Hubbardston planners revise public survey for 500-acre “sand pits” redevelopment after advisory feedback

The Town of Hubbardston Planning Board on July 17 reviewed a draft public survey produced as part of a 2024 community planning grant intended to study an overlay zoning district for the large former sand‑pit tract in north‑central Hubbardston.

Alec (Town Planner) told the board the town received a community planning grant in 2024 that allows hiring a consultant with $250,000 plus any additional town funds to evaluate the sand pits and public engagement options. Alec said the consultant will help consider alternatives including an overlay district “to give a second set of zoning options available to the property owner.”

Board members said the draft survey is too long and risks low response rates. Chair (Planning Board) opened discussion by noting the survey has seven main questions; members recommended simplifying and using visual preference questions so respondents can choose pictures rather than technical descriptions.

“A lot of these things might be more appropriate once it’s decided what our potential interest is in different types of development,” Alec said, recommending a staged approach and noting the grant covers consultant work and public engagement.

Why it matters: the property is one of the largest available contiguous tracts in the region and could shape Hubbardston’s development pattern for decades. Alec said public and private owners together comprise roughly five hundred acres; public owners (the City of Gardner, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the town) hold about 108.9 acres or roughly 18 percent of the land represented on the consultant’s map.

Board members flagged several specifics they want changed before wide distribution: change “select up to three” priority questions to a forced‑ranking or follow‑up that forces tradeoffs (for example, taxes/economic development versus protection of rural character); replace or clarify ambiguous terms such as “mixed use” and “light industrial” with concrete examples; and add visual preference images showing alternatives (for example, small storefronts with apartments above versus large multifamily blocks).

Several members stressed the need to surface actionable tradeoffs. “If you set these questions up in a way where people can select three priorities that are competing priorities, what are we really going to learn from that?” a planning board member said.

The board also discussed regional and statutory context. Alec noted the site has good highway frontage on Route 68 (Gardner Road) and access to Metro Mill Road, and said the state has identified the tract as a significant available parcel. He cautioned the town that portions of the site could become subject to MBTA‑related zoning changes and that developers have in the past explored state programs such as Chapter 40B housing. The planner said a developer who has consolidated many parcels has asked the town to support a community‑driven reuse plan rather than pursue a unilateral 40B approach.

What the board directed: members agreed to return a focused list of suggested survey edits to the advisory group and consultant and to revisit the survey at the next advisory meeting (scheduled for July 22). Alec said he would also present some of the board’s suggested rewrites and visuals to the advisory group.

The board did not take a formal vote on zoning or adopt survey text; members described this session as advisory feedback to refine the consultant’s instrument.

Provenance: The board’s discussion of the grant, the scope/acreage of the land, survey questions and recommended changes began during the planners’ report and the agenda item for the zoning roadway survey (transcript discussion beginning at the start of the grant description and continuing through the question‑by‑question review).