Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hubbardston planning board debates boundaries, access and permit paths for Sandpit Overlay
Summary
Planning Board members debated why some parcels were included or excluded from a proposed Sandpit Overlay, discussed access points (Gardner Road, Pitcherville Road), special‑permit versus by‑right approaches, aquifer protections, and next steps tied to consultant work and potential planning grants.
Hubbardston’s Planning Board spent the bulk of its meeting continuing the Sandpit Overlay working session, questioning how the study area was defined and what permitting path would best protect open space while allowing clustered, affordable housing and limited commercial uses.
A consultant‑prepared map shown to the board proposes a neighborhood mixed‑use district with light commercial uses, residential cluster development and significant conservation areas. Speaker 4 suggested making the overlay continuous rather than 'cutouts' and proposed access be limited to Gardner Road; other members noted three existing potential access points (two off Route 68 and one on Pitcherville Road) and warned about the traffic and subdivision implications of single‑point access.
Speaker 5 pressed the group to explain why certain parcels — including gravel pits and properties such as Rietta Ranch — were excluded from the study area, warning the board must be prepared to justify boundary choices if the overlay is advanced to town meeting. The chair explained some properties are in conservation, one is a solar field, and the Rietta parcel is held in trust by UMass Trustees, limiting likely change.
Members discussed permitting mechanics. Several favored a special‑permit track for larger mixed‑use redevelopments to ensure public engagement and negotiated conditions, while others warned Hubbardston’s existing special‑permit process can be onerous for smaller applicants and may need revision to avoid disadvantaging small‑scale proposals. The chair asked the consultant for options showing different thresholds tied to project intensity (e.g., by‑right for small open‑space developments, special permit for larger PUDs).
The board also flagged site‑specific concerns: bridging Hubbardston Brook would require permitting regardless of use, and a small parcel south of Pitcherville Road was identified as a candidate municipal well site and should likely be excluded from development consideration.
The chair said the town’s proposal is now in line for additional planning funds — "a couple $100,000" to pursue engineering and downtown work — and that the consultant engagement with Mitch runs through September. The board agreed to send consolidated comments back to the consultant and asked for draft bylaw language options and clarity on subdivision sequencing before further public hearings.
The board did not vote on any bylaw changes at the meeting and will return to the overlay topic when the consultant provides revised materials and timelines.
