Hubbardston planning board revives agritourism/eco‑tourism bylaw and readies sandpit overlay public forum

The Hubbardston Planning Board voted to resume work on a proposed agricultural‑accessory/ecotourism bylaw and directed Town Planner Alec (last name not specified) to prepare a diagnostic memo and draft revisions for the board to consider.

The matter matters to residents because the draft bylaw would change which farm‑based activities are allowed by right, which require permit review and how large events are handled — potentially affecting land owners, the town’s tax base and town services.

Board Chair Chris (last name not specified) and planner Alec framed the action as the next step in a multi‑year process. Alec told the board he would “prepare in advance of the meeting a memo, what I’ll call a diagnostic work specifically on the original proposed agricultural accessory ecotourism bylaw,” and said he would pair that memo with drafts submitted by members of the public for review.

Board members and multiple public speakers described prior efforts and why the board should revisit the draft. Katie Young, a Rydell Road resident who worked on the text with her husband, said she and other volunteers had edited the draft to simplify event rules and to separate large‑event permitting from building‑related special permits. “I still feel like there’s a major fault in it,” Young said, arguing that a formal special permit should apply to new structures (for example, a pavilion or brewery) while a separate “large event” form should cover temporary gatherings so farmers are not required to seek a special permit solely because of attendance numbers.

Kathy Hancey, secretary of the Hubbardston Agricultural Commission, said the commission cleaned up an earlier draft through April 2025 and offered to provide the planning board with electronic copies as the planner works on revisions. “We have been working on it from the point of view of farmers,” she said, and urged continuing collaboration between the Ag Commission and town staff.

Discussion also tied the agritourism effort to a proposed “sandpit overlay” zoning study. The town’s consultant, Mitra Engineering, will host a public forum next week to gather input on a zoning overlay that would cover multiple parcels in the sandpit area; planner Alec and board members said the consultant will run the public listening session and the board does not intend to make decisions at that forum. Because multiple planning board members might attend, Chair Chris asked staff to post the forum as a planning board meeting “to avoid any potential issues with a quorum.”

The board reviewed preliminary survey results provided to the advisory committee and heard that many respondents misunderstand whose decisions determine development on privately owned parcels. Alec and other board members emphasized that much of the land in question has already been purchased by developers and the overlay would be a zoning tool, not a town development plan. Early survey responses indicated single‑family housing was the most commonly selected future use, and the board and planner warned that hundreds of new homes in that area would have broad implications for town services and taxes.

Members also discussed related planning topics: whether the area should be considered for business or commercial zoning, possible future MBTA station implications, and outreach channels (including the Town’s Facebook group and local press). Planner Alec recommended the board use the overlay forum to educate residents and said the consultant’s exercises are designed to gather public sentiment and inform subsequent drafting.

Board members asked Alec to examine whether the proposed agritourism/ecotourism language should be split into (1) an agricultural‑accessory bylaw for farm‑related uses that the state recognizes as agricultural exceptions, and (2) related amendments to Article 4 of the town zoning bylaws (the table of uses and district rules). Alec said he believed that approach would allow a more methodical, by‑use evaluation of what is allowed by right, by special permit or excluded from certain districts.

The board also discussed master plan context and funding. Alec told the board that a high‑quality outside master plan could cost $150,000–$200,000; he said the board could instead parse the existing master plan’s recommendations to determine whether a new full plan is needed. The board reviewed conflicting developable‑land figures cited during the meeting: the regional planning commission’s earlier calculation showed roughly 2% of town land as developable, while a local volunteer analysis revised that figure to about 5–7% by reclassifying “partial” versus “absolute” constraints. Board members said that discrepancy warrants closer review before finalizing zoning changes.

On town responsibilities and enforcement, planners and board members confirmed that health‑safety inspections and food‑safety oversight remain the Board of Health’s responsibility and that applicants typically pay inspectional fees. The board also cited recent changes to the town’s site‑plan review and administrative rules that may permit more flexible, administrative review of smaller agritourism uses rather than routing everything through a special permit process.

The board did not adopt a bylaw at the meeting. Instead members voted unanimously to direct town staff to continue work: post the consultant forum as a planning board meeting, have Alec prepare the diagnostic memo and draft revisions, and coordinate with the Ag Commission and other stakeholders. The board also asked staff to continue outreach and to return the draft bylaw to the board in future meetings for formal consideration.

Ending notes: the board encouraged attendance at the consultant‑run public forum next week, and planning staff said they would circulate electronic copies of existing draft language and the Ag Commission’s edits for the board’s review in advance of the next meeting.