Hopkinton planning board grants frontage variance, gives preliminary OK for Pierce Family two‑lot subdivision with deed restriction

The Hopkinton Planning Board on June 20 approved a dimensional variance for road frontage and granted preliminary approval for the Pierce Family Plat 2, a proposed two‑lot minor subdivision at 70 Oak Street, with conditions including a recorded deed restriction limiting future subdivision of the larger remaining parcel to no more than two lots.

The action follows a unified development review request from applicants Douglas Pierce and Eric Northup for a two‑lot subdivision and a dimensional variance because the proposed lower (pink) lot would have substantially less than the 225 feet of continuous road frontage normally required. "The variance we're asking for is dimensional variance for the road frontage," Eric Northup said during the public hearing.

Planning staff said the application had gone through multiple rounds of incomplete submissions and resubmissions and that some checklist items remained inconsistent across materials. "We did give you a pretty detailed memo about the application. We gave you a set of proposed conditions," Planner Ashley said, adding staff recommended conditional preliminary approval while the outstanding items are resolved.

Board discussion focused on whether granting the frontage relief would increase development potential on the remaining (green) piece of Lot 7. Building and zoning staff had flagged that granting reduced frontage to the lower lot could leave the green area with enough contiguous frontage to be developed further, a concern planners sought to address with conditions. The board and staff discussed alternatives: a contiguous‑frontage waiver under the town's subdivision regulations or the requested frontage variance under unified development review.

Applicants said the chosen layout follows prior guidance from the board and minimizes land disturbance by using an existing access/tractor path and placing the house site where permitted septic (OWTS) design exists. "This is what we came in November and talked about... this is what you told us that you would want to see," Douglas Pierce said, explaining the driveway alignment was intended to reduce grading and erosion impacts.

As part of the board's approval, members included conditions copied from the planner's memorandum (dated 05/30/2025) and the Crossman engineering review (05/28/2025). Staff listed administrative fixes (project name/address consistency, plan numbering), resolution of remaining engineering comments, and confirmation that on‑site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) approvals remain valid. Planner Ashley noted the approved OWTS for the green lot is valid through August of this year.

To address building and zoning's concern about future subdivision potential, the board added a condition requiring a recorded deed restriction limiting the remaining green parcel to no more than two future frontage lots (i.e., a two‑lot maximum), rather than leaving unrestricted potential for additional subdivision. The solicitor presented the findings of fact in the planner's memo and the recommended motion; a motion to grant the dimensional variance and a subsequent motion to grant preliminary approval both passed.

The board agreed that technical discrepancies in submitted materials may be corrected administratively as conditions of preliminary approval and that final plan recording must present a clean land evidence record. The board closed the public hearing with no members of the public speaking online or in person.

Next steps: applicants must correct the conflicting plan information identified in staff memos, resolve remaining Crossman engineering comments, ensure OWTS approvals remain current at final plan submission, and record the deed restriction limiting further subdivision of the green parcel to a maximum of two lots. After those conditions are satisfied, staff may process the final plan for recording.