Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Did you draft the memo for this? Thank you. I don't know what I'd do without them.

Uh, okay folks, we're going to get started here. Um, good evening everybody and welcome to the Wednesday, November 19th, 2025 meeting of the city of Worcester Planning Board. My name is Albert Lavali. I'll chair tonight's meeting. Before we begin, a couple of brief announcements. Uh first, all our meetings are in hybrid format. You can participate either in person here at city hall or by going online to worcestermad.zoomv.com/j161731-4979 or by calling in at 669-254-5252 and entering access code 161-731-4979 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 group messages. For remote 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. If you are joining by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star9. Staff will then uh call in 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 six. Uh, 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 also state your city or town of residents for the record. To help maintain an orderly meeting, please address all comments and questions through the chair, that's me, rather than directly to any of the other speakers or applicants. Uh there are a couple items on our agenda tonight that are going to be continued or postponed. I'll read through those shortly. If you're here on one of those items, please note no additional notice will be sent to you prior to the next meeting. Best thing to do is call the planning department either the day of or the day prior to the next meeting to confirm if that item will be heard or postponed that night.

It is not uncommon for items to be postponed multiple times before they're heard by this board. Uh once an item is called, there's a brief presentation of the item uh followed by any additional comments and clarifications 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. Uh lastly, 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 typically 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 can result in delays or enforcement. Any applicants with any questions are asked to please call the planning division uh on that matter. All right, moving into postponements tonight. Um two items. Item number one, zero Fington Street, a definitive site plan in MGL81G for a private street improvement. The request is postponed the public meeting to January 7, 2026 and extend the constructive grant deadline to January 29, 2026. And item number two, zero Chester Road, a definitive site plan. The request is to postpone the public meeting to December 3rd, 25, and extend the constructive grant deadline to December 1825. Is there a motion on the continuances? And just note for my fellow board members, board member uh McCormack's not here tonight.

I move the continuences and postponement postponements of item number one and item number two. I second on the motion. Mr. King, yes. Mr. Delera, yes.

I vote yes as well. That motion passes three to zero. Uh moving into our agenda, we're going to go a little bit out of order tonight to accommodate some folks with other meetings. Uh first item we're going to hear is item number four on the agenda, which is 449 Southwest Cutoff. That's a public meeting for a definitive site plan. Is the applicant online or are they uh supposed to be here? They're online. Tim, I just requested to unmute. You should be able to go ahead. Yes. Very good. Thank you. Are you all able to hear me? Okay, we can hear you.

Very good. Thank you very much. Um, first I would like to thank you for for your consideration to uh to shift this item to first. Uh, as as you mentioned, I do have a a second meeting tonight. So, thank you very much. I appreciate your consideration and time. Um, my name is Tim HooL, civil engineer of record for this project. Uh, working with BL Companies. Our company address for the record is 100 Constitution Plaza in Hartford, Connecticut. We are working with uh National Grid um Massachusetts Electric Company as the the legal entity, the land owner. National Grid is kind of their business operating name. Um, they are the current owner and occupant of this site, of this building. And the core goal of this project is to expand the parking area to provide uh more parking overall. Uh this is a a main operations facility for them. They have a number of training events and on those larger training days they do have a need for additional parking. Uh the other component is adding electric vehicle charging stalls, dedicated EV stalls. Um, National Grid is moving to add electric vehicles to their fleet for a lot of their design and field staff. Um, so providing some infra the infrastructure for it, but also dedicated EV parking spots to accommodate those new fleet vehicles. Um, so as shown here on the screen, the the project address is 449 Southwest Cutoff. It is split between the city of Worcester and the town of Milbury. The property line is uh on this plan view. It's just north of center. It runs uh left to right through this plan view. Um where the the cursor is currently uh scrolling back and forth for orientation. Southwest cutoff is at the top of the plan sheet. Um the main site

access comes in from the Milbury side through Lahi Farm Road on the the bottom left corner of the plan view. The total parcel total product area between the Worcester and Milbury pieces and there's several parcels that make up this property uh is approximately 12.8 acres. As I mentioned, the site is used by National Grid as an electric division operations facility. Uh they have the office space for various design and support staff. There's uh a warehouse and operations space in the building as well. And then the main the central and eastern portions of the site here have a variety of different programmed areas for training spaces. Whether it's for training for maybe it's the the pole crews or the line crews um or other crews of that nature, they have a space to to get together and provide some some training and continuing education for their field staff. The site is um it does contain some wetlands. We did receive approval from conservation commission both in Worcester and in Milbury. Uh the wetland areas are on the the very southwest corner near the driveway. Um and there's also the the parcels located on the corner of Laharmm Road and Southwest Cutoff. There's a large wetland in there and it does extend a little bit into the project site on that uh the western side. But as I mentioned, we did receive approval from both Worcester and Milbury Conservation Commissions. Uh so if we can move forward to the next sheet. Uh thank you. Uh so this is our proposed site plan. The existing building is located kind of centrally just a little to the left of center on this plan view. The project scope includes two main areas of improvement

for new parking areas. First on the the more planned left side, the gray shaded area that is showing the addition of approximately I believe it's about 12 or 13 parking stalls immediately left or west of the building. Uh we will be constructing a retaining wall to create a level pad for those parking stalls. They will be accessed off of the existing drive aisle that goes around that western side of the building. Um, those are intended to be full EV spaces. Um, if you can see, there's kind of a a little bump out in the top left corner of that parking area. That's for the transformer equipment for the EV uh the EV chargers themselves. The drive aisle up this western side will be repaved as a part of this largely for some uh some drainage improvements to ensure uh good gutter line flow and drainage collection. Also on this western side of the building, uh at the request of the town of Milbury, we are reconstructing the sidewalk uh or adding a sidewalk down this western side to provide access from the front of the building towards those new parking stalls. So that has been added. Um and we also added at the request of Milbury a curb ramp and crosswalk heading towards that parking area. Up on the top left corner, we are proposing to add in uh approximately six or seven more parking stalls. Those also are EV parking stalls up the the rounded parking stalls in the top left corner of the plan view. Um again, very similar in nature. Those we do not need to um construct a level pad with a retaining wall. Instead, what we are doing is that northern side um continuing across there is an existing retaining wall through a portion of that. It is in fair to poor condition. Uh it's a a stone wall. We're

proposing to reconstruct it and extend it a little bit towards the west to create that that pad for the EV stalls. Uh continuing now to the east a bit, the larger gray area in the middle, the top middle of the plan sheet, there are an additional um additional set of parking stalls in that location. Um those are conventional passenger car parking stalls that we are proposing. Uh as I mentioned before, this is an operations facility. They have a number of staff that come in and out on training days and they have a need for more parking on those higher volume days. Currently the area on the north side is primarily vegetated. There's a a null that's there and the parking stalls on the the left and central front of the building stop the drive aisle does a little sbend down through the center of the site and then curves back up towards uh southwest cutoff. We are proposing to level that null and expand the parking through there. Uh extension of the retaining wall will be required as a part of that but we are proposing to expand the parking through there. Um and then also the existing row of parking that runs north to south um on the east side of the building stops short of the um the central parking area. We're proposing to add a handful of parking stalls in that location as well. Uh extending those plan north. Um we did at the request of staff we were uh issued this plan revision that's shown on the screen here revision three to add a couple of landscaped islands um located at the northeast corner of the building. Uh staff has requested that we

add a uh one more landscaped island on that northern side. Uh where the cursor is shown up in that top corner I believe is the most logical location. The larger of the two. There is a utility pole that's there today. it will need to be reset. Um, so we are more than happy to make that a landscaped island. However, due to the presence of the pole, we will not be able to put a a tree in that area. So, I believe I saw there was a request from staff to add one more tree. Um, we would need to locate that elsewhere uh within one of the other two added landscaped islands uh if that is requested due to the conflict with the poll. Um so if we can go to the next slide. Thank you. Uh so this is the snow storage plan. Um largely showing the snow storage will be located clear of any landscape setbacks um outside of the uh the buffer zones to any wetlands and well outside any required parking. As noted in the staff memo, the the proposed project will bring the total site parking um the total site parking is going up to about 275 with this project. Existing is 227. The zoning requirement is approximately 208 stalls. So there is an excess of parking on this site. The only snow storage in potential parking areas is on the far east side of this plan view. There's a little bit at the far end within parking, but there will be more than enough parking spaces remaining clear for zoning compliance. Uh, next slide, please. Uh so this plan shows our our drainage improvements which is uh the last major component of this project. Due to the addition of the imperous surfaces here

on site for the added parking uh there was a need to capture and retain more storm water. Um it was a bit difficult because the site is fairly tightly packed as it is. Uh so what we are doing is reconfiguring the drainage a little bit. Um, so on the the west side, we are adding a new catch basin at the southwest corner of the building to capture the drainage from the the new parking stalls on the the west. That is going to be piped up to the north and tie into an existing drainage pipe that outlets towards the wetland. We are proposing storm water treatment through hydrodnamic separator inlet units uh to provide the treatment and retain the existing outlet location towards the wetland so that we can retain storm water flow and wetland viability in the central portion of the site. The north central we are changing the direction of flow for one of the catch basins. Um particularly we're adding a new catch basin where that that null is located in the center. Um the effort there is to capture more of the existing runoff that currently drains towards the west and out towards the western wetland. Um the new catch basin is located at the immediate northeast corner of the building. We are capturing the runoff there and sending that water then to the east through the existing underground drainage infrastructure which ultimately connects into the existing storm water management basin on the far eastern side of the site. Um shown on the plan here on the far eastern side are the proposed uh improvements to that basin. It does need to be enlarged to accommodate the additional flow. We're proposing an approximate uh the improvements will roughly double

the volume, double the footprint of the basin. Um it retains the same intent as the existing there's two separate pools within one for a sediment for bay, a second for the main infiltration and larger capacity areas. Um the existing overflow berm overflow weir outlet control structure are all retained. No modifications to those are required and the existing under drain is also retained with again no modifications required. Um all told there's a net it matches or reduces all peak discharge rates for all designed storms uh to all of the uh points analyzed for this project both the the western side the eastern side um and all total design points. Um we do also have a full erosion and sediment control plan as part of this but essentially it it's fairly conventional measures uh silt fence around the the work zones uh in downgradient areas or areas that may you know drain towards wetlands or other critical infrastructure. Um silt sacks and catch basins. Uh stockpile areas with their appropriate perimeter protections. Um, pretty straightforward measures. Um, and lastly, as I mentioned, we did have some staff comments. We made some revisions largely centered around the landscaping in the center portion of the site. We did add those two islands and are uh more than happy to add the third as previously discussed. Um, there were a couple of other minor comments. Uh, I can go into detail if you would like, but they're most of them are fairly minor and technical in nature. The other one worth noting, we did provide a revised site lighting plan. Um, as part of this project, there's some areas that are a little bit dark. We are adding some new site lighting and at the request of staff. Some of the

existing lighting on site is a mix between 20 and 30 foot poles. I think it was historical site as the regulations have changed and called for lower poles and site improvements have happened. The lower pole heights have come into play there with some of the older poles still being 30 feet. Um the new poles we originally proposed 30 feet at the request of town staff. We did revise the design to reduce the proposed new poles down to a 20ft height. Um there is one uh two quick comments I would like to discuss through um that we received. First, uh, on the western side of the building, if we can actually go back a couple slides to the site plan. I think that would be beneficial. Forward one, please. Thank you. So, on the west side of the building, uh, there's a crosswalk shown leading from the side, the new sidewalk next to the building towards the new EV parking stalls. Um, city staff recommended that the applicant consider a raised walkway there instead. Um given that this is a critical drainage pathway, we're requesting permission to leave that as a a flush walkway, a pavement level walkway. Uh the current drainage pathway flows along the gutter line, which will flow um along that interface between the parking stall and the uh the crosswalk. Adding an elevated crosswalk through there would present some drainage complexities and block the the flow path. Um so we're requesting that that be considered as a a flush walk. Um that area should be fairly low traffic. It will those parking stalls, those EV stalls will be used by uh by national grid staff for fleet vehicles. Uh it's not something that those vehicles will not typically be used in in the high turnover times on site. So

there's less likelihood for pedestrian and vehicle conflicts. Um, on top of that, National Grid as a a company has very high safety standards and they do provide staff training very regularly on safe driving practices on site um and mindfulness for pedestrians. So, we are requesting in light of the design considerations for the storm water system, we are requesting that be a flush uh flush crosswalk. And then lastly, um, one other comment was in regards to a few of the proposed parking stalls up in the north central portion of the site on the the row of parking that runs to the north south. Um, that section we are largely extending the existing row of parking, but in the existing conditions, the drive aisle um for the row of parking immediately east of the building uh is actually a little undersized by current regulations. It's in the 21 to 22 ft range. Staff requested that the the parking stalls down the middle row of parking facing the building be uh listed for compact cars so that the drive aisle can be increased to 24 ft. We are requesting to leave the the interior parking at 20 uh at the standard 18 ft standard parking stall size. National Grid has due to their um due to the the makeup of their staff, a lot of people drive larger vehicles, whether it's trucks, big SUVs, things like that. Um, what we are proposing to do instead is potentially trim back the face of that island, the the island that we added at st staff request. Trim it back a little bit so that we can get the the 24 ft drive aisle at the location of those added stalls. Um, and then the ADA

stalls we're showing as repaving and restriping. Those are existing. They're being put back in the exact same place as they are today. Uh we are requesting to leave the the drive. It is 21 ft today. We're we're requesting to leave it from that point on and just modify the the curb line extents to increase the drive width to 24 ft up to pretty much where the cursor is right now where that that one tree is shown. We trim that curb line for the island plan left to about 3 ft to get the 24T drive aisle. Um, I believe that's that's everything I have. So, at this point, I'd be happy to open it up for any questions or comments from staff or the commission.

Thank you. Additional comments from city staff on this item

through the chair. This is Rose Wrestle in the planning division. Um, I'll try to be brief because I think that was a pretty comprehensive overview of this project. Um, but before you use a definitive site plan, um, the applicant here is National Grid. This property is located off of Southwest Cutoff. As you can see, about a top third portion of the site's located in Worcester um with the southern half located in Milbury with its access coming off um off of a road in Milbury. There's no access proposed or existing to southwest cutoff. Um so, as part of this project, they're proposing to add 48 new additional parking spaces. um conduct some improvements to their drainage infrastructure and then add some of that EV, new EV infrastructure and upgrades to lighting, sidewalks, um and other portions of their parking facility. Um I'm happy to address some of those comments the applicant mentioned. Um just to go through a few things on the site plan itself. Um I were totally um comfortable with the comment made regarding the sidewalk. Um, we had raised a comment about being a raised sidewalk. It's in the it's over the Milbury line, so we don't have jurisdiction on it either way. Um, it was just a a thought we threw out there for consideration, but I think that explanation about drainage impacts totally makes sense. Um, so I think we'd be happy to we can't condition it anyways. Um, but just to address that one. Um, some of the improvements they're making. Um, as you can see, it was mentioned, I think null is a good word to to describe it from Southwest Cutoff. Um, as you can see in the middle, top middle plan here. Um, in dark gray, the land from southwest cutoff goes um, slopes up from the street and then down into the site. So, they're proposing to go in there, regrade some of this area, um, put in about a 4 to 9 foot retaining wall at its highest point. Um, and then

extend the parking spaces, um, and realign the drive aisle. And so, this is an area that we had flagged that we were concerned may not be compliant with the 24 ft aisle with the requirements for 90° parking. Um, we totally understand there may be legacy nonconformities of this parking lot um that were constructed I think it was maybe in the early 2000s or late 90s. Um, but any portions of the site being modified today should be in compliance. Um, especially where any new parking spaces are being added. Um, I think we would prefer that the ADA spaces or to clarify that we're not looking for the ADA spaces to be modified here. It's really any new or modified parking spaces in that central aisle. Um, and we'd really prefer and encourage the board um to ask the applicant convert those spaces to compact rather than eliminating any of the landscaping. Um, that landscaping in that area where you can see the two trees with the word lawn in between was added at our request and you know the applicants been great to work with, very responsive to a lot of our comments. Um, but we'd really love to see that stay as is proposed. Um, on the site there will be an end result of 274 spaces. So, we're about 60 65 spaces in excess of what's required under zoning. So, it may be what the um the the operator of the site needs. They have fleet vehicles. They have a lot of employees. They may need that many parking spaces. Um, but I think a few compact spaces here, we'd be looking at I think probably six or seven compact spaces. Um, I think it would be a fair compromise. Um, but the board can definitely weigh in on that. Um, just for our other conditions, we had asked for a revised phototric plan. I believe the phototric plan we have on file was revised. Um, it was just some of the details that still had references to those 30ft tall poles. Um, we asked

for the EV spaces to be identified on the plan. um the transformer boxes or the electrical infrastructure was um identified on the plan but not the spaces themselves. Um so whether they're going to be like dual head chargers, what level of charging? Really, we're just looking to understand how many are being added. Um and then it sounds like there's no issue adding that one additional landscaping tree that we had um recommended as a condition of approval. So happy to answer any questions the board has and I'll leave it there. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Russell. Uh, anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item tonight? Seeing no one in the room. Is there anyone online? Okay, board members.

Don't all speak at once. Mr. King, you want to go first? Uh no major compliments overall. It's a relatively comprehensive plan for the uh kind of parking adjustments, but no comments. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. Delera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I agree. It's a it's a very good, very comprehensive plan. Um I do agree with city staff. I'd like to see the the plantings even at the expense of larger spaces. and the compromise proposed with six or seven compact spaces seems reasonable. Um, I'd like to see the developer uh the applicant consider that, but is that a dealbreaker for me?

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Delera. Mr. Tumi. Uh, no comments. Thank you. Okay. So, M. Russell, if I understand correctly, the only really open item is the compact space issue. That's correct.

Uh, all right. Um, I I do have to say for 275 parking spaces, I think uh staff is asking that seven to nine um be compact spaces. I I I'm sure that a lot of linemen drive trucks and those are larger vehicles, but I I would think uh what is that 3% of your site might might be compact vehicles on any given day. Um, so I I would be in support and keep of keeping the landscaping and making those compact spaces.

Understood. If that uh you know, we're happy if that the board feels that is uh the direction you would like to go, we're we're willing to accept that and and make that change. Okay, understood. Thank you. Um I think we have support for that on the board level. So, uh sounds like we're ready for a motion incorporating that change. I move that the planning board approve the definitive site plan for 449 Southwest Cutoff with the incorporated changes. I second. And on the motion, Mr. King. Yes. Mr. Delera. Yes.

I vote yes as well. Motion passes three to zero. Good luck to the applicant. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh staying out of order tonight. Second item we're going to hear is item number 6, 915 and 25 Charlton Street, 26 3842 and 46 Herman Street and zero Beacon Street. This will be a public hearing for a zoning map amendment.

Evening members of the board, thank you for taking us out of line because I have a conflict as well. Um, I'm here tonight on behalf of Centros Americas. With me is Juan Gomez, the former executive director, and Raphael Hernandez from Acropolis Design. Um, we're here tonight because we're asking you to amend the zoning map uh for eight parcels uh on Beacon Street, Charlton Street, and Herman Street. Central Los Americas has con site control of three of those properties. the others were included in this zoning map amendment um after discussion with the planning staff so that we had a sort of a comprehensive plan uh that wouldn't be chopped up with other zones that were contiguous to this. Um Mr. Gomez is going to give you sort of a general view of what's they plan to do there and Mr. Hernandez will give you some details. We're not here tonight, of course, for any approval. So, we're not going to go into great detail on what the site or the buildings are going to look like, but give you an overall view of why we want to change this from a manufacturing zone, which does not allow any residential to a BG3, and to take uh advantage of the benefits from the commercial Carter overlay.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, those who are in attendance, and those who are connected. My name is Juan Gomez. as attorney Frinklestein stated, uh, I am the former president and CEO of Central Las Americas, which is the way the community knows it. Um, but I am now the president and CEO of New Americans Community Development Corporation, which is an affiliate of Centro. Um, I'm happy to uh answer any questions when the time comes, but as uh attorney Finkelstein stated, we're here in company with uh Raphael Nandez from Acropolis Design. I also want you to know that we're working closely with Henigan Engineering. And at the hearing that we had, not a hearing, but at the meeting, the team meeting we had on October 2nd, the staff made some recommendations in terms of what uh we're proposing to do. And we're working uh diligently and and working uh ardently to make sure that we uh live up to those recommendations. Although there were no uh hard and fast um uh demands or or expectations, we are proposing a roughly around 60 unit affordable housing uh project. Um, Centro, as you know, is the oldest uh minority uh le organization in the city that provides uh support uh to uh this uh constituency and New Americans Community Development Corporation was created in 2015, not just for the purposes of acquiring property and supporting Central, but for having a positive impact in the neighborhood. and our our commitment to develop affordable housing is consistent with what the city the mayor the city manager announced. They announced that we need in the city at least 10,000 new units of housing as you know and I don't

uh propose to tell you the story probably know it better than I do. the city of Worista has has grown dramatically and approximately we had 215,000 residents and we don't have the infrastructure in terms of housing to support that and so we're seeing the difference in our streets. Um we are going to work hard not just to meet the the the letter of the law but also the intent of the law in terms of what we're going to be required to do uh from the planning perspective. Uh but we're simply here uh requesting uh this support. Part of what we're doing uh is being funded with a line item, if you can believe that, with a line item budget in the federal budget of $2.6 million, which was granted to Centro for the purposes of acquiring these properties so that we can have if we have affordable property, we can then develop affordable housing. And so that's um th this project that we are going to be uh working on. It's only one of three hopefully that we'll be able to accomplish. Um but as uh attorney Finkelstein mentioned, we simply need to move the zoning line just a little further up to be included and allow us to do what we need to do. With respect to the specifics, we have here Raphael Hernandez from Acropolis Design, the architect.

Good evening, Rafael Hernandez, Acropolis Design. The initial conceptual plan is to either repurpose or replace the existing building on site with one level of podium and five floors of wood frame construction, very similar to a lot of the other construction that's been going on in the city. to, as he said, to have 50, 60, or even 70 units depending on the unit mix. And it will make up of one um one, two, and threebedroom units. There will be parking inside the building. There will be some level of commercial at the Beacon Street section, um, Meheman Street section, and um, and we're trying to maintain some of the parking in the Charlton side. Um, that's all I have. Pretty We're very early in the process at this time.

Yeah, I I can appreciate that and appreciate your comments and um I think members of this board uh are certainly familiar with, but maybe the public isn't at at this stage in the process. You guys have a concept, you have um some potential site control of a few few parcels. Uh but in order to continue developing the concept to the point where you can uh get ready to secure funding from the various places you're going to have to go find it, uh you you need to change the zoning. Um which uh brings you before this board for anybody from the public who's not familiar with that process. Our role here is actually to recommend this uh back to city council. City Council is the the ultimate authority on uh the zoning map, but we um come here for a hearing and um we listen and make a recommendation. So, that's our job. Uh any additional comments from city staff on this item.

Um through the chair, my name is Victor Panak. I'm a planner with the Division of Planning and Regulatory Services. Um so, this is a petition from Central America's Inc. to reszone eight parcels at the southern end of the block bounded by Herman Street, Charlton Street, and Beacon Street. Specific addresses are 9, 15, and 25 Charlton Street, 26, 38, 42, and 46 Herman Street, and 0 Beacon Street. Uh some of the subject parcels are currently entirely within the MG2 zoning district which is a general manufacturing district and some of the parcels are split between the MG2 and the BG3 zoning district. The BG BG district being a general business district. Uh some of the subject properties are also partially within the commercial corridors overlay district while other properties are not within any overlay district and one property is entirely within the adaptive reuse overlay district. Uh the petitioner is proposing to reszone all of the subject properties into the BG3 zoning district and into the commercial corridors overlay district. Um, the primary difference between the MG2 zoning district, which is the current zoning, and the BG3 zoning district, the proposed zoning, is that the BG district would permit residential uses, including low and high-rise multif family developments, uh, while removing the MG district would prevent new industrial uses from being established on subject properties. Uh so the proposed resoning essentially swaps the existing allowance for industrial uses for a proposed allowance for residential uses. Extending the commercial corridors overlay district grants additional benefits for mixed use and residential uses uh while also imposing certain design requirements for new development. Uh I'm happy to go into more detail on the differences between the districts if desired by the board. Historically, this area was always zoned similar to the way

it is now, but the manufacturing district has slowly been pulled back as old industrial uses have been converted to residential and commercial uses. Uh to complement this change over time, the city council has also established the adaptive reuse overlay district in the area uh allowing for easier conversion of industrial buildings to other uses, although notably not on these properties. And the city council also established the commercial corridors overlay district in the vicinity but again not these properties uh to emphasize and encourage the mixeduse urban nature of the neighborhood. Uh the block bounded by Herman Street, Charlton Street, and Beacon Street features a variety of uses currently including religious, retail, food services, automotive, industrial, and dense residential uses all represented. uh based on historical use maps, this seems to have always been the case. And I'm happy to answer any other questions.

Thank you, Mr. Panak. Uh anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one in the room, is there anyone online? Seeing none, board members, uh Mr. King, would you like to start? Yep. Overall, uh the zoning map amendment here seems to make sense. Excited for the potential use of the property, but from uh kind of what we're voting on here, definitely happy to support it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. Dela. Thank you. I agree with Mr. King. Um it's a commendable project and I look forward to seeing it develop in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Delero. Mr. Tumi.

Uh no comments. Looks great. Thank you. Um, for myself, I I think that this is uh, if you were to zoom out a little bit, we're just extending the BG3 slightly. Um, I do note that there was a a butter who reached out with some comments. I see the applicants aware of that. Uh, concerns about parking and um, generally the development characteristics in the neighborhood. Uh, I I do think that this is consistent um with the surrounding area and it's actually consistent with how these properties are zoned now. So, I'm I'm in support. Um, and it sounds like we're ready for a motion to close the public hearing. I make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second. On a motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Delera? Yes. I vote yes. Three to zero. Hearing's closed. I move to favorably recommend the zoning map amendment for Beacon Harmon Street to the city council. Second on the motion. Mr. King. Yes. Mr. Delera. Yes. I vote yes. Motion passes three to zero. Good luck. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Uh next up, going back to our regularly scheduled business will be item number 373 Wall Street. This will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan.

Good evening.

Good evening. My name is Jay Galant. I'm the architect for the project. Uh the property owner, Peter Garrapy, is participating remotely, so he's here as well. Um pretty straightforward project. It's a proposed twounit development. So, a duplex essentially on a property that appears to have been previously developed. Uh, so the adjacent building is is on Wall Street. You can see it kind of beyond those three cars. Um, and the property is very steeply sloped as you can see in this photograph. Uh, it towards So, Wall Street is on the left in this photo and Norfick Street is on the right. Our proposed building is basically where we can put it. I feel like it's a pretty it's a good design based on the shape of the property. And it um it kind of uses the the geometry of the site pretty effectively to uh to create two nice housing units that are needed in the neighborhood. and leaves us enough room for the uh er for the drainage down below which is shown on the left in this plan. So essentially we're proposing to use erosion control matting to uh to kind of handle the slope at the intersection between the proposed foundation and the and the corner and cover that with lman seed. So it'll it'll look it'll look like a nice grassy slope. Uh, currently there's a I don't know deteriorating foundation for deteriorating retaining wall and um and some stairs that must have been part of the original property, you know, when there was a house there. And it it's all just kind of there and and that's the that's the kind of the problem with this property because it's vacant and seems to have been for a

while. It's it's kind of a dumping ground for trash and other things. it would be look it would be really nice if there were a nice building on this property and that's what we're proposing. Um so essentially the the challenge for us and the way we reflected in this design is to kind of handle the shape of the property nicely and then to to create a nice place to contain all the water um on the site which we're which we're doing as well. Um, so, uh, I believe Victor wrote this, um, the staff recommendations and he's been working with us throughout on this project. And we we do we do need, um, a variance from the what's going to be the rear yard setback along Norfick Street because it's a triangularly shaped property. Essentially, it's a it's a little strange. Um, so we [clears throat] have a front yard on Wall Street, which, you know, seems to clearly be the front of the building, and that's what our building is going to face, and that'll that'll be its its its main facade. And then, um, we just don't have enough space to to to to build anything that's worth building without coming within just over 8 ft of the um of the property line along Norfick Street. But it'll still work nicely. there's quite a bit of space beyond the retaining wall to um to create a nice yard and patios for the for the residents. Um so as far as the recommendations, our only our only question is is the architectural there's a little discrepancy between the architectural plans and the and the site plan on how um you know the entrance to the building works with the driveway. We'd like to just kind of do a simple landing and and a couple of steps down and then a a small a small walkway to the driveway rather than kind of paving more of the front yard than necessary. And perhaps we could discuss that. Um

the recommendation was to run a side walkway to the street. Um, and then also the was a question about a good question about the fencing or some sort of protection because the the let's call it the backyard or the patios behind the the house will be higher than Norfick Street and there's a retaining wall there. We'd like to put some uh some fencing along the top of the wall and it isn't shown on the plan so we will show that. you know, some black chain link fence or something appropriate. And um Oh, that's that's about that's about it. I welcome any questions or comments.

Okay. Thank you. Uh additional comments from members of the city staff.

Sure. Through the chair, my name is Victor Panak. I'm a planner with the division of planning and regulatory services. Um so this is an application for site plan review at 73 Wall Street. Uh, the subject site is a corner lot at the intersection of Wall Street and Norfick Street. The site slopes from a high point along Wall Street down to Norfick Street and is generally vacant and vegetated with a couple mature trees. The applicant is proposing to construct a duplex with vehicular access off of Wall Street. The proposal will include a onecar garage for each unit and a surface parking space in the driveway for each unit. The applicant is proposing to manage storm water runoff by directing it to a subsurface infiltration unit uh by but soil testing is still necessary to confirm that this will function appropriately. We recommend a condition that alternate storm water management infrastructure be included in the project if the soils aren't suitable. Uh the project will require relief from the ZBA for rear yard setback. Uh staff recommends standard board conditions of approval in addition to conditions related to adding pedestrian walkways. Uh details on storm water infrastructure walls and fencing and showing the location of erosion control matting. Uh on the question of walkways, I think generally we ask for that uh for most projects if it's not already provided. Um it's an aesthetic thing for the most part. Uh especially in a situation like this where it is true that the resident could walk out their front door and just go directly to the driveway and then connect to this to the sidewalk on the street. Um so I don't think that staff feels overly strongly about that, but um the board should deliberate and decide whether they want to require that uh condition or not.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pac. Um, anyone from the public on this item? Anyone online? Hearing none. Board members, Mr. King, you want to go first?

No comments on this one. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. Delera. Yeah, I I don't think I have any comment at this time either. Okay, Mr. Tumi. Uh, no comments. Thank you.

Okay. Uh, for myself, I kind of think I I I don't mind the way the uh kind of entrances to the building work on this plan as I kind of conceptualize them. I think it's sort of a cool building uh to begin with, built into this site. So, I'm I'm okay without um having sidewalks or having internal sidewalks that connect to the street sidewalks. Uh I'd leave it as is. Um if no one has any other comments, I think we're ready for a motion.

I make a motion to approve the definitive site plan for 73 Wall Street subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Second. On a motion, Mr. Yes. Sorry. You want to you want to move to strike condition 1A, I believe it is. Okay. So, that that would remove the sidewalk requirement. That's the one requiring the sidewalk or the walkway. Yes. Uh Mr. King, just confirming that's what you intended. Exactly. Amending uh item 1A for moving. Thank you. I second that. Great. Uh so, Mr. King, I believe you voted yes. Is that true? Yep. Uh Mr. Delera? Yes.

I vote yes as well. Motion passes three to zero. Good luck. Thank you very much. Uh, next on the agenda, item number five, 41 Abrasives Way, formerly known as 167 West Boston Drive. This will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan amendment.

We had a board. Do you want us to set it up or just use the power Power PowerPoint? I think the PowerPoint's fine. I mean, I didn't Yeah, I'm the only one in the room and uh [laughter] everybody else is online.

Um, hi, good evening. My name is Danielle Danzing with Kimley Horn. Our office is at 271 Waverly Oaks Road in Waltham. Uh, tonight we are here uh for a site plan amendment for the St. Oane property at 41 Abbrasives Way. Uh we were before the board about a year and a half ago for the approval of the site plan for the 43,000 square foot office building that you can see on this image at the rear of the existing um plant 7 and 8 um manufacturing buildings on the Senko main property. Today we're here to talk to you about a site plan amendment as we have um finalized the security plan for this site as we consolidate onto the 41 abrasives way um and St. Cobain campus. So, there's currently a guard shack that exists um at the front of the site that's now WBDC property. Um this guar is going to remain through um spring 2027 while that the WBDC property is under construction and then that will be removed uh shortly after. However, we are still proceeding with additional security measures for the St. Cobain and Korstech access point. And so you can see on the screen a zoom in of that area. The guard shack is uh just at the north side of the paper over there. Um the existing one. Uh what we are proposing is about 120 ft into Shore Drive. We're going to be having a 6 foot wide striped island that will have a card reader badge. So employees um that work on the SOAN property will have their card readers. Uh there will be first a hydraulic arm lift gate followed by a swing gate that will [snorts] um open and be accessible with your card reader badge. Um once you turn onto short drive, we are delineating that into a 12t wide lane for cars to queue as they enter the property. Upon exiting

um the secured area, it's just a loop detection system. So no further scanning or anything's required. It will be motion sensored. And we have worked with the fire marshall s um team to make sure that um emergency vehicles are able to access the site at all times. Uh and if you are a visitor to prop to the property uh that works the same way as is working in the existing condition where you will head to the visitor lot um just to the north of this view um and be able to use an intercom system to connect to security and get um access into the property. And so, um, that's the proposal for, um, modifying the security access point with the revised plans. Um, if you have any questions or comments, um, we'll take those now. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, additional comments from city staff.

This is Rose Wrestle in the planning division. Um, so just to give some background, the board last saw this project. Um, it was approved July 10th of 2024. Um at that time the project involved construction of the Sco Bean Administration building which is not depicted on this plan but just a little bit northeast. Um so the building's been constructed. Um I'm pretty sure it's just pretty close to getting a certificate of occupancy. They don't have it yet. Um but everything's just about done over there. Um and as part of the original approval, they had um indicated they were planning to modernize, change some of their security measures on site, but didn't at that time have plans showing exactly where the new gate location was going to be um and how that was planning to operate. So, uh the original site plan included a condition that a modification to the site plan would be required if the existing circulation system was modified. Um so, they're back in now for an amendment. They provided this plan um which you can see the new location of the gate is going to be about 130 ft south of the existing gate shack. Um Shore Drive terminates about just before the existing gate shack. So the gate shack the gate and the guard shack are presently on property owned by New Garden Park Inc. who's the property owner of the land to the north. Um the board recently reviewed and approved the Sea Street subdivision plan. Um so that property owner has signed off on the modification to the guard and gate track on their property. Um and they have intended to keep the existing um improvements on site but they will be unmanned unoperated. Um so the gate the existing gate's going to stay through at least 2027. It's going to operate on a motion sensor. So anyone who pulls up will be allowed to enter. It's going to look exactly like it does today. Um and then folks who are entering either core stuck or sink to the south will traverse

down the driveway which is not changing in any way. No additional impervious surface. Um they're simply going to be drawing some lines as you can see narrowing the lanes a little bit. They're going from about 18 ft to 12 ft. Um and then authorized vehicles will be able to enter the site. Um they do have existing security staff. Um they're going to be um inside the new admin building and there's going to be an intercom, there's a pedestrian gate. It'll be a little bit tough to see here, but there's a pedestrian gate with an intercom and then to the visitors parking to the north. Um there's another intercom for con um communication with the security folks. Um so some of the conditions of approval, it's no changes on site to impervious surface, landscaping, parking, the building itself. It's really just this secondary gate. The first gate, like I said, is going to remain. We just asked that any future modifications to the circul circulation system, including that on new garden park property, shall require approval by the planning board. Um, we have different parties at play here. Um, it's a complicated site and I think really we're um, in terms of a future filing, we're thinking of a future site plan approval decision, a future subdivision plan. Um so in the future when this land comes to be developed um and there's modifications to that circulation that um they will come back in for approval so the board can review circulation as it relates to um the public entering and navigating around the site and from a fire safety and access perspective. Um so that's listed in condition two. Some other conditions of approval we had asked um in the original decision we had asked that the existing crosswalks connecting to the site and street network be repainted. One of those has been done. Um you can see on an earlier aerial plan. I know we discussed this earlier and I was able to connect with um a

member from the department of transportation and mobility. Um they did ask that that crosswalk do be repainted as part of the work. So, we would respectfully request to leave that in as written. Um, unless the board feels otherwise. Um, we had asked for some changes. They have given us a signage plan. It's not up now. Um, but there was just some confusion. I think the signs were facing the wrong way, it sounded like. Um, so we're just looking for clarification on that. Adding an address to one of the um, building signs. We're doing addressing a little different now. Um, so it's changed from since the admin building was first before the board. We had some questions on fencing details we're looking for lighting plan. Oops, sorry. Some edits to the lighting that are proposed. Um, and then that the applicant um do not propose any barb wire or fabric from their gates um or fence. So, I'm going to leave it there for now. I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have or to discuss um any questions from the applicants team. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Russell. Um, anyone from the public wishing to comment on this item tonight? Come on up. Uh, Robera Bryan, Worcester Business Development Corporation, New Garden Park as well. I just wanted to be here in support of the application of the amendment um, and answer any questions about the reasons for our request um, to keep that existing gate on Shore Drive. We are um still in the process of demolishing some structures along New Bond Street. We also, as Miss Russell had pointed out, um in the process of going out to bid for construction of Sea Street, which is an internal road currently that leads from leads from Ararat Street into the property. That should begin construction in the spring, uh complete construction in spring of 27, at which point we will open up that gate on Shore Drive. But to do so in the interim would just lead to sort of confusion once you entered into the campus north of the property that the um new administration building is being built on. So we just thought for the purpose of the school um that's there as well as our demolition and then the construction of sea street we better to try to limit the traffic that's going through there and using it as a throughway until we were prepared. So we'll continue to have signage which warns people it's construction area authorized personnel only. um the gate. Um don't tell too many people, but we'll be motion. So, if you're really diligent, you can probably go through, but we don't want you to. Um and then there'll still be continued fire um access through the site as it exists today. So, here to answer any questions, but fully supportive of the new um gate and the new system and thankful that Scobane um did continue to stay and build and construct and um happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Anyone else from the public uh wishing to speak on this item tonight?

Seeing none. Uh board members, Mr. King. Overall, the changes here seem to make sense. No concerns with the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Delera. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree. No, no concerns. Thank you, Mr. Tumi. Uh, no comments. Thank you. Okay. Seems like you guys have uh worked out a plan that makes sense. I won't tell anybody about the gate. I think we're ready for a motion on this. I move that the planning board approve the definitive site plan amendment for 41 Abrasive Sway FK, formerly known as 167 West Boilson Drive. Second.

On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Delero? Yes. I vote yes. Motion passes three to zero. Good luck. Thank you all for your time tonight. All right, moving on. Subdivisions. Uh, are we talking about this tonight? No, not talking about subdivisions, street petitions.

Through the chair, I can just introduce this item. And I do believe we have Miss Rodriguez here from DPW who can um go through her memo. Uh the planning board was referred a um street petition to improve an portion of Nixon AB uh and to address some of the drainage concerns. I'm not sure that we have the petitioner in the meeting here tonight. Um but the board ultimately is making a recommendation to city council. Um so you should have the DBW memo in your packet and I'll turn it over to Leslie if she has anything she'd like to add. Uh, good evening. My I'm Leslie Rodriguez for for DPW. In relation to this tree, we found that this tree was a petition in 2013 and it was approved by the council in November 12th, 2013. Uh so right now the DPW I found that iso supposedly this tree was not approved because at the drainage that it was a drainage problem. Right now the DPW uh is looking for funding to approve sorry the street is already approved to find uh to start design and put this street for nest list. So this tree is is going to be put in list for next year. Thank you.

Okay. So, what are we voting to recommend? Um, through the chair register, uh, voting to recommend to council a priority level recommendation of one per DPW's recommendation for street improvements and one is the highest. Correct. That's that means we it's urgent presumably because of what Miss Rodriguez said. It was approved a long time ago, but now they're getting ready to actually do the things that they need to do to I believe that's the case. U Mr. Rodriguez, can you confirm one is the highest designation for street improvements? Yes. Thank you.

I also want to uh add that this street is in the uh flood zone. Okay. Thank you. Uh board members, any questions on this? Um, hearing none, I think we're ready for a motion. I make the motion to favorably recommend with priority level one the Nixon Street Private Street Betterment. Second on the motion. Mr. King, yes. Mr. Delera, yes.

I vote yes as well. Motion passes three to zero. On to ANRS. through the chair. We have a lot of ANRS on the agenda for tonight. Um ANR A9A we're going to be holding. It's not properly before the board. So the first one we'll be looking at is 0 Julian Avenue um ANR 9B. Um, this parcel is located in the RS7 zoning district, which requires a 65 minimum frontage for each lot. Presently today, this is two different lots. The one in the middle is seeking to obtain a portion of the um smaller lot to the north plan northeast. Um, so as you can see in red is the new property line. Um, the house parcel is basically giving some of the frontage to the lot in the rear. Um Julian as a public a both lots have sufficient frontage um under this zoning district. Um if we move on this is 120 Thomas Street, Summer Street, and School Street. These are all public streets um project that was before the board recently. They're seeking to redraw internal lot lines. Um this is located in the BG6 which has a minimum of 40 ft of frontage per dwelling unit or no requirement for non-residential uses. Um both lots have sufficient frontage in the Sony district for endorsement. Next up we have um an ANR9D which is for Washington Front Street and Foster Street. Um this is a city project. Um many of these parcels are held under ownership of the Wister Redevelopment Authority. So we would respectfully request um the petitioner has requested

that the board vote to wave the fee for this project. Um so uh if the board agrees, if you could just include that in your vote. Um this property is located in the BG6 and CCOD overlay district. Um it's adjacent right to the roundabout on Shbury Street. Um there are four parcels. They're all presently existing today. Um so there's no division of land. It's more of an outline of existing land um and an effective numbering of it. Um so I just want to call out that parcel A4 is not to be considered a separate parcel. Um and it's to be combined with parcel A1. Parcel A3 is also not to be considered a separate buildable lot and intended to remain in common ownership with the adjoining lots. Um so no land division pre-existing parcels not intended for separate individual development. Next up we have 9E 12 Edgeworth Street. This is one parcel today. They're looking to split it down the middle. Um it's a corner lot on Edgeworth and Whittier which are both public streets in the RG5 zoning district. There's a minimum 50ft frontage requirement for a single family dwelling in this zone. In this case, we have a multifamily low-rise building, so the requirements a little bit higher at 65 ft. Um, both properties have in excess of the minimum required. Next up, we have two Hastings Avenue. Hastings Avenue is a public street on Sears Island. Um, this parcel today has um is presently two separate parcels known as 42 and 44 Hastings, I believe. Um, but they're being split up into four different lots or they're proposed to be. Um, we're in the RL7 zoning district. Each unit of the duplex or semi- detached single family home

requires 35 ft of frontage. Um, and each each lot of the four has 35 or more. um meeting the minimum requirements on the zoning district. Um next up we have 9G 450 Granite Street. This property is split zoned RL7 to the west and MG1 to the east. Um it's presently one large parcel today. The uh owner seeking to carve it up into four different lots. Each lot has more than enough frontage um meeting the minimum meeting the minimum requirements which is 65 ft in RL7 with no requirement in MG1. Um we're along Granite Street which is a public public improved way. Next up we have 35 Greenhild Street. Um this is an RS7 zoning district. It's a public street. Both proposed lots exceed the minimum 65 ft frontage requirement in the zoning district. ANR 9 I is not properly before the board. Um neither is the very last one 9K. So the last one we're going to look at is 83 Ernest A. This is in an RL7 zoning district which requires a minimum of 65 ft of frontage. Um both lots have sufficient frontage along Ernest Avenue which is a private way but it's improved to city standards. Um so both lots are eligible for ANR endorsement. So just to recap um ANRS 9A 9K and 9 I are not properly before the board. Um and we have requested a fee waiver for the ANR 9D. if you want to take that separately or make it one motion. Um I think that should be fine.

So it's just 9D. You need the waiver for 9D. Yep. Okay. Um Mr. King, I think we're ready for a motion. I I believe we can do it in one motion. Yeah. Can we confirm what the action is here? Are we recommending this or? Uh we're final action on the fee waiver. So, we're we're voting to endorse the ANR. That's that's the action. We're waving the fee for 9C because it is a city-owned parcel and the city paying itself seems foolish. Fair. That's 9D. Yes. Uh C, I believe. D. You're right. Yep.

Okay. I make a motion to favorably endorse ANR's B, E, F, G, H, uh, H, and J. And for ANR9D, we should favorably endorse this with a fee waiver. Second. On the motion, Mr. King. Yes. Mr. Delera.

Yes. I vote yes as well. That motion passes 3 to zero. There are no communications. Uh does anyone have any board policy or procedures discussion tonight? I'll take your silence as a no. Uh three sets of minutes. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? Is there a motion to approve? Make a motion to approve. Quick note, 1022 is not in the folder, so it's only the first two sets. Okay. Sorry. Sorry about that. Two sets of minutes. Make a motion to approve the August 13th and October 1st meeting minutes. Second. On a motion, Mr. King. Yes. Mr. Delera. Yes.

I vote yes as well. That passes three to zero. Is there a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. We're adjourned. Thanks everybody.