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 
WORK SESSION  
JULY 28, 2026 
 
Members Present: Chair Michael Wilkey, Ex-Officio Alyssa McKeon, Molly Hardenbergh, Emily 
Bouchard, James Fredyma, and Alternates Dean Owens, Sam Durfee, and Jeff Donohoe. 
Members Absent: Vice Chair Rob Dapice, and Alternates Sam Durfee, Jeff Donohoe.  
Staff Present: Planning Director Karen Robertson 
 
 
At 5:30 PM, Chair Michael Wilkey opened the Planning Board work session at the Hopkinton 
Town Hall, 330 Main Street, Hopkinton, and introduced those present.  
 
The purpose of the work session was to review proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance 
Section VII, Conservation Subdivision. Planning Director Karen Robertson explained that the 
working draft included a broader rewrite than originally contemplated. The Board agreed to 
proceed through the proposed revisions and identify changes and recommendations to be 
incorporated into the next draft. 
 
Review Materials and Scope of the Rewrite 
The Board began reviewing Section 4 of the packet, using the first three sections as reference 
material. The ordinance being reviewed was Section VII, Conservation Subdivision. Participants 
agreed to proceed through the draft language and the highlighted questions. 
 
Ms. Robertson explained that the draft went beyond the limited changes originally requested. The 
Board could retain the existing ordinance and address only the principal concerns, including 
accessible open space, the previously discussed requirement for 70% contiguous open space, 
private roads, and lots fronting on existing roads. Alternatively, it could undertake the broader 
rewrite presented in the packet. 
 
A Board member referred to the principal revisions summarized in the previous meeting minutes 
and asked whether the Board should concentrate on problems encountered with recent 
applications, complete the entire rewrite, or make some changes now and reserve others for 
later. The Chair favored reviewing the proposed changes suggesting that matters important 
enough to be included in the draft warranted discussion.  
 
Ms. Robertson clarified that highlighted provisions are where she had questions, rather than 
necessarily identifying every change. She began explaining that the purpose of Conservation 
Subdivisions had been expanded to address wildlife corridors, housing opportunities and 
affordability, road character, and visual screening. 
 
Authority, Purpose, Objectives, and Energy Efficiency 
Under Section 7.3, Objectives, Ms. Robertson questioned the phrase “significant natural 
features,” asking how “significant” would be defined. Participants agreed that the qualifier should 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – July 28, 2026 
Page 2 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
be removed. No further questions were raised when the Chair asked about Sections 7.1 and 7.2 
and the remaining objectives. Paper copies were made available during the review. 
 
Ms. Robertson also questioned the proposed reference to high-performance, energy-efficient 
homes, explaining that she had included it while considering additional incentives. The Board 
recognized that modern homes already must meet energy standards and that certifications, 
including LEED or other programs, can recognize performance above baseline requirements. 
Sam Durfee confirmed that such certifications exist, but there is no specific certification threshold, 
administering organization, or corresponding local benefit to incorporate into the ordinance. 
 
The discussion included possible federal tax incentives and the distinction between generally 
encouraging efficient construction and offering a defined zoning incentive. Participants 
questioned retaining a vague statement without specifying what performance would qualify and 
what benefit would follow. Later in the meeting, during the detailed incentive discussion, 
participants expressly agreed to remove the energy-efficient residential building incentive. 
 
Definitions and Elimination of Building Envelopes 
Ms. Robertson identified new or revised definitions, including net developable area, private roads, 
common open space, and contiguous open space. The Board then discussed the proposed 
building-envelope definition, including language limiting the area to one-half acre unless a larger 
envelope was approved. 
 
Mr. Durfee questioned the terminology because “building envelope” can mean the exterior 
enclosure of a building—its roof, walls, foundation, windows, and siding—rather than an area of 
land within which development must occur. Other participants understood the term to mean the 
designated area on a lot containing the house, well, septic system, and accessory structures. Ms. 
Robertson explained that the latter interpretation had been used for the two recent subdivisions, 
including future accessory development. 
 
Alternative terms considered included building site, buildable area, usable area, and a limit on 
clearing. Participants noted that a clearing limit would not adequately describe a site already 
cleared. An area within setback lines also might not actually be buildable because of wetlands, 
slopes, lot coverage, or other constraints. Concord’s ordinance was mentioned as using both 
“usable area” and “buildable area” with different meanings, and reviewing those definitions was 
initially suggested. 
 
The discussion shifted from selecting a better term to determining whether the separate concept 
was needed. Ms. Robertson explained that the existing ordinance allows construction outside a 
building envelope if conventional setbacks are satisfied. She questioned whether that exception 
undermined the purpose of clustering development and limiting clearing, since it could allow 
improvements to spread beyond the designated area. 
 
Participants reviewed the exclusions in the proposed definition: required setbacks, wetland 
buffers, perimeter buffers, and designated open space. They observed that these areas already 
have independent restrictions. Similarly, a direction to locate both building sites and building 
envelopes in the least sensitive areas appeared duplicative. The question was whether setbacks 
and other development standards already accomplished the intended protection without a second 
regulatory area. 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – July 28, 2026 
Page 3 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
Ms. Robertson read the existing lot-design provision concerning adequate separation between 
new primary structures, measured by average distance between building envelopes on adjacent 
lots. The provision allows individual separations below the stated minimum if the required 
average is achieved across the new lots. It also specifies a 50-foot minimum distance where 
more than one building containing dwelling units occupies a common lot. Participants questioned 
the additional complexity and possible inconsistencies between these standards and ordinary 
setbacks. 
 
Section 7.8.4 of the draft was identified as containing the detailed building-envelope separation 
requirements. Using R-4 as an example, the Board compared a 120-foot average separation 
between envelopes with conventional side setbacks of 30 feet and conservation-subdivision side 
setbacks clarified during the discussion as 25 feet. Two 25-foot setbacks would result in 50 feet 
between structures on adjoining lots, substantially less than the 120-foot envelope separation. 
The availability of reductions or waivers, as used for the Farrington Corner Road subdivision, 
added another layer of complexity. 
 
Members expressed concern that requiring greater separation between envelopes could force 
development farther apart even though the conservation-subdivision objective is to cluster. They 
also discussed whether proper house setbacks and well/septic separation already provided 
sufficient controls. The question of utilities within designated open space was raised and then 
addressed separately. 
 
After reviewing the draft, Mr. Durfee reported that he found 18 references to building envelopes 
and did not identify a reason those references needed to remain. The drafting direction was to 
strike the building-envelope concept and its references throughout the working draft, simplifying 
the ordinance and relying on the applicable setbacks and other standards. It was clarified that the 
review of the 18 references concerned the working draft with strikethroughs. 
 
Utilities and Other Uses Within Common Open Space 
A Board member asked whether provisions for utilities in common open space applied only to 
shared facilities serving two or more lots or could also accommodate an individual lot’s septic 
system. The question arose from the existing language and a possible change in state law. 
 
Members initially described structures in common open space as requiring prior Planning Board 
approval, using a meetinghouse, community pool, and tennis court as examples. They then 
distinguished these recreational or community improvements from wells, septic facilities, and 
utility infrastructure. Ms. Robertson referred to the Commerce and Community Overlay near 
Hart’s Corner in the B-1 District, where community wells, septic systems, and utilities had 
expressly been allowed in open space. 
 
Members discussed ownership and responsibility if a septic system were placed on common 
land. Questions included whether all residents or the homeowners’ association would be 
responsible for a failure or overflow, whether the Town would accept land containing private utility 
obligations, and how to ensure that the Town did not assume responsibility for residents’ septic 
systems. Easements and maintenance agreements were suggested, with an analogy to 
arrangements associated with Class VI roads. Ms. Robertson said the actual language would 
need review before responsibility could be determined. 
 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – July 28, 2026 
Page 4 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
Ms. Robertson read existing allowable-use language referring to individual or group wells and 
transmission pipes for stormwater or wastewater disposal systems, subject to subdivision 
approval and appropriate legal arrangements approved by the Planning Board for maintenance 
and operation. Participants clarified that the wording included individual as well as group facilities. 
 
The discussion also addressed a provision limiting certain uses to 15% of designated open 
space through a special use permit, to be termed a conditional use permit in the revision. 
Examples included animal or farm uses, parking for access to open space, outdoor recreation 
such as playgrounds and tennis courts, support facilities, community wells, stormwater 
management, and sewer pump stations. Participants questioned whether the percentage limit 
would remain consistent with the new legislation. 
 
Mr. Durfee identified Senate Bill 564 as having been signed by the Governor and read language 
stating that municipalities shall permit utilities—including septic systems, wells, electric 
distribution, drainage structures, and other utilities—within designated open space or perimeter 
buffer areas of subdivisions, provided those areas are not wetlands. Participants noted that 
“open space” can be defined differently among ordinances; Hopkinton’s definition was described 
as land permanently protected from further development through conservation deeds or 
restrictions. 
 
Ms. Robertson agreed to review SB 564 and determine how it affected the ordinance, including 
the 15% limitation and the need for maintenance agreements. The discussion suggested that the 
percentage restriction might have to be removed for affected utilities. 
 
Contiguous Open Space Definition 
Ms. Robertson questioned the phrase “narrow utility crossing” in the contiguous-open-space 
definition. She recommended removing “narrow” because the draft did not define a width or 
meaning for that qualifier. There was no contrary view to the recommendation. 
 
Net Developable Area and a Simpler Density Approach 
Ms. Robertson explained the proposed net developable area calculation. The calculation begins 
with the gross area of the parent parcel and subtracts the exclusions identified in Section 7.6.2, 
such as protected conservation land, wetlands, flood areas, slopes greater than 25%, and other 
permanently protected or unusable areas. The resulting area is multiplied by a development 
factor and divided by the conventional minimum lot size of the underlying zoning district to 
determine density. 
 
She had used a development factor from the state model ordinance. She also described an older 
Hopkinton formula that used a large square-footage factor rather than a decimal. That earlier 
factor incorporated allowances for roads, utilities, and similar development needs. Although the 
formulas differed in presentation, both required a series of calculations to estimate the number of 
lots. 
 
Members considered whether ten parcels of 100 acres each should have different permitted 
densities because of varying slopes, floodplain, wetlands, and other conditions. Ms. Robertson 
explained that these conditions could result, for example, in 20 lots on one parcel and 15 on 
another. Participants recognized that land with greater carrying capacity may support more 
development but questioned whether a detailed preliminary formula was the clearest way to 
regulate it. 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – July 28, 2026 
Page 5 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
 
Mr. Durfee proposed establishing a straightforward maximum density or reduced lot-size 
requirement and allowing actual site constraints to determine what could be laid out. Illustrative 
lot sizes of 15,000 or 20,000 square feet, or approximately one-half acre, were discussed. Even if 
the initial calculation suggested a larger number of lots, wetlands, steep slopes, septic 
requirements, frontage, lot width, and other standards would limit the final design. 
 
Ms. Robertson noted that this would change the existing approach under which a conservation 
subdivision should not exceed the conventional subdivision yield before applicable incentives. Mr. 
Durfee disagreed with preserving that limitation as a policy goal, arguing that conserving land 
should justify allowing more lots than a conventional subdivision. Participants considered making 
the conservation lot-size requirement one-half of the conventional requirement in each zoning 
district, rather than adopting the same half-acre minimum townwide. 
 
Members favored a method that property owners and applicants could readily understand. The 
discussion recognized that the Town generally lacks water and sewer service in the areas likely 
to contain the acreage for conservation subdivisions. State subsurface review, soils, groundwater, 
and septic loading would continue to limit what could actually be built. Ms. Robertson described 
the difficulty of explaining the existing multiply-divide-round formula to prospective applicants 
before an engineer or surveyor was involved. 
 
The Chair supported incorporating the simplified approach into the next draft, subject to further 
review. Board members expressly recognized that this would not be their last opportunity to 
consider the language. Ms. Robertson was asked to test the proposed approach against an 
approved conservation subdivision and compare the possible yield with what had been approved 
or built. 
 
Ms. Robertson clarified that she had already tested the state model’s net-developable-area 
formula against the two most recent approved subdivisions and obtained the same lot counts. 
That was not a test of the newly suggested half-lot-size method. She also recalled testing the 
Town’s older formula against approximately 20 subdivisions, including Hopkins Green, with 
generally comparable results and occasionally one additional lot, considered acceptable in 
exchange for protected open space. 
 
Open Space, Lot-Size Fractions, and Physical Feasibility 
Members clarified that the simplified approach would eliminate the separate preliminary net-
developable-area calculation and yield plan. The designer would work from the allowable reduced 
lot size and satisfy the actual subdivision constraints. An illustrative nine-acre parcel divided into 
half-acre lots could suggest 18 lots mathematically, but that result could not be achieved once 
required open space, roads, and other standards were applied. 
 
The Board discussed the continuing requirement for 50% open space. Ms. Robertson stated that 
the communities she reviewed generally required that amount. On a hypothetical ten-acre parcel, 
five acres would be set aside, leaving five acres for development before roads and other 
constraints. If the underlying lot minimum were approximately one acre, reducing it to one-half 
acre would nominally allow ten lots on the remaining land, with actual yield likely lower. 
 
This raised concern that one-half of the conventional minimum might not provide enough 
incentive after the open-space requirement and road area were accounted for. Members 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – July 28, 2026 
Page 6 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
suggested testing one-quarter and one-third of the conventional requirement as alternatives. Jeff 
Donohoe suggested that one-third, or approximately 33%, was a reasonable figure to test. Ms. 
Robertson again clarified that the comparable yields previously mentioned came from her model-
formula tests, not from a completed analysis of the proposed one-half or one-third approach. 
 
Ms. Robertson cited the Bound Tree Road housing project to illustrate the difference between 
zoning capacity and septic capacity. Although zoning allowed 24 units, state review reportedly 
limited the development to 11 because of septic loading. The example was offered to show that 
an ordinance maximum would not guarantee that many units. 
 
Mr. Durfee also suggested exempting conservation subdivisions from additional land-area 
requirements for each additional dwelling unit. If duplexes or multifamily housing were permitted 
in the district and a compliant lot could be created, removing the extra square footage per unit 
could provide another incentive. Ms. Robertson clarified that few of the communities she 
reviewed required that additional acreage. 
 
Members discussed whether the changes would be acceptable to the community and how 
incentives could make an internal subdivision road financially attractive compared with lots 
fronting on an existing road. They observed that residents may not recognize established 
developments with smaller interior lots as conservation or cluster subdivisions, because the 
protected land and reduced lot sizes are less apparent from the main road. 
 
Later, Board members returned to dimensional feasibility. If conservation lots were reduced to 
one-third of the conventional minimum, maintaining existing setbacks could leave little or no 
buildable area. A corresponding reduction to one-third of other dimensional criteria, including 
setbacks, was suggested for testing. The Board did not settle final dimensional values; the 
interaction among lot area, frontage, setbacks, road layout, and incentives was to be evaluated 
together. 
 
The Board agreed that Section 7.6.3, Alternative Determination, would be removed as part of 
moving away from the yield-plan approach. Ms. Robertson explained that the alternative had 
been intended to address questions about whether the proposed yield was realistic. 
 
Eligible Zoning Districts and Mandatory Conservation Subdivision Exemptions 
Returning to the definitions and applicability provisions, Ms. Robertson questioned including VM-
1, NR, and VR-1 among the districts eligible for conservation subdivisions. She explained that 
these areas did not appear to contain sufficient available acreage. The discussion described VR-
1 as the village area and adjoining small side-street lots, VM-1 as the limited Riverside Drive 
area, and NR as Amesbury Park and Pinewood Drive. Members agreed to remove these districts 
from the applicable list.  
 
Ms. Robertson reviewed the existing exemptions from the otherwise mandatory conservation-
subdivision requirement. The stated exemptions were subdivisions creating lots averaging at 
least ten acres with deed restrictions against further subdivision; parent parcels of nine acres or 
less where no new road is required; and subdivisions creating five or fewer dwelling units where 
no new road is required.  
 
Some members had understood conservation subdivision to be optional and questioned why 
exemptions were needed. Ms. Robertson clarified that conservation subdivision had long been 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – July 28, 2026 
Page 7 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
the required method unless an exemption applied, reflecting the community’s goal of rural 
character and land preservation.  
 
Ms. Robertson explained that new-road subdivisions generally had been handled as conservation 
subdivisions for many years, recalling that the approach dated to approximately the 1980s. 
However, although participants had associated conservation subdivisions with internal roads, the 
current ordinance did not actually require a new road. Recent applications had exposed that 
omission. Ms. Robertson indicated that she would leave the exemption language for the time 
being and return to it if the Board wished to pursue a different approach. 
 
Conditional Use Permit Criteria and Legal Documents 
Ms. Robertson recommended removing subjective qualifiers such as “excessive fragmentation” 
and “superior site design” from the conditional use permit criteria because their meanings could 
differ from one decision-maker to another. The intent was to avoid relying on undefined 
comparative standards. Members agreed. 
 
Board members clarified that a permit allowing a conventional subdivision could function as 
another exemption from the conservation-subdivision requirement, but that the permit provisions 
also applied in other circumstances. Ms. Robertson explained that the existing “special use 
permit” terminology was being changed to “conditional use permit.” She stated that the legal-
document review requirements remained substantively the same, although the wording had been 
revised. 
 
Density Incentives, Percentage Caps, and the Boscawen Example 
Ms. Robertson reviewed the draft density-incentive language requiring a permanent public or 
community benefit proportional to the additional density and limiting combined bonuses to 25% of 
base density. Members distinguished the proposed reduced lot-size requirement, which would 
establish the baseline, from any further density bonus. Even with a bonus, the development 
would remain subject to wetlands, slopes, septic capacity, dimensional standards, and other 
constraints, and some sites might not physically accommodate additional lots. 
 
A Board member asked how bonuses would be awarded: whether an applicant simply proposed 
qualifying benefits and requested 25%, or whether specific benefits carried specified 
percentages. Ms. Robertson explained that the existing ordinance assigned percentages to 
particular items, although those details were not all in the draft under discussion. 
 
The Board reviewed Boscawen’s approach as a simpler example: a 10% bonus for one qualifying 
feature, 15% for two, and 20% for three or more. One member preferred that structure to 
Hopkinton’s combination of individual 5% and 10% increments. Potential benefits discussed 
included affordable or senior housing, conservation easements, public trail connectivity, additional 
open space, and other listed features. A reference to 25% for three features was corrected to 
20% when describing Boscawen. 
 
Other participants cautioned that benefits differ in cost, difficulty, and public value. Awarding 
equal credit for any qualifying feature could allow an applicant to select relatively inexpensive 
improvements while receiving a substantial density increase. Board members supported 
examining the simpler format but wanted to ensure that the public benefit justified the bonus. 
 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – July 28, 2026 
Page 8 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
Ms. Robertson offered to use Boscawen’s approach as a reference while also testing the one-half 
and one-third lot-size options. The final incentive percentages and the appropriate maximum 
remained under review, together with the dimensional changes needed to make smaller lots 
workable. 
 
Affordable and Senior Housing; Combining Incentives 
The Board discussed whether an applicant could receive a conservation-subdivision incentive for 
affordable housing and also benefit from another ordinance section. Some participants 
characterized this as “double dipping” and wanted the ordinance to state clearly whether 
combining benefits was allowed. Others noted that affordable housing is costly and difficult to 
provide and that additional incentives could be proportionate to that expense. 
 
Participants distinguished an expressly authorized affordable-housing incentive from an 
unintended combination of bonuses. They wanted the ordinance to make the intended result 
clear, including whether a combined maximum would prevent additional or repeated bonuses 
from exceeding the Board’s expectations. 
 
During review of the existing ordinance, a Board member identified a conflict in Section 7.6.2: an 
introductory limit of a 25% increase in dwelling units was followed by a subsection offering a 30% 
increase. The participants clarified that this discrepancy was in the current ordinance rather than 
the working draft. It was also stated that the referenced provision did not require an additional 
conditional use approval. The inconsistency was identified for correction. 
 
The discussion briefly addressed accessory dwelling units. Ms. Robertson stated that state law 
allows an ADU to count as workforce housing. Participants also referred to the subordinate nature 
of an ADU and an informal indication of the Board’s position at a previous meeting. The exchange 
did not produce a separate new decision on ADUs at this session. 
 
Mr. Durfee proposed removing affordable housing from the conservation-subdivision incentive list 
and relying instead on a separate, generally applicable affordable-housing incentive. His concern 
was that including affordability within a capped list of conservation benefits could dilute its value. 
He described a Nashua conservation subdivision that also used inclusionary zoning, reportedly 
obtaining approximately 16 bonus lots in an approximately 86-unit development. He offered the 
example to illustrate intentionally combining conservation and affordable-housing incentives. 
 
Participants discussed adding a cross-reference making clear that a separate housing incentive 
could be combined with the conservation-subdivision provisions. Rob Dapice suggested language 
identifying the separate provision and its relationship to the conservation bonus. Ms. Robertson 
agreed to examine the Boscawen numbers and add a sentence along those lines for further 
review. 
 
In reviewing the list itself, Board members agreed to remove energy-efficient residential 
construction. They also recommended removing permanent conservation easements as a 
separate bonus category because permanent protection is already a prerequisite of conservation 
subdivision. Additional open space and trail connectivity remained examples of possible 
qualifying benefits. 
 
Ms. Robertson described a recent application in which the applicant included an existing flood-
control easement in the density calculation until she questioned it. She explained that the area 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – July 28, 2026 
Page 9 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
could not be built upon regardless of the application, but the applicant had included it because the 
ordinance did not expressly list it as an exclusion. The example reinforced the importance of clear 
calculation language and avoiding credit for an obligation or restriction already in place. 
 
Discussion returned to the possible combined bonus. One suggestion was to reduce the 
conservation-only maximum to 15% and permit an additional affordable-housing incentive, 
potentially producing a total of 25% or 30%. These were examples, not adopted limits. Members 
emphasized testing the resulting density against actual lot dimensions to avoid nominal 
entitlements. 
 
The Board then asked whether senior housing should be treated similarly, with references to its 
respective ordinance section. At this point, Ms. Robertson questioned a central assumption in the 
preceding discussion: the separate senior- and affordable-housing sections might not actually 
provide density bonuses. She indicated that the bonuses appeared to be located in the 
conservation-subdivision section and that she did not think conventional affordable-housing 
development automatically received extra units under the separate section, while acknowledging 
that she would need to verify the language. 
 
Board members recognized that the separate housing provisions might need modernization. The 
discussion therefore did not establish that an existing, generally applicable bonus available to 
replace the conservation-subdivision incentive. The proposed removal and cross-referencing of 
affordable and senior housing remained dependent on checking those sections and determining 
the intended incentive structure. No final combined-bonus cap or replacement housing-incentive 
language was settled. 
 
Existing-Road Frontage Lots and Internal Subdivision Roads 
The Board returned to Section 7.7.2 and highlighted language that would permit frontage lots only 
when they better protected important resources, avoided environmental impacts, or provided safe 
access. Ms. Robertson questioned whether those standards were too subjective. Without an 
express restriction on frontage lots, simply removing the proposed exception language would not 
prohibit them. 
 
Ms. Robertson reiterated that the original understanding of conservation subdivisions was 
clustered development on interior lots served by a subdivision road. Recent applicants had 
demonstrated that the existing language did not require that arrangement. She asked whether the 
Board wanted to restore the interior-road model or preserve a discretionary option for lots on 
existing town roads. 
 
The Board discussed the visual and neighborhood effects of placing much smaller lots along a 
road otherwise characterized by larger residential parcels. Hypothetical examples included six 
quarter-acre lots with 75 feet of frontage, but the discussion clarified that the proposed fraction 
would not apply to each district’s conventional requirements. A reference to five-acre R-4 
minimums was corrected during the meeting to 2.75 acres; one-third would be approximately 0.9 
acre. 
 
Ms. Robertson expressed concern that reduced-size frontage lots in R-3 and R-4 would not fit the 
established rural road character as well as similar lots grouped on an internal road. The 
Farrington Corner Road and Sugar Hill Road applications were cited as examples where 
residents had objected to roadside development. Farrington Corner Road’s approved lots were 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – July 28, 2026 
Page 10 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
described as approximately 1.2 acres. Others believed that some neighbors would have accepted 
comparable density if it had been located within a separate development off the main road. 
 
Members recalled public comments asking why the conventional yield plan could not be approved 
instead. Board members suggested that eliminating a yield-plan presentation could reduce 
confusion caused by first showing a conventional layout and then presenting a substantially 
different conservation design. 
 
Road cost was another consideration. A member cited construction costs of $700 to $900 per 
linear foot. The option of private roads, potentially unpaved or using other permitted design 
alternatives, was discussed as a way to reduce costs. Additional lots could also make an internal 
road financially feasible; an example compared the revenue from 15 lots with that from five. 
 
Board members questioned whether a development that placed lots along the frontage and 
conserved a large rear area—potentially 80% or 90%—achieved the desired conservation-
subdivision form. They also recognized that parent-parcel geometry could make an internal road 
impractical. The Farrington Corner Road parcel between the road and Interstate 89 was cited as 
a narrow or rectangular tract with slopes toward the highway. An internal road there might run 
parallel to the existing road, leaving only a narrow intervening conservation strip. 
 
The discussion included the quality of protected land and a suggestion that open space should 
contain a minimum buildable proportion, rather than consist entirely of land that could not readily 
be developed. Another example described a subdivision with an approximately 50-foot roadside 
conservation strip and additional open space at the rear. No new numerical standard for buildable 
open space was established. 
 
Mr. Dapice proposed allowing conservation-subdivision frontage lots in R-1 and R-2 districts but 
requiring an internal-road arrangement in R-3 and R-4. This would restrict frontage lots by district, 
not prohibit conservation subdivisions in R-3 and R-4. They noted that the smaller-lot village 
pattern differs from the larger rural parcels, where setting density back from the road could 
preserve extensive contiguous land and existing road character. 
 
The Board agreed to try the R-1 and R-2 frontage-lot approach in the next draft, with internal-road 
lots in R-3 and R-4. Subsequent comments raised additional questions about curb cuts, traffic, 
and the relationship of development to the villages. 
 
Roadside Vegetative Buffer 
Ms. Robertson reviewed the roadside buffer provision in Section 7.7.2. The discussion referred 
both to a 100-foot buffer and to language allowing the Board to require a vegetative buffer “up to” 
100 feet between new development and the existing road. Members described the purpose as 
visually separating the clustered development from the existing road and helping it function as its 
own neighborhood. 
 
The language discussed keeps the buffer free of structures, parking, lawns, leach fields, and 
detention basins; maintain mature forest cover; require supplemental plantings where needed; 
and protect the buffer through a recorded restriction.  
 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – July 28, 2026 
Page 11 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
A member asked whether the proposed restrictions were consistent with the utility legislation 
discussed earlier. The scope of permitted utilities and the final mandatory or discretionary buffer 
wording remained matters to resolve during revision. 
 
Public and Private Roads; Emergency Access and Fire Protection 
Ms. Robertson introduced new Section 7.7.3, allowing the Planning Board to approve either 
public or private roads. She explained that private subdivision roads were not currently permitted 
and that recorded restrictions and legal documents would be needed to establish responsibility for 
their upkeep.  
 
Under the proposed language, private roads could use standards different from public roads only 
where expressly authorized by the Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Robertson noted that those 
regulations would also need amendment. Approval would require written findings that the design 
safely accommodated residents, emergency response, utilities, school transportation where 
applicable, service and delivery vehicles, snow storage, drainage, and anticipated traffic. 
 
Private-road approval would not reduce applicable fire-protection, emergency-access, 
stormwater, sight-distance, or structural-capacity requirements. The proposed language would 
allow the Board to require turnarounds, pull-offs, secondary emergency access, cisterns, fire 
ponds, or other mitigation recommended by the Fire Chief. 
 
Ms. Robertson stated that the Fire Chief already had authority to require necessary protections 
under applicable fire and life-safety requirements, but she wanted the ordinance to give 
applicants advance notice. Board members discussed whether to reference applicable code. 
NFPA 101 was mentioned as a possible example, without confirming the final citation. 
  
Continuation of the Review 
As the work session approached its stopping point, Board members suggested ending at 
approximately 7:00 p.m. and continuing at the next meeting, if other business concluded early 
enough.  
 
The Board did not complete a section-by-section review of the remainder of the draft during this 
session. The Chair invited public questions and comments before concluding. 
 
Public Comment: Curb Cuts, Village Development, and Road Character 
A resident identifying himself as Butch Laker stated that he had recently moved to Hopkinton from 
Concord and was an attorney and city planner for Manchester. He addressed Mr. Dapice’s 
proposal to allow frontage lots in R-1 and R-2. 
 
Mr. Blaker cautioned that reducing an approximately one-acre R-1 lot requirement to one-third 
acre, with frontage potentially around 50 feet, could substantially increase curb cuts along roads 
serving as through routes. He suggested considering the opposite approach: restricting roadside 
conservation lots in R-1 and R-2 districts while potentially allowing them in R-3 and R-4, where 
larger resulting lots would create fewer curb cuts. 
 
As another option, he described Manchester’s current work on cluster-subdivision provisions and 
suggested greater setbacks or buffers from existing streets. Even where lots retained street 
frontage, setting homes farther back could reduce their visibility and effects on surrounding 
neighborhood character. Participants thanked him and described the comments as helpful. 

Hopkinton Planning Board Minutes – July 28, 2026 
Page 12 
 
 
 
Subject to PB review and approval. 
 
Another Board member offered a different perspective. Using Maple Street in Contoocook Village 
as an example, the participant suggested that a pattern of smaller-frontage lots and individual 
driveways could support an organic extension of the village. More driveways might help slow 
traffic and support sidewalks, while cul-de-sacs could extend development into the wooded land 
behind the existing frontage. Route 103 between the villages was also mentioned as an area 
where frontage development might be preferable to repeated interior cul-de-sacs. 
 
The member emphasized that some development would occur and favored a pattern that felt like 
an incremental outward extension of the village rather than a series of cul-de-sacs whose traffic 
would enter and leave the main road. These were opinions expressed during the discussion, not 
findings regarding traffic safety or performance. 
 
Board members asked about state regulation of curb cuts. An earlier subdivision at the former oil-
company property off Maple Street was cited as a case where shared driveways had been 
required because additional individual curb cuts were not permitted.  
 
Public Comment 
Butch Laker, a resident and Planner for the City of Manchester, commented on the proposed 
treatment of frontage lots. He cautioned that significantly reducing lot size and frontage in the R-1 
and R-2 Districts could result in numerous additional curb cuts along roads. He suggested 
considering whether frontage lots might instead be more appropriate and whether greater 
setbacks and roadside buffers could reduce impacts. 
 
The Board also discussed an alternative perspective that smaller frontage lots could, in 
appropriate locations, allow development to occur as a more natural extension of the villages 
rather than exclusively through interior cul-de-sacs. The comments highlighted the need for 
additional consideration of curb cuts, traffic, village development patterns, and rural road 
character when revising the frontage provisions. 
 
Adjournment 
With no further business, the work session adjourned at approximately 6:50 PM. 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
Karen Robertson 
 
Planning Director