Planning Board - Regular Meeting

What's the note on suburban roads? Well, we've got . She's going to . OK.

Wonderful.

Thanks.

I'm just waiting on Brandon. Should one of us take over as co-hosts? Currently, Michelle. And then Leslie. Oh, oh, oh.

Thank you.

right after that house as you're coming towards my house uh the second house on the left

We just had the same exact thought. I can go grab a print wire if it looks like it ran out. I'm hoping people will listen behind me. Do you want to take their item first too? Yeah. Yeah, that's how I feel. I kind of highlighted a couple things. Yeah, we got it.

Yes. This will be the end of the night too. True. Unless people are here. I want to do what I want to do.

thank you

There's Brandon.

Thank you.

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division, just doing an audio check for Board Member Brandon King.

Yes, can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Thank you.

What's the issue?

Steve, I heard you. Confirm, Board Member King, are we ready to get started otherwise? Yes, we are. Can everybody hear me in the room?

Yes.

Great. Well, good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Wednesday, September 16th, 2026 meeting of the City of Worcester Planning Board. My name's Albert Lavalle. I'm going to chair tonight's meeting. Before we begin, a couple brief announcements concerning how our meeting is going to proceed tonight. First, all our meetings are in a hybrid format, which means you can participate either in person here at City Hall or by going online to worcestermath.zoomgov.com slash j slash 1617314979 or by calling in at 669-254-5252. and entering access code 1617314979 followed by the pound sign. To manage remote participation during our hybrid meetings and prevent disruptions, all participants are automatically blocked from unmuting themselves, turning on their video, or sending chat messages. For those participants who would like to comment on an item on our agenda, we ask that you use the raise your hand feature in Zoom during the discussion on that item. And if you are joined by phone, you can do the same thing by pressing star 9. Staff will then call on members of the public one at a time and give them permission to unmute themselves. If you're joined by phone, you can do that by pressing star 6. Next, I note this is a public meeting which is both being broadcast and recorded. Minutes will also be published at a later date. To help with that process, we ask all speakers participating in person to use a microphone, to please clearly identify yourself each time you speak, and the first time you speak, please state your city or town of residence for the record. To help maintain an orderly meeting, please address all comments and questions through the chair rather than directly to any of the other speakers or applicants. There are a couple items on our agenda tonight that are going to be continued. I'm going to read through those shortly. If you're here on one of those items, please note that no additional notice will be sent to you before the next meeting. Best thing to do is call the planning department the day prior to or the day of that meeting to confirm if the item is going to be heard or postponed that night. It is not uncommon for items to be postponed multiple times before they're heard by this board. Once an item is called, there will be a brief presentation of the item followed by any additional comments and clarification from members of the city staff, then an opportunity for anyone from the public to speak on that item before we proceed to board discussion and action. Finally, all applicants should be aware that approvals are generally conditional. Decisions are generally signed by the board at the next meeting and, where appropriate, filed with the city clerk the following day, which is what begins any appeals periods. Decisions are generally not released to the applicant until all conditions of approval have been satisfactorily addressed. It is the applicant's responsibility to address conditions of approval, and a lack of doing so may result in delays or enforcements. Applicants are asked to please call the Planning Division if they have any questions about that. Okay, moving into postponements. Item number one, 6 Woburn Street, a definitive site plan. The request is to postpone the public hearing to October 7, 26, and extend the constructive grant deadline to October 29, 26. And item number four, 256 and 262 Sunderland Road, a definitive site plan. The request is to postpone the public hearing to October 28, 26, and extend the constructive grant deadline to November 19, 26. Is there a motion on the postponements?

I make a motion to postpone items number one and items number four with the public hearing dates for October 7th for item number one and the constructive grant deadline to October 29th and the public hearing for item number four to October 28th and constructive grant deadline to November 19th.

Is there a second on the motion?

Second.

On the motion, Mr. King?

Yes.

Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. That motion passes 3-0. Okay, we are gonna do something a little out of order tonight. I do understand there's a number of folks in the room here for the Suburban Road application. And I think what's gonna happen tonight will probably be pretty short, so hopefully we can, rather than have you guys have to wait for a couple hours for something to happen quickly, we can do it now. So, that said, I would call Item number seven, one and three, suburban road. This is a public meeting for a definitive site plan and a public hearing for more than one building and a lot. So I'll explain a little bit about what I think needs to happen here. The board's obviously, I think for many folks in this room, it's obvious to you, we're familiar with this application. Due to the zoning map amendment that was before this board a few months back, My understanding is that amendment was ultimately withdrawn, but during public comment on that item, a number of you raised issues with the history and nature of the soils on the site, which are ultimately a little bit unusual. The developer has now submitted a project proposal for approximately 300 units of housing on that site, which is before the board tonight, for both a definitive site plan and more than one building on a lot. As the public may be aware, a project of this size, 300 units, requires extensive review by city staff to make sure it complies with the city's many, many ordinances and requirements and criteria for whatever the particular approvals that it's seeking are. In the case of this particular application, the unusual nature of the site, along with its size and impact, require, in my opinion, a level of review that's beyond the capabilities that exist in-house with our city staff, formidable though they are. To that end, I'm asking my colleagues to support a motion which I'm going to make shortly authorizing the staff to pursue that peer review. This is a necessary step that the board needs to take in order to authorize staff to go out and solicit proposals and ultimately get that process started. Before we do that, I just ask if anybody on the board has any questions about that requirement. All right, hearing none, here's the motion that I propose. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 44, Section 53G and Article 2, Section 8F of the Planning Board's Rules and Regulations for Site Plan and Section 8A of the Planning Board's Subdivision Regulations, I motion to require peer review for the definitive site plan and more than one building on a lot applications for one to three suburban road. Do the size, scale, and complexity of the proposed project and potential related impacts for the following general scope of work? review of the proposed stormwater management system design and related operations and maintenance plan, existing and proposed site soil conditions and suitability for infiltration, as well as project development and impact on groundwater for compliance with all relevant laws, ordinances, regulations, including but not limited to mass stormwater standards and handbook, the city of Worcester zoning ordinance and the planning board's rules and regulations. Is there a second on the motion?

Second.

On the motion then, Mr. King?

Yes.

Mr. Toomey?

Yes.

I vote yes as well. That motion passes three to zero. Next up, consistent with the policy of this board to not conduct discussions on items that are not prepared to move forward tonight, I will also be motioning we continue the hearing to a later date when that review, that peer review, has been completed. For those in the public, please note that the general nature of all the written comments you've submitted have been shared with the developer. And you will also have an opportunity to speak when the plan and the peer review are back and it's available and ready to move forward. But at this time, we're not gonna have any public comment tonight. We're just going to wait until we have all the information so that this item can move forward. Any comments from the board on that?

Nope. Ms. Chair, may I?

No. I make the motion that we can, well, actually, yes, Josh, I do need you, I'm sorry. We are gonna continue this until we get the peer review back. We need your permission to do that. I don't have a reasonable timeline on how long that takes. So I'd like to put it at a date that's in the future, but not so far in the future that we're likely to eclipse it. Do you have a suggestion?

Well, first of all, Mr. Chair, just for clarification, because this is news to me. With respect to the peer review, we acknowledge it's the board's discretion as to whether they want to entertain a motion which they've accepted with respect to a peer review. We were anticipating, however, to be able to at least open the matter tonight and provide a presentation knowing full well that there could have been a motion with respect to peer review, as well as further comments to come from both the public and the staff. as well as the board. A number of folks came tonight beyond just our project team. Obviously, a number of neighbors came anticipating a meeting. We advertised for the meeting. We pushed really hard to have this first meeting at least to be heard, allow the neighbors to be heard. And so we would respectfully request that we be able to do that.

Attorney Smith, with respect, you're aware that the policy of this board is that we do not move items to public hearings until they are ready to actually move forward. There's a number of things that peer review could uncover here that might change the scope of your project. I think it's not fair to folks to have them come out to multiple meetings. These folks have already been, I believe, at least to one meeting of this board and probably other city meetings as well. I don't think that they want to come and offer comments ad nauseum forever. I think they'd like to offer comments on something that's ready to move forward. So consistent with our policy, that's how we'll act tonight. If you do have a suggestion on the date, however, I'd hear it.

Well, if... If the motion is to engage a peer reviewer, I would say not the next meeting, but the meeting thereafter.

Do you think that's realistic? For the peer reviewer to be engaged, contracted by the city, the appropriate funds sequestered in all the ways that they're supposed to be, and then have their comments back? I think it's not, but...

I think it is, and it's a case-by-case basis. The scope is limited, Mr. Chair, in terms of the peer review itself. We've got the data already in hand, so I think it's feasible. Through you, can I ask Michelle when that date would be? If not the next meeting, then the meeting thereafter?

It's October 28th. And that would move the constructive grant deadline to November 19th.

And through the chair, I would just say that it is likely we will work to pursue and develop a more detailed scope of work based on what was motioned and work to solicit proposals and proceed to getting under contract. I think it's likely... that probably the November meeting's a bit more realistic in terms of when I would expect us to get someone actually under contract to begin working. So that would be maybe my suggestion to ensure that we're able to get the consultant under contract and then that we are also able to get the technical comments from the peer reviewer back and share them with the applicant and then allow for at least two weeks to elapse to be able to get revisions in response to those comments. I think that's probably more realistic. I say that partially because you're gonna need to vote to authorize, basically, once we get those quotes, you're gonna need to vote at a future meeting, not related to the hearing, just as a procedural matter, to authorize basically moving money into the account and confirming the fee based on those proposals. And the applicant has the opportunity to appeal that depending on what that amount is. And so just to allow for that process to play out. I'm hopeful we can get them for the next meeting, but for whatever reason, if we aren't able to get responses back when we make the request,

starting tomorrow um i think that's probably a safer date um but ultimately the applicant needs to consent to whatever date the hearing is continued to um so and it's also an option that it just keeps coming back and getting postponed if it's not ready as you know i just i feel like that's unfair to folks who obviously have an interest in this and want to come and participate in the discussion so i'd like us to pick a realistic but not too far in the future date If you tell me that's October 29th, that will be the motion. If you're okay with November 18th, that could be the motion.

Definitely not November 18th.

I'm sorry, definitely not?

No, no, not November 18th. I know that the city of Worcester, I won't say it's unprecedented, but I think there's only been one other instance where a peer reviewer has been engaged in connection with a project. I do this in other communities, and it does not take that long.

That's been my experience as well, though it's not instantaneous.

Agreed. And there are a number of factors involved with respect to that. But I'm hopeful that the city can expedite this. I know they're not going to drag it out. I know Michelle and her team will try to make this as expeditious as possible. When is the next, through the chair, when is the next actual planning part? October 7th. Is there something wrong with being able to meet on October 7th with the board?

We're going to need at least one meeting because my understanding is there's a procedural action that has to be voted, which will then trigger the work to actually get done. So it's like step one is contracting, vote. Step two is peer review, then meeting. And that's also not giving your client any time to adapt the proposal based on suggestions from peer reviewers.

Assuming that that's even necessary.

In my experience, most peer reviews come back with at least a few things you want to address. Understood.

Well, I don't mean to be a dead horse, Mr. Chair, but I do want to, again, express. It was my understanding that we were going to have this date. Honestly, we pushed to have this date to be able to meet. Obviously, my client is engaged in a contract with respect to this site, so they've got their own internal timelines.

I believe you were advised that the board would feel that this needed to get postponed.

That's not true.

Maybe my information is incorrect.

If we advertised and we had the meeting, the anticipation would be what we're seeing right now, which I see a sea of green right here. A number of neighbors are going to take the time to come down to city halls to hear about this project. And now... We can't do that. So again, I'd respectfully ask if we could at least open, present what we have. It doesn't undermine the peer reviewer's review.

I do understand, but it wastes everyone in this room's time, especially the people that are gonna come and speak about a project that's not yet been reviewed. And that's the position of this board. So what date would you like? The 28th, Mr. Chair. Is there a motion to postpone or continue the public hearing for 1 to 3 Suburban Road to October 28th and extend the constructive grant deadline to November 18th, 2026?

I would make that motion. Second.

On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. That motion passes 3-0. Moving into the rest of our agenda, and folks, if you didn't hear the dates on that, that's October 29th is the next hearing, but please do call the planning department. It's not unusual for these things to get postponed multiple times.

Through the chair, I just want to correct it's October 28th, not the 29th.

Thank you. October 28th.

And through the chair, just a point of clarification relative to the scope. We'll work on developing this over the next few weeks, but can the board confirm the preference about a peer reviewer? Would you be looking for the peer reviewer to attend subsequent meetings just so we can develop the scope with that cost included? We can put it as a separate line item, but just to be sure we know.

Anyone care to comment? I'd support them coming to the meeting.

We'll have it included. Thank you.

thank you. All right next on the agenda item number two is going to be 114 Lincoln Street this will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan.

Good evening Mr. Chair and members of the board for the record my name is Donald O'Neill I'm a lawyer here in Worcester with an office at 688 Pleasant Street here this evening on behalf of Tiffany Nguyen in connection with this property at 114 Lincoln Street or 1 Frederick Street as I guess it will be now moving forward. This is, I'll be brief. It is a six unit, low rise, multi-family building with nine parking spaces. And it's been reviewed by staff, was reviewed at the zoning board level as well. I have reviewed the recommendations of approval prepared by staff on pages two, three, and four, all 14 of them. and I am in agreement actually with those. There are no waivers are required. Also available online is Joseph Graham who's done the engineering on the project and also Robert O'Neill who's done the survey work and all three of us are available to answer any questions that you may have otherwise we would ask for your approval of the submission.

Okay, thank you.

Comments from city staff? This is Steve Carey in the planning division. I'll also try to be brief. This is 114 Lincoln Street, actually now known in our city system as 1 Henchman Street. The project before you is a six dwelling unit low rise multifamily with nine parking spaces. The building is actually oriented to face towards Henchman Street with the parking sort of off to the left, away from Lincoln Street. They had previously gone to the Zoning Board of Appeals for that reduction of parking to have nine instead of the 12 that would be required by right as well as relief from the five foot buffer around the parking lot that would be required. The applicant is proposing plantings in that buffer in accordance with landscaping standards. We also have a condition of approval around that just to make sure that that is properly buffered from the residential uses that are to basically the north and west of it. It's just non-compliant with regards to that five foot buffer. DTM and DPW had requested a turning analysis to make sure that that last parking space could be navigated out of. They did provide that. Our conditions of approval are largely around, there's some annotational ones, just ensuring that that the project just is demonstrating its zoning compliance, which we don't anticipate any issue with it. They just have to basically reflect that the front yard is, in fact, Henchman Street, where, as I mentioned, the building is oriented towards. And then the other conditions of approval are around the... Or not all of the other ones, but some of the other ones are... around the sort of facade facing Lincoln Street. This stretch of Lincoln Street is sort of a walkable corridor. It has fairly wide sidewalks. Just across Huntsman Street from this development is a convenience store, a Chinese restaurant. There is, you know, a medical use, the Lincoln Street, UMass Hanneman campus is further up Lincoln Street. So people do walk along this, and the, you know, architectural facade on Lincoln street was we felt, um, uh, could, could be more active. Um, so we have conditions of approval around adding a couple of windows on that. I can scroll to it. Um, on that facade, a couple of windows here to match how it is on the other side. And then the applicant has also reflected a pergola on that side of the building as well to sort of where there is a walkway. Again, to at least, there really was an opportunity for a, we did ask about having an egress there, an entry there, but that really wasn't feasible with the sort of layout. But they are offering, putting a pergola there to sort of, again, kind of create a more feeling of less of sort of a blank wall that someone would be walking by. The plan also right now that you're seeing on the screen also reflects a bicycle rack on that side. And while we definitely appreciate covered bicycle rack, that would be within the accessory structure setback area. So we've asked that they move that to the front of the building on the Henchman Street side to be zoning-impliant. But again, do definitely want to see and are glad to see exterior bicycle parking. And that's a condition of approval as well. And then the applicant has provided a stormwater report. We were waiting on that for a couple weeks. And we just need to see a mounding analysis for that stormwater report. I believe they've done test pits. They didn't find any estimated seasonal high groundwater. I mean, no groundwater was detected, but just based on the depths of how far down those testing pits went, they weren't quite deep enough to demonstrate the four feet of separation. So we do want to see a mounding analysis. I think that's all I have for comments, but happy to answer any questions from the board or the applicant.

Thank you, Mr. Carey. Is there any additional comment on this from DPW?

We don't have any additional comments at this moment. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item tonight? I don't see anybody in the room. Is there anybody online?

Steve Carey in the Planning Division, not seeing anyone with their hand raised online.

Board members? Mr. King, do you mind going first?

Yeah, no true comments on this one. Thank you. Happy to support it.

Thank you. Mr. Toomey?

No comments.

Thank you.

Mr. Zendik? No comments. Thank you. I also have no comments. I think this has been adequately reviewed. I'm actually kind of excited to see a development in this area. I'm familiar with the corridor and used to be on my walk to work. So it's great. Happy to support. I think we're ready for a motion.

I would make a motion to approve item the definitive site plan for item number 21 14 Lincoln Street Second on the motion.

Mr. King.

Yes.

Mr. Toomey. Yes. I vote. Yes as well motion passes 3 to 0 Good luck to the applicant. Thank you very much Next up item number 379 Pullman Street. This will be a public meeting for a parking plan. I

Good evening. My name is Patrick Doherty. I'm a professional engineer with Midpoint Engineering. Our office is at 37 Sutton Road in Webster, Mass., here on behalf of the applicant, Charter Foods. The property, 79 Pullman Street, is about 0.68 acres. Former use of the property was a Sylvan Learning Center. It had about a 2,400 square foot building with a parking lot of about 26 parking spaces. It's got frontage on three streets. West Mountain would be to the north, Pullman Street to the east, and Brook Street to the west. The site was previously presented to this board as well as the ZBA for a 2,328 square foot area. food service building with a pickup window, and that was for a Chipotle use. We're now, before this commission, and had previously gone before the ZBA, for a similar use for food service with drive-thru. The building's going to be slightly smaller, and we are proposing this for a Taco Bell use. The things that have changed from the prior approval, we've got a similar size building, a couple hundred or a hundred square feet smaller, about the same amount of parking spaces, but we've separated the drive-through lanes from the parking spaces. We've also reduced parking by two spaces per request from city staff. along with the parking spaces in the building we're going to be constructing a fully landscaped plan according to the zoning regulations we're going to be moving the access driveway slightly south further away from the intersection all the pedestrian and vehicle areas will be lit safely with dark sky compliant lighting and we'll be adding pedestrian paths right now on Pullman Street, there is not a sidewalk on our side of the street, so we're going to be bringing an ADA-accessible route from West Mountain down Pullman Street and into our site. We've been through this, I guess, a couple of times now, and we have spoken with staff on their review. I believe that all of their comments can be addressed. There's a couple of items that I wanted to just go through on their recommendations. The first is they've recommended that the small strip between the drive-through lane and the parking spaces include some tall grasses or some other treatment. I don't think they're going to do well there. There's not proposed to be irrigation, and that's only a two-foot-wide strip with pavement on either side. I think we can address their concerns by maybe putting a short fence, a decorative fence just along where the parking spaces are. The second comment is they've asked to provide one additional interior tree for the interior parking spaces. I don't know that we can really fit an extra tree in there. What we have, there's 27 spaces, and if we were required to have one per 10 spaces, we'd have, I guess, three trees. We're providing a tree by the menu board, a tree in the triangle area by the building, and then a tree on either end of the parking on the south side of the site. There's not really much more green space inside the parking lot, but I believe that we do kind of comply. There is a provision in the zoning bylaw that says where if all parking spaces were about a buffer area, then no interior spaces, no interior trees would be required, but... We do have some spaces that are abutting a buffer area. So we request that that provision not be included. And then finally, this is something that I overlooked and didn't discuss with staff. But item two in the recommendations is to provide test bit data. for at least two locations within the proposed infiltration area. We've done one to date, and that was a deep test pit that I've witnessed as a professional engineer. Subsequent to that, we've had geotechnical analysis of the building corners, which is very close to it. So we feel that an additional test pit should not be required. You know, maybe this could be changed for the condition that evidence of testbed data, you know, that is acceptable to the Planning and Regulatory Service.

Okay. Anything else? No, that's all. Additional comments on this from city staff?

Through you, Mr. Chair, this is Michelle Smith in the Planning Division, and I apologize I missed part of the presentation. So in front of you this evening, you have an application which is very similar to one that you saw a couple years back, which was previously for Chipotle, which was basically a drive-thru that wasn't a drive-thru. It was basically a pickup window, so now the applicant is proposing a full drive-thru. standard type drive-through service that you would be familiar with. So they've come back with a revised design, although it's substantially similar to what you had seen previously. So you'll note the prior approvals and the fact that they have recently obtained zoning board of appeals approval for the same configuration. We had some comments. It sounds like there were a couple adjustments that the applicant was looking for. I think I caught them. I'm not sure I totally caught the rationale, so I apologize on that. In terms of kind of the outstanding items, I would say really it was about landscaping for the most part. And then to the point that I did catch on stormwater management, typically for infiltration systems, we are typically looking for two test pit locations in an infiltration area, ultimately it's up to the board if you wanna not require that. I would need to look back at the test pit data, apologies, too many test pits looking at for this meeting. Can't remember, I assume that they were consistent with the NRCS data, but I don't recall, so maybe the applicant's engineer could summarize that and we could adjust the language. Otherwise, we were just looking for that in compliance with the mass stormwater handbook requirements. And looking for the typical forms we see. I believe the test pit data is provided as like an annotation on the plan. So we could certainly, we don't necessarily need to get it on those forms. It's just kind of the typical format. So that could be removed. The test pit locations I would defer to the board. I don't think we had any comments from DPW. with that regard on this one just looking and not seeing anything have my colleagues correct me if I've got that wrong and I think if I heard the two other comments in terms of the staff recommendations where there was a concern was around B and C if I if I heard that correctly so B which is a requirement to comply with the interior landscape requirements which based on the calculations, we believe there's one additional interior tree required. The planning board has the authority to waive that, so you could waive that if you so choose. And then the other comment that we had was about the small strip that's between the, if we go maybe to the landscape plan, or this is the landscape plan, thank you. The area that the cursor is hovering around right now this kind of strip between a parking area and then the drive through and escape lanes. There's a small area I think it's like a foot and a half wide so it's not super wide in terms of being able to support a ton of plantings, but the comment was about providing some sort of like ornamental grasses in this location to help physically kind of divide the two spaces and prevent anybody from thinking they can somehow drive over that, although I imagine it'll be curbed and it would be unlikely. So they are proposing, I believe, river rock in this location. If the board feels that's appropriate, you can certainly strike the condition. Not something that we feel super strongly about. It was just from a design perspective in terms of trying to separate the two spaces. The comment was thinking that the ornamental grasses might help differentiate that a bit better than just kind of stone where it looks like you can kind of drive-through and in the winter, you know, and there's snow on the ground, maybe you don't realize. Anyhow, I think those are the three. I could talk further about the project, but I think for sake of brevity, I'll leave it there, especially considering I didn't hear part of the proposal. So, thanks.

Sure thing. Additional comments from DPW on this item?

This is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We don't have any comment. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. Anyone from the public wishing to speak?

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. I'm not seeing anyone with their hand raised.

Okay, so I believe the issues that we're looking for comment from the board then are whether or not there is space for an additional tree or if we want to waive that requirement on the interior of the parking, the kind of area between the drive-through, the strip between the drive-through and the parking next to the building, what that treatment should be, and... I'm sorry, what's the third?

We had conducted one test pit. Oh, test pits, yes. But we do have extra geotechnical investigation data, whether the condition could be presented acceptable to the planning and zoning rather than specified two test pits.

Understood. It seems like, just for that one, it seems like for Ms. Smith, if we wrote the condition as the applicant's suggesting and you found it unacceptable, you could still require the second test pit, but it would give an opportunity to review. They're basically saying, hey, we did a bunch of geotechnical for the corners of the building that are pretty close and gave us a bunch of information. I'm not.

Sure, through the chair, if the conditions are similar to the other location, that would be fine. If they're different, then we'd probably want the locations for the infiltration.

Okay, yeah. Okay, board member comments on the tree and the landscape or the, I don't know, whatever we're calling it, the buffer between the drive-through? Don't all speak at once. Mr. King, do you mind going first?

No problem. I'm going back and forth on the buffer. I do think in the winter people may end up accidentally trying to drive through it, but from an operational standpoint, they can put a sign or something to stop that. But I'm also not opposed to ornamental grasses in that location, so I guess I'd be interested to hear what the rest of the board says. In terms of the additional tree... Did we have a location for that one? I guess through the chair to staff?

Through the chair, I don't believe we have described in the narrative a requirement for it to go in a specific location. We were giving the applicant the flexibility to choose where that might be. So either in that kind of like triangular landscaped area where the cursor is in that kind of southern island adjacent to the crosswalk next to the parking space. I'm not sure if the island on the other side, pardon, my eyes might not be perfect here. And then there's another island I see over on the left-hand side at the egress of the drive-thru that could potentially accommodate a tree. I'm just eyeballing locations here. Unless those are not suitable for some reason, the applicant could certainly comment on that.

Yeah, I guess I'd be curious about the suitability, but I am okay without it there. But yeah, I guess we can hear from the other board members to see where they stand on this one. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. Toomey?

I'd be okay waving the extra tree for that, where just the way that the driveway is laid out. My concern, if you put it on that corner space, you end up with a visual trying to pull out into traffic that you might have an issue relative to that. Again, I agree the ornamental grasses may be nice, but if you're just that narrow a strip, being able to keep something alive and that may be a bigger issue than anything else, having something that's more visible, the fencing would be a good solution.

Thank you, Mr. Toomey. Mr. Rosende.

I second Mr. Toomey's comments. I think fencing in that strip would be a better solution.

for myself i agree with the fencing i think that there are a lot of trees on this site and the only place i could foresee putting another one i i'm pretty sure is not really suitable for it so i i would be okay uh normally i'm all for you know more trees are better but uh i i don't think we need to shoehorn in an additional tree here i think we've got quite a bit of coverage of green

So through the chair, I'm hearing strike B and instead grant a waiver from one tree and then reflect fencing under C in the island between the drive-through and the parking area?

Yeah, and maybe we could just specify like some sort of low black vinyl chain link or more decorative should they wish.

Okay, so a low ornamental open style fence.

Yeah, yeah, just something that people won't try to drive over.

Okay, and then two is being adjusted to essentially say what it says, but unless supplemental geotechnical data is submitted demonstrating soils are consistent across the site, does that work?

Yeah. Okay, I think we're ready for a motion.

All right, I would make the motion to favorably approve the parking plan for 79 Pullman Street with the condition subject to our discussion. Second.

On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. That motion passes three to zero. Good luck. Next up, item number five, 104 Eastern Avenue. This will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan. I don't see anybody for the applicant in the room. Is there somebody online?

We do have Mark Borenstein, Attorney Mark Borenstein online. Let me just make him a, let's see, one second, apologies.

Give me one second, Mark.

All right, Mark, you should be able to unmute. There we go.

All right, can folks hear me all right? We can hear you. All right. Sorry for not being there in person. I'm with my little ones this evening, so forgive the Miss Rachel blaring in the background. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Mark Borenstein, attorney at the law firm of Prince Labelle, based in Worcester. representing the applicant Excellent Investments Corp. We're before you this evening seeking definitive site plan approval for a proposed three family building at 104 Eastern Ave. We've appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals. We've received some relief associated with the off street parking. We're before you due to the 15% slopes at the property. We reviewed, I don't know if we wanna go through the, there's the street view, there's the existing conditions plan. We can show some renderings of the building itself. Can we keep going, Steve, please? So this is the site layout. You'll see that we have six parking spaces in front of the building. As I said before, three family building. We've got some additional landscaping throughout the site. And so that's the extent of the project itself. We've reviewed staff's conditions of approval. We do not have any requested changes and we would respectfully request the waivers recommended by staff. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Attorney Bornstein. Additional comments from members of the city staff?

Sure. This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. I can also be fairly brief. This is a three-family dwelling. It's before you because of disturbance of 15% slopes on the property. The building is fairly far set back from the street with the parking area, the six required spaces in front. It did receive relief from the zoning board to exceed the amount of front yard impervious. There are retaining walls on either side of the parking lot to keep that level, and then the building as reposed is sort of built into the slope. Yeah, our conditions of approval are, I would say, largely annotational. It's about labeling a service treatment in a couple places, labeling species of shrubs and trees to be used. At the rear of the lot, we just wanted to ensure there are some mature vegetation down at the rear of the lot. We just want to make sure that those are going to be retained. So we have a condition of approval around a tree protection detail, which the applicant has actually already provided. And then we had just a couple of conditions of approval relative to the architectural plans. We're asking for basically one window of additional fedestration on one of the sides. And then just reflecting that the decks on the back will have a stairwell down to the ground to provide a rear egress. um otherwise we do also have a condition around a construction management plan um which is not always uh it's not always a condition of approval we have for smaller projects like this but just given that uh eastern ave is fairly um heavily street parked um and you know people i think do have some difficulty just navigating it and when there are you know a lot of people parked and uh we just want to make sure that the construction of this building is as um least impactful as possible. It was that, and then with regards to the infiltration unit that's proposed underneath the parking area, we don't have test data at this point, so we've just requested that that be provided at the point of, before issuance of a building permit, and then if it's less than four feet of separation between the estimated seasonal high groundwater and the bottom of the infiltration unit, that the applicant provide a mounding analysis. So a fairly standard condition of approval. I think that's all I've got. I'm happy to answer any questions that the board might have.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Carey. Any comments from DPW on this?

This is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We don't have any comment. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone from the public on this item? Nobody with their hand raised online. Board members, Mr. King, do you mind going first?

No true comments on this one. Thank you.

Okay. Mr. Toomey?

No comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Rosende? No comments. Thank you. I know that staff's review has been very thorough, and I agree with all its recommendations, but otherwise have no comments. I think we're ready for a motion.

All right. I make a motion to favorably approve subject to staff conditions, item number 5, 104 Eastern Avenue. Second.

On the motion, Mr. King?

Yes.

Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. Motion passes 3-0. Next item on our agenda, item number 6. This will be a public hearing for a definitive frontage subdivision plan related to 69 Orient Street.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Michael Suerta. I'm an attorney, and my office is at 1 Mercantile Street in Worcester. I have with me the applicants, the principals of ML Realty Group, LLC, Andy Loche and Helios Mako. we were before the zoning board of appeals in mid-august to obtain a variance for a thousand square feet of area and a five foot frontage variance in order to allow this lot to be divided to allow a the existing two-family house at 69 orient street To be broken off and to allow the other lot which would have a duplex semi-detached the duplex housing so that to create four units. The four units, if the lot were vacant today, they would be allowed under the statute, but because the house was already there, we needed to get a variance. The ZBA granted it unanimously. We have filed with the clerk's office the decision, and that will ripen on next Monday. We are here to get the second portion of it since we got the limited variance on frontage. We needed to come to the board for, instead of an ANR, in order to obtain a frontage definitive subdivision plan. Right now we would also seek W3 waivers, one that we waive all subdivision regulations other than the A&R regulations, that there is no new road, so Sections 7, 9, and 10 be waived, and also the waiver for the five foot of frontage. And any questions and comments? Certainly to myself or the principals.

Okay, thank you. Additional comments from city staff on this?

THROUGH THE CHAIR, THIS IS OLIVIA HULL IN THE PLANNING DIVISION. AS THE APPLICANT ATTORNEY STATED, THE PROJECT OR THE SITE PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED ZBA RELIEF FOR FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS SOME OTHER site-related requirements, but the application before you today is to formally divide the lots and create the two new lots where ultimately a duplex is proposed to be constructed. I wouldn't add much else to the proposal. I just want to note this The project will eventually have to come back before the board for the construction of the duplex just due to the slopes on site. The applicant opted to file for the frontage subdivision separately just to be able to proceed with sale of the lot where the existing two families sit. So you will eventually see this come back before the board to review the duplex that's proposed on the new lots. No further comment, happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you, Ms. Houle. Additional comments from DPW on this?

Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We don't have any comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. Anyone from the public on this item? Steve Kerring, the Planning Division. Nobody with their hand raised.

Board members, Mr. King.

This one's relatively straightforward. Tablet of support, no comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Toomey.

No comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Rosende.

No comments.

Thank you.

I also have no comments. I think we're ready for a motion.

All right.

I make a motion to approve item number 669, Orange Tree, subject to staff conditions as written. Second.

On the motion, Mr. King?

Yes.

Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Three to zero. Motion passes. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Next up, item number eight, 114 Austin Street. This will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan.

Evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I'm back. Just for the record, Joshua Lee Smith. I'm an attorney with law firm of Bowditch and Dewey here this evening. representing 114 Austin Street LLC in connection with this project. This project will, I think, be pretty familiar to most of the board here. I believe you were all, most of you were members at the time when this was approved back in 2024. I'm going to give you a really brief history of what happened then, and then fast-forwarding to the conclusion, it's the exact same project. And by the way, Jesse Hildenberg here, he's the architect of record as well with respect to this project. What is being proposed and what was approved, again, back in 2024, is a five-unit townhouse-style development. The lot itself is about 9,200 square feet in size, and the project is within the RG5 zoning district. It is also part of the Crown Hill Local Historic District, Tomorrow night, we have a meeting with the Historical Commission in connection with a certificate of appropriateness for the project. So again, back in 2024, we came before the board with respect to seeking approval of a site plan in connection with this project. The project was approved. There was a number of design-related changes that were proposed, mostly coming from the Historical Commission at the time. But ultimately, the planning board approved it. Once it was approved, there was actually a fire that happened with respect to the carriage house, the historic carriage house. And I'm sorry, whoever is controlling, maybe you could advance. So on the far right there is a replica of the carriage house that once stood there. And it was the agreement of the applicant at that time. who is a predecessor owner of this property, to rebuild a replica of the carriage house. So that ultimately is what was approved. But I'll say once that carriage house was burned down, we came back with some slight revisions with respect to the layout, which ultimately were all approved. So now fast forward, as I mentioned, this was a predecessor owner. Polar Views was the previous owner. The current owner now is my client, 114 Austin Street LLC, and they are seeking to essentially have these permits reissued. Technically, this is a new filing, but otherwise, this is the same project. Five-unit townhouse-style dwelling, including one of those units being with respect to that carriage house. I don't want to dwell on this any further. It's a pretty straightforward project, so I'll leave it at that. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Additional comments on this from city staff?

Through the chair, Michelle Smith, again, in the city's planning division. So as you heard, you've approved this, then you've modified this, and now you are re-approving, hopefully, for the applicant. The same proposal, really not much has changed since the last iteration. Some minor changes to essentially HVAC that are coming out of the final design, really the changes that you're seeing here. Most of the conditions that we'd previously imposed were addressed. We have one item that we're carrying forward that's listed on page two of six in the staff memo in terms of planning conditions for plan revisions. There's a few comments from DPW as well as DTM. And then the majority of these other comments are continuous comments or conditions rather from the prior approvals. The one that I would say that we should adjust in the prior owner the prior owners proposal They anticipated these being ownership units with an HOA condo association the owner this owner new owner has not made a determination about whether they will be for sale or for rent and So we would recommend that you adjust under perpetual condition number nine, which is on page three. Would you adjust the language? so it says Appropriate, basically we're saying you can't park in the driveway because there's not enough room for a car to stick out and someone to get through. So it says no vehicles shall park in the driveway. Appropriate signage on site and limitations within the HOA or lease agreements as applicable shall be provided to deter such activity. So we want that to be in folks lease so that they know that they can't park there. So that is something that we would recommend you modify, just given that change. So I don't necessarily need to give you comments on anything else, but I'm happy to comment if there's a question that you have. Thanks.

Okay, thank you, Ms. Smith. Ms. Rodriguez, anything from DBW?

We don't have any comment at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone from the public on this item?

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. I'm just navigating to the participants. One second. Nobody on line with their hand raised.

Okay. Board members. Mr. King. I remember this project well. Happy to support it still. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Toomey.

This was before my time, but I'm also happy to support it. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Rosendeck. No comment. Thank you. But for myself, I'm guessing you guys don't mind the addition of the minor language change Ms. Smith mentioned to be HOA or lease as applicable? Correct, Mr. Chairman. We're amenable to that. Thank you. I do remember this project. I like the change. Happy to support it. Mr. King, I think we're ready for a motion.

All right. I make a motion to approve item number 8114, Austin Street, subject to staff conditions as written. I second.

On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. 3-0. Motion passes. Good luck.

Thank you. I believe, Mr. Chair, is 216-221 up next? Yes. Could the board entertain a five-minute recess?

I tell you what, how about we take A&Rs and then we'll come back? Is that okay? That's great. For you to do what you need to do? Let's take A&R's.

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. Just give me one second to navigate to these. I believe there are, I want to say, three up for your endorsement. Apologies that I was not... Ready, one, two, yes, there are three up for your endorsement. The first one is 240 Moreland Street. This is in the RS-10 zone. The minimum frontage for each lot in the RS-10 is 80 feet of frontage for a single family detached, which is the only type of housing that can be built in RS-10. Each proposed lot here with the lot line being added would have the requisite 80 feet. 10B is not properly before the board, nor is 10C. 10D is 26 and 28 Milton Street. This is adding zero lot lines to a series set of two townhouses. So each townhouse needs to have 20 feet of frontage for single family attached or townhouse style dwellings in the RG5 zoning district, which each of these would have with these zero lot lines. and then 10E is 28 Chequesset Road. This is to add this lot line you're seeing highlighted in red. Parcel A would become part of lot one here, and then the remainder of this zero Dominion Road would become all part of one large lot called lot two combined with 24, 26, and 28 Chequesset Road. So it's essentially creating two lots, which I'm indicating with my cursor, one here, and then the second one being all of these. And both lots have, well, the lot, sorry, I should say the combination lot one and parcel A has adequate, has frontage on insonia. Lot two will be unbuildable and is labeled as such on the plan, off the plan where you can't see it, but on the mylar it does say it will be unbuildable. And that's it for plans for endorsement. So that's 10A, 10D, and 10E.

Is there a motion to endorse? Motion to endorse A&Rs A, D, and E. Second.

On the motion, Mr. King?

Yes.

Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. That motion passes three to zero. Ms. Houle, I believe there are no minutes. Is that correct? Yes.

That is correct, but I am hoping to have some for you guys next time. I'm sure you're eagerly awaiting to approve them.

We are. We're so excited to approve them. For anybody that's listening online and wondering what we're doing, we're just, we have one more item to take, but we're gonna wait another couple minutes before we take it, so doing some paperwork. Oh, right. You're right, I have seen that.

Yeah.

I don't know. and then but like So you have to go get it from Shutterstock. I mean, I don't know. I just want to try it because this keeps happening where it's like I try to do something simple like just stop sharing, move to the right slide, reshare. But it goes to where I was before where it's just like all of a sudden it doesn't fit the screen anymore and I can't hit the button because the button's off screen. Yeah. Which is frustrating.

Yeah, it's frustrating to get frustrated. I know, I know.

Right, because I didn't want those displayed or whatever, and it wasn't, you know. What else? It's not the end of the world. I want it to look, just go smoothly and be professional.

Yeah, well, it's not my friends, just lies and everything. It's the other thing. I mean, which ever person gets to have slides there and everything, you know? And a laptop.

Yeah.

It's that funny, you know? It's how many people know my mom.

She's a legend around here.

Yeah. Especially when it's like a, I'll say it's not our job. Yeah. But... I think just because she's, I'm sure she's hearing it from her friends, but she wants like the separation. Yeah, she has lots of thoughts, I'm sure, but she's been very careful not to bring it up. She picks my brain all the time on the other side. Anything she's like a degree of separation would affirm, she just doesn't bring it up. Yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure. Right, right, exactly, exactly. Yeah, when I was doing my first stint here, I had to sign a little, disclosure thing. My mom worked for Mass Audubon, so then I was like, Mass Audubon, EPRS, Overlast, I shouldn't be involved in.

I've never seen any other one. Yeah, I've never seen any other one.

Like, yeah, Comcom, right? There was, like, on our Mass Audubon property. At this point, my mom's still not involved. That is still on file. I'm sure they just revived your previous

Josh, how's it going back there? You ready? Great, let's go. So next item we're gonna hear is item number nine, 216 and 221 Chandler Street. This will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan and a public hearing for a special permit related to inclusionary zoning and commercial corridor overlay district, two different special permits.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So again, just for the record, Joshua Lee Smith, attorney with Bowditch and Dewey. Here representing a different client, but an affiliate of Beyond Construction. So the applicant here is 216 Chandler Street, LLC. This has some similarities in connection with the last project to the extent that, again, this was a former Polar Views project. Again, it was approved previously by this board, as well as it went through the ZBA. And I don't believe, did it go through a historical commission? I don't believe so. But you're seeing this project again, unlike 114 Austin Street. There are some changes with respect to this project, however. On balance, it's very, very similar to what was previously approved. So just a little bit of background. As you can see here, this is an outline of 216 Chandler Street. Down the street is 221 Chandler Street. Actually, both are depicted here. So the smaller yellow outline there on the bottom of the screen there is 216 Chandler Street. That's the development lot. That's where the proposed new building will be sited. Across the street, down the street, is the remote parking. And again, this is the same configuration that was approved previously. All of the parking for the residents for this project are to be remote at 221 Chandler Street. And 221 Chandler Street, as a reminder, is an existing parking lot. It does serve an existing mixed commercial building. That commercial building will continue to remain. The uses all, again, remain exactly the same. So things like the calculation of the minimum parking, all of that still remains the same. At a really, really high level, yes, there are some changes with respect to the 216, the building lot portion of the project. The 221... the parking lot portion of the remote parking project is virtually unchanged. We're gonna get into some comments that Michelle and her staff had that will be some tweaks to that remote parking layout. But all in all, the 221 parking layout that was approved previously is basically the same. The whole project itself, it's within the BG3 zone, so it's within the business zone. It's also within the CCODE, so it also has the spirit of the CCOD and some of those design elements that Jesse and his team have incorporated into this new building. Thank you. Who's doing it? Olivia? Steve. Steve. OK. Thank you, Steve. So as Steve just showed, there are some existing conditions. The building at this site has already been razed and removed. It was a former, I think, a restaurant of some kind. pretty well-known one. But in any event, that was raised and removed. As you can see here, this is the latest rendering at the corner of Chandler Street and Mason. As you can see, the articulation of the facade being a corner lot really speaks to both sides of that street. Let me give a few data points with respect to the before and after in terms of the residential programming and the parking. So what was previously proposed or what was previously approved were 21 units in a mixed-use building. What we are proposing now are 28 units. So more housing, more residential units being proposed. And again, this is a six-story building. as was the case previously. One big difference with respect to those housing units is that with the previous approval, all the housing units were in levels two through six. So in the new proposed project, there will be some ground level units. And that helps allow for the additional residential units. So there will be some ground level units as part of the new proposed project. There is a retail component that was approved previously, about 2,900 square feet of retail space that was previously approved. And so what we're proposing now is a more contracted, reduced size for that commercial space from 2,900 to about 1,000 square feet in terms of retail. But it still will be a mixed use project. And 1,000 square feet, you can get a decent sized retail space operator in there. So those are the sort of high level differences with respect to the before, what was unanimously approved by this board, and what we're proposing now. I'm gonna pass it over to Jesse to speak a little bit more with respect to the architectural details.

Jesse Hildenberg with Dixon Salo Architects in Worcester. I live in Uxbridge. So the building before, I don't know if you remember, it was a little bigger, filled the lot a little more. We actually pinched it in a little bit, so we have five feet around the whole building. It allows us to put a little bit more glazing in the outside. We're still limited to 15% of unprotected glazing from the code, but we still can get a little bit more than before. And the premise on the front is we're trying to do three buildings on the same lot. So we're trying to make the front look like there's a little brick building, a little three-story brick building, similar to what was there initially. It is smaller. It's not the same, obviously. and then a taller white building and an even taller gray-blue residential block. That's how we're trying to structure the Chandler Street side. As we go around the corner, we carry that same thing on the Mason Street side, so we still have the blue block, the white building, and the brick block on the front. So we're trying to give a little bit of variety to both sides of the elevation. What you see on the image on the left is the back stair tower. Currently, we are calling for a loading space, but I think staff comments were asking if we could take it out. And I'm trying to think if there's anything else. It's all fiber cement, so for fire ratings. I'm not sure if there's any other questions. It's a pretty similar design as before. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, let's find out. So staff comments on this item?

THROUGH THE CHAIR, THIS IS OLIVIA HOLE IN THE PLANNING DIVISION. SO AS ATTORNEY LEE SMITH STATED, THIS IS A SIMILAR PROJECT THAT YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY LOOKED AT IN 2024 WHERE AT 216 CHANDLER STREET THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT A SIX-STORY HIGH-RISE WITH 1020 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 28 residential units. The units do include ground floor units, which does require the building to be set back five feet from the property line, as this is in the CCOD, so the building footprint has been slightly adjusted and is a bit smaller as a result of that. They intend to provide the parking for this use at 221 Chandler Street, which is an existing parking lot where 20 spaces will be designated for this use. So first I'll just start with the relief they're seeking through the special permits for the inclusionary zoning special permit. They were seeking relief from minimum parking requirements, seeking the maximum amount that the board is able to grant through the inclusionary zoning special permit, which is up to 50%. In this case, the use requires 20 spaces. Since it's in the CCOD, it does have a slightly reduced parking requirement. There are also some guest spaces that are required. So the requirement here with the IZ bonuses and reductions is 20 spaces, which, as I stated, is being provided at 221. They are also seeking relief from loading space requirements. So the plans here do show an increase non-compliant loading space on site at 216 chandler street it's shown as a 8 by i'm sorry 9 by 18 space right now we have recommended that the applicant eliminates this space entirely and instead petitions to the city council to provide an on-street loading space we've written a condition so that if for any reason the council will not grant an on-street loading space that they could ultimately use the configuration that we see here today we did talk with the department of transportation and mobility about the feasibility of them supporting an on-street loading space here especially given the chandler street redesign which is still in progress they did mention that it The redesign includes some parking spaces in front of the structure along Chandler Street where they would be amenable to potentially designating some of those spaces for loading. However, the design is still in progress. Things may change, but they generally voiced some support for loading on the street, ultimately up to city council. So if they don't agree with that, they could keep the nine by 18 that we see on the plans here. So that covers the inclusionary zoning special permit. As for the CCOD special permit, this is ultimately pretty similar to what you had granted previously. As Attorney Smith stated, there's no changes proposed to this law. So they were seeking relief. FROM LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICALLY ALONG CHANDLER STREET IN THE FRONT OF THE LOT. IT'S CURRENTLY PAVED AND THEY HAVE EV CHARGING PADS GOING THERE SO THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SCREENING THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED FOR SCREENING PARKING FROM THE STREET. They're also seeking relief from dry vial requirements. The ordinance requires 24 feet for dry vials serving two-way traffic. They currently show 22 feet for the dry vial. Both of the dry vials, rather, staff did, with this round of review, note some concerns with a new three-foot area AD or just a ramp provided along the existing building at 221 So we just have some concerns that this isn't ad a compliant and they'll essentially have to widen it which would result in a further decrease of their drive aisle with so we've written it so that They're seeking relief to allow a 20 to 22 foot Buffer I'm sorry drive aisle and essentially show us on the final plans if the building code says that walkway needs to be wider, that they show the widened walkway and the decreased dry bile, but the relief they'd be getting would be to allow it to be anywhere between 20 feet and 22 feet. So then for the site plan, we did issue some slightly modified conditions. We did show them for ease of everybody's review in blue on the staff memo where they changed from what was previously approved. Most notably I'd say was just regarding what I already discussed with the petitioning for the loading space to be on the street. We're also looking for some enhancements of the ground floor along Chandler Street to help establish a more prominent entry to both the commercial unit as well as the residential units, even if that's with just some signage, something to make those entry points a bit more clear and prominent from the street as required by the CCOD. We also had noted that we didn't get a landscape plan for the parking lot with this submission, but we did get it from the last one. So we just were looking at that landscaping plan, knowing that they weren't proposing any changes, but did notice they were missing some trees that should be provided along Austin Street, which is north of Chandler Street. So we asked for some more trees in the parking lot, which results in five trees to be compliant with zoning. And I think everything else here is pretty straightforward. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay, additional comments from Ms. Rodriguez?

No comment for this project, thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item? Come on up, sir. There's a couple folks. You go first in the front, and then the gentleman behind you can go next.

Francesco Bavona, District 5. I'll keep it brief. I just want to state my support as a resident for projects that preserve ground-level commercial spaces in neighborhoods that stand to be in the future some of our most walkable, especially with the upcoming Chandler redesign. and also for projects that cut back on the standard parking minimums. It's also great to see. Just wanted to get those two points out there.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. The other gentleman, come on up.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Just a few concerns concerning this project. Very nicely, aesthetically.

Sorry to interrupt you. Could you just tell us your name?

Jeff Madison, Worcester resident. Thank you. Just a few concerns, sir, that I'm speaking with the neighbors in this area. Again, the building is very aesthetically pleasing, which we do like. But there's just a big concern with some of the parking. Here he's stating that there's going to be 28 units. And basically with a lot of these units, sometimes there's usually two or more cars per unit, depending on the working family. Sometimes there's none, and sometimes there's at least two sometimes. Across the street there where they're having the parking, that would be in that lot there. Again, he says it's a mixed use, and it is a mixed use. I guess it's how we could call Mixed use is many of the businesses that are there that use that parking lot. The dental office uses that parking lot. The shipping and storage company that uses that parking area and many more. So that's a concern with the number of cars. And then there's the foot walking traffic that has to cross from one side to the other. There's a concern there of pedestrians being out in the middle of the street with no traffic controlled signs there or electronic stop walk signs there. So there's a big concern there for the neighbors and the residents. With that project going on, again, I guess loading would have to be on Chandler Street because he's going six stories. I don't know if they're gonna carry timber or lumber up or they're gonna have to have it lifted up with a crane. So there's the concern of there's going to have to be some type of apparatus or machinery or crane that is going to have to take up space on Chandler Street. That would send traffic throughout the neighborhood. Again, if you look at the street view there, it would have to be somewhere on the corners there. There'd have to be some type of crossing signs or crossing electronic signs there to guide traffic and pedestrians back and forth across the street. That would also send, again, as I was mentioning, the traffic down Austin Street. You can see Austin Street there. there's going to be a loading in the channel on channel street so traffic would be diverted down austin and the next block up would be uh dewey so traffic would be going down dewey So that would add more congestion down those streets there. That would also lead traffic down to Mason Street. That would put more traffic onto Mason Street. Mason Street has a business and it's residential and business zoned. There is a Ostro Electric. They have their trucks going in and out throughout the day too. So it's a big concern with traffic in that area. But other than that, these are some of the concerns that the residents have. And speaking with the residents, these are some of the things that we see and just have questions about and how this is going to work with that building. I thank you for hearing some of the concerns of the residents. And again, I'll keep it brief, too, because I have another appointment coming up at 7 o'clock.

All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Other members of the public, perhaps some that aren't in the room, wishing to speak on this item?

This is Steve Carey in the planning division, not seeing anyone with their hand raised.

Okay, board members, Mr. King, you wanna go first?

Yep, sorry about that, I was double muted. Having to support the project in general, glad to see this one's coming back. In the back of my head, I remember we did have like a pedestrian beacon at the crosswalk here. I guess maybe we didn't. I guess through the chair to the Afghan, did we have a pedestrian beacon at the corners here previously or am I mistaken there?

I don't, Mr. King, I don't see anything in our previous conditions. It's possible I'm missing them. Olivia, are you aware of that?

Through the chair, I don't think that was previously conditioned. A lot of the conditions were carried over. Anything that was struck, it was just because it had been addressed. I'm not sure if Attorney Smith or through the chair, Attorney Smith, could you speak to any proposed pedestrian beacons at the crosswalk from the structure to the other side of Chandler Street or vice versa?

The short answer is none are proposed. Okay. There are two crosswalks, however, that I'll... that are pretty clearly shown that connect both sides of Chandler Street. One is pretty much directly across where both buildings reside. Then you move further west, there's another crosswalk.

Great. No concerns. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. Toomey?

Again, the one thing I looked at was the crosswalk, but there's one right in front of 216 crossing over to the other side. Hopefully people will be willing to walk down to the corner to do that. It's not like there's a great savings of time to cross in the middle of Chandler, and hopefully people are smart enough to look at the safety and say, let's use the crosswalk. But other than that, I'm happy to support this.

I will say, Mr. Chair, there is also a traffic signal right there as well. So there's certainly traffic coming inherent in that intersection already.

Understood. Thank you. To me, Mr. Rosende.

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like on page three, item 1B addresses pedestrian crossing warning signs. Would that satisfy the concerns here?

Oh, I think you're right. So, Mr. King, in the memo, as our colleague said, page three, item 1B, is install pedestrian crossing warning signs at and in advance of the Chandler Street crosswalk with advanced warning signs to include solar-powered flashing LED border.

Okay, that is what I remembered, I think. Okay. Is, I guess, to the chair, is there any concern with the applicant with that condition, then?

I didn't hear the question. I think Mr. King is asking if you are aware of that condition and if you object to it.

So really simply, the way that Michelle, Olivia, and her team prepared this DPRS memo, everything in blue is new. Everything that's not in blue was previous. So tax my memory a little bit, but if it's It appears to me that this was previously accepted, and it was part of the approval, so we accept it today.

Understood. Good catch. Any other comments, Mr. Rosende?

No other comments, thanks.

Okay, for myself, I appreciate the... members of the public coming out. As the gentleman noted, I think this board is generally in support of reduced parking minimums and absolutely here. I did note for the other abutter who's since left, but that the one requirement of the plan or of the conditions of approval is that they have a construction management plan addressing how they're gonna load and unload materials and hopefully minimize disruption to the neighborhood while they're doing it. all construction's a little disruptive, but thinking about it ahead of time, they can minimize that impact. As far as everybody having multiple cars and where they're gonna park, these are relatively small units that range from like 480 square feet to I think 580 square feet. These are efficient layouts. They're not gonna be families with multiple kids. There's other housing stock for those folks in the city, hopefully, so I'm happy to support this. And I think we would be ready for a motion. And this is a, there's a public hearing we need to close. Mr. King first. All right, make a motion to close the public hearing, or both public hearings. Second. On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. Mr. Rosende? Yes. I vote yes as well. That passes four to zero.

And now a motion on the application. All right, make a motion to approve item number nine, 216 and 221 Chandler Street, subject to staff conditions as written. Second.

On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. Mr. Rosende? Yes. I vote yes as well. Motion passes. Good luck. Thank you. Okay, that's all the items on our agenda. Any other discussion before we adjourn? Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thanks, everybody.