed for
2018.
Of interest to Hopkinton from a regional perspective, is MassDOT’s I-90/I-495 Interchange
Improvement Project (the Interchange Project). The need for the Interchange Project has been
well-documented in recent transportation planning and economic development efforts by state,
regional and local officials. In March of 2015, MassDOT filed an Environmental Notification
Form with MEPA. Also, the implementation of the All-Electronic Tolling System (AETS) along
the entire length of I-90 and associated toll plaza demolition in 2016 will affect congestion at the
interchange. This is of concern because the Hopkinton Fire Department responds to
approximately 100 calls per year along I-495 and its associated ramps. Safety improvements
could reduce this number. Conversely, the failure to improve safety could result in more calls.
68
ISSUES
Roads
According to a buildout study prepared by MAPC in 2000, Hopkinton was anticipated to see an
additional 47 miles of roadways by the time it reached full development. Achieving balance
between scenic roads, public safety and convenient travel will be increasingly challenging for
Hopkinton as the Town continues to grow. The development of Hopkinton’s remaining land
presents opportunities for an extensive public discussion about the relationship between
transportation and land use. As an alternative to road widening, signalization and other
expensive means to control traffic, the Town may need to consider “traffic calming” options to
address speed and traffic volume on existing and new streets. In addition, the safety,
construction cost and maintenance of public sidewalks, less costly alternatives, and
environmental impacts will need to be explored.
Sidewalks, Pedestrian &
Bicycle Facilities
The I-495/West Main Street
intersection remains a
formidable obstacle to
pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
The Downtown Plan, in the
design stage, will need to
accommodate pedestrians and
bicyclists safely. Further
development along West
Main Street from the end of
sidewalk near Whalen Rd. at
least to Downey Street, must
include a sidewalk
component. Responses to a
2013 Sidewalk Survey
indicated other areas of need
and concern which should be addressed, including Ash Street, East Main Street and Hayden
Rowe Street, all busy roads with pedestrian traffic. Gaps in the existing sidewalk network
should also be addressed. Some are very short sections that will complete a network.
Two bike racks were added within the last few years via a state grant, at the Public Library and at
Sandy Beach. Additional facilities and accommodations for bicycles will be important as the
Upper Charles Trail in Milford and as expanded into Hopkinton gains greater usage.
Public Transportation
The I-495/Rt. 9 study completed in 2013 included a review of public transportation and the
importance of linking the Worcester oriented system to the Metrowest Regional Transit
Authority. Another study is underway which looks at links between the Metrowest Regional
Transit Authority system and the GATRA system in neighboring communities to the south.
69
Fostering links between separate systems allows for greater overall use of public transportation
in the area.
70
Sidewalk Plan
Hopkinton residents are walkers and runners, and value being outdoors. Residents want to
walk to schools, to the center of town, and within and between neighborhoods. Many of our
streets are narrow and winding scenic roads, some created before the automobile, which
are attractive places and help to define our community. Some of our roads are straight and
wide with a lot of traffic. In all of these circumstances, people are trying to safely walk and
run within the roadway because there are limited sidewalks. Walking is a basic and
important component of a transportation network, and the Town has reached a critical mass
of traffic and pedestrians, which needs to be addressed by separating pedestrians and
vehicles where possible. A complete sidewalk network means improved pedestrian safety,
improved health and wellness, and improved access to schools and local activities.
Sidewalk Surveys on the Town website in 2013 and 2016 yielded good responses. People
were asked for their opinion as to where sidewalks were needed. All or parts of many
streets were mentioned, as well locations where existing sidewalks were in need of repair.
Several of the streets are designated scenic roads, typically narrow and winding with limited
rights of way. The Board established priority sidewalk areas based on the 2013 survey
results, and these areas have largely been addressed with new sidewalks constructed in
2014 and 2015 on Ash Street, West Main Street and Wood Street.
Based on the 2016 survey responses and consideration of planning for bike path, trail and
transportation connections, the Board recommends the following:
Recommendations
A.Sidewalks should be considered an integral part of the overall transportation network,
and should not be thought of as a luxury.
B.New sidewalks should be constructed as follows:
West Main Street connecting Lumber Street to Downey Street and the Hopkinton
Square shopping area, and beyond, to School Street if possible. If it is not practical
or cost effective to go under Route 495 or cross the Lake Maspenock causeways on
West Main Street, there are alternatives to consider.
The east side of Hayden Rowe in the vicinity of the new elementary school;
Hayden Rowe south of Granite Street, connecting to the Upper Charles Trail in
Milford.
C.Sidewalks on designated Scenic Roads should be designed to meander around
significant trees and stone walls, so as to preserve the overall scenic character of the
roadway.
D.Sidewalks should be free from permanent items such as electrical boxes, utility poles
and signage that unreasonably interferes with public access.
E.Adequate funds for sidewalk design, permitting, construction and maintenance/repair
should be annually budgeted on an ongoing basis.
71
TRANSPORTATION GOALS
Improve & maintain the existing transportation system to provide adequate
service to accommodate future growth.
Provide alternatives to automobile transportation, including bicycle and
pedestrian facilities and networks.
Improve public safety by addressing problematic and hazardous intersections.
Action Plan
1. Improve operational capacity and safety at the following intersections.
The Route 85/Route 135 intersection in the Downtown: intersection
alignment, signal timing, consolidated curb cuts, sidewalks, bicycle lanes,
underground utilities, pedestrian safety improvements.
Lumber Street/West Main Street: signal timing, right turn lane from West
Main St. eastbound onto Lumber Street, sidewalks, bicycle lanes.
Wood Street/West Main Street/Main Street: signal timing, improved truck
turning.
Pleasant Street/Main Street: traffic signal, pedestrian safety improvements.
Chestnut Street/Hayden Rowe: traffic signal, pedestrian safety
improvements.
2. Monitor the following intersections and anticipate changes as needed:
Legacy Farms North and Legacy Farms South intersection with East Main
Street. Still under construction, the developer continues to be responsible for
monitoring traffic counts and installing a traffic light when warranted.
Turning at this location is difficult at peak hours.
South Street/West Main Street, including the I-495 ramps. This area should
be carefully monitored as traffic volumes increase over time.
3. Improve the Main Street corridor to provide adequate parking, safe and efficient
traffic flow, and bicycle lanes to facilitate downtown redevelopment and manage the
growth of traffic from area development.
4. Improve the Hayden Rowe corridor to provide safe and efficient traffic flow and
pedestrian and bicycle access to schools and neighborhoods.
5. Encourage residents and employers to promote and use public transportation,
carpooling and ride sharing. Consider working with other towns in the region to
encourage transportation demand management (TDM) practices as part of the
review process for major development projects.
6. Encourage the discussion of mixed uses of corridors and its impact on the Town, i.e.,
does a bike path encourage connectivity or create a barrier for trail walkers.
7. Develop design and construction standards for old paper streets that will not be
discontinued and could be proposed for construction in the future.
72
8. Develop plans and construct the Upper Charles Trail. Develop plans for providing
bikeways around Hopkinton, connecting to neighborhoods, recreational facilities
and downtown. Acquire land for these purposes as needed.
9. Make downtown more accessible for pedestrian and bicycle users, thus reducing
traffic and congestion, and provide for full accessibility for persons with disabilities.
10. Improve pedestrian safety by providing sidewalks along heavily traveled routes
throughout the Town and implementing the Sidewalk Plan.
11. Provide pedestrian links from Hopkinton to the MBTA station in Southborough on
Route 85.
12. Provide all-day parking and/or shuttle service for carpool, bus and rail commuters.
Consider Hopkinton State Park as one such facility.
73
Implementation Plan
Action Plan Item Timeline Responsible Party Resources Needed
Edits to Page 50, Community Facilities & Services Section
Senior Center. After operating a senior center in the basement of Town Hall for 18 many years,
the Town Council on Aging opened a new 14,30015,000 sq. ft. senior center in 2006. The
building is located adjacent to the Hopkinton Housing Authority’s seniorelderly housing on
Davis Road. Not only does the Senior Center provide services and programs serve the
program needs of seniors, but it also provides space for larger town board/committee gatherings
than cannot can be accommodated at Town Hall. The anticipated growth in the senior elderly
population may result in a need to expand the programs and services offered at the Senior
Center delete and by the Council on Aging. The new programs and services may result in a
need to expand the building itself.
11/14/2016 Town of Hopkinton, M A Mail Town Master Plan
https://m ail.google.com /mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=dbd2da471e&view=pt&search=inbox&th=157e3573e3b29d70&sim l=157e3573e3b29d70&siml=157e3a7170dce0cd&s…1/2
Elaine Laz arus <elai nel@hopkintonma.gov>
Town Master Plan
4 mes s ages
Amy Beck <abec k@hopk int onma.gov >Thu, Oc t 20, 2016 at 2:25 PM
To: jburke@hopk intonma.gov, Elaine Laz arus <elainel@hopk intonma.gov >
Hi Jennifer and E laine
Since the S enior Center has been working wit h both Norman and Brian Herr f or the expansion of public t ransport ation as it
relates t o t he expanding populat ion of disabled and senior cit izens, we f eel t hat the following should be included in the
Transportat ion sect ion on pages 71 and 72.
Expand access to and modes of public transportat ion t hroughout the town not just along t he fixed rout es specifically as
it relat es to disabled citizens of all ages and seniors citizens.
Thank s.
Amy
Amy Bec k
As s ist ant Director
Hopk int on Senior Center
28 Mayhew St reet
Hopk int on, MA 01748
Phone: 508/4979730 ext . 1613
abec k@hopk int onma.gov
All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email account are public rec ords unless qualified as an
exemption under the Massachusetts Public Records Law.
Visit us online at www.hopkintonma.gov.
Elaine Laz arus <elainel@hopk int onma.gov >Thu, Oc t 20, 2016 at 3:52 PM
To: Amy Bec k <abec k @hopkintonma.gov>
Cc: Jennifer Burke <jburke@hopk int onma.gov >
Amy,
Thank y ou for the c omment , that is a good idea. I f we c an expand on that, where is the t rans port ation needed, and/or
what type of transportat ion is needed? Is it that the f ix ed route serv ic e does n't go to the places people want to go to,
both for drop off and pic k up, or is t here more to it?
Thank y ou!
Elaine
[Quoted text h id den]
11/14/2016 Town of Hopkinton, M A Mail Town Master Plan
https://m ail.google.com /mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=dbd2da471e&view=pt&search=inbox&th=157e3573e3b29d70&sim l=157e3573e3b29d70&siml=157e3a7170dce0cd&s…2/2
Elaine C. Laz arus
Direc tor of Land Use and Town Operations
Town of Hopk int on
18 Main St.
Hopk int on, MA 01748
5084979700
5084979702 (f ax)
Amy Beck <abec k@hopk int onma.gov >Fri, Oc t 21, 2016 at 2:20 PM
To: Elaine Laz arus <elainel@hopk intonma.gov >
Hi Elaine
The current MWRTA f ix ed route does prov ide adequate c ov erage.
We of ten get requests from nonsenior dis abled indiv iduals , s eniors, and families with dis abled children who c annot get
thems elv es t o t he fix ed route and for which the fixed rout e may not be appropriate. Either t hey are loc ated too far off the
fix ed route; their dis ability is so rest rictive that t hey are unable t o get thems elv es c loser t o t he rout e: the fixed route bus
trav el time may not be appropriat e; or their des tination is not along t he fix ed route to name a few of the problems we
s ee.
With SMOC put ting more people (y ounger and older) into Legacy and other new developments who hav e no
trans port ation, and with the new and older "senior" facilities not prov iding s ufficient transportation f or their res idents, we
are s eeing t he demand/need for more and/or alternative trans portation options in town. One s uc h option "DialARide" is
not c urrently in Hopkinton but is found in s urrounding c ommunities.
Our department has been work ing wit h Norman, Brian Herr and the MWRTA t o provide more serv ic es but t he proces s is
v ery s low. I think having this in the Town Mas t er Plan for Trans portation would be a good place to mak e sure t his need
is not overlook ed.
As the Town grows so does the need for adequate public transportation.
Hopefully this answers your ques tion and ex plains what we are looking t o provide.
Thank s.
Amy
[Quoted text h id den]
Elaine Laz arus <elainel@hopk int onma.gov >Mon, Oc t 24, 2016 at 8:49 AM
To: Amy Bec k <abec k @hopkintonma.gov>
Amy,
Thank y ou for the c omment s and for raising t hese iss ues . We will pres ent to them to the Planning B oard in adv anc e of
the public hearing.
Elaine
[Quoted text h id den]
Master Plan Comments – Hopkinton Historic District Commission – 11-10-16
1. In the Natural, Cultural and Open Space Resources section, add language which describes the
historic districts in greater detail and explains the roles of the Historic District Commissions.
2. Add an Action Item which recommends that the Town study the possible expansion of the
Hopkinton Center historic district, working with property owners and other town boards. As
the Town becomes more developed and downtown lots become more desirable, the historic
streetscape in the areas surrounding the downtown will be at increased risk.
3. Add an Action Item/recommendation that the amount of green space and planting areas in the
downtown should be increased – more green space/less hardscape. Such changes could
include plantings along sidewalks, and street trees where possible to provide shade for
pedestrians.
4. Add an Action Item to conduct a traffic sign audit in the downtown before the Downtown
Corridor project gets fully underway, with the goal to coordinate sign placement and
aggregate signs together on the same post where possible.
Board of Selectmen/Town Manager Master Plan Review
For Planning Board Public Hearing 11/21/16
1. Community Facilities & Services, Governance section: Provide guidance on governance, in
line with the Town’s vision statement and given the need for more collaboration in the future,
as town government must deal with increasingly complex cross-jurisdictional issues. Include
discussion of the Charter and how it could deal with these needs.
2. The Implementation Plan should identify responsible parties for each Action Plan item and
how items will be funded.
3. Overall, the Planning Board should ensure the plan’s recommendations include action items
consistent with and that further sustainability and energy conservation objectives of the
Town’s vision statement.
4. The action plan in the “Land Use” section should clearly articulate what and how town
services keep pace with development. We note that water and sewer services are covered in
the “Community Facilities and Services” section.
5. Regarding diversifying the town’s economic base, verify if the Principal Assessor supports
the assumption that the 80/20 percent split is the appropriate balance to ensure the tax burden
on residents “does not become onerous”.
/
'r;
•
/,
i„,/, ,, , , „, , , A,41„,
'.// ' / �v
• /// ,
1 /,
rp /
•/
1Z
m
;xri
/
• /
• / ,v ; ,.
• /
//
/
„
//
Land Use, 2014
Town of Hopki nt on, MA.
• "/
/
•
>< it ' •• �/ , ,
/ f /3 O ,.f / ;4 , /' • • / •, .� / /',j e'r // JAI.. • fip
L egend
Institutional
��� Industrial
Recreation
Unvegetated Land
Agriculture
Conservation and Open Land
/ / Low Density R esidential
Medium D ensity Resid ential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Multi -Family Residential
Water
,
/
74.
/
z
0
0. 5 1
1 1
/,'
2 Miles
•
The information sh own
on this map Is from the H opki nto n
Geographic Inform ati on Sy stem (GIS)
database and is intend ed for
informatio nal purposes only .
The T ow n of Hopkinton has
mad e reas on able efforts to ensur e accuracy
of the c onte nt, but d oes n ot g uar antee the
acc ura cy of the i nformati on.
Users are r esp onsible for det ermini ng It s
suitability for their intended use or purpose.
02012 Town of Hopkinton, MA -
AI Rights R eserved
TOWN OF
HOPKINTON
M ASSACHUSETTS
ZONING MAP
VOTED AT ANNUAL TOWN MEETIN G
2015
A J G
A .G. . 01.0.11111.114 ALI. 00011.110 11/1. 111
H/1/4AP IWO OSAM GI
.. 1 031
0 .001 Ck H. . WC , =VT.'"
0 a 1.11.1.11/11 CI
•11.1.1114
B a >
NAGA . 01 11.1011 RD . 0Gpoot 0, r 1¢0 131
.n u.0
Al.1 .1 1.401.11 114 1111110.0. 11111111101.1.1. C4 NAL. III a ,vss,m Cl
. . 1•11 3111411111 .111
111111 1.411•40 1. NOL TIT GA 0.1.114 Al
1110.111 G4 11101411 1.31.• . .101111.0 Ai
0.140 111.
1.0 70111 .. M. ..>.,. OS A .D.. - 00.110 1311.1110 a,
41101fialLI C2111 Y... 43.1 0130.0 .11M Cl
a 41.111 1/0 .> 110 011111.10 S 1111.01.1... wma >., 411.111 II Al et 1111 ▪ .111. 10 UPI SCU M. C 1.5 3
111•111..A 4
0.0 01 re• ea
L .. Al MG. G LD4
r'"."."' .%10
M11. 41=111•11 CIL 1.1111. 4.5111. MAC [4 021A .Va lff CA
1.01. 11.. 00111113.11 113
1100111- Al
.131.0000/1 4t2
m.111.11110 .
.1.11 00 SI FA
.> .r. r., ..
1101▪ 31•111110. WRI NG. .
0.1.110 02 .111 1113 00 Gl V
M▪ OM IL 01
ra y
0011.11 4
11110 .m w or
E 01111.1041.
T
13111301 1111 C.
w
111.1111101 111
C.1.131. CI
N 1.61317.1 CIP
.041.1. 1•3•11411• 111111 1.013•41 Di
�>
11.61.1.3111 111
.> .>
F :::.arc, a
1141.4.11 4 Di o
111111170 13 1 D.4 41.111111100 03 111......
. 411 3.1.1400 Al X YZ
ucom P ..>. o n
. w, >r,.s um
1
2`
3
S OUT HB OROUGH
4 5
WESTBO RO UGH f
t
•
r a�
Z • '
P.�
1 f r
°
,,� ,._..
,r. ,.11 r.�.
�i 1,11111140111 0111
"\I I c ertAy that this Zoning Map is drawn in accordance with the ' —
j Zoning Bylaws of the Town of Hopkinto n as am end ed thi s d ate.
'I, TOWN CLER K D ATE
ASHLAND
•
,��
Vi=i l . 1" •
+. .
�
yyt y
..w
YYY
,i''''''•
rj
Y I,T
•
.. : yam •
J
- �aE
0f
:
UPTO N
Wes:
"
y. e�'
f., .;
%s/ .
'
r
'N o Iota
�': i .s
G ,f�
je
HOLLISTO N
4144447
MILFO RD
Legend
H ot el Ov erl ay
L ave! III Parcels
So uth Parr rl
n Osm ud H eight Dlstril
UIJ Nor th Parcel
fl Cmmr ner cel Subdistri ct
[Iv:: Residenti al S ebels5i 0.
JIVis ag e Craw, Suhdi s:rict
Z oning De scripti on
Reside nti al
Residenti al 9
Resid ential L ake Front
agnwiure
easin ess
Rural B usi ness
D onnl om, ea si ness
Pr shs sonid OlSrx
L� O/ic e Park
i In dNrialA
® Industrial B
N eighb orhood Mixed Use District
U
1 INCH = 1,664 FEET
0 1,400 2,800 5.600 8:400 11,200
0 0 .275 0.55
1.1 1.65
Mies
2.2
*I Pir
V4'
'11I1kA(Im1k7V.Y1lruir *iIlI11R'r
eirir17 71
STBO
the data sho wn en rtds site are 0�. O
prowle d led for aaormatnn si a nd trio. ler,
pan nin g pu rposes only The o W
0
Town an d as co ns ultan ts are no t W"
responseee la the misus e or e
lap
mnrepresemribn of th e da ta
Y QO
d•
$OI JTHBO
�n ysk
MRi1t�1 �
fp
4 /tilt lil t.
'‘I"'ROIftAA1 'of_iVIF
RZt1�17R(IIL�� .. 1111L ,,'
irEirf VPrir
t.411:-?jtl/!'
H op Riv ers
MA NHESP Certified Ver ne' P
MA Drainage SubBasins
MA DEP W etla nds - No Lo ngt
®M er ahf8og
® Wooded S wamp
® Salt Marsh
MA M-IESP E stim at ed Habit at
O
MA Ar eas of Critical Er nv onm
AlR oad/Rail based
NRiv er ba sed
dIV Wetland b ased
Flo odptein based
N Tidal b ased
Co nt our based
Politi cal b oundary
A/Pr operty li ne based
N ath er
.: Not defined
MA Mean of Critical Ertveonm
MHighways
Int erst ate
US Highway
Numbered R outes
T own Bo undary
Lakes & P ond s
Str eets
,v
Spaceholder for Dash ed Li ne
die
E asem ents
Land H ooks
0
6300
12600 ft
Printed on 11/15/2016 at 03:00 PM
N
Town of Hopkinton GIS
pa ...,n:S . x.�.. w ye e nm
Water Distributi on System
Hopkinto n, M assachusetts
TATA & HOWARD
Appro ximate Scale: 1" =1,500'
December 2012
1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:30 P.M.
Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kenneth Weismantel, Chairman, David Paul, Vincent Cerulle, Frank
D’Urso, David Paul, John Ferrari, Fran DeYoung
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Wade, Brian Karp
Present: Jennifer Burke, Principal Planner; Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Mr. Weismantel opened the meeting, thanked HCAM for recording the meeting, and
summarized the Agenda. He stated the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) has scheduled a
public forum on October 20, 2016 at 7:15 P.M. at Town Hall as an opportunity for citizens and
other boards/committees to propose zoning bylaw and/or map changes to be forwarded to the
Planning Board for consideration as potential articles for the next annual town meeting.
1. Master Plan Update
Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use and Town Operations, joined the meeting. Mr.
Weismantel noted the goal tonight is to vote to release the draft to other boards and committees
and set the public hearing for November 21.
Mr. Weismantel stated Ms. Lazarus modified the section on Water Quality, and he is ok with the
proposed rewording distributed to the Board tonight but suggested taking out a reference to
drinking water sources. Mr. Ferrari stated the Open Space Preservation Commission (OSPC)
looks at protection of water supplies as a major justification for land purchases, and he suggested
adding a sentence related to that in the open space section of the Master Plan. Mr. Paul
suggested adding pictures of municipal buildings and a few of the historic homes. Ms. Lazarus
asked Mr. Paul to let her know which specific buildings he has in mind. Mr. Kistner noted the
historic map on page 8 and the Special Places map on page 14 are very small and hard to read,
and Ms. Lazarus noted she has not done any maps yet but they usually go at the end of the
document. Mr. Paul noted he would also like see information on individual Town departments
in terms of budget and approximate number of employees which would show how the Town is
growing. Mr. Weismantel and Ms. Lazarus noted that is a good idea, and it was noted they can
use these numbers as a benchmark. Mr. Paul stated he would also like to include a section on
sidewalks, and Ms. Lazarus noted there is a one-page place holder for that towards the end of the
document. Mr. Kistner questioned the need for referencing the goal of keeping the affordable
housing percentage above 10% under Housing and Residential Development Goals twice, and
the Board decided to combine the two bullet items into one.
Mr. Kistner asked if anyone is familiar with the historic significance of Claflinville, and a few
members stated they are. He stated the woodsmen who cleared the land to build Hopkinton lived
in row houses on West Main St. in an area known as Claflinville, and this included several
generations of his own family. He noted his grandmother kept asking him about a granite stone
marker on their property dating back to the 1700’s, and he found the stone and offered it to the
2
Hopkinton Historical Society which has it on display on their property on Hayden Rowe. He
noted he would like the Town to recognize the historic significance of Claflinville perhaps by
way of erecting the stone in the West Main St./Rt. 495 area also known as the Four Corners and
still referred to as the gateway to Hopkinton. He read a draft paragraph in this respect to be
included in the Master Plan. In response to a question of Mr. Weismantel, Mr. Kistner stated the
stone was given to the Hopkinton Historical Society but they would love to give it back to be put
in an appropriate place. Mr. Cerulle asked if they should first talk to the Hopkinton Historical
Society to get clarification. Mr. Weismantel asked what would be an appropriate spot for
something like that in a master plan, and Ms. Lazarus noted the Master Plan talks a little about
the history of Hopkinton and perhaps they can add something about Claflinville and maybe other
now forgotten villages in that section. She noted she can talk to the Hopkinton Historical Society
and at least get a picture of the stone, and perhaps this can be tied into one of the action items.
Mr. Paul asked about listing separate left/right turn lanes as an approach to address the
operational capacity of the Hayden Rowe/Chestnut St. intersection, and Mr. Weismantel noted
there is no need for that type of detail in a master plan. Mr. Weismantel asked if the
transportation item regarding the Hayden Rowe corridor from Chestnut St. to Grove St. got lost
somewhere along the line, and it was suggested adding improvements in that respect as a
separate item. It was noted it is the area with all the schools and things will only get worse.
Mr. Kistner moved to release the draft of the Master Plan for other board/committee comment
and set the public hearing date for November 21, 2016, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the
Board voted unanimously in favor.
Ms. Burke asked if it would be a good idea to talk about Mr. Paul’s idea with respect to road
design standards while Ms. Lazarus is here, and Mr. Weismantel noted they can look at the
subdivision standards and maybe think about an addendum relative to reconstruction, but
obviously they will need the DPW Director’s input making this a bigger deal.
Ms. Lazarus left at this time.
2. Discussion - Sewer Connections – Clinton St./Legacy Farms Private Wastewater
Treatment Plan
Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms LLC, joined the Board. Several Clinton St. residents were in
attendance, including Ann McCobb (#4), John Rydberg (#6), Clark Waterfall (#7), John Prue
(#10), and Chris Barry (#17). Mr. Weismantel stated it appears some of the Clinton St. residents
are interested in hooking up to the Legacy Farms private sewer system. He noted he promised to
have copies of the pertinent language in the Master Plan Special Permit (MPSP) and Host
Community Agreement (HCA) on hand, and asked Mr. MacDowell to explain the steps that
would have to be taken to make this happen.
Mr. MacDowell noted he has been in touch with Cathy Bartlett, 26 Clinton St., and her attorney,
and met today with Mr. Waterfall and the Rydbergs to discuss the situation as it pertains to
properties from 6 Clinton St. to the wastewater treatment plant. He noted he emailed
information about a typical sewer bill for the average 3-bedroom house to Mr. Waterfall today,
and spoke to DEP about the process. It was noted the Board has copies of the email. Mr.
3
MacDowell stated they need a certified engineering design from the sewer system to the
individual home and a septic system abandonment plan approved by the Board of Health to start
the process, and once DEP has approved the plans they can go ahead and proceed. Mr.
Weismantel noted this is similar to the process for Town sewer hookups, and the engineering
costs should not be too bad given the scope of the project. Mr. MacDowell stated in this case
they will need an easement from the existing manhole all the way to the point of entrance at the
foundation, to address future changes in home ownership and have access for
repairs/replacements if necessary. Mr. Kistner asked about the time frame, and Mr. MacDowell
stated the property owners will have 5 years to connect.
Mr. Kistner asked about road opening rules, and Mr. MacDowell stated there are DPW
regulations but the road is being ripped up for other reasons anyway. He noted Mr. Barry’s
property at #17 will only need a lateral connection, however hookups in the other direction will
require putting in a sewer line and some manholes. Mr. Kistner asked about the timing for
resurfacing the road, and Mr. Weismantel noted those details will be handled by the DPW.
Mr. MacDowell stated it will be up to the individual homeowner to connect or not. He noted it
will be expensive with sewer charges of $1,300/year based on the average use for a 3-bedroom
house, plus $686 to cover the homeowner’s share of the reserve/repair fund, however it may
make sense to tie in if one has a failing septic system which may cost up to $30-40,000 to
replace. Mr. Weismantel noted in this case some properties only need a lateral connection while
others require a new sewer line going by several properties and the neighbors should sort out
who will participate, how it is going to be connected, and who should be paying for it. He noted
he used to be on the Water & Sewer Commission, and as far as the Town was concerned
everybody along the line has to pay the betterment. He noted the Town has that type of authority
but this is a private transaction, and the Planning Board when they set up the Master Plan Special
Permit (MPSP) recognized a possible future need for sewer access for this area, and this will the
residents' best chance to get it. He noted there may be a way for people who don't want to be
part of this now, to only pay for their share of the line, get it out of the road and pay capital costs
up front, but he is not sure if that is an option.
Mr. D’Urso stated it is his understanding this is a mix of private and public enterprise, and those
homeowners that opt out should not have to pay anything now but retain the option to participate
in the future. Mr. Weismantel stated the issue is who should pay for the construction costs of an
improvement that is bettering the property now, and other people have paid more than their fair
share, and he feels it is now or never. Mr. MacDowell noted this will be discussed with the
owners of the 8 or 9 homes between the plant and East Main St., but the number of participants
will affect the length and size of the pipe and other construction details. Mr. Paul asked about
the options available to non-participants in case they change their mind in the future, and Mr.
Weismantel stated that would be up to the group who decides to connect now. Mr. Waterfall
asked for clarification as to who owns the extension piece, and Mr. MacDowell noted there are a
number of separate entities involved, namely, Legacy Farms, LLC, the Legacy Farms
Landowners Association, and the separate non-profit Legacy Farms Private Wastewater
Treatment Facility LLC. He noted Legacy Farms LLC had to put a lot of money in escrow to
build and maintain the plant as required by the DEP, and each participant pays $686 into the
fund. Mr. Kistner noted typically when the Town brings water to a property, it is only
4
responsible for the outside portion. Mr. Waterfall stated theoretically those who pay for the pipe
would own it, but in this case it does not seem logical. In response to a comment of Mr. Kistner,
Mr. Weismantel stated the issue is who maintains the components in the street and which one of
the LLC's would maintain the sections going down Legacy Farms South. Mr. MacDowell noted
that would be the treatment facility, and Mr. Weismantel noted in that case perhaps eventually
giving the pipe to them may be a solution. Mr. MacDowell noted from DEP's standpoint Legacy
Farms as an entity would own to the foundation, and all homeowners along the line whether they
connect or not are part of the entity. He noted he will talk to DEP, and the question is whether
the neighbors can have easement rights if they don’t own the pipe, which would preclude others
to tie in unless they pay the fee. He noted it probably can be worked out if that is the route to go.
In response a question of Mr. Paul, Mr. Weismantel noted the Planning Board was 90% sure that
existing abutters would be interested in hooking up, but Linden St. opted out early on, and they
now potentially have 29 people, on Clinton St. Mr. Paul asked if this is just for discussion
purposes, and Mr. Weismantel noted it is basically to bring people together and then they can
decide, but it appears the Planning Board had some foresight in this matter and never considered
to stand in the way.
Ms. McCobb stated there is nothing in writing and asked if zoning even allows the public
connecting to a private system. Mr. MacDowell noted this was approved by DEP. Ms. McCobb
asked if the Town will accept the system, and Mr. Weismantel stated there is a clause in the
agreement precluding this from happening, ever. Ms. Cobb asked about capacity, and Mr.
MacDowell stated the plant and leach fields are designed to allow for the additional hookups. It
was noted the extension would only be another 450 ft. of pipe, and somewhat comparable to the
Elm St. sewer work in terms of cost. Mr. Rydberg stated the treatment plan happens to be on
their street and he feels this would be the right thing to do. Mr. Barry stated some Clinton St.
property owners have failing septic systems, and it appears some properties on the even
numbered side of Clinton St. were affected by the development behind them. Mr. Paul asked
about the cost of abandonment of a septic system and Mr. Weismantel explained the process and
noted it should not be too much. Mr. D’Urso noted people on Town water have a say on rate
increases and capital projects through town meeting, and he asked how this would work in case
of a private facility. Mr. MacDowell noted all fees are purely based on costs, and there are
annual meetings with the homeowners associations of the individual neighborhoods, the Legacy
Farms landowners association, and representatives of the treatment facility, and people will get a
complete accounting. Mr. D’Urso asked if the Clinton St. homeowners will be members of the
association so they can attend these meetings, and Mr. MacDowell stated yes, absolutely.
Ms. McCobb stated that requiring an easement for this entity right up to her foundation is very
strange. Mr. MacDowell noted DEP, not Legacy Farms, wants an easement, and it is not so
much about the pipe but more about the waste going into the treatment facility. He noted if the
Clinton St. residents are not in favor of that approach, Legacy Farms would be also ok with
owning out to the street themselves, just to the manholes. Mr. Weismantel explained DEP's
reasons for wanting an easement, noting that with respect to water services, unlike Hopkinton, a
lot of other towns still have lead pipes and they cannot go on private property to remove those
sections, and it has been proven that doing only half of it is worse than doing nothing at all. He
stated with respect to sewer, the Town or a private facility wants to be able to fix things because
5
otherwise there may be problems with infiltration from groundwater into the sewer plant, which
raises the cost. Mr. MacDowell noted with the quality of pipe nowadays it is unlikely there will
be damage unless it gets physically damaged. He noted their sewer bills are based on the Town’s
water bills, and a separate meter is recommended for water used for irrigation. Mr. MacDowell
noted he will follow up with the Clinton St. residents.
3. Continued Public Hearing – Application to amend Legacy Farms Master Plan Special
Permit (MPSP) to increase the Number of Units by 180 age-restricted Units
Mr. Weismantel referred to the public hearing outline prepared for this hearing, and noted they
left off pending further definition of traffic concerns. He noted the question is whether age-
restricted development represents less traffic compared to a commercial use. Mr. Cerulle noted
his concern is that offices will bring people in to the Town, while the residential development
has people heading out in the morning. Mr. MacDowell referred to the comparison listed in the
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB) report and an age-restricted development has less traffic at the
typical peak hours. He noted according to Pulte Homes, Toll Brothers and other developers, the
average age of people moving in to this type of development is 62, and they typically will be
retiring over a 5 to 10 year cycle. He noted they will then start driving less and the numbers will
decrease, according to VHB based on the standard numbers in AASHTO tables. He noted
Legacy Farms is very comfortable with these numbers. Mr. Weismantel stated under this
scenario in about 5 years the Legacy Farms North (Pulte) villages will still be being built out,
and the traffic count will still be under the projection from 10 years ago. Mr. Cerulle noted he
feels a commercial use would have less impact, and Ms. Burke stated she disagrees from her
experience especially on West Main St. coming into Town. Mr. MacDowell stated from a
general perspective age-restricted units will result in significantly less traffic compared to any
commercial use. Mr. Cerulle stated he is one of the members who visited Holliston Woods, and
it appears a lot of people in the 55 to 60 age bracket still work full time. Mr. MacDowell noted
VHB took this into consideration. In response to a question, it was stated that there will be
typically 2 cars per household. Mr. D’Urso stated for this report the age-restricted numbers
make sense, although it seems they are picking/choosing the numbers they want to show, and it
appears the numbers for office commercial are almost exaggerated in comparison, but on the
positive side, there will be improved traffic management because of the introduction of the new
road. Mr. Weismantel noted Mr. D'Urso’s observation is correct, but the Planning Board at the
MPSP stage wanted to see the worst case scenario which would be a project including 200,000 sf
of commercial space with cubical after cubical after cubical. Mr. MacDowell referred to the
recent traffic study, which indicates traffic on East Main St., Hayden Rowe, and Grove St. is
either at or below prediction from 10 years ago, but he too cannot wait for the north road to come
on line. It was determined there is consensus regarding traffic.
Mr. Weismantel referred to the affordability aspect of the project, and noted the Board received a
lot of information on this issue at the last meeting. He noted it appears they are in much better
shape because of the deed riders now used by the state for this purpose.
Mr. D’Urso asked about the restriction on the number of bedrooms. He noted he visited the
Holliston Woods development today, and, although the units are very nice, they are also very
large inside and could easily be converted into 4 or 5 bedroom units. He noted the intent is to
have residents age 55 and over, but the deed rider for Holliston Woods allows residents under 18,
6
up to a 6 month period, so there is still a risk of impact on schools although limited. Mr.
MacDowell stated Hopkinton will have a similar clause but they cannot use the school system
and the homeowner would be fined $9,000 by the homeowners association in case of a violation.
Mr. MacDowell noted the additional space does not have the windows or a closet needed to be
called a bedroom, and additional bedrooms are not allowed under the bylaw. Mr. D’Urso
explained how the additional spaces in the unit he visited today could be easily converted into
additional bedrooms. David Paul asked if there are solutions for this problem or whether it
would just be a matter of how to deal with violations. Mr. MacDowell noted their customers
want additional adult type space after downsizing, but the units will only have two bedrooms,
and it will not be easy to get around it. Mr. Weismantel noted they had the same concern on the
south side but the Building Department has been able to turn down attempts for additional
bedrooms and the number of school children is below expectation. Mr. MacDowell noted that is
true, also based on the sewer bills which do not vary more than 4 to 5% per household. He noted
that is one of the checks and balances in place, and they have the right to investigate if something
does not seem right. Mr. D’Urso asked who would be in charge of that, and Mr. MacDowell
noted they could report something like to the Building Department. Mr. Cerulle asked about
college graduates under the age limit, and Mr. MacDowell noted they can only live there for up
to 6 months. Mr. D’Urso stated he would like to see a true 2- bedroom unit design. Mr.
MacDowell noted he does not want have a lack of creative storage space in these units from a
marketing perspective, and big companies like Pulte Homes will not want to take chances and
play games, and this setup is actually a lot more restrictive compared to other developments in
Town. Mr. Weismantel stated these units would be a good deal for someone who is over 55 and
qualifies for an affordable unit. Mr. D’Urso noted he enjoyed the Holliston Woods tour and was
happy to see there are solar panels. It was noted the affordability aspect can be closed out.
Community Impact and Mitigation
Mr. Weismantel noted for the most part this concerns the impact on emergency services, but the
mitigation anticipates a net $1,500,000 in revenue, the HCA requires 3 payments to address the
impact on public safety services as well as a large payment for downtown improvements and
trails, as negotiated by the Board of Selectmen. He noted appears the other benefit might be a
reduced traffic impact compared to a commercial use.
Julia Linnell, 5 Reservoir Rd., asked about traffic impact with respect to their neighborhood and
what could be done about it beyond just waiting to see what happens. Mr. Weismantel stated
they talked about putting the stop sign facing Wilson St. instead of Legacy Farms North, but with
Google Maps and other technology these days, people should have no problem finding their way.
He noted another suggestion was to install a “no right turn” sign so people will not be able to
turn onto Wilson St. coming from Legacy Farms North. Ms. Linnell noted she is already seeing
an increase in traffic because of people using Wilson St. as an alternative route. It was noted
there is more traffic in general anyway, but opening up Legacy Farms North will make a
difference. Mr. D’Urso suggested 4-way stop signs, and Ms. Burke noted this would be under
the Board of Selectmen’s jurisdiction. Mr. Weismantel suggested sending a letter to the Board
of Selectmen switching the stop sign from Legacy Farms North to Wilson St. when the new road
is officially open. Mr. Kistner asked about speed limit signs, and Ms. Burke noted the state has
control over that. Mr. Kistner moved to send a letter to the Board of Selectmen as discussed, and
Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion. Mr. D’Urso stated he feels a 4-way stop would be easier
7
and safer for everyone and offered that as an amendment to the motion. Mr. DeYoung noted he
does not see a downside to a 4-way stop, and also suggested installing a few more “no parking”
signs along Rafferty Rd. as well, in view of the presence of dog walkers. He seconded the
amended motion, and the Board voted unanimously to ask the Board of Selectmen to change the
stop signs at the Wilson St./Legacy Farms North intersection creating a 4-way stop situation, and
install a few more “no parking” signs along Rafferty Rd. It was noted the traffic item is now
considered closed out.
Mr. Weismantel stated, according to Ms. Lazarus, Legacy Farms is ok as far as the HCA is
concerned, subject to a couple of delays with respect to the status of the Legacy Farms Road
north construction. It was determined there were no other issues. There was no public comment.
Mr. Kistner noted he took a ride on Legacy Farms North during a recent downpour, and it
appears the drains must have been clogged because they were not working correctly even after
the rain subsided. Mr. MacDowell stated they are aware of the problem and will meet with the
contractor tomorrow. Mr. DeYoung asked whose responsibility this is, and it was noted Legacy
Farms will check the manholes once a year until the road is accepted by the Town.
Reference was made to the 6 approval criteria listed in Ms. Burke's memorandum to the Board.
Mr. D’Urso referred to Criterion #5 and stated he was asked to find out if the 180 additional
residential units can be handled by the private wastewater treatment plant, and Mr. Weismantel
noted 200,000 sf of commercial space would have a greater impact in terms of demand. Mr.
D'Urso stated in addition he was contacted by residents on Cedar St. and in the Kruger Rd.
neighborhood asking how they would be impacted if a gas cloud triggers the gas lantern firewall
to be ignited. He noted he talked to the former Fire Chief, and assumed the concerned neighbors
were going to be here tonight but apparently they are not. Mr. Weismantel noted Kruger Rd.
residents will be outside of the protected zone and a few of them are actually within the thermal
exclusion zone, however the Board of Selectmen recently voted to look into expanding the
number of gas lanterns and build a stone wall or some type of barrier along Wilson St. for
protection. Mr. D’Urso noted the people living on Rt. 85 closest to the tanks and the owner of
the saw mill on Wilson St. told him they have concerns. Mr. MacDowell noted things are better
with the firewall in place but there are some gaps. Mr. Weismantel noted it would be great if the
LNG facility would step in, but apparently they won't, but something like a cell phone,
somebody's vehicle, electricity in someone's home, could theoretically trigger an event, and it
will be better if it is triggered by igniting the gas lanterns. Mr. D’Urso stated this does not
answer the question whether the gas lanterns when triggered may make it worse for the other
neighborhoods. Ms. Burke noted the LNG safety report is public record, and it was noted that
according to the experts the gas lanterns will make the area safer. Mr. Weismantel noted anyone
with concerns should really talk to the Board of Selectmen, given their decision to look into
expanding the gas lantern system, but he would be happy to meet with the residents. He noted he
is not an expert but worked in the industry and should be able to answer some questions between
himself and the Fire Chief. Steve Slaman, Fire Chief, noted he is willing to work with Mr.
Weismantel.
Mr. Weismantel asked if there any questions regarding the 6 criteria of approval, and asked for
public comments. Chief Slaman stated he thinks it is covered but asked for clarification
8
regarding the flow of funding for additional safety personnel to make sure there are no gaps in
services, considering the fact that last year it took 9 months to finish the hiring process for 2
additional firefighters, and Mr. MacDowell noted he will meet with him to discuss. Mr.
Weismantel asked if everyone is ok with this. It was determined the Board is ok with the 6
approval criteria.
Ms. Linnell referred to her email dated October 11, 2016, regarding the use of fertilizers and
landscaping chemicals, stating she has written to the Board about this several times. Mr.
MacDowell noted there are restrictions imposed by the Planning Board and the Conservation
Commission relative to particular types of chemicals in view of the proximity to sensitive
watershed areas. Ms. Linnell stated she is really interested to know more about these, and Mr.
MacDowell stated he will get the information. Mr. Weismantel stated they will look at this more
at site plan review stage, but first the Planning Board has to approve the amendment. Mr.
Weismantel suggested discussing the conditions of approval for changes to the MPSP and
referred to the meeting handout. It was noted the current wording has been blessed by Town
Counsel after a small change. The Board discussed the conditions. It was noted there can be no
difference between market rate and affordable units with respect to the exterior finish, but the
Pulte Homes Holliston Woods tour showed there are differences with respect to interior features.
Mr. Weismantel noted the affordable units also will have lower taxes, and one cannot tell the
difference from the outside although the Planning Board will know.
The Board further discussed the proposed conditions, and it was noted this covers all the relevant
sections of the HCA. Mr. Weismantel asked if Board members are ready for a vote and if not
what would be in the way. Mr. D’Urso noted he would like to see a meeting between the
concerned residents, Mr. Weismantel and the Fire Chief first, and Mr. Weismantel stated he will
be happy to arrange such a meeting however he does not feel it applies to this application. Mr.
D’Urso noted this project should not make other abutters feel more at risk. Mr. Weismantel
noted the gas lights are going in soon, and that has already been decided. Mr. D’Urso stated he
would feel better and more educated if this was done, and it is the last piece of the puzzle. He
noted the Board postponed the hearing on this application until all members could be present,
and he is here tonight and would like his concerns to be considered first for the sake of
transparency, and he is not ready for a vote. Ms. Burke stated perhaps Mr. D’Urso’s concerns
are more suitable to be addressed during site plan review. Mr. Paul stated according to the
experts the 180 homes will be safe and outside the thermal exclusion zone. Chief Slaman stated
he feels this is a question for the experts and he does not have anything to add. Mr. Weismantel
noted when they voted to change the buildable area on the north side they looked at the criteria
and felt it would not create unsafe conditions. Mr. Ferrari noted the Planning Board made a
decision at a hearing to which the public was invited allowing them an opportunity to comment
and ask questions. He noted some residents for one reason or another did not attend and
therefore missed out on this opportunity, but now apparently have questions on an unrelated,
peripheral issue trying to stop or hold up the process. Mr. D’Urso noted not everyone
understands how Town boards work or are unable to attend meetings, and he promised these
residents he would bring this up at the meeting. He noted there may be a better way to protect
the future 180 new units without negatively affecting current residents. Mr. Weismantel noted
the amendment would allow 180 age-restricted unit in an area of buildable land outside the
radius where a gas accident could happen, none of these units would be located in the thermal
9
exclusion zone as modified by gas lanterns, and the gas will go elsewhere if not lit - similar to
where it would be going today so the current residents will not be better or worse off. Mr.
D’Urso asked if those gas lights will make it worse for current abutters, and Mr. Weismantel
noted that question was answered by the experts. Mr. Weismantel noted Mr. D’Urso as a Board
member should have brought this issue to his attention or that of the Principal Planner before so
that it could be resolved hopefully with the abutters in attendance. Mr. D’Urso stated he would
like to take the Chairman and Fire Chief up on their offer to discuss the issue with the concerned
residents.
Mr. D’Urso moved to find that the MPSP as amended will meet the criteria in Sec. D 1 through
76, and Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion. Mr. D’Urso noted the hearing was postponed the last
time because the Board was short a few members, but now it appears the Board is not willing to
hold off on a vote in view of an unanswered question by one of the members. Mr. Ferrari noted
the Board voted in July to deem the question regarding LNG facility safety resolved, and now 3
or 4 months later the Board is being asked to revisit the issue as part of an only peripherally
related question from abutters who missed the opportunity to ask questions before. He noted he
understands that the Chairman and the Fire Chief are willing to explain the plan it approved a
couple of month ago. Ms. Burke noted the Board at the time unanimously voted in favor to
amend the MPSP with respect to the buildable area. The Board voted in favor of the motion,
with 1 abstention (D’Urso). Mr. D’Urso moved to amend the MPSP replacing conditions 2, 3,
and 4, and add completely new conditions 13A and 74A, as follows:
2. All new dwelling units shall be located within Buildable Areas as depicted on the Master
Plan or as amended. The maximum number of new dwelling units to be constructed on
the Site shall be 1,120, which shall include no more than 15 single-family dwellings,
which shall be allocated among named Buildable Areas so as to conform to the ranges
shown on Drawings Number C-4N and C-4S of the Master Plan, as well as Condition 4
of this MPSP; provided, however, that 180 senior housing units may be located within
Buildable Areas as depicted on the Master Plan. No more than nine Certificates of
Occupancy may be issued for Market Rate senior housing units for each unit of
Affordable Housing on the Site, in excess of the number required by Section 210-
167.A, that is restricted for sale to an eligible purchase and eligible to be added to the
Town’s Subsidized Housing Inventory. The Applicant shall comply with Sections A (5),
A (6) and A (7) of the Host Community Agreement as most recently amended on August
18, 2014.
3. All new commercial and mixed-use buildings shall be located within Buildable Areas as
depicted on the Master Plan. Commercial uses on the Site shall not exceed 250,000
square feet of gross floor space in the aggregate, which shall be allocated among the
Subdistricts so as to conform to the ranges shown on sheets C-4N and C-4S of the Master
Plan, as well as Condition 4 of this MPSP; provided, however, that no commercial uses
shall be located in the area designated as “Legacy Park” in the Master Plan.
4. At full build-out, not fewer than 15 single-family dwellings and 380 multi-family
dwellings, and not less than 60,000 square feet of gross floor space devoted to office use
or other non-retail commercial uses and 35,000 square feet of gross floor space devoted
to retail use shall be located south of East Main Street (Route 135). At full build-out, not
fewer than 290 multi-family dwellings, and not less than 70,000 square feet of gross floor
10
space devoted to commercial or retail use shall be located north of East Main Street
(Route 135). For the purpose of this Condition, the term “full build-out” shall refer to the
issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the full number of dwelling units specified in
Condition 2 and the full amount of gross floor space for commercial uses specified in
Condition 3,
and add the following new conditions:
13A. Affordable Housing Units shall be designated on the Site Plan throughout the Project and
will be constructed in accordance with the Site Plan Approval. Affordable Housing Units
shall be indistinguishable from Market Rate Units in the Project in terms of location,
construction and exterior finishes.
74A. The Applicant shall comply with Sections A (3), A (4), A (8) and A (9) of the Host
Community Agreement as most recently amended on August 18, 2014.
Mr. Kistner seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Kistner
moved to close the hearing, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion. Mr. D’Urso suggested keeping
the hearing open pending additional information and an answer to the question of the potential of
putting the existing neighborhood at risk. Mr. Weismantel stated it would become a new agenda
item and the Selectmen are working on extending the gas lanterns and he is sure the Fire Chief
will be consulted. The Board voted unanimously in favor to close the public hearing.
4. Legacy Farms South Road – Request for Extension
Mr. Weismantel stated the subdivision approval has a 5-year limit with an option to extend, and
it appears the developer won’t meet the October 2016 deadline. Mr. MacDowell stated he feels
it would be best to ask for an extension to September 30 next year. Mr. Paul asked for an
explanation, and Mr. Weismantel explained the road acceptance process. Mr. Kistner moved to
allow an extension to September 30, 2017, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the Board
voted unanimously in favor. Mr. MacDowell indicated he would work on a ribbon cutting
sometime in October or November, and he will coordinate the event. Mr. Paul asked about the
schedule for tree planting, and Mr. MacDowell noted it will not be done until the spring. Mr.
D’Urso asked about the street names as discussed before, and Mr. Weismantel noted it is up to
the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Weismantel referred to the overall map of the north parcel
promised by Mr. MacDowell at a previous meeting, and Mr. MacDowell stated he will take care
of it after the leaves are gone. Mr. Weismantel stated the plan should show which areas will be
open meadows, which areas will stay as is and which areas will become trails, etc. Mr. Paul
asked if they know now who owns the land between Wilson St. and the future 180+
development, and Mr. MacDowell stated he will look at it tomorrow.
5. Zoning Advisory Committee
Mr. Weismantel stated the Board of Appeals appointed Mark Hyman as their representative on
the Committee. He noted John Coutinho was re-elected as ZAC Chairman. It was noted the
Board already covered Mr. Hyman’s appointment when voting on the ZAC appointments on
September 12, 2016, so the Board is just welcoming him to the Committee at this point. Mr.
Weismantel stated the ZAC has scheduled a public forum to be held on October 20 to gather
ideas for changes to the Zoning Bylaw/Map. He noted he himself had two suggestions: 1)
11
potentially reducing the front setback from 60 to 50 ft. in the Agricultural district in view of the
Fire Chief’s new driveway regulations. Chief Slaman noted they are in the process of re-
analyzing the rules pertaining to 1- and 2-family homes so there may be some relief, and the
Planning Board’s input will be considered. Mr. Weismantel noted that sounds good, but ZAC
should look into this matter. 2) ZAC should clarify the definition of a restaurant, and Ms. Burke
noted the item is already on the list. She noted ZAC already have 6 action items, and members
were encouraged to attend the forum.
6. Administrative Business – Minutes
The Board reviewed the draft minutes of August 15, 2016. Mr. Ferrari moved to approve the
minutes of August 15, 2016 as written, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously in favor. The Board reviewed the draft minutes of August 22, 2016. Mr. DeYoung
moved to approve the minutes of August 22, 2016 as written, Mr. Kistner seconded the motion,
and the Board voted unanimously in favor. The Board reviewed the draft minutes of September
12, 2016 and made changes. Mr. D’Urso moved to approve the minutes of September 12, 2016
as amended, Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
7. Other Business
Sidewalks – Mr. Ferrari stated he looked at other towns to see the rules with respect to parking
on sidewalks. He noted there are bylaws dealing with simply parking on sidewalks, and there are
others in some towns related to sidewalks blocked by overgrown bushes, etc. He noted the
Board would have to decide how far they want to go on this. Mr. Weismantel thinks the Town
has the right to cut back private vegetation in the right of way, but it brings up a legal question.
Ms. Burke noted she believes homeowners are typically required to make sure the sidewalks are
not blocked. Mr. Kistner noted he probably should not be voting on this, as he has trouble
parking his own vehicle without blocking the sidewalk, but if it becomes a safety issue they
would have to do something about it. It was considered it is a town-wide question and Mr.
Kistner can vote on it, and if the vehicle is in someone’s driveway it is not considered blocking.
Ms. Burke noted Mr. Ferrari's concern is about overgrown bushes that could push people into the
road. Mr. Weismantel stated it may be better to require homeowners to corral their own bushes,
and he feels the Board agrees. Mr. Paul noted he is not sure he agrees with banning parking on
the sidewalks altogether, because for instance in his neighborhood even the high school kids
know enough to keep their cars off the road, and he does not want to start tagging them. Mr.
Ferrari asked about the flipside in dealing with the downtown area, because he is concerned
about mothers and children in strollers being forced into the street. Mr. Cerulle noted he feels
they should put together some type of comprehensive policy, encompassing all kinds of
obstruction also in view of liability and with the focus on expanding the sidewalk network. Mr.
Weismantel stated the Town is trying to be much more pedestrian friendly, and he has seen a
change in mindset over the last 10 years. Mr. Weismantel thanked Mr. Ferrari for taking this on.
8. Liaison Reports
Mr. D’Urso announced the fall cleanup event organized by the Sustainable Green Committee for
October 22, 2016. He noted Will Stearman is the organizer of “Make Hopkinton Beautiful
Again”, and they are asking for volunteers, to meet in the Hopkinton High School parking lot
between 8:30 and 9:30 A.M. He noted the Committee organizes this type of event a couple of
times a year.
12
Mr. Weismantel noted the Planning Board received the final site plan approved on August 22,
2016 and issued the site plan decision on October 3. He noted the Board of Selectmen approved
the proposed tree cutting at 15 North Mill St.
Adjourned: 10:10 P.M.
Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Approved: __________________________
Documents used at the Meeting
Agenda for October 11, 2016 Planning Board meeting
Memorandum to Planning Board from Jennifer Burke, Principal Planner, dated October 5, 2016 re: Items on
October 11, 2016 Planning Board agenda
Email, Roy MacDowell to Clark Waterfall, dated Oct 11, 2016 – Re: Legacy Farms Private Wastewater
Treatment Facility
Public Hearing Outline – Legacy Farms Master Plan Permit (Legacy Farms LLC) – Amendment to MPSP to
increase number of dwelling units by 180 age-restricted units and eliminate some commercial space
Forwarded Email, Julia Linnell to Jennifer Burke, Cobi Wallace, Ken Weismantel, dated Oct 11, 2016, re:
Public Hearings on Legacy north side developments -to the members of the planning board
Letter, VHB (Vanasse Hangen Brustlin) to Roy MacDowell, dated May 13, 2016, re: Legacy Farms LLC,
Review of Traffic Generation – Age Restricted Homes at Legacy Farms, Hopkinton, MA
Missed Meeting Certificate – John R. Ferrari, 9/12/16, re: Application to amend Legacy Farms Master Plan
Special Permit to increase Total Number of Dwelling Units by 180 Age -Restricted
Draft Planning Board Minutes of August 15, 2106, August 22, 2016 , and September12, 2016
Hopkinton Planning Board
FY 17 Annual Goals
1. Master Plan Update - All
2. Downtown Revitalization and Parking – John Ferrari
3. Hayden Rowe Corridor Traffic Study – Vincent Cerulle
4. Parking on Sidewalks – John Ferrari
5. Sidewalk Connectivity and Bike Lanes – David Paul
6. Engage Major Land Owners (Business Owners) – Ken Weismantel
7. Public/Private Roads – Brian Karp
8. Lumber Street/West Main Street Intersection Improvements – Ken Weismantel
9. Utility Pole Legislation – Fran DeYoung
10. Identify Certain Number of Large Parcels that could be Developed (Residential & Commercial) –
Ken Weismantel
11. Create Guardrail Standards – Matt Wade
TOWN OF HOPKINTON
HOPKINTON HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
TOWN HALL
18 MAIN STREET
HOPKINTON, MA 01748
www.hopkintonma.gov
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
The Hopkinton Historic District Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, December
8, 2016 at 6:30 PM in the Town Hall, 18 Main Street, Hopkinton, MA, on the application of the
Hopkinton Parks and Recreation Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness relative to the
installation of a fence around the Claflin Fountain on the Town Common, which is bounded by
Main Street, Ash Street, Hayden Rowe, and Park Street. A copy of the application is available
for review at the Town Manager's office in Town Hall during regular business hours, or by
emailing Elaine Lazarus at elainel@hopkintonma.gov. The Town Hall is handicapped
accessible.