All towns · hopkinton

Planning Board Minutes & Video

Document

Town of Hopkinton   Planning/Building Department 
 330 Main Street, Hopkinton NH 03229-2627 - (603) 746-8243 -planzone@hopkinton-nh.gov 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
 
 
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD 
MINUTES  
AUGUST 11, 2026 
 
Members Present: Chair Michael Wilkey, Ex-Officio Alyssa McKeon, Molly Hardenbergh, Jane 
Bradstreet, Emily Bouchard, James Fredyma, and Alternate Dean Owens. Members Absent: Vice 
Chair Rob Dapice, and Alternates Sam Durfee, Jeff Donohoe. Staff Present: Planning Director 
Karen Robertson 
 
 
I. Call to Order/Roll Call.   
 
Chair Michael Wilkey called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM at the Hopkinton Town Hall, 330 
Main Street, Hopkinton, NH. Members, alternates, and staff were introduced. A quorum was 
confirmed.  
 
II. Review of Minutes and Notice of Decision. 
 
MOTION was made by Alyssa McKeon and seconded by James Fredyma to approve the 
Minutes of June 9, 2026.  Motion carried, with Fredyma, Bradstreet, Bouchard, Hardenbergh, 
McKeon, and Wilkey voting in favor and Owens abstaining (6-0-1). 
 
MOTION was made by James Fredyma and seconded by Jane Bradstreet to approve the 
Minutes of July 14, 2026.  Motion carried unanimously (Fredyma, Bradstreet, Bouchard, 
Hardenbergh, McKeon, Owens, and Wilkey (7-0). 
 
III. Conceptual Consultations. 
 
There were no conceptual consultations. 
 
IV. Applications/Public Hearings.  
 
2026-2 Genesis Systems, LLC – Conservation subdivision proposing eight (8) residential 
lots with designated open space. The property is located at 167 Branch Londonderry Turnpike 
(Tax Map 266, Lot 62), within the R-3 Zoning District.  
 
Joe Wichert appeared on behalf of the applicant. He was accompanied by John Wichert, 
engineer, and identified JR Hoell as the client, who was also present. 
 
Mr. Wichert explained that the applicant had previously appeared before the Board to discuss 
the project conceptually and that this was the first formal submission of the subdivision 
application. 
 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – August 11, 2026 
Page 2 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
The subject parcel consists of approximately 21.1 acres and has approximately 290 feet of 
frontage on Branch Londonderry Turnpike. An existing residence formerly located at 167 
Branch Londonderry Turnpike was in the process of being removed. The property is located in 
the southeastern portion of Hopkinton near the municipal boundaries of Hopkinton, Bow, and 
Concord. 
 
The applicant proposed an eight-lot conservation subdivision. Mr. Wichert explained that the 
conventional yield plan resulted in six lots. The applicant proposed utilizing the density 
incentive available for senior housing by designating two of the proposed residential lots for 
such housing. Because more than 20 percent of the proposed units would qualify under that 
provision, the applicant represented that the ordinance provides a 25 percent density bonus. 
Applying the 25 percent bonus to the six-lot conventional yield results in 7.5 lots, which the 
applicant indicated may be rounded to eight lots pursuant to the ordinance. 
 
The applicant clarified that the two designated senior housing units would be primary single-
family residences and not accessory dwelling units. 
 
The applicant discussed changes made since its earlier discussions with the Board. The 
previous concept contemplated the use of two accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in connection 
with the proposed density incentive. Based upon questions and concerns raised during the 
prior discussion, the applicant determined that using ADUs for the affordable/workforce 
housing component unnecessarily complicated the proposal. 
 
Accordingly, the applicant removed the ADU component from the density-bonus proposal and 
substituted two age-restricted/senior primary residences. The applicant believed this approach 
more clearly satisfied the applicable density incentive provisions. 
 
Board members confirmed that the ADUs previously proposed as part of the density incentive 
had been removed from the application. The applicant confirmed that they had and that the 
two senior housing units would instead be primary residences. 
 
The subdivision would be served by a new internal roadway, tentatively identified on the 
plans as Liberty Court, approximately 900 feet in length. 
 
The applicant explained that an earlier concept contemplated a gravel road. In response to 
previous Board discussion, the plans had been revised to provide a paved roadway. The 
applicant stated that use of a paved road simplified issues associated with vehicle counts, 
trips, and additional curb cuts onto Branch Londonderry Turnpike. The proposed internal 
roadway would provide access to the subdivision rather than creating additional individual 
access points onto Branch Londonderry Turnpike. 
 
The applicant advised that the formal submission consisted of an approximately 21-sheet plan 
set. A modification had also been made in anticipation of the Alteration of Terrain (AOT) 
submission. The applicant had not yet formally submitted the project to the New Hampshire 
Department of Environmental Services because it wanted to first receive direction from the 
Planning Board and confirm that the proposal was proceeding appropriately. 
 
A Board member asked about a pond shown toward the front of the property and whether it 
remained part of the proposal. 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – August 11, 2026 
Page 3 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
The applicant explained that the pond was not shown on the colored overview sheet 
distributed at the meeting but remained on the complete plan set. The discussion clarified that 
this was the proposed fire pond and that its location had been selected in response to a 
request from the Fire Chief. 
 
The Board discussed the location of the fire pond in relation to the required 100-foot 
roadside buffer along Branch Londonderry Turnpike. A concern was raised that the purpose 
of the roadside buffer appeared to be visual screening and preservation of vegetation. 
 
The applicant noted that a significant portion of the existing 100-foot area had already been 
cleared because it included the former residence and yard area. The applicant acknowledged 
the purpose of screening the development from the public roadway and stated that it would be 
amenable to adding plantings within the 100-foot area. If additional screening were required 
outside the buffer and within the designated open space, the applicant indicated that it would 
also be willing to consider such plantings. 
 
The Board asked the applicant to identify the waivers and other relief being requested as part 
of the application. 
 
The applicant stated that a waiver was being requested from the subdivision phasing 
requirement. The applicable provisions would otherwise require the development to be 
constructed over three years based upon the number of proposed units. The applicant 
requested permission to complete the project in two years instead. 
 
The applicant explained that the relatively short length of the proposed roadway and a desire 
not to unnecessarily prolong construction supported the requested two-year phasing 
schedule. 
 
It was also noted that relief was being sought concerning the location of stormwater 
management ponds within the designated open space. 
 
The Board subsequently noted that the written phasing waiver still contained references to the 
applicant's former ADU proposal. The applicant acknowledged that the waiver had been 
drafted while the ADU proposal remained under consideration and agreed that the document 
would need to be revised to reflect the current proposal. 
 
The Board discussed which lots would be designated as the two senior housing lots. 
Following clarification, the applicant identified Lots 2 and 7. 
 
A Board member asked when those two residences would be constructed if the Board 
approved the requested two-year phasing plan. The applicant explained that, from a 
construction standpoint, it would make sense to initially develop the four lots closest to Branch 
Londonderry Turnpike. The applicant anticipated that the two senior housing lots would likely 
be included in the first phase. 
 
The Board discussed the importance of ensuring that the residences relied upon to obtain the 
density bonus are actually constructed. The applicant indicated that it would not object if the 
Board ultimately required the two senior housing units to be constructed as part of the first 
phase. 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – August 11, 2026 
Page 4 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
 
The applicant was also asked why Lots 2 and 7 had been selected for senior housing. The 
applicant explained that those lots had relatively limited grade changes between the front and 
rear portions of the proposed building areas. This would make the lots more suitable for 
residences with minimal stairs, such as ranch-style homes, without requiring extensive 
grading or earthwork. 
 
Board members indicated that the explanation was reasonable. 
 
The Board discussed whether the applicant intended to prohibit ADUs within the subdivision 
through homeowners' association documents or other private restrictions. 
 
It was noted that although ADUs had been removed from the applicant's density-incentive 
proposal, the question was separate from whether a future property owner might otherwise 
have the right to construct an ADU. 
 
The applicant indicated that it was not necessarily proposing to prohibit ADUs. There was 
discussion regarding whether an HOA or similar private legal document could restrict ADUs 
and whether existing developments containing such restrictions may predate changes in State 
law. 
 
The Board clarified that designation of two lots as senior housing for purposes of obtaining the 
density bonus did not, by itself, necessarily prohibit a future ADU on one of those lots. The 
discussion was intended to clarify the applicant's intent rather than establish a requirement at 
that time. 
 
Following the discussion, the Chair asked Board members whether there were any additional 
questions regarding application completeness. 
 
MOTION was made by Jane Bradstreet and seconded by Alyssa McKeon to accept the 
application of Genesis Systems, LLC for an eight-lot conservation subdivision at 167 Branch 
Londonderry Turnpike, Tax Map 266, Lot 62, as complete for purposes of beginning formal 
review pursuant to RSA 676:4. Motion carried unanimously (Fredyma, Bradstreet, Bouchard, 
Hardenbergh, McKeon, Owens, and Wilkey (7-0). 
 
The Chair emphasized that acceptance of the application as complete did not constitute 
approval of the subdivision and merely commenced the formal review process. 
 
Following acceptance of the application, the Board considered whether the proposed 
subdivision constituted a Development of Regional Impact pursuant to RSA 36:54–58. 
The Board reviewed the relevant considerations for determining regional impact, including: 
 
• 
proximity to neighboring municipal boundaries; 
• 
potential effects upon transportation networks; 
• 
the size and nature of the proposed development; 
• 
environmental effects that could extend beyond Hopkinton; and 
• 
potential effects upon shared facilities or services. 
 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – August 11, 2026 
Page 5 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
The Board discussed the unusual location of the property at the Hopkinton municipal 
boundary adjacent to both the City of Concord and the Town of Bow. It was noted that several 
of the proposed subdivision lots are located directly along municipal boundaries and that 
Branch Londonderry Turnpike serves as a transportation corridor used by more than one 
community. 
 
The proposed subdivision also includes construction of a new roadway and associated 
drainage and stormwater infrastructure. 
 
Board members asked what would occur if the Board determined that the project had regional 
impact. 
 
It was explained that Concord and Bow would receive abutter status and would be provided 
an opportunity to review and comment upon the application. The Central New Hampshire 
Regional Planning Commission would also be provided the application and related materials. 
The determination would provide an additional 30 days in the statutory review period to permit 
regional review and comment. 
 
The Board discussed the role of the neighboring municipalities and clarified that Bow and 
Concord would have the right to provide comments and recommendations but would not 
assume decision-making authority over the application. The Hopkinton Planning Board would 
remain responsible for making the ultimate decision on the subdivision. 
 
Comments from the neighboring municipalities would be treated in a manner similar to other 
abutter comments. The Board could consider and agree or disagree with recommendations 
submitted by Bow or Concord. However, any identified substantial adverse impact upon a 
neighboring municipality would warrant careful consideration as part of the Board's review. 
 
It was further clarified that the applicant would not necessarily be required to appear 
separately before the Bow or Concord land use boards as a consequence of the regional 
impact determination. Representatives of those communities could attend the continued 
Hopkinton public hearing and provide comments. 
 
The Board also discussed the statutory review period. It was explained that the Development 
of Regional Impact determination provides an additional 30 days for review to accommodate 
participation by affected municipalities and the regional planning commission. 
 
MOTION was made by Molly Hardenbergh and seconded by Alyssa McKeon to determine 
that the Genesis Systems, LLC eight-lot conservation subdivision at 167 Branch Londonderry 
Turnpike, Tax Map 266, Lot 62, constitutes a Development of Regional Impact pursuant to 
RSA 36:54–58, and to identify the City of Concord and Town of Bow as potentially affected 
municipalities. Motion carried unanimously (Fredyma, Bradstreet, Bouchard, Hardenbergh, 
McKeon, Owens, and Wilkey (7-0). 
 
The Board discussed the next steps in the technical review process. 
 
The proposed roadway, drainage, stormwater facilities, and related infrastructure would 
require outside engineering review on behalf of the Town. The applicant indicated that it 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – August 11, 2026 
Page 6 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
wished to have the reviewing engineer selected and the required escrow amount established 
so that technical review could begin. 
 
The Board discussed whether it would be more productive to undertake a detailed substantive 
review of the plans that evening or defer the detailed review until comments were received 
from the Town's engineer, the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission, Bow, 
and Concord. 
 
The Chair recommended waiting until those comments were available. This would allow the 
Board to consider the entire project and the technical and regional comments together rather 
than conduct a detailed review that might need to be repeated if significant changes resulted 
from outside review. 
 
The applicant indicated that it had no objection to deferring the detailed presentation. 
 
The Chair also explained this approach to members of the public who were present, noting 
that it would likely be more useful for everyone to review the complete record once regional 
and engineering comments had been received. 
 
The Board initially discussed September 8 as the date of its next regular meeting. It was then 
recognized that September 8 was the date of the State Primary Election and that the regular 
meeting date would therefore need to be changed. 
 
The Board discussed notification requirements and noted that if a continued hearing date 
were changed because of the election schedule, appropriate notice would be provided. 
 
MOTION was made by Jane Bradstreet and seconded by James Fredyma to continue the 
public hearing on the Genesis Systems, LLC subdivision application to the Planning Board's 
September meeting, with the date and time to be announced, to allow for review and 
comment by the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission, City of Concord, 
and Town of Bow pursuant to RSA 36:54–58, and to allow completion of the Town's 
engineering review of the proposed roadway, drainage, and related infrastructure. Motion 
carried unanimously (Fredyma, Bradstreet, Bouchard, Hardenbergh, McKeon, Owens, and 
Wilkey (7-0). 
 
Following the vote, the Planning Director summarized anticipated responsibilities resulting 
from the Board's actions. These included, but were not necessarily limited to: 
 
• 
providing the required Development of Regional Impact notifications to the Central New 
Hampshire Regional Planning Commission, City of Concord, and Town of Bow; 
• 
providing the application, plans, and other necessary materials for regional review; 
• 
coordinating completion of the Town's engineering review; 
• 
incorporating regional and engineering comments into the materials for the continued 
public hearing; and 
• 
tracking the additional 30-day statutory review period resulting from the Development of 
Regional Impact determination. 
 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – August 11, 2026 
Page 7 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
The applicant asked whether the necessary engineering escrow arrangements could also 
proceed. It was confirmed that the process for establishing the review escrow and 
coordinating the outside engineering review could move forward. 
 
The representatives of Genesis Systems, LLC, concluded their presentation. 
 
V. Other Business/Discussion Items. 
 
A) Planning Board Work Plan 2026 – Project Updates 
 
1) Natural Resources Master Plan Chapter 
The Planning Director reported that work on the Natural Resources Chapter of the 
Master Plan continued to move forward, although progress was somewhat behind the 
preferred schedule. 
 
It was noted that summer scheduling can be difficult because boards and committees 
may meet less frequently as members may be unavailable. Despite the delay, the 
Planning Director anticipated that the project would remain manageable and continue 
to progress. 
 
2) Zoning Amendments 2027 
The Board discussed the ongoing preparation of proposed zoning amendments. 
 
The Planning Director reported that updated drafts had not yet been completed 
following the Board's prior discussion but that work had begun on preparing the 
amendments in redline/strikeout format. 
 
The amendments being prepared included the Housing Committee's recommendations 
and the changes to the Table of Uses previously discussed by the Planning Board. 
 
The Planning Director reported that additional legal clarification was being sought from 
the New Hampshire Municipal Association regarding recent State legislation 
addressing multifamily housing on commercially zoned land. 
 
The discussion focused particularly on how the State requirement applies to zoning 
districts that permit both residential and commercial uses and whether a district that is 
primarily residential but allows certain commercial uses must also permit multifamily 
housing by right. 
 
The Board also discussed the VB-1 District, where multifamily housing presently 
requires a special exception in certain circumstances. The Planning Director indicated 
that changes would be necessary to comply with the new State requirements. 
 
An additional question concerned the number of units that must be permitted by right. 
The ordinance contains references to both 12-unit and 24-unit multifamily buildings. 
Clarification was being sought as to whether the municipality must allow the maximum 
multifamily density presently allowed elsewhere in its commercial zoning provisions or 
whether a lower number of units could be established. 
 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – August 11, 2026 
Page 8 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
The Planning Director noted that these questions appeared to be issues other New 
Hampshire municipalities were also addressing and that further guidance was awaited 
before finalizing the proposed language. 
 
The Board briefly discussed another proposed zoning amendment relating to solar 
energy systems. 
 
The proposed change resulted from an earlier ordinance audit and concerned removal 
of the height restriction as applied to roof-mounted solar installations. 
 
3) Site Plan Review Regulations 
 
The Planning Director also identified proposed amendments to the Site Plan Review 
Regulations related to parking requirements, specifically the distinction between a 
requirement of one parking space and one-and-one-half parking spaces. 
 
It was clarified that these changes would be amendments to Planning Board 
regulations rather than zoning ordinance amendments. Accordingly, they would not 
require approval by Town Meeting voters. They would instead require the appropriate 
public hearing and adoption by the Planning Board. 
 
4) Zoning Amendments 2027 (Continuation) 
 
The Board discussed continuing its review of proposed amendments to the 
Conservation Subdivision provisions. 
 
The Planning Director recommended scheduling another work session and estimated 
that approximately two weeks would be sufficient to prepare updated materials. The 
intention was to provide the Board with an updated redline/strikeout draft of the 
Conservation Subdivision provisions together with drafts of the other proposed 
amendments. 
 
It was anticipated that most of the other zoning amendments would be relatively 
straightforward. The Conservation Subdivision amendments were expected to require 
more extensive discussion and potentially more than one additional review. 
 
The Board asked whether any zoning amendment requests had been received from 
parties other than the Housing Committee. The Planning Director stated that none had 
been received at that time. 
 
Board members then discussed possible dates for the work session. Scheduling was 
complicated by summer vacations, the start of the school year, Labor Day, the State 
Primary Election, Zoning Board of Adjustment meetings, Conservation Commission 
meetings, and other municipal committee schedules. 
 
After discussing several dates, the Board reached a tentative consensus to hold the 
Planning Board work session on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, subject to 
confirmation of member availability and meeting-space availability. 
 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – August 11, 2026 
Page 9 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
B) September Planning Board Meeting Schedule 
Because the regular September meeting date of September 8 conflicted with the State 
Primary Election, the Board discussed moving the regular Planning Board meeting to the 
following week. 
 
The Board tentatively identified Tuesday, September 15, 2026, as the date for the next 
regular Planning Board meeting. 
 
It was noted that the Conservation Commission also meets that evening, which could 
create scheduling and meeting-space issues because members and staff participate in 
both boards. The Board discussed beginning the Planning Board meeting at approximately 
5:00 or 5:30 p.m. and concluding by 7:00 p.m. if the Town Hall was needed for the 
Conservation Commission. 
 
C) Committee and Staff Reports 
Brief updates were requested from members associated with other boards and 
committees. No substantive additional business requiring Board action was reported. 
 
VI. ADJOURNMENT.  
 
MOTION was made by Jane Bradstreet and seconded by Molly Bouchard to adjourn the 
meeting at 6:15 PM. Motion carried unanimously (Fredyma, Bradstreet, Bouchard, 
Hardenbergh, McKeon, Owens, and Wilkey (7-0).  
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
Karen Robertson 
 
Planning Director