Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the Monday, January 12th, 2026 meeting of the city of Worcester zoning board of appeals. My name is Jordan Burke Powers and I will chair tonight's meeting. This meeting of the Worcester zoning board of appeals will be conducted in a hybrid manner with both inerson and remote participation. As a preliminary matter to tonight's meeting, I would like to confirm board members and staff who are present. Board members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. [clears throat] Board member Brahmoff here. Uh board member Cortez here. Board member Barnhagen here. Board member Sacko here. Um as well as staff, uh Michelle Smith, present. Uh Amy Beth, present.

Uh and David Horton, present.

Before we start, a few housekeeping notes. Tonight's meeting is being livereamed from the city of Worcester website and the and the recording will be available for rebroadcast. This is a public meeting which means both that it is being recorded and the minutes will be taken and published at a later date. The public may participate remotely by calling 1669254252. Again, that number is 1 66925452 52 with access code 16456 4634. Again, that access code is 1604564634 or using the link shown on the screen. Once an item is called, there will be a brief dis presentation of the item followed by additional comments and clarifications from members of the city staff, then an opportunity from anyone in the from the public to speak on that item before we proceed to board discussion and action. 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 remote participants who would like to comment on an item on our agenda, we ask that you use the raise hand feature in Zoom during the discussion of that item. If you are joined by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star 9. Again, that is star 9. Staff will then call on members of the public once an item and um sorry, staff members staff uh will then call on members of the public one at a time and then give permission to unmute themselves. If you

are joined by phone, you will then be able to unmute yourself by pressing star six. That is star six. So star 9 to raise your hand, star six to unmute. Please note the board appreciates brevity in your comments. To help with the process, we'll ask the speakers participating in person to use a microphone to please clearly identify yourselves each time you speak. And the first time you speak, please state your city of town of residence 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 speakers or applicants. So, please speak to me directly. Applicants should be aware that approvals are generally conditional. Discussions are generally signed by the board at the next meeting and filled with the city clerk the following day beginning the appeal period. It's the applicant's responsibility to address any conditions of approval and lack of doing so may result in delays or in of or enforcement. Please contact the planning division with any questions. Any party agrieved by a decision of the board has the right of appeal under Mass General Laws chapter 4A section 17. There are a number of items on our agenda being continued or postponed which I will read through shortly. If you are here on one of those items, please note that no additional notice will be sent to you before the next meeting. The best thing to do is call the planning division the day prior to our next meeting to confirm if the item will be heard or postponed that night. As it is not uncommon for items to be postponed multiple times before they are heard by this board, I would suggest for the purposes of streamlining our meeting that board member Barnhagen offer to make any motions and that board member Cortez second any such motions. In the event that either member prefers not to do so, I simply ask that you identify another member to do so. All right. We have for

continuations uh sorry we have one continuence um 172 174 Shrewsbury Street a request to continue the public hearing to fe February 2nd 2026 and extend the constructive deadline to February 24th 220 uh 2026. Is there a motion? I'd like to make a motion to continue 172 174 Shrewsbury Street to the public hearing and constructive grant deadlines as stated. Is there a second? I do second the motion. On the motion, board member Brahmoff, my vote is yes. Board member Cortez, yes. Board member Barnhagen, yes. Board member Sacko, yes. My votes yes.

There are three postponements. Postponement for item number four, 26 Milton Street. Postponement for item number 528 Milton Street. And postponement for item for item 8, 540 West Boilson Street. all to be requested to postpone the public hearing to February 2nd, 2026 and extend the constructive deadline to February 24th, 2026. Is there a motion on those postponements? I'd like to make a motion to postpone item 4, 26 Milton Street, item 5, 28 Milton Street. Item 8, 540 West Boilson Street to the public hearing and constructive grant deadlines as stated by the chair. Is there a second? So move. On the motion, board member Brahmoff, my vote is yes. Board member Cortez,

yes. Board member Barnhagen, yes. Board member Sacko, yes. My votes yes. All right. If you're here for item 2, 4,5, or 8, 1724 Strusberry Street, 26 Milton Street, 28 Milton Street, or 540 West Boilson Street, please contact the planning division person. Let them know that you're interested. They'll make sure to contact you with any other follow-up. All right. Uh item, we are starting with item number one, old business, 91 Cambridge Street. If the applicant could please step forward.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members, and uh general public. My name is David Saddowski. I'm the principal of DJ and Associates, and I'm here with the owner of the gasing [clears throat] of the gas station. Uh I'll also uh Raphael Hernandez from Acropolis Design is available online. He's the architect of the property. Uh when we were here before you a couple meetings ago um we were asked to um provide more information on the truck on backing up if the building could be rotated where the truck needed to go. Um we did provide additional information. We put together a traffic flow plan. I'd like to approach the bench if I could. No bench, but just make sure you bring um if you're

bring your If you're going to speak, bring the mic, but if you're just going to hand it to us, you can just hand it to us. Yeah. Yeah, that's fine.

The bench sounds so formal.

This is high-tech graphics. Um, basically when the truck comes down Cambridge Street, that's the pink color or the orange color. It has to go almost to the complete end of the lot so it can because we have um, as it was noted, we have that light pole that's at the almost the start of the curb. And he's got a his truck is 63 feet long and it's 10 ft wide. Now, a regular tractor trailer truck is only 53 and it's 8 and 1/2 wide. A school bus is 38 feet. um for him to be able to maneuver, he's got to be able to pull in all the way into the lot, you know, and he's got to be um cognitive of any cars that might be at the pumps when he's coming in and all that has to remain. He may have to cuz he's coming down Cambridge Street. He can't just stop in the street. He's got to pull up on the sidewalk. He's got to come across that opening on a diagonal. When he finally gets in there, he backs up. There's an area that's in white. That's where the truck is 63 feet long. That's where he's got to sit for those four areas that he fuels the tanks in. He also backs up 8 to 10 feet and that's the hatched area that's behind the truck. So, if we tried to rotate the building, he would back into the building. Um, and I don't know what would happen with the propane or the different fuels he has, but there's a catch basin right there. And I think if he hit the building, there could be a could be a leak or there could be fuel going into the catch basin system. So, we don't think it's a good option to move the building forward toward the street or to rotate it. It must stay like it is. We've actually relocated the sidewalk another 8 ft east so that the people, if there was pedestrians, they would be out of the way so that the truck could back up and pull forward. That's his position of stopping. Now, when he's leaving, he has to go down. He either has to make it down to the old market basket. He's got to go in that parking lot to turn around because he's got to go back down Cambridge. So, I've shown I've indicated in green when he's

pulling out, if there's a traffic flow, he's got to follow that green line. So, he's diagonally coming across that whole lot from where he is. If he's fortunate enough and there's no flows, he can come out with his cab and do the blue turn and save time and head back down Cambridge Street. So, he he really needs the whole opening that's there with his truck to maneuver it around. And it it almost, you know, there's no EV parking. we have in front of the building on the side of the building between the building and the street anymore. We're proposing lawn in that area. We're proposing some additional landscaping. There used to be a 6ft paved way going around the building. We've eliminated that. We've cut down on the other side of the building down to 4T. Staff recommended the dumpsters are the 2x two rolloffs. There's going to be three of those to take out so we don't have a huge dumpster system. And then we moved the bike racks to the front of the building so that anybody that's on a bike will be able to chain it there and then go around to the entrance. U this was it that would you speak on uh the gas pumps? Yeah.

You called the fire marshall. This is the owner.

Hi, this is Nero Kumar Burad. I'm from 39 Main Street uh Medway uh Massachusetts. So I'm the owner of the property. So uh there was a question like is there any law where the the tailor or the the operator of the gas pump has to be visible and I mentioned to the planning uh it's a uh state fire department marshall uh requirement it's number six where all the pumps has to be uh visualized within 200 ft and if some circumstances they they have to go through the marshall and you have to get the special permit from them. But that's why we wanted to uh have the store at that situation. So all from the window all the pumps can be visible nice and bright. So again, David Sidowski for the record. So, if we continue, we've eliminated the plantings from the light post on down the street, but we've included some plantings from the post toward the east. We'll put some on the bank in there to break off. We'll have an access way to get to the sidewalk that goes across to the Catholic Charities right across the street, if you're familiar with that area. And um then we've included some extra plantings up in the backside. We've agreed to put a six-foot uh fence around the entire structure that will help mitigate sound as well as light. Some of it will be elevated 6 to 7 ft above the paved surface plus be 6 ft high. Um and then down at the west side, there's already an existing 4ft fence in that area. All the fencing will be maintained by the owner and he'll be putting it all in and we'll be doing plantings as shown in the back side of the building. and we'll make sure that the plantings are uh the Asian ash

resistant and also the uh the boring insect and that note is on the plans. Um the the owner has agreed to the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 8. He will have the door locked so that he can't be broken into or whatever. There'll be a person there solo. They'll only dispensing gasoline at that time. After 8:00 a.m. the convenience section of the store will open. Then at night to make sure he's not robbed at night from 9 to 10 o'clock if they choose to stay open till 10 it'll be locked again and the only way to get gasoline will be from the pay window like other stores have. They have a window where you can approach and put money through and then you know or a credit card or whatever and then you know move forward whatever their form of payment is going to be other than food stamps. Um that pretty much is it in a nutshell. Now, I've been asked by staff to provide a lighting plan for the entire site. Currently, right now, there's an awning over the existing gas pumps. It's 20 ft up to get to the awning, and then there's a twoft hangown. The the lights that are over each one are the box type that can only project down. We didn't propose those lights. I really don't have the company that put them in to be able to put the light how it cascades out, but there's never been a problem or a complaint that lighting is going off site from that area. So, I'm asking that we just provide the lighting plan for the new building that's going in to show everything under the sconces and the lights that are illuminating the back of it for security. Um, that's what I'd like. I think that number is number under the review comments and questions. Um number 11. Um then of course the applicant will will um has two existing signs. The applicant has has offered not to put a sign on the new building. The only

signage that's there at the site he wants to keep. There's one that indicates at the beginning what the gas prices and everything are and it illuminates and then there's another one down this end. The convenience store is going to be sign free. So there'll be no change in the signing whatsoever. There is, you know, there I'm not sure exactly what the square footage of those signs are, but I know they illuminate and they're the ones that bring business in. So we'd like to be able to maintain the existing signs like they are and add no new signs to the property. We'd like the board to consider that. And of course, we'd like them to consider the curb cuts that are existing to let them stay like they are. Um, we've and there's also a a uh a point in here about talking about the sidewalk. Some of the sidewalk in front of the building is pavement. Wherever we rip the sidewalk up to provide utilities out to the street, we'll replace with cement like the city requires. I don't know if the board wants us to reement the whole sidewalk in front of the property or not. There's only a section that we're really going to be ripping up. I'd like the board to consider that where we're going to make repairs or tie into the utilities. The sewer that's got to tie in. There's um the storm drain that goes under the building that picks up the the footing that's going to be tied into the catch base. And then there's going to be a water tie in. If other than those three, we'd like to replace any of those areas disturbed with cement that the city requires. But in the other areas, leave the sidewalk like it is. Can you think of anything else you'd like to add in?

I I think I'm ready for questions from the board. Great. City staff first, but thank you

through the chair. This is Amy Bethle for the planning division. Um so the applicant um presently on this premise is a four pump self-s served gas station with a kiosk and the applicant seeks to convert the existing kiosk to storage and construct a 760 ft convenience store on the parcel to be operated as an accessory activity to the existing gas station and make other associated site improvements. This gas station is located in the RG5 zoning district. So therefore, the relief that they are uh applying for is a special permit to extend, alter, or change a privileged, pre-existing, nonconforming use. Um, and the existing use is privileged, pre-existing, non-conforming in regard to the following requirements. Uh, an automobile refueling station, which is business use number 17, which is prohibited in the RG5 zoning district. Planting requirements along the south and west lot line. required landscape buffer around along the south lot line. The maximum curb cut widths, there's a 30 foot limit and the existing curb cuts are 40 ft and 42 feet uh respectively. And the applicant is expanding the use to add the 760T convenience store to the property which triggers the need for the special permit to modify the privileged pre-existing use. The retail use is ancillary to the gas station operation per the definition of automobile refueling station in the zoning ordinance. The site is proposed to remain non-conforming with respect to curb cut widths with no changes proposed and the required landscape buffer along the south lot line. The plantings along the west and south lot line with one tree proposed along the western lot line. Uh this item was last before the board on November 17th and at that time there was no staff memo issued. So um

the items in the staff memo that you received should have been new to you slash the applicant did uh speak to at that time. I'm going to try not to talk a whole big bunch. I just want to touch on I'm going to have to scan to touch on the things that the applicant uh didn't necessarily um go over with you. Um so the combination of the retail space and the gas station requires three parking spaces per the zoning ordinance and the applicant is proposing three parking spaces. The applicant is proposing EV wiring at the front of the proposed convenience store. However, it's unclear which parking space will be wired for future use. So, we'd like the applicant to talk through that with us for a little bit. Um, we've already talked about um the that staff is recommending we had recommended to either relocate the store or rotate the building. Um, I think the applicant has addressed that comment. Um, also about the front yard alignment and why the applicant can't move the building closer to the street. Um the applicant has eliminated the parking between the street and the building. Um but we are requesting that the applicant reflect the use of striping in the parking lot to prevent vehicles from parking between the building and Cambridge Street where the fuel truck must turn around. So we're looking for the applicant to extend that striping through to the end of the parking space so it's clear that um nobody should park there.

Yeah. Uh responsive to staff comments, the applicant has relocated bike racks towards Cambridge Street to avoid comp conflicts and proposes the new concrete walkway from the street to the main door and along the side of the building facing the parking lot. Um you already talked about the curb cuts and we talked about the sidewalks. Um, the applicant is proposing three 2 by two rolloff dumpsters to be manually positioned for pickup weekly, we believe, uh, with a solid enclosure. Um, and staff notes that the air pump still appears to prevent the roll out of the dumpster in the rear of the building. So, we'd like the applicant to talk to us about the operation of the dumpsters and then also um how often those will be picked up and then the position of the air pump. Um they talked about no new signage. Um so we were unclear whether or not the western pole is planned to be removed or to remain um because on the plans it indicates the pole is to be removed. So, I think the applicant cleared up that the poll is to remain at the western side of the lot. Um, and that you'll the applicant will be required to comply with the current sign ordinance. Of course, um, we talked about the lighting plan and the applicant has provided a stamped storm water checklist indicating that there will be a net decrease in imperous surface. Um so any further design changes may warrant an update and may not increase impervious surface without a full storm water report and mitigation of peak rates. Um there are a lot of conditions that I think everybody has seen. Um so if the applicant is amendable or if we have any questions I am also available for questions.

I I'll just say really clearly um quickly uh that the the trash makes sense to me. You're talking about two units that are easily wheeled around. So it's not going to interfere with the air pump. But I do think it would be helpful for the record to indicate what the plan is for trash pickup. Like when are you planning to do it? How's that planning to happen? It's it's every week. We we picking up uh trash every week. Once a week. Is it a private? It's a how is it how are you doing? Is it whist? It can't be whist. So it's like

uh every Thursday they pick the trash and we have just three 2x two rolling dumpster. We just bring out. Yeah. And air pumps. It's very tiny unit. 2 ft by 2 ft it's hanging on the wall so it's not I don't think so it's a huddle for that and EV we already uh talked about last time like uh they're not going to provide me the DC power so it's not worth to have a so you you've indicated for the record that for what you can provide you're going to at least provide some conduit so it just needs to be a conduit to wear essentially like you need to indicate on the plan you don't need to indicate it like you're going to build it you need to tell us if you were to build it in theuture future. Where could it hook up? Which of the two spots?

Through through the chair. Currently, at the um the northern front corner of the building, it's indicated that's where the EV hookup would be. So, I guess there's a um handicap in front of it that that space could. So, just put I guess just make that clear for staff. But what he was talking about is it's a 12-hour charge. Yeah. From what he's provided, he can't get the fast charges and nobody's We don't need any of the other stuff. We just Yeah. Just make sure it's indicated on the plan. That's clear enough for us. And one more thing, we have two signs at the both end. We're not putting any extra signs. So, do I have to take the one sign off or it's okay? No. No. Okay. Yeah. They're just saying if you change anything, we're not putting any new signs on the building. That's No. Y

through the chair. We just want to make sure that on the plan it's noted that that sign is to remain because currently on the plan it says that that sign is to be removed. That's the only thing for So, just change the plan to indicate through the chair. That note was put on there because I noticed there was a new sign on the new building. Now we've decided to get rid of the new sign I was going to offer taking one down and he said no it's you'd rather have the lighted sign indicating gas price. That's what brings people in. So just update the we will update the plan and change that.

All right. Is anyone here for 91 Cambridge Street? If you are, please come forward. State your name and city or of town of residence. Is anybody online? uh just indicate by using the raise your hand function or pressing star9 for staff if you're on your phone. [clears throat] All right. Um I'll move us along, but if at any point you'd like to talk, just please um indicate so and we'll make we'll see if it's a uh appropriate. Um I'll just say really quickly, this seems great. You've made all the changes we've asked. I actually like that you've pushed back with the staff. I thought your push backs are actually really thoughtful. So appreciate the conversation. I think it's improved um improved it from our perspective. Um I think the only uh the only things I have are for us I think I'm I'm I agree with the applicant. I'd like to amend 1D to say reflect the existing sidewalk along the property's frontage shall be reconstructed to city cements if if um if um something like if if uh harmed and like or if changed in construction like essentially they're only responsible for fixing the things that they break in the turs. But if it's if it's currently I agree with you if it's you shouldn't have to change things that you aren't changing right if it's if it is the way it is. So, I'd like to um reflect the applicants there. Um I think um one F is about the provide a color photonic plan for the entire site. I'd like to reflect um that the applicant um I'd like the language there to just reflect that the applicant could submit the sort of lighting plan as stated and any changes um accordingly should just um should be indicated. So, if you're not changing things again, I don't think you should have to update us on it. Um, as it's already happening, it seems like, although it seems like the applicant is asking us to cut 1H, although since it says practically based, it sounds like it's not practically based to change it. So, I'm

up to people's thoughts about if we keep or just leave it. It's probably fine either way. Um, and for the applicant, it says on one on um, excuse me, on nine in perpetual that it be a stockade fence. Um, I'm not I don't care what type of fence. I just want to make sure that you've noted that it's a that you're okay with that type of fencing. Or if you want it to be if you want open, I'm open to us changing it to just say a six foot fence. But yeah, I believe the plan says white vinyl. I don't It does say white vinyl, which is what I'd like. It says it on it. I don't know where the review came up with stock.

So, I would like to amend ours on nine to say fence. Just say fence and cut six foot stockate. I think a white vinyl would be nicer anyway. So that sounds like an improvement to me. Um and then um that's and then 12 proposed exterior lighting shall be directed downward. Um it's um we don't know that uh she'll be a warm temperature. We don't know what that rate is. So I would like to cut um she'll be directed downward cut offs um to pre and just cut the amount since they don't seem to have that and just say to prevent spillover. Um, and again, um, since they're not directly changing it that much, I'm okay with keeping it as is. Um, although I guess it's a new building, so it's it's just not there now. But I think making sure that and if you if you do have specs on what you do put in there, I'd like that to be in the in the application. So, if you do have like what lighting you're planning on the new building,

that would be right. And we there is one of the um detail sheets that shows the lighting that would come from the sconces and the lighting from the back of the building. I missed that. I apologize. But that's the that's the only section that we analyzed was what we were going to propose. Okay. Through the chair, the updated plans that we received, the last copy of the updated plans, the phototric plan was not in color. So, we're looking to kind of understand what the lighting is and for the and also for the conditions. We definitely want to make if if you're amendable, we want to make sure that that's for the new build. We can stipulate [clears throat] all of those things for the new building. You know what I mean?

That's so maybe we just amend it to say for the new building. That I'm amendable to that. So just make sure that you have it in the color. We'll provide a colored for the new building. Okay, that sounds great. Those are all the things I have. I'm ready to say yes. I think this is really improved and ready to go through the chair. Can I ask did you say the curb cuts can stay like that? I'm happy to keep disturb cuts. It is I'm happy to cut H. I I think it's fine. They've provided a plan that indicates why it's a tight spot. So, I'm I'm amendable to cutting H. [snorts] Okay. Um but I'll leave that to the rest of the board. Uh board member Brahmoff.

Uh through you, Mr. Chair. Um I also agree this is a a difficult spot. You're making a significant investment. You want to leave the curb cuts to um accommodate the deliveries. Uh all I can say is I'm happy I'm not driving that truck. Uh so, you know, make the best of that as you can. And also as far as the dumpsters and the um air thing, you have to make that work. So that's your problem. I have two um questions. Um does the sign uh ordinance limiting it to the two existing signs adequately um allow you to describe what's in the building? So will people know it's also a convenience store? Okay. So that's that and that's your business problem. But, you know, it's kind of useless to put up a building that nobody's going to know. The the other thing that um

concerns me is you're limiting the business hours that you're open and locked and everything. That feels to me like it's an owner's decision as the amount of risk they want to take. And by putting it in here, it limits what you can do in the future. So, uh, my question for you is is, and maybe it's also to the city, is this a, uh, a quality of life decision for the city of Worcester, or is this, uh, safety for you? And if it's not in here, you know, I think if it's not in here, might you um uh, still have those hours, but in the future, you might want to reconsider. So I I just wonder if if by putting it in here

does that hinder your operation in the future? I mean I would love to do the operation whatever the hours right now but they they putting lots of if and but so that's why we just agree to that way to be very honest like right now the hours are 6 to 10 right but to to get approved we we don't we don't want to uh argue with the town too much so I said okay we can operate with the window and if they allow in future I would love to have the more hours to do the better business. Then let me ask the question to the city. Is there a reason why these hours are different than the hours he's currently operating

through the chair? So the reasoning for the hours was because this is a residential zone. So we don't want to create more noise than currently exists and by moving the he wants to operate an external window closer to the residential houses. So we wanted to create a space where the applicant could operate his business in a in a manner in which he wanted to operate the business but at the same time not creating more of a of a interruption to people's lives that live right in that area.

Sure. So, also the fact that staff was very um staff recommended removing the external window, but the applicant was adamant that that was part of his business process for his own safety and for his comfort for operating the business. So, this was kind of the compromise that we came to in terms of have the applicant getting what he wants, the city getting what they want. This is kind of where we landed. Okay. Well, to be clear, the window is facing inwards to the to the pumps. Correct. Correct. It it's not it's it's well bu building wise, it's as far from any of the properties as it could be. It's that front window. Uh it's facing the pumps. Yep. Yes. To the to so

through the chair though, it's at the rear of the building on the side of the building where the houses are. Can I show you? Sure. Yeah, please. Yeah. So this is the window. Okay. Yeah. So pumps are this side. So if you if you're looking out, you're facing the I don't have Yeah. You're facing the pumps. The residents are behind. The residents are this side. So we don't have any window behind the building or this side of the building. It's just the front of the pump and front of the Cambridge Street.

Okay. Um I appreciate that. Just on the record, I don't I don't see um a particularly compelling reason to limit your hours. I'm more concerned with um I don't think there'd be a noise bothering the neighborhood. you're shielding it even more now than you did before with the fence with um landscaping and um you know uh I'm concerned that you're able to make a a a financial go of this. I mean I don't know if that's the purview of this board but I

I I see that you've determined that there are the best hours and we're limiting that. So myself I'd like to hear from the other board members. I would be okay changing them to what you talk described till 10 p.m. or through the chair. Could I say one thing or are you in discussion? No, go ahead. Is there any way that it could say that the door would be locked from 9:00 on till the close of business instead of 9 to 10? We'll discuss it. I think that's let's let's I'd like to hear the other board members thoughts on it, but we'll discuss it. That's that's my only um there's quite a bit, but that's it.

Um I think it's worth discussing. So, um, when if if if when when other board members step in, if they could, um, address board member Bramoffs, I think good question, as well as any other concerns you have, that'd be helpful. Uh, board member Cortez.

Uh, to the chair, um, I'm quite pleased with the steps that you took from the previous meeting into addressing the the the concerns. Uh pretty much you have it shows that you you work it around to try to uh uh make changes to uh to the plan in order to comply with what uh we have been identified as a as a issues of concern. uh I have basically I it's a difficult it's a difficult um location the lot where the location is difficult I it is already existing business there which provides uh probably the the same amount amount of traffic same movement everything you just proposing to uh change that look actually to me is an improvement to the look the looking of that gas station the way it is to what is going to come in. So it's an an improvement on the on on on the other hand to to the area there and you addressing the concerns. I uh I I did read pretty much the discussion that you have with the staff and the and the agreements and what the uh the staff has indicated and you are willing to to to work it out and and work with them. Uh I I I I I don't have much of a problem I uh uh to move on with with the application uh with uh including the uh notations that the chair had made on it on in some of the areas. Uh I'm fine with it, Mr. Chair.

Um do you have any thoughts about the hours and um um I I have no problem with the with the hours the way you proposing it the way they are. I have no no I have no no problem with that. Uh, regarding uh uh the curb cut, I have no problems with the curb cut the way the way it is proposed. So, I'm fine with that. Thank you. Uh, board member Bart Hagen through the chair. Um, just taking the hours issue first. Let me ask you a question. So, right now, um, what your hours there's no convenience store obviously, so it's just you're just selling gas or is there a small convenience? No, small convenience. Okay. And what are the hours of the convenience store right now? 6:00 to 10.

Okay. Right. So, this would be a limitation on those hours because the right now that it says it should only be open 8 am to 9:00 p.m. Uh I I think I'm in agreement with with board member Abramoff that I don't think there's I with the understanding that this was this is a residential zone, but given the the new fence along the back and the screening, I don't think, you know, I I would hate to I know that you're okay with this, but I agree that there's a possibility in the future that you might want to expand your hours and this would prevent you from doing so. So maybe we can throw in some flexibility into that wording. Um [clears throat] I I just want to go through the some of these conditions just to make sure that we're all on the same page about what's being going to be included in them and what you're going to be bound to and what we're not. So to 1B um it says relocate the air pump and EV charging to the west side of the building and clarify what parking stall is EV ready. I think you've already done that so I don't think we could leave that as is. Uh, one D. Um, actually 1 C. Uh, staff mentioned this extending the proposed striping. Um, is that something you're okay with?

Um, through the chair. From what my understanding is, it's the extra area that the truck would possibly back up. Yeah. Yeah. Right. It's it doesn't extend any further toward the pumps than there. Correct. I mean, we we kind of show it hatched now, so we'd have no problem hatching that area. Okay. Uh 1D um I think will be amended uh if changed during construction to something like that. One E is is going to be eliminated. Correct. Correct. Yeah. Uh one F is just prior a color photometric plan for the new building demonstrating that there should be no spillover. And that's you're okay with that through the chair. Correct.

Okay. Um 1H is going to be eliminated. Correct. Correct. All right. Um eight, we're just discussing the business hours. I think that's still open for discussion. Uh nine is just going to remove the word stockade in both those places. Correct. Uh and number 12, um was it going to be Yeah, just for the new building. The propos any proposed exterior lighting shall be directed downward or shielded with cutoffs for the new building to prevent spillover. Is that correct? Okay. Um and and otherwise you're you there's no other condition here that you identified as something that we should be thinking about. You're okay with everything else in here.

Yes. Everything is good. Yep. Yes. Everything is good. All right. Thank you. Uh board member Sacko. Do the chair. Uh no new comments to add on my end. Um agreeable to taking out one H oneE and the hours operations too. Okay. Um let's let's finalize then the language through the chair. Oh yeah. Can I suggest I just this came to me. I don't know. I want to throw it through the applicant, but um

if we said something about the the the hitch and the glitch for the staff was that if the window was in operation, then the store would be closed, right? So instead of limiting the hours of operation, I don't know if we then look at some kind of language around, you know, an if this then that situation. I don't know. Just throwing that out there. Sure. Go ahead.

You Mr. Chair, I I'd be in favor of um leaving it at the hours of operation 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. and um uh let the applicant determine when he wants just the window or not. I mean, that's I think that's a business decision and um I think that's what it's there's no complaints now on record that I understand that you know for any noise or anything. So, I I feel uh very strongly um you know, we just say they can operate from 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m.

through the chair. And there's also we can keep the sentence in here. It says, "No exterior pay window. You shall occur while access to the convenience store is accessible to customers." That would allow the business owner to decide when to close the convenience store and operate the the window and vice versa. Correct. Yeah, I I guess so. So I mean I I want to leave it as a his business decision not something that you know we're we're not on the front line there. Um

also want to add something chair like since the uh the price chopper is shut off we sell egg and bread and mostly the morning customers are looking for those daily need and imagine like if I'm open and saying you know I'm I'm selling egg after 8 I don't want to be the miserable to them. So I I guess it's a for myself I I feel I I think the city is trying to avoid a sort of step around from needing a variance for like walk ups like you're you're supposed to have if you want to have a business where you're selling things from a window that's a specific variance and so if we say you can do it whenever then we might as well just have that variance right like that's not what they're asking for. So, I do think keeping no exterior pay window you shall occur while access um to the customers. So, that way you're saying like look, okay, it's not you're not it's not a free-for-all. You can't just open the window whenever you want to close it whenever you want. You have to have some control, but I'm I'm amendable to I think what the what the board is going with, which is saying like how the dynamics of when that is and when isn't can be left up to the applicant. So, we're not getting into a place where you're just operating uh like it. We're not getting to a place where you're ending around that sort of ordinances sort of I thinking.

Yes. Go ahead.

Through the chair. I hope it doesn't happen again, but during COVID and even afterwards, people didn't want to go into stores. They wanted to be able to go to the pay window, leave the money or leave a card and then have that run and then still get gasoline at the pump. That's the reason for the window because it would hinder the whole business if something like that was to happen in the future. Maybe would cut down on the people going into convenience, but I know we had what that number that Fouchi came up with, six feet or whatever. We had to stand apart and get in and go into, you know, I don't know. I just think that the window should be available to keep the business running correctly. There there was one other thing in here I failed to mention. The staff somehow there was a special permit issued in 1992 or abouts then and nobody supposedly can find that on record. They're asking the applicant to dig and do a research on a property didn't own to find the the issuance of the special permit and find where it was recorded. Is that something that has to be required?

The chair. The applicant can simply if they're not able to find it, the registry as staff have been unable to do. The applicant can simply request a copy, the certified copy from the clerk's office and record it. But it's most absolutely required. Otherwise, you were granted special permission. The use has been operating in violation of that being recorded. it needs to happen. So, yes, thank you for that clarification.

No worries. So, I'm I'm amendable myself if it's if it's okay with the rest of the board. So, say um business hours should be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. for convenience store. Outside of these hours, there should be no customer access to the convenience store. No exter no exterior pay window use shall occur while um access to the convenience store is accessible to customers. Exterior pay window should be li should be uh Monday through Sunday 6:00 to 10 p.m. Transactions during these time shall be limited to payment. Free fueling only. No operation shall occur outside those operations. So that we're just sort of eliminating this or that and just saying if you're open if you're using the pay window then the convenience stores closed. Perfect. Uh through the chair uh do you understand yes that recommendation? Yes.

Are you amenable to that? Would you like that? Let me say this. Does that mean that if it's 1:00 in the afternoon and somebody doesn't want to come in the store to pay that they can't use the pay window? Yes, it does. It means they have to come in. Okay. Straight out like that. That that's okay. Yeah. That you're if you're you're not operating a one or the other like because that's then an end around around the variance. We're saying like if you if you want if you need to have a close the window, if you need to close your convenience store to have a window, then that's what you're doing and like be clear about it. So through the chair that that's a that's a good agreement to between us and them. So if you're okay with that? Yes, I'm I'm okay with that. He just wants to get approved.

Great. We'd like to move it along. Um All right. Anything else? [clears throat] Okay. I'll entertain a motion to close. And before the motion, I just want to clarify. Do you uh with Steph do you think I can just refer back and just say with the changes as discussed? Okay. All right. I'd like to make a motion to close on 91 Cambridge Street. Is there a second? So move. On the motion to close, board member Brahmoff, my vote is yes. Board member Cortez, yes. Board member Barnhagen, yes. Board member Sacko, yes.

My votes yes. Is there a motion on 91 Cambridge Street? Um, [clears throat] like to make a motion on 91 Cbridgeidge Street uh for a special permit to extend, alter, or change a privileged pre-existing non-conforming use uh with the uh elimination and edits to the uh conditions and recommendations of staff on pages three through five of uh the staff memo. And there are no waiverss that have that need to be requested. Is there a second? So move. on the motion. Board member Brahmoff, my vote is yes. Board member Cortez, yes. Board member Barnhagen, yes. Board member Sacko, yes. My votes yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Next up is number three.

Good luck.

1,13 Milbury Street. If the applicant could please step forward. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Uh, just for the record, my name is Joshua Lee Smith. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Bach and Dwey. Uh to my left is the architect of record uh Jesse Hilgenberg. Uh and behind me is the principal uh of the applicant. Um we are all here to address any questions, concerns, uh answer any questions the board may have. As a reminder, we met with uh this board in 2025 in December and um uh we received some comments, some feedback uh all of which I thought was reasonable. Uh this is as a reminder this is a multif family project 40 units uh 80 parking spaces uh right off of Milbury Street. It's a split zone lot and um [clears throat] we left that meeting um promising to do a little bit of homework with respect to uh some comments pertaining to design as well as some comments pertaining to um impervious surface architectural features uh the height um and landscaping. So I think we've, you know, working very closely with with staff Michelle and her team as well as uh getting some other comments from neighbors, working with neighbors, working with uh uh board counselor Folo. Uh we have um provided some updates with respect to the the design. Uh and as

well as the members have the updated staff memo, the DPRS memo. Uh I can I can say uh that we are in agreement with all of the recommended conditions of approval. Uh so I can I think I can pretty pretty safely say that we are on the same page with staff um in so far as that's concerned. Um I just want to very quickly highlight some of these changes and and Amy Beth you you've got the right the right slide right here. Uh she's a good mind readader. So this is an updated annotated version of the rendering 3D rendering uh as the the view from if you're on Milbury Street looking at the front and so uh Jesse made some changes with respect to uh architectural elements and components. Again uh some comments from Michelle and her team. Uh so there are some uh changes with respect to uh the that front facade especially um looking here on the left side uh that left tower uh some um articulations some uh variations of materials. Uh we were somewhat limited because the stairway is actually uh right in that location. Um but he did also add some stone veneer towards the bottom. Uh add some groupings of windows. Uh some more uh overall interest with respect to the uh facade design. Um that's with respect to the facade aesthetic features of of the uh of the building. In addition, it's a little bit more difficult to see. However, the the height has decreased slightly. So, one item that we are seeking um is a variance with respect to the height maximum 40 ft. Um and uh we are actually there's a net decrease of two feet as a result of some of these changes. So, uh, it's it's kind of subtle, but from this depiction, you can see there were there are two towers, so to speak, that that have a higher slightly higher, uh, elevation, slightly higher height on both ends, and then you've got the middle portion, the middle tower where the entryway is. Um, all of those have

have come down slightly. Uh, in addition to the ar some of the architectural changes, we also, as I said, added uh more trees. So, more greenery, less impervious surface. Uh so more trees, more low-lying bushes, those have all been added. Um not depicted here, but we had also in SP talking with the neighbors, we added a an opaque fencing in the rear. Uh again, as a reminder, this is a an upgradient site. Uh and towards the rear of this site are some residential neighbors. And so we've we've uh to accommodate them, we've added an opaque fencing uh along the rear portion along with uh some uh arborite plantings along that along that fencing. Uh so more plants, more trees, more open space. Um there was a slight change with respect to uh the driveway. We've we've reduced that slightly um in order to again to provide uh more less impervious surface. Um, one more comment I'll make with respect to the required 10% recreational area. We had dedicated that area entirely to the to the uh back side of the building in the rear portion of the building. Um, because of the uh sort of the grade issues with respect to this site, we agreed um with Michelle and her team to relocate that slightly in order to soften some of that hard grade uh topography change in the rear. So, some of that recreational area will be shifted from the rear to the side. Uh, I think it's the southerntherly side of the building. If you're looking at the front, it's on the right side. Uh, so we we've sort of reallocated some of that uh recreational area again in order to soften the the grade. So, that's pretty much all I wanted to say. We're here to answer your questions, address any concerns. Um, thank you,

city staff.

Sure. through the chair. As was stated, this is in front of you again after a continued hearing back in December. This is Michelle Smith in the planning division. So, the relief in front of you this evening is a request for a variance for height. So, that includes, as you see in the architectural design, there are sort of three almost parapsed, but they're actually a protrusion of the building itself. So, it's three different locations on the sort of center. If we go back to one of the architectural elevations, you can see the center and then on either end, there's an extension of the roof line as well as the main roof line. So you'll see in terms of the relief in the updated memo that they're seeking 8 and 1/2 ft of relief for that center, 7 and 1/2 for the right and left and then 5T for the main being the 40 foot requirement for height. Um the main roof line is at 45 ft and then you've got that extending up to 48 and 1/2 ft at the highest point. Um they're also seeking a special permit to allow for the multif family low-rise use in the RL7. You'll recall the front portion of the property is in the BL1 zone. So, it's an allowed use by right in that zoning district. But the rear portion, if we go to the civil layout, you can see there's storm water infrastructure, retaining walls, etc., including the recreational space that was referred to that fall into that area. Um, so you can see that dash line which is representing the the change in the zoning designation. And so in that area uh where you can see the improvements, we're recommending as part of the conditions that the applicant pull as much of that away from the slope and actually allow the slope to if we could go to the proposed conditions, allow the the proposed um slope to kind of uh become a little bit steeper, but it'll leave more of the mature vegetation in the rear to help with the screening for the the residential properties that are behind. Um to the east of the property in the neighborhood, it's generally a lower density residential neighborhood. And then along the core of Milbury Street is a mix of different commercial uses. You do have transit access across 146 um at Tobias Boland uh way at Blackstone River Road. So it is potentially walkable to that, although probably not the most desirable route

for pedestrians. Um so it's located in one of our managed growth areas as a result of that proximity to transit. Um the applicant at this point can withdraw the requested special permit that they were seeking relative to the landscape buffer requirements. We've conditioned that they simply just comply with that. Um, so we'd recommend that the applicant formally request withdrawal. I may have missed um if the applicant has stated as such. Um, but that that's our recommendation at this point. There was another area where staff had identified a potential need for relief around um the drive widths because there are areas of the parking lot. If we go to the civil plan that you can see are hatched and with the hatching are in excess of 60 ft wide, which is quite wide. Um, in terms of of vehicle movements, you can see that kind of center area there. a portion of that as the fire lane, not the entire thing. So, we'd ask the applicant to expand landscaping in that area, and then add landscaping kind of to the the north and to the south of the property, as well as additional screening for the retaining wall, which is along the front law line for approximately 200 feet. Um, so it's got a substantial impact in terms of of what that looks and feels like. Um, so the applicants agreed to make all those modifications, which we appreciate. Um, and then similarly, as you saw, there's been a progression of the architectural plans, and we hope to see that continue to progress further. As you can see, the most visible portion is where you come up the driveway, and that happens to be where there's an additional story sort of on the the lower level there in order to gain access because you've got three stories that are stacked above a podium level of parking. Um, so that stair is sort of a half story below the parking. Um, so they're they're trying to mask that the best they can. They've incorporated some additional window treatments, which we appreciate. Um, but at this point I think all of the conditions the applicant is agreeable to. So conditions of approval are listed in the memo. I'm happy to answer any questions about those if you have any. Um, otherwise I think those are the the main things that I wanted to emphasize for the board and if you have again any specific questions happy to answer.

Thanks. Is anybody here for 1,13 Milbury Street? Is anybody online just use the raise your hand function or press star 9? Yes, please come forward. Just state your name and city or town of residence. Thank you very much for coming forward. Sorry.

Yes. The name is Anderson Richard. Um I'm a butter at 98 St. Louis Street. Um, the question I have is we're here because they're trying to change with the height. What is the original height that is scheduled for this property? Great question. If the applicant could please just answer that. It's what? Uh, I asked the applicant to ask to answer your question about the height. I don't through the in the I do, but I asked the applicant to answer it. Yeah. Go ahead. In the zoning district in the BL1, it's a 40 foot height limit. Oh, I thought you were asking about No, are you asking what the what the height's going to be?

In other words, what they're proposing and what is was allowed before they brought in. How much of a difference is it? Because our concern in the neighborhood is this is going to be so overwhelming in size and anybody that goes by there knows this piece of property is really that it's a steep grade. And by the pictures I didn't realize it doesn't really show on the the more people concerned is the backside is because that's changing everything right now. All the neighbors realize this is business zone and this should go through but as far as what is going to do to change the whole neighborhood. Now in the back it looks like it's only like three stories but in the front looks like four stories.

Yeah. So, um, I apologize. I didn't quite understand your question, but I can answer it for you. So, they're they're asking for it's about 8 feet above the 40 from the front. So, it's not 8 feet from the you're not going to see 8 ft above the back. It's basically 40 ft from Milbury Street up. So, from the back, it's barely going to get above where the hill is right now. Um, and with two feet down, you're really not going to see it. You're likely mostly just going to see the fence be

because but it but it will go it'll be roughly if you are on if you're on your street which I was looking down the hill it's like going to look flat out if you could see it which you won't because there's going to be a a fence but if you could it'll be like straight out. So there will be massing. It will look like a building. There's no question. But if you were looking straight out from your street it would look straight out. You really wouldn't see above where it is currently. Does that make sense? There's no possibility they could have gone lower than it's going to be lower than even what they first proposed. That's correct, sir.

Okay. And as far as all all the shrubs in the front looks great, but the stuff behind there is changing everything. It's going from a quiet area to a development.

It'll be it'll be a development. Hopefully, the between the fencing and the increased trees, it'll be a minimal impact. I I have to say when we the the last time they met the neighbors were very happy in the way their response but we still our concern it has always been I've lived in there almost 70 years and the difference between in the country in the city and that's disappearing. So, as long as you guys take consideration for the people that the neighborhood is were workingass people and most of them built their own homes and have been a very well-kept area. So, we appreciate just the people on the board understand. I thank you.

Thank you very much for coming. And I definitely want to say I was like I said I was up there and if you look out it hopefully will just look straight and down. So it shouldn't be um considering what they're what they're putting there it should be minimal impact on you all hopefully up up on top of the hill. Some of the side it's going to be a little bit more of the impact. So the people on the other side of that street but I forget the street that sort of tease on Milbury. But that's going to be the they're going to feel it a little bit more but behind it's going to really look straight out. I have to say it is going to be quite a It's a big under taken because of the site. Yep. Absolutely. Oh, thank you. Well, thank you very much for coming and if you have any questions of coming on that or if they're not doing what they said, please do contact the planning department.

Excellent. Fantastic. Absolutely. Is anybody else here for um 1,130 Milbury Street? I see somebody maybe. All right, I'm going to start talking, but if you'd like to talk, you can. [laughter] Um, all right. So, I'll just say really quickly, these are great. I think all these changes make a lot of sense. Um, I would just uh I think the two things that came up are one, if you could request the waiver, and two, to clarify if you're asking for um us to remove the special permit, that won't be needed. Uh, Mr. Chair, that's that's a yes to both. Thank you. Okay, great. Um, I don't have anything else. I think this is ready to move forward from our perspective. Um, board member Brahmoff. Uh, I have nothing to add to this. Looks like a good project and you've addressed neighborhood needs. Thank you.

Board member Cortez. uh through the chair. Again, I'd like to credit uh your efforts uh similar comments to the previous uh project is that you listen to the concerns and you made the changes and provide a new plan uh uh and even uh uh you went through the uh uh public works department uh review and traffic department review and according to what the results says is uh satisfied. And I have no problem with that. Then

great board member Barnhagen. Um to the chair. I app I just will echo the I appreciate when an applicant hears feedback from both the board and staff and then makes those changes and accommodates the neighbors, meets the neighbors. This is how it's supposed to work. So I have no problem with this. I And I just want to clarify the second special permit is if is withdrawn. That's the request for the sec the second special permit to modify the landscape. Yeah, correct. We want to make sure the correct special Michelle knows which one. Y two special the special permit to modify landscaping, parking, loading, etc. That's the special permit that's being withdrawn. Thank you. Thank you. Uh board member Sacko. I agree with the board to move forward.

Is there a motion uh to close on um 1,1003 Milbury Street? I'd like to make a motion to close on 1103 Milbury Street. Is there a second? Second. On the motion to close, Board Member Brahmoff, my vote is yes. Board member Cortez, yes. Yes. Board member Barnhagen. Yes. Board member Sacko. Yes.

My votes yes. Is there a motion on 1,1003 Milbury Street? to make a motion on 1103 Milbury Street for a variance for a relief of 8.5 feet from the center, 7 and a half feet from the right and left, and five feet from the main roof line from the 40 foot maximum height requirement for a multifamily low-rise dwelling in a BL1 zone and a special permit to allow a multifamily low-rise dwelling in a RL7 zone with all of the staff recommendations and conditions contained on pages 7 to 8 of 11 and the waiver as requested by the applicant. Is there a second? So move on the motion. Board member Abramoff. My vote is yes. Board member Cortez, yes. Board member Bart Barnhagen, yes. Board member Sacko, yes. My votes yes. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Um there's been a request for a motion for a five minute quick late break. Can I get a second? Second. Um all in favor? Yes. All right. We'll take a fiveminut break. We'll be back at 6:49.

Amy Beth, are you all right if we move? If we One second. Okay. [clears throat] I know. I know. Can

can we open the meeting? Yeah. Sorry. We're back in session. If the applicant for 112 and 116 Rodney Street could please step forward. Yeah. Good evening, Bud. And uh my name is uh Sam Isan. I'm the owner and the general contractor for 112 116 or Rodney Street. Uh I have my structural engineer on Zoom probably if we have any question regarding structural then he could be able to answer. So 112116 Rodney it previously

if we could if we could just ask everyone if you're going to be in here to please uh keep it down so we can hear the applicant. Thank you very much. So, previously back in 2024, we got approved by the board to build the three bedroomedroom sorry uh three family building, three bedroomedroom uh two bath on 116 Rodney. 112 Rodney is already existing and uh during construction we we found some new changes and that's why we filed for amendments. Uh the first thing come when we contacted National Grid uh hoping that we just need to tie in from the grid and surprisingly they told us the grade is full so we need to get 15 KVA transformer. Uh they have a new site located at the back the rear side of the building. Uh second thing that came up is uh past recommendation on the uh left side of 112. Uh previously we have different uh driveway going for individual property but because of the green space they recommend we have a green space on that which we already did. And uh right now previously I think we have uh six or let's say we have eight parking space but right now we already improve it to 13 parking space which give more relief on on the street. Uh we have individual storm septor that the site and the engineer recommended we tie both pipes together with in 8 in pipe which we already did and uh now we talk about the retaining wall. So previously

retaining wall is going to be like 8 feet but when we start the project we find out uh actually on site we really don't need up to that right now. So we amend it to be around 4 ft which we don't really need engineering design for that. That has been done and finally so pretty that's what we have on the site plan currently. We have existing uh three family which I think we're on the second floor at that point but right now we're already on the roof. So we just finished doing the framing and uh we're hoping to get an approval to start the site work when the what's it called when they open the underground. So if we have any question we'll be able to answer this.

Okay city staff

through the chair Michelle Smith in the planning division. So again, the applicant seeking an amendment to uh an approval you previously approved and then subsequently amended. Um so we're in for another amendment. So you can see the plan that you had most recently approved in 2024 uh which showed two independent driveways back to smaller parking areas each on the respective lots. Um since uh at the time staff had actually recommended that the applicant consider a common driveway, they didn't want to do that. I think they got the construction cost back and realized the additional retaining wall that they would have to construct for this design was um not a not a great way to expend resources. And so now they've proposed if we move to the proposed conditions which are sort of a combination of existing conditions and future conditions, this central common driveway that goes between the two group two structures and then a reconfigured parking area that's all kind of consolidated in the back. So from the prior iteration to now, you're seeing a change in the relief specifically requested around the special permit to modify parking and loading. So before, if we go to the previous condition, you can see the retaining walls are pretty much right up on the property line. There's no 5-ft setback. So that is the relief that the board granted was no landscaping waiver of all the trees that would normally need to be planted in those areas to allow the parking in the walls right up. If we go to the proposed conditions, you can see that's quasi needed. So you can see there's portions of the rear that now comply with the 5-ft buffer. Um but the majority of the site no longer complies with the 5-ft buffer with this updated parking configuration. And then similarly on either side um plan kind of right and and left um those areas still don't comply. In addition, because of the way the parking's now configured, we no longer have a 24ft aisle for the 90°ree parking spaces. So, they're adding a request as part of the special permit to reduce that aisle width down. In some locations, that aisle width is only 16 and a half feet. So, the board should think about, you know, the viability of maneuvering in there. Um, staff did

provide recommendations for conditions of approval. In reviewing those, I would recommend that the board add an additional condition related to that um to make the two northeasternmost parking spaces on 112 um compact spaces which would give an additional 2 ft of of sort of aisle width to maneuver making the aisle 18 ft in the parking stall 16 ft. Um and then similarly on 116 um the parking space that's again furthest to the the west kind of closest to that common driveway. Um making that stall compact as well again to provide that buffer because the applicant has not only the existing three family but they're proposing a protection series of uh ballard ballards or guardrails along the rear so that folks don't back into the building and when they add that that further restricts that drive. So, our concern in that location is just the actual maneuverability because um many cars are actually larger than that. Um so, that's that's one additional item I would add. And then, as you heard, the applicant is essentially adding two additional parking spaces with this revised configuration, which is great because that really kind of functionally means that both lots comply from a parking perspective. However, technically speaking, the relief they were still granted the variance for parking would still apply. Should the board want to, you could ask that the applicant, we've already asked as one of the conditions that they provide a a copy of the recorded access agreement or easement um for the benefit of both properties, right? Because it's it's being kind of straddled along the two properties. So, if you wanted to ask, you could request the applicant also include within that that the two parking stalls that are located on the parking in the parking area on 116 really serving 112 be granted formally um an easement to locate there. Um, that's a a suggestion if you'd like. I will also note that we missed our header uh because this is a a bit of a an unusual one to be during construction. So, I would just say for all of the conditions, uh, everything from one to

two should be listed under prior to occupancy. Um, since they already have a building permit and are actively working on the site. So, we just want to make sure we get that before they occupy. Um, so just in terms of clarifications there. Um other things that I want to highlight um that I haven't I think really I've covered all of the the major points. I'm more than happy to clarify anything but just in terms of orientation you're just west of Greenh Hill Park um and kind of north of Belmont uh northeast of Belmont.

Okay. Is anybody excuse me is [cough and clears throat] anybody here for 112 1116 Rodney Street please come forward. State your name and city or town of residence, please. Good evening, gentlemen. Uh, I'm kind of new to this. I have lived in this neighborhood for 60 years. I just realized that today. 60 years. You just got to say your name and city. Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Irene Chevlotti. I live at one street in Worcester. Thank you.

The construction that's going on there is absolutely ridiculous. How this young lady was trying to explain to me how they're going to put these parking lot. Those houses the front of the house is right smack on Rodney Street. The back of the house comes straight down on the hill like this. Where were they going to park? They're telling me that you're going to come behind in between the houses and behind. And now they're telling it's going to be three bedrooms. That means there's a lot of kids going to be living there. This is also the street where goes right into Belmont Street School. There was no place to park there. that street when you even on Rodney Street I I keep going by there and I'm saying where were they going to put if it's three house if three at least another six cars there with additional kids running around it it I I don't know if anybody has looked at there but I've gone up there and you've got parking space in between the two houses and then in back there they're talking about a retaining wall and like I said that's just straight dirt so I don't understand how they think that they're going to have isn't anybody concerned with the kids or the parking spaces there because I I've taken pictures all over the place at different times of the day when there were parking, you know, most of the people are gone to work and that street is is jam-packed. There's no place to turn around.

Yep. It just doesn't make any sense. And now on top of all that what this is going on now at the very corner after 16 there's going to be 120. They're putting up seven units that's going to go right next to that. So there's Bre Street, my house, Dirt Road for Brex, Vlander Street, and Rodney Street. You're talking in a space probably from here to the end of the building. you're adding all of these cars, additional children running around in between. It just doesn't make any sense.

Uh so just through um just to clarify, so the the the detaining wall in the back, so it is dirt, the retaining wall that they've built and will continue to build is going to flatten it out so that there will be space to park in the back. And most of it is not happening behind the building that's being it's on the other side of the building. So there so both it's gonna be one parking lot. Excuse me. It's going to be one parking lot across the back. They're not going to park in the middle in between the two. There would not be space. So there you're it's going to it's like most three deckers. You're going to drive to the back and you're going to park in the back and there's actually going to be more space because they're not trying to divide up the two properties. So there'll be so hopefully all the cars for the at least to some extent positive possible all of the cars should be kept in the back and they're adding more spaces than they had currently prop when they had first proposed.

Vlander is a very narrow street to begin with. Yes. Okay. So this is back this is back the back of your parking is going to be so they're not coming up that way. They're going to be coming in through Rodney through that through the straight there. They're not going to park in between there. That's going to be how they access it to the back. Yeah. And the retaining walls and all the things are built are being built to create more space for parking. Like I said, it's just ridiculous. I mean, you're talking what? Seven. So, it's 14 and six. It's 20.

We're not We're not We're not before us is not 120. So, we can't I can't speak to give you an idea is how much how much car how many cars and how much buildings and stuff is going on. the the applicant isn't responsible for a I'm sorry.

The applicant isn't responsible for a building that isn't their building that's being built. They're responsible for the two buildings that are there. And for that, they're providing more they're the plan is to provide more parking than they had first asked for. So they're imp. So if the thing you're worried about is parking, they're going to provide more parking in this new configuration. And then again, I can't speak. Unfortunately, I'm I'm not an engineer, so I don't understand. But like I said, you physically looked at the properties you this is ridiculous.

It's it it will it'll definitely fit what they're proposing. And again, I can't speak to the property that's not before us, but what they're proposing what was proposed before was actually going to limit how much parking they had. And basically, by going across and the back, that's going to provide plenty of space. The city's actually asking that they think a little bit. And I'm going to ask them about that about to make some changes to make it easier to facilitate that. There are some questions about turning around which I think are fair, but it's certainly manageable. It's more space than I have and we fit more cars than that and my three decker. So, I definitely think it's possible.

Thank you for my for listening. But like I said, this is just ridiculous. Like I said, because between Now, like I said, it's three three bedrooms. So, you're talking Yeah. with a lot more children in a neighborhood, too. So now between the parking on Rodney Street and stuff in the back, kids falling off the wall like they do on Brook Street and all of that stuff, it just it just doesn't make any sense. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Um okay. Is anybody else here or online for 112 or 116 Rodney Street? If you're online, please use the raise your hand function or press star 9. Okay. Um, as I said, um, I think this will, as um, I, as as was out there, it makes a lot of sense. I think this improvement will make it so that you can fit more cars. It'll be easier to maneuver. Um, and you're adding more green space, which I think is also positive. I do want to um, note for the city for the the city's perspective. Um, they had some good questions, I think, um, that I'd love to get your thoughts on. Um, the one is like it seems like to get the I don't think we required striping, am I right, for the city? So I think it might be that we need to require some sort of because if we're going to say that it should be a compact, we need to indicate that it's a compact space in some way. Is that correct,

Cherry? Through the chair, we can add that as a a condition. We do have a standard condition around that. It's I think already incorporated in their previous decision, but we can pull it forward into this one just for clarity.

I think I I think if we add five around the parking and and the sort of having lial spaces, we'd like to have some striping so people know this street, this park, this spot is this and it's a little bit smaller than the other spots that are available in the back. So, that would be one thing we'd ask on this. The other is um the the city asked you if it's if we can add a um uh a recommend um something in the perpetual that says that the spaces that are provided at 112 are going to be available for people who live in 116. Are you amendable to that? So we would have to make sure that that's in writing so that people at 116 have to provide that space at 112 since that's where you're going to have more of the space. Okay, we can do that. So

okay, great. So, we would add a number six that makes that clear for folks that like basically you're allowed to park across the thing. Um, and uh the other thing is that you have to request the waivers on page three of six. Do you request the waivers? My suggestion would be yes. Yes.

Great. Um, those are all the things I have. I think this approves what was already there. It makes a lot of sense. Um I live over by um off [snorts] um by Elm Park, Elm Street, the one the there's like si there's um I think five apartment buildings that all face the the park. They all have shared parking in the back. They drive in, they have a parking spots. It's sort of um a mash in the back, but you know, from the front it looks like a normal three- decker, so it'll function the same way. I think it'll be fine. I don't have anything else. Um board member Brahmoff, I have no comment. This seems like we've covered it all. Board member Cortez, I have no comments. Uh, board member Barthagen.

Uh, through the chair. So there, just to clarify, there are three new conditions. Two new conditions. What about the the conditions to create those compact spaces to be I'd say that can be with the striping. I was going to put or maybe it is three

through the chair. How about I just read what I have and you can confirm if that's correct. So we're adding a header above one that says prior to occupancy. My recommendation would be to add an F that says making the two northeast eastern most spaces on 112 and the northwestern most space on 116 compact and then um clarifying that we will add our additional condition our standard condition related to placarding compact spaces and that um snow be removed from those spaces so that they remain available. So, we'll add those standards and then um I would recommend you just modify condition two to add to that to say that um and use of two parking spaces on 116 for the benefit of 112.

Okay. Okay. Otherwise, yeah, it sounds good to me. Uh I don't have anything anything further. No additional comment. Right. Thanks. You you turned it off. You're on. You're on. You turned it off

to the chair. I just missed I had a question and and that is regard to the indication public works had uh wanted to make sure that uh you provide a letter uh from the professional engineer and certifying that the wall is constructed sound. Is that being submitted? So through the chair, I would say um the board can incorporate it, but ultimately the application has to go back to the planning board for a site plan and give it given it's related to the retaining wall, we'd recommend that that just get incorporated as part of the site plan process. It's I think the other part is that it's already been installed. Um so I don't think that that's the other nuance to it. I don't think we can just accept the condition because there might be a need to negotiate that back and forth with DPW since it's already been constructed. That'd be fine.

Okay. Thank you. All right. In that case, I'll entertain a motion to close. I'd like to make a motion to close on 112 and 116 Rodney Street. Is there a second? Second on the motion to close. Board member Brahmoff. My vote is yes. Board member Cortez. Yes. Board member Bartagen? Yes. My votes yes. Is there a motion on 11216? Oh, sorry. Yes. I did it to you last week, too. I'm so sorry. I'm really sorry. Uh, is there a motion?

Uh, I'd like to make a motion for 112 Rodney Street for a special permit to modify the parking dimensional layout andor landscaping requirements, loading requirements, and or the number of required parking spaces. And for 116 Rodney Street, a special permit to modify the parking dimensional layout and/or landscaping requirements, loading requirements, and or the number of required parking spaces with the uh recommendations and conditions of staff as amended and added to uh as for mentioned uh and the waiverss as requested by the applicant. Is there a second? Move to move. On the motion, I'll get it right this time. Board member, my vote is yes. Board member Cortez, yes. Board member Bardagen. Yes. Board member Sacko. Yes.

My votes yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sorry about that. Um, next up is 32 Clifton Street. 30 and 32 Clifton Street. We're here. Great. Go ahead. Say your name again for the record.

Yeah. So my name is uh Lala and I'm here to as a GC and we have GC for 32 and 32A Clifton Street. Um it's zoned to be um RG5. That's all. And we're asking the board for for 32 clinging. We asking the board for the lot. We have 4,522 ft². Uh requirement is 7,000 ft². It's three family existing building. Uh [snorts] so we are asking for relief for 2478 ft². Uh as far as the side setback currently we have uh 20 ft for side set back it's required to be 8 ft right there. So we we asking sorry we asking for relief for 20 ft. Uh for [snorts] rear we asking for relief for 12.2 ft. Currently we have only 2.8 ft. And uh for the parking space, currently we have uh three existing parking space on 32 Rodney or 32 H Rodney Street. Uh that's the existing building that was built back in 18 or maybe 1890. Uh back then they use it as a M dairy which they sell mix before we can start buying mix online and everything now. So with that currently so we have that and uh if we go back to the history of Clifton Street kind of Clifton Street is an historical street that kind of have his own concept where you see multif family in the uh front and you see some probably another two

family at the back. That's the same we're doing on our Clifton Street right now. the current building at the back or we kind of assess it with our structural engineer and is not fit right now. It's kind of a little bit dangerous in that residential neighborhood. We're using the same footprint uh to create another two family building that will be three bedroomedroom two bath with uh there is currently existing garage at the left side of the building. So we're proposing another garage at the right side of the building. So individual residents will have their own parking to park right at the back right there. So uh for that currently we have the lots size is 4,666 uh square ft and we're asking for relief for 1,334. Uh for the front frontage uh currently we have 31.23 ft. We asking for relief for 23.77 square ft. And for the rear side, currently we have 26 ft, which is not confirmable, but we're asking for 12.8 ft relief. And on the side, we have currently from side we have 1.07 ft. uh we're asking for 6.93 feet and uh like I said earlier the the new proposed garage will be for one parking and the existing one which will be modifying that will be pulled down and rebuild for another resident to park on the other side. So

that's currently what uh we're here today for. If we have any question we're open to answer the question sir. city staff

through the chair Michelle Smith again in the city's planning division. So, there's a lot of relief um here for you. So, I I will read it, but uh give me a moment. Uh in terms of the application that is in front of you, this came to be because there are two existing structures on this lot that predate the subdivision control law. And so, as a a right that someone contains, they can divide their lot into two under the subdivision controls through an ANR process. So the applicant came in and basically split the lot to put structure A on lot A and structure B on lot B. So now we have two lots that are now zoning non-compliant. So they can do it from subdivision control, but they can't from zoning. So they're here to cure the zoning relief related to that. And uh the rear structure in particular, both of these date to the late 1800s. Um the the rear structure is in poor condition. So while it it's a really neat old cool building that was actually the Orchard Hill Dairy. Um so it was operated as a dairy for a long time back in ye old days. Um it's not in great condition structurally. So the applicant hasn't been able to salvage the building and repurpose it and instead is seeking to demolish the existing building and construct a new building that uh better suits kind of modern uh habitation needs as compared to a former dairy. Um, in terms of the relief, you'll see, actually, I should just clarify quickly, in terms of the address, um, you'll see reference to number 30. And this is a little bit confusing if you drive down the street because there's another, uh, older outbuilding that's actually numbered 30. At some point in time, I think the surveyor introduced uh, number 30 to this existing back building. It's not known by that historically. Historically, that structure had an address of 32 and a half, which is against kind of our current modern rules. So, moving forward, just to be clear, the rear building will be known as 32A and its units would be numbered should the board approve 101 and 102. So, just just to clarify that because we did have a neighbor call and say, "Wait, I'm 30." Um, so just just to clarify, um

this is 32A that we'd be referring to in the rear. Um so um the relief in front of you again is a suite of different relief for lot area for both lots, side setback for both lots, um rear setback for both lots as well as frontage for both lots and parking for both lots. Um I want to well the specific relief will be read into the record. I want to clarify that for 32 Clifton this is the existing three family um they're seeking relief of 12.2 two feet um from the 15 foot rear yard setback. That's specifically for the bulkhead. So to be clear, the main structure um is actually set back uh in a way that it only requires 7 ft of relief. I believe there's a existing um [clears throat] excuse me, it's a a 15 foot setback and there's 8 ft um that actually practically exists. So just to clarify and make a note so we'll reflect that in the decision that that that is a sort of two-pronged piece. Um and then with respect to the um sideyard setback variance for number uh for lot 2 formerly 30 now to be 32A um that the 6.93 ft of relief is relative to the northern lot line. Um so kind of the plan right that you see and on the southern light line it's actually a little bit less. So it'll be 6.19 ft um of relief from that 8 foot sideyard setback requirement. And and again that that's quite close but um the existing structure as you saw from the existing conditions plan is also existing in a in a similarly close fashion although there are um changes to the footprint that are proposed from the existing conditions to what the applicant is proposing. Um in terms of the parking I want to clarify that as well. Um so if we go to an elevation of what's proposed you'll see that the building in the rear has um two different garage bays, one on each driveway. um that's the only parking that's being proposed for the use. So basically one parking space per unit. The typical requirement would be two.

There is no way to provide that. If we go back to the civil plan on the northern um driveway just because the property line doesn't have adequate space to provide for a second space, but on the southern driveway, there could be a surface stall um proposed in that driveway. So the board should consider whether that is something that the applicant should just reflect on the plan and reduce the requested relief. um or perhaps the applicant can answer why that was not shown as another parking space, but we think that that could get reduced in terms of the request. Uh while the practicality of the the other um driveway maybe doesn't exist. Um alternatively, there potentially could be two parking spaces in that driveway eliminating the need for the variance for parking. But in that circumstance, likely there would be some car shuffling going on between the units. So up to the board um to to discuss that further, but just wanted to specifically highlight that. Another thing that um we have noted and that the applicant is requesting related to the uh proposed lot 2, new building in the back. You can see the driveway that extends along the south there and and there's a kind of turnaround. That amount of impervious surface and that sort of narrow nature of that that access actually throws them over the 50% impervious threshold. So, they're seeking a special permit to exceed that threshold. So, the board may want to consider what the sort of necessity of that turnaround. There's a little bit of an awkward alignment of the driveway and the curb cut. Um, you'll see the driveways kind of off closer to the side lot line. While it does comply with that setback requirement, um the the curb cut that's existing that they're repurposing is actually a little bit more centered. So, um you may wish to ask them to revise that to realign and and consider if they could um reduce that turnaround area. Um ultimately that's the configuration that they're proposing. We don't have any conditions related to that at the moment if that's something you want to see them change. Um with respect to the existing law, they are pretty close to the threshold for impervious. So we have a

condition that they demonstrate compliance because we don't have that labeled on the plan now. We we think that it's going to be close. It's possible they need to you lose a few square feet of impervious. They're not changing anything with respect to that existing driveway on the north, but because of the new lot line, it's creating this new nonconformity potentially, right? So, if they don't meet that threshold, it would be a new non-conformity that would need to be cured. So, just clarifying. So, right now, we have it conditioned that they just demonstrate that they comply um with that, but if the applicant has any concerns that they won't be able to do that, just want to have them um be able to raise that. Now, um if the board wanted to entertain that, um in terms of other comments that we had for the case, um I think I've covered the big ones. There are a few questions about trees and fencing that we've essentially conditioned, but the applicant may want to address. There's a a large tree um in the front of 32 Clifton. We were just wanting to confirm that that's going to remain, and if not, uh that a new tree be planted. been in its place. And then similarly, there's just some fencing that seems to block most of the windows and we're recommending that that be eliminated. Um, and then another fence that we just had a question about circulation on. I'm not sure if the applicant was able to review the staff comments uh that were issued last week and if they had any any feedback on that. Otherwise, we we do have the items that we feel important there conditioned. Um and um the final note would just be that they are proposing some storm water management but haven't provided any evidence of um soil test pits. We don't know definitively that this will require site plan approval. We think it's possible that it may not. Um and with that in mind if the the board wants to see that that might be something that you ask the applicant to add as a condition and um the property is located within walking distance of transit. It's over by Clark University um in a managed growth area in the long range plan. Again, happy to answer

questions. Thanks. Uh if the applicant is can answer some of those questions. So, I'll take them one by one. Um it for the sort of existing building currently, there's a concern that you're going to kick into the threshold by having too much impervious and not enough like grass and things that can sort of take in water. Um, so you're going to need either going to need to provide proof or think about are there places that you can add a few square feet of landscaping or something. Um, do you have do you have like some ideas about that? Do you have proof that you're not kicking over into the 50%? Um, because you basically you've sort of created a problem. So you have to make sure you're not

So currently on the right side of the building, it's completely tied. That's the way it's existing. Right now we're even providing more green space to the right side of the building to to mitigate the problem of the runoff or any storm water that will run over. Uh the tunnel the turnar around we could reduce that little bit to add some green space to that. And speaking of that as well the existing tree that that existing tree is already there it's been planted by this city and it's been there for years. We're not moving that. The rest has crops and just like little flowers. That's all we have over there.

Great. That's pretty clear. I think that's fine. Um Okay. Is anybody uh here for um now I've lost the number. Um for um 32 and 32A Clifton Street so as not to make the person paranoid that we're taking down their house. Okay. Okay. Is anybody online press um star raise your hand function or press star 9? Okay, I'll move forward in the meantime. Um so the first is um do you request the waiverss uh things as um stated on page two of 10? Yes.

Okay, great. Um so I have a couple of things for this uh property. I think generally um I'm sad that the building is uh the beautiful building's coming down, but it definitely does not look sound. Um I have questions about uh the you're planning to put fencing I think all the way around the back. Is that necessary? I guess that's my first thing is like do you need that fencing? Oh, around the back. So it's just we don't really need fencing because literally that's one of our but

yeah, I would suggest not having fencing there. If if I were going to make a suggestion, although I can't design it for you, but that would just in terms of the neighbors, I'd like to if we can just have the building, I think that'd be better. Um I think I'm I'm happy to keep um I think I'm I'm not I'm not interest um I don't think you need to change the current driveway on um on 32 that's already there. I don't think you need to change it for the curb cut. I think it's fine to be a little bit wide. people will figure it out and I wouldn't want to do more work than you need to. But I do think the city's suggestion that you indicate that there's parking available if possible there to alleviate some of the parking request. I I think that's a good suggestion from the city. So I would suggest it um just so that because there is plenty of space. I mean it's a big area over there. So I wouldn't change the driveway. I'm not I don't think we should ask you to. Um that's my opinion though the board can disagree. Um, but I think indicating that somebody could park there and use some of that space would be helpful for you um for the for the for the um it uh the it looks beautiful. The changes updates I think the new building is what's going in there looks actually really nice. Um we normally get really boring block boxy things and this actually looks pretty good. Um and I think the two garages is actually really thoughtful to try to get in as much parking as possible in such a short space. So I'm ready to move this forward. I think um it is a lot of ask from us but I think considering the ask is to keep things basically the way they are but update them is something I'm willing to consider um in this and I think it's going to be taking something that currently people can't live in and put something that's nice that people could live in into a space. So I think it's reviving a pro you know sort of a space that's already there. So in term because it's not it's minimal change in terms of what actually people will experience. there's a building there, there will be a building there. But turning one from not livable into

livable. Um I'm amendable to moving forward with um what's there. Um and sort of I think there I think the applicant is making some really thoughtful ways to try to get as much parking on the space as possible and and to try to do as much as nice as possible. And again, I think this is a really nice this looks like this going to be a really nice building or upgrade. So I'm ready to move forward um with the changes as stated. Um and oh, I remember the last one. Um the city's so to be clear the city is um saying that they're you're you're talking about infiltrating water which is a higher standard that may actually you might not need for this property um but is great if you were going to infiltrate that would be perfect both for the plate for the um for the um building that you're doing but are but you don't know for sure that the soil can take the sort of infiltrating you're talking about. So I don't know if you've done testing or if we should amend our sort of recommendations accordingly. Oh, can I answer that? So, we've we've not done testing on it, but we have our structural engineer which is vast experience in most of the building around the area. I think even half of the what we're presenting today and the other applicants. So by his experience, he just recommend that it's so close to the city to the city uh drain that we even have a drainage run off on the street which we're going to slope like uh most of our driveway is just going to go right to the city drain but we're still providing that as a backup as well.

Okay. So Michelle, I think we would want to sorry, we would want to change I think our So it sounds like they are planning to infiltrate if they can, but if they can't, they're just going to do a runoff, which makes sense. It's a house. So um so I think we should just amend the things to say if applicable with the test pits. We'd like to see them um do storm water and if not um something to that's sort of um breaking up if like basically I think they should have to collect it in storm drains and make sure that they're breaking it up before it gets to the to the um to the street and make sure it runs towards the street and not obviously into people's property. So that would be my suggestion for changes to get at that. Um other than that, I'm ready to move forward. Uh board member Brahmoff.

Um through the chair, I don't have any uh anything to add to this. You covered it well and we think it makes sense. Board member Cortez. Uh through the chair. Um, I think that this is a uh uh an improvement uh to the neighborhood um by actually the way the way it is now. So uh I'm for uh the project the way it is the way it's presented. Uh uh there is a question regarding submitting uh u man a construction management plan uh and and that's uh as long as you have provide provided that uh that would be fine with me. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. Uh board member Bart Hagen

uh through the chair. Um so about the the left side driveway area there is is has we come to any resolution about whether the applicant is willing to designate perhaps another parking spot in that area or not? So, so uh previously we provided like a three park three or four parking lot by the staff recommendation I think they feel like there is not really space to have that and we go with their recommendation by providing so because in front of the garage we kind of like if we have two tenants staying on it's two family building and we think if we have tenants parking uh in the garage they can have their second car in front of the garage. That's what we proposed before, but when we review it with the staff, I think because of the space, they just want us to get rid of that. And

they could do people could do it. What's going to happen? They're just requesting relief of this. There's no other parking space. Yeah. Yeah. Through the chair. I think I'm I'm not sure there may have I may not be pervaded the prior conversation, but I think it in in this case on the southern driveway, it makes sense to show an additional surface parking space. Okay. I mean, I I think we're we're talking about two different park sides though, right? Like I think on the one side to the um to the right. So, so there is what they're thinking is talking about and you're saying as well, you're also saying, "Oh, okay, great.

We got that thing." Yeah, I mean that's what's going to happen [laughter] in reality. That's what's going to happen. I mean that's what people are just going to stack each other's cars. So So that would just reduce the request for the variance. We would add a condition to say reflect one additional surface parking space on the southern driveway on um lot two and that would reduce the parking variance to one space for that lot.

I'm everyone's a meable that's fine. And if I can capture what I believe the chair wants in terms of an additional condition related to storm water. So we would say that infiltration shall be provided provided that test pit data um is provided demonstrating compliance with appropriate groundwater offsets and um soil composition in compliance with the Massachusetts storm water standards. Basically if they can't do that then they don't have to infiltrate. Exactly. Okay.

Okay. Um, otherwise it is a little awkward. It's unusual. I don't think anything's seen like this before. But on the other hand, that these lots are awkward, uh, the way they've been constructed. And unless something like this is approved, I'm not sure what else could be done with that. And I think so, I think even though there's a lot of relief requested, and normally when there's this many variances and special vermits that are here, I I tend to wonder. Uh but I I I think in this case it's an unusual situation and I think uh this is worthwhile moving forward. So yeah, board [snorts] member. I do think this is great use of the land. Um ready to move forward. Okay. In that case, I'll take a motion to close.

Before the motion to close, I just want to clarify on the actual relief requested uh on lot two. We're moving we're going from two parking spaces from the four to one parking space from the four. And I heard uh you mentioned some variance differences. There might be some discrepancies. Is that anything I need to worry about when I'm reading this in or

through the chair? We'll just make note for the record that the variance for 32 Clifton Street the 12.2 ft is in reference specifically to the bulkhead. There's a 7 foot amount of relief requested for the main structure. And then for the variance for lot 2 or 32A Clifton Street um relative to the sideyard setback that the 6.93 ft is relative to the north yard and 6.9 6.19 ft is the setback um amount of relief requested for the southern side yard. Okay. Thank you. Uh I'd like to make a motion to close on 32 Clifton Street. Uh 32 and 32A Clifton Street. Is there a second? Second

on the on the motion. Board member Abramoff, my vote is yes. Board member Cortez, yes. Board member Barnhagen, yes. Board member Sacko, yes.

My votes yes. Is there a motion on 32 and 32A Clifton Street? I'd like to make a motion on 32 Clifton Street, lot one and two, also known as 30 Clifton Street, for relief requested for 32 Clifton Street. A relief of 2,478 square ft from the 7,000 ft minimum lot air requirement for a three family detached dwelling in an RG5 zone. Variance for relief of 2.5 ft from the 8t minimum sideyard setback requirement for a three family detached dwelling in an RG5 zone. Variance for relief of 12.2 2 ft to the bulkhead and 7 ft to the main structure from the 15t minimum rear guard setback requirement for a three family detached dwelling in an RG5 zone and variance for relief of two parking spaces from the six parking space minimum off- streetet parking requirements for a three family detached dwelling in an RG5 zone for lot two formerly known as 30 Clifton Street proposed two family variance for relief of 1,334 square ft from the 6,000 ft minimum lot area requirement for a two family detached dwelling in an RG5 zone. Variance for relief of 23.77 ft from the 55 ft minimum frontage requirement for a two family detached dwelling in an RG5 zone. Variance of relief for 12.84 ft from the 15t minimum rear yard setback requirement for a two family detached dwelling in RG5 zone. variance for relief of 6.93 feet from the north sideyard setback and 6.19 feet from the southern sideyard setback requirement for a two family detached dwelling in an RG5 zone. variance for relief of one parking space from the four parking space minimum off- streetet parking requirements for a two family detached dwelling in an RG5 zone and a special permit to modify the parking dimensional layout andor landscape requirements, loading requirements and/or the number of acquired parking spaces with the

staff recommendations and conditions um contained on pages five to six of the staff memo as amended and modified by staff and the board and the waiverss as requested by the applicant. [laughter] Very wow. Is there a second? Second on the motion. Board member Abramov. My vote is yes. Board member Cortez. Yes. Board member Barnhagen. Yes. Board member Sacko. Yes. My votes yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Bye.

All right. Seems that everyone's here for the last one. 56 Pleasant Street. If the applicant could please come forward. Um, good evening members of the board. Um, my name is Donald O'Neal. I'm a lawyer here in Worcester. Here this evening on behalf of 56 Pleasant Street LLC. Um, in connection with this variance request for the property at 56 uh, Pleasant Street. Um I believe online um the architect Frank Quatella uh or somebody from his office is monitoring the meeting and also Florencia Mudarelli who is uh from uh property manager from a development manager from Radson Development which would be developing um this location. Um and um in a nutshell, what we're looking for is 3.05 ft of relief from the front yard setback. Um this property is zone BG6, uh which is the highest intensity zoning in the city. Um and it's also in the commercial corridors overlay district as and the provision by inclusion uh in the commercial cars overlay district. Um there is a provision which provides that uh typically provides that for no um residential dwellings on the first floor. Um and in the case where you have commercial and and we're not proposing anything on the first floor. So um there's no issue there. Um the other provision provides that if the sidewalk is 8 ft or greater there is no minimum setback requirement. Um what we have in this situation is between the sidewalk

is between six and seven feet actually closer to seven. [snorts] So it's quite close to the eight. Uh and in effect what we're looking to do is to set the building back um 1.95 ft um from the edge the back of the sidewalk basically uh which would give you the equivalent of an 8ft sidewalk eight between 8 and 9 ft basically. It it it varies um depending upon the exact location, but that would give you the functional equivalent of um what would be allowed by right under the ordinance. Um, one of the conditions in the staff memo uh provides that uh if that relief were granted uh there would be an easement granted um to the city uh to allow for the maintenance of that sidewalk um in effect you'd have an 8ft sidewalk at that point. Um we do have a number of slides that um show the proposed structure. Uh it's um basically 19 stories. Um the unit count is actually 225, not 125. That that was a a typo. Uh but the building is it's the building height hasn't changed or anything of that nature. Um there is a requirement uh that this be reviewed um by the planning board as part of the site plan review process. Um and we were anticipating originally that that would be where the um primary review would take place in terms of the nuts and bolts of the assembly of

the building and the uh construction management that type of thing. Um and in going through in preparation for that um process, we did identify um this issue with the front yard setback. Um the lot is um bounded, you know, um basically by um streets in the front and the side. And there's a an easement uh street basically between this property um and the uh adjacent parking garage. Um so there there is a um need basically to maximize as much space as we can on the lot. Um the proposal would provide for a modular construction uh which is uh would be novel basically uh for the city of Worcester I think. Um but that does um present certain constraints in terms of um the ability to um adjust for the size of the lot. For example, a a 5- foot setback would actually have a multiple effect all the way up to the top of the building uh and would represent um significant square footage which would reduce or could reduce the number of units that would be created. Uh and if that were to were to happen, the al alternative to that is to go higher. Um if if the goal is to, you know, have a certain number of units, um we're looking to keep the building basically at the proposed height, it's um

pretty consistent with what I always can think of as a Shamut building, but uh not sure what the name of it is now. Um but uh it's of similar height. Um part of the provision in in the uh site plan review process uh and the design recommendations from the city uh do provide uh for um an alignment uh of the buildings where possible. uh so that the view uh is not um is consistent in terms of somebody looking down the street uh isn't looking at one building extending out further or back from the other building. So that in this case if you were to push the building back uh 5T on Pleasant Street, all you would do is see more of the parking garage, which is um not the best view. Um no parking garages really are. Um but we're not looking for any other kind of relief um in terms of the building height, number of units, parking, anything of that nature. It's all just focused on this uh 3.05 ft. And staff did pick up uh in the memo that there was a um architect had specified 1 1.95. Uh there was a plan from the surveyor that had it at 2 feet. Um and we can rectify that. It is actually uh 1.95. Um and for people who are wondering as I was, that's a difference of a half an inch. Um so it's effectively the same. And there's no building the AR the surveyor is not taking the dimension off an existing building. So, it's just a plan um situation that would be corrected and one of the conditions

uh indicated in the staff memo is that you know a plan be filed to make them consistent even though again it's a half an inch in terms of the two uh distances that are noted. Um the number of um there's not an exact uh breakdown yet in terms of how many uh what the breakup of the apartments would be but u preliminary indications are that we'd be looking at um about 12% would be studio which translates into 27 uh units. 52% would be onebedroom which is about 117. 30% would be twobedroom which is about 67 and 7% would be threebedroom which is around 16. That that gets you to the 225 [snorts] and that and that's not um definite at this point. All of that will uh still uh be resolved as as part of the process going finishing the plans and also going through the site plan review process. Um the staff memo does uh on page four contain uh four provisions um including number one which has a number of subp parts suggested conditions of approval. Um I've gone through those. I have no objection to those and also uh identifies two waiverss that would be required and I would request those waivers. Um I do have as I say the architect online so that if um there are specific questions um that you might have uh relating to that um I I can try and answer them myself or if I can't

then then he could certainly jump in. And also in a similar fashion if you have any questions for the um the developer uh of the project um I think there's um there were a couple of other provisions in the uh staff memo um having to do uh with some of the uh question several questions in terms of the landscaping things of that nature and I think the architect could properly answer those Uh and the only thing I would would point out is we're happy to answer all of those. But um all of this would be dealt with in considerable depth depth uh by by the planning board that process which has not started yet. Uh and actually uh we need to get uh past this um situation before we actually file with the planning board.

Okay. through the chair. We do have the applicants architect online who had raised their hand so we've unmuted them. I don't know if they had anything they wanted to add. Just I'm here. Hello everyone. Good evening. Frank Quartella, architect. Um I'm here for um answering any questions if anybody does have them. Otherwise, I'll just uh wait to hear some comments or if Dan has other things to say about the project. I'm I'm here to support. Thank you. Just name I mean, sorry, your city or county residence. Okay. I'm my Frank Quartella. Um, my office is located at uh Flushing, New York.

Okay. Thank you. Um, city staff

through the chair, Michelle Smith again in city's planning division. Um, in front of you this evening, a request for relief of 3.05 ft from the minimum 5yard front yard setback that you heard attorney O'Neal describe, which I will reiterate in a moment. Um we are in the BG6 and CCOD U as well as a sign overlay district and the downtown core here. Um the BG6 and CCOD pair is our MBTA community compliant district. So basically our densest district um with very few limitations and dimensional controls. We have no lot area, frontage side, exterior side, height, floor area ratio in a context like this. Um, so really the only setback that we have here is the front yard and that is specific in this case because of the deficient width of the existing sidewalk along Pleasant Street, which is the front for purposes of the project. So, uh, essentially if the applicant had an 8ft sidewalk along the the frontage there, we wouldn't be talking about this. But right now, that sidewalk varies from 6 to 7ish feet. Um, just under seven feet along with the majority of the width of of this property. So, just in terms of contextualizing the relief and and what it is that you're considering, yes, um this is a proposal for a 19story high-rise multif family dwelling with ground flooror commercial. So, it is a mixeduse building. Um there's about just shy of 3,000 ft of commercial in two different spaces on the ground floor. Um and as was noted, the application incorrectly references 125 units that was carried forward on the agenda and with the notice. Um but the applicant corrected today that they are actually proposing 225 units. Um which makes more sense based on the information provided. Um so the applicants indicated they they wanted to proceed um this evening despite despite that that error. Um in terms of the unit breakdown, you heard that that's kind of to be determined, but it does include a mix at this point of studio 1 2 and 3es. Um there's a substantially sized bike

room on the ground floor kind of tucked into the hill um kind of closest to the former High Street um and Aldri Aldrich Street. You can see on the the right hand side of the plan there um that had provided I believe a 1:1 ratio of bike parking spaces to units um but that was at a lower uh unit count. So, I'm not I'm not certain maybe um when the applicants um or architect comments they could just clarify the number of of bike parking spaces because we had just written down the ratio. Um so, if you're curious on that um they could clarify that. But the construction type is proposed as modular. So, there's some design challenges as you might imagine with respect to the modular components. Um and the applicant has been working um to try to progress the architectural design to respect the urban design guidelines that we have for this area. they're not codified um from a regulatory standpoint. Um but we do heavily lean on those in terms of design for continuity in the area. Um so we think that they've done um a pretty good job of trying to address um the comments that we've had to date with respect to those. Um in terms of uh the the CCOD and the BG6, as I mentioned, you know, there's there's really limited um dimensional controls here. Um but in terms of um what is requested we have a 1.95 foot setback that is um sort of meaningfully being provided right so just shy of 2 feet so that existing sidewalk like I mentioned is just uh shy of 7 feet so we are asking them um were the board to consider granting the relief we are asking them to give the city an easement to functionally make that sidewalk greater than 8 ft which would be again a circumstance where typically you wouldn't be seeing relief so sort to try to address that concern. We're asking for that that easement which it sounds like the applicant is agreeable to. Um practically speaking beyond that and I don't know if we have this um shown one of our our comments is to sort of reconcile this across the different plans because there are some discrepancies u between whether it's the architectural elevation or the floor

plan or the civil plan. Um making sure that they all all drive. Um there is a uh an al cove that you can kind of see on the elevation here on the ground floor along Pleasant Street that's being created by sort of a recess of the ground floor. Um so while there's practically a smaller setback to kind of the larger building envelope, that ground floor elevation, they're tucking back a bit further to allow for the ingress and eress into that which is a commercial storefront um to be pulled away. And so that kind of distance varies, but at the greatest point on their property, it provides about an eight foot setback. Um that's in addition to the sidewalk along the street. And so that's that's one of the locations where there's a the entrance to the commercial space that's proposed. Um we're not clear if there's one or two entrances to the commercial space along that elevation. That is something we were hoping the applicant could clarify depending on which plan you look at. So the plan here, you can see that there are two different entrances shown. We wanted to to confirm because other plans show that just as as one entrance. Um there is a little bit of grade change as you go down Pleasant Street. So not sure if if that's feasible. So hoping that the applicant can clarify. And the reason I highlight that um is because the the egress that's closest to Chestnut and Pleasant at that intersection were the door to need to swing out, you would be swinging the door out into the sidewalk. And that's a relatively narrow path of travel for this kind of density and and important corner. So we just want to contextualize that right now. Now they're showing the door is in swing, but if that's some sort of egress, it may need to be an outswing door from a building code perspective. Not sure of the requirements on that and would ask the architect to clarify that they they're confident that that could be in swing if it is a door that's proposed. Um and it or or if it can't be in swing being some sort of sliding door. Um so I think that that's one thing that the board might wish to consider as you're discussing kind of the the relief along this elevation. Um, but practically in addition to that that one foot, you kind of see that yellow area which is really

kind of functionally what could be hardscaped. Um, it's not clear what is proposed to be hardcaped versus landscaped. If you look at the renderings, there's some landscaping in that location. So, we are asking the applicant as a as a listed condition, but also here tonight to clarify what is proposed to be hardscaped or landscaped in that area. again if if if that is something that would help the board um consider its decision this evening. [snorts] Um the applicant has provided a shadow study both for what they are proposing as well as what a buy condition would look like. So that was provided within the materials submitted to the board for consideration. The board might want to consider that as part of making the decision. Um the CCOD typically requires a step back for buildings that are over 100 ft in height. um making use of kind of design treatments and others to to break up the massing of the building, but also to help minimize um shadowing. So um that's just that's kind of a standard that um is codified in the the regulations. [snorts] Um in terms of other comments, wanted to make sure I just hit everything here. There are a lot of comments that we had that we are sort of raising now for the applicant since we think they may have a material impact on the um site plan submission. in the event there was a question for the board or um any member of the public interested in the project to to be able to have the applicant tease that out. But we'd be looking for a transportation demand management plan, construction management plan, all of that as part of the site plan where we'd look at the proposed staging for the modular units as well as how they're they're going to manage even though there's no parking and loading required, how they're practically going to do that and how they're going to manage that um from a market perspective because obviously there's a need and demand for that. Um but that would be something that we are asking for as part of the site plan review. Um similarly some questions about that access easement and alleyway. Um kind of using access and the the former rights of ways and and clarifying how that that all will work. Um but again that's that's really more for site plan, but just highlighting

some of those notes here again for the applicant. Um in the in the event that that gets raised as part of public comment or board comment this evening. Um the conditions you'll see there's not a ton of them listed. Um but one of them does include some um softening of the southern elevation I'll say where we have requested that's 1H um that they add additional glazing into that elevation. So if we look that's kind of the rear if you will. Um so it's the elevation that we'll see hopefully in a moment here. There you go. So you can see it's that kind of darker elevation on the left. So, we're asking for some additional glazing um in that kind of rear elevation to help improve the um alignment with the urban design guidelines. So, right now um kind of doubling up on the amount of windows um to provide a greater compliance with that that standard. [snorts] Um that I think is the the main architectural comment. Otherwise, you'll see a note about rooftop mechanicals being screened and set back. It's typically something we would provide at site plan. just given um the the potential relief, we thought it appropriate to include it here. And um I think that is it as far as the the technical comments go. Um ultimately, this area is located in the downtown core. You all may have walked or parked by it uh this evening on the way here to city hall because we're just a block away. Um this is in kind of the the culmination of our transformative um and our infill and our managed growth areas and now next sort of a transitional area out of the downtown core into kind of the Pleasant Street corridor. Um so that it it's not kind of nicely falling into one particular category, but it's a highly walkable, easily accessible to public transit um location in the city. Um, and I'm happy to answer any questions, but as stated, a definitive site plan review will be needed and we will um, review the application um, at that point for things like storm water management, um, grading, etc. Lighting, none of which we have information for

that's been provided at by the applicant at this time. Thanks. All right. Uh, there's a lot of people here, so just um, come forward, state your name and city or town of residence. And while folks are coming forward, just to clarify for the board, too, we did receive a letter um that was included. Just want to clarify from Synergy. Oh, Synergy. Great. Look forward to seeing that. Um Kevin Cassen, uh I worked for the Carpenters Union. Uh but for many years of my life, I worked for Worcester Common Ground, which is the community development corporation. Um with which within which area this project would be. Uh when I first heard this project, are you a resident of Worcester?

I'm and I'm a resident of Worcester, too. Thank you. Currently,

uh when I first heard of this project, it caught my attention right away because I'm very intimately aware of that neighborhood. My my job at Worester Common Ground was to work with businesses and residents up and down Pleasant Street and Chandler Street. So, I know that intersection really well. Um, I think it's fair to say that that corner, that whole area is probably the most concrete and and asphalt area of our city. Like, it's really hard to think of small trees in that neighborhood. There just aren't. It's parking lots and asphalt. Um, so I was very, very disappointed not to hear trees and landscaping come up at all in terms of part of this uh presentation. That was very troubling. Um, I looked at the packet that went out and I looked at the notification for this meeting. Uh, and I was I I recognized it followed the the guidelines, but I recognized from looking at the the circle the oval that it manages to miss all the kind of residents that live in that neighborhood. So, by just the nature of the the the size of that circle, we're hitting business parking lot parking lot parking lot. All the owners of the parking lots got notifications about this meeting tonight, but residents that live there do not. Uh, and so I'm very concerned that residents know nothing about this. So, I got on the phone. I started sending emails. We talked about at the Carpenters Union um just about the meeting tonight to try to get word out. So, but at that point, I was telling everybody this was a huge project with 125 units. Um, so I'm just kind of I'm just kind of knocked over a little bit to know it's twice as big as what I told everybody when I was making all these phone calls and sending all the all these emails over the weekend. So, um, I don't think neighborhood residents have any idea what's happening. None of the ones I talked to know. Uh, and then to hear, like I said, it's twice as big as what has been published everywhere is just concerning

and troubling. Um, the last part is I just want to flag for folks that Mayor Petty in his inaugural speech announced that he's planning on wanting to work to get the Fanning Building changed over into Channel Elementary School and moved over there. So, we have a lot happening. That's half a block away from this where we're going to need to putting in a new school, parking lot, buses, and if the this is twice as large as it's going to be, uh, we're just not ready for that as a as a neighborhood. Um, I I'll I'll wrap up by saying as part of my work at Common Ground, uh, myself and and Mary Keefe here, we were the ones that lobbyed the city and the to expand the development zone. So, origin development zone that allowed for the ballpark and everything left out this whole section of Pleasant Street and we were part of the community group that wanted to see this lot developed and wanted to see improvements um and asked for it to be included in the district. Um, so we're prodevelopment, but there's real concerns here with residents being left out of the conversation. So, I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you. If anybody else would like to come forward, just come forward, state your name and city or town of residence.

Uh my name is Frank Gomez. I'm a Wister resident. I actually own two homes in the city of Wester. I'm proud to be a a resident here. Um I'm also a business rep for the Carpenters Union and I got a statement to make. Um the Carpenters Union is excited to see Wester skyline to continue to grow and we support any responsible development in the city. We welcome more high-rise buildings and we recognize that projects like this represent important investment in Worcester. With that said, it's been a long time since the city has undertaken a project of this scale and with that comes responsibility. We want to ensure that the process deliberate and that all impacts are fully considered. This includes the building's design, landscaping, the amount of green space on site, and the overall impact on the surrounding communities. With that in mind, we respectfully request that a community meeting be held so residents, stakeholders, and the city official has the opportunity to further discuss this project and address any concern in a transparent and collaborative way. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Mhm.

Um through through me through the uh to the applicant. Um [clears throat] that's actually one of the things I know I noticed and I had a question about it. Looked like the building sort of like comes up to the um it's there's it's all dirt, but things but it seems like there's stuff in the back. What's happening in the back of the building? Um in terms of like that area sort of um Yeah. So it sort of like stops. That makes sense. You're going to hit the street. Um is there plans for sort of landscaping in the back? If so, um, yeah, I'm just sort of curious. I mean, it's not it's three feet in the front. It's not, but you know, we always want to know sort of are there are there plants? Are there trees? Are you considering sort of what to do to sort of [snorts] as much possible green in the space? Um we we have um looked at and discussed with planning staff various um areas um for uh landscaping. Um and [snorts] part of that also includes um some of the changes that were made to the plans in in terms of the um um second level that were proposing a lot of some of the greenery would actually be um included in the building. Um he they're correct in that this is a um basically it's it's a paved site. I mean up up until like two years ago it was a rundown parking garage um that was occupied the site. Um so there is um some constraints in terms of the the area that you can make available for landscaping. Um we've part of the process and going through the planning

board would entail um like a a landscape plan. Uh and I'm sure if there are areas that such as the rear of the building or things of that nature uh where uh we would have the ability to do plantings um that we would and I would think that that would be something which the planning board would also um [snorts] require as part of the site plan review process. So, I can't say specifically what that would be, but um [snorts] and I again um we're kind of early in the process um trying to figure out um exactly what the footprint of the building would be. Um and but we have looked at that and there has been some back and forth with staff. Um in terms of the uh other thing that I should have mentioned is that the um applicant is uh been in contact with Mass Housing uh to consider financing. Um so um and [snorts] apparently um it's my understanding that um they haven't really financed anything for more than like a 100 units. So, um not clear what if they would provide financing uh but certainly if they were um the applicant is very open to that in hopes in fact that they do. So it's very likely that um you know there would be the inclusionary zoning component here in terms of affordable units and it's actually more likely if if something is arranged with the mass housing that it would be a substantially higher number than that I mean and [snorts] and if they were to finance the entire project then I I I think that means the entire

project would be [snorts] um so it could be uh or even if it's half that then it's you it's like 100 units which is um would be quite a boost I think for the city in terms of trying to u increase um affordable housing within the city and you know we are picking up um a few with each projects but certainly nothing um you know of that u magnitude um at least that I'm aware of has um taken place at. So that that's another and again part of that is um I can't really say for sure because it's it's still in the process but but there have been discussions and that's uh the intent. Um but we're um open to providing uh additional landscaping where possible. Uh some of that would also maybe be in container plantings, things of that nature. Um, and some of the other renderings I think that we have do do show uh some landscape elements. U maybe a little bit I'm not sure. I mean it it's a large building so it's hard to see but they they do have provided

um some landscaping. Um and um I would say that uh there will certainly be more landscaping uh than previously existed on this lot. Uh and it is a more uh downtown uh developed area. Um I mean I don't think really you could plant trees on Pleasant Street sidewalk. Um, let me get this. It's It's mostly a site plan issue. Um, but I wanted to ask the question since other folks ask it. I'm going to ask also another question about

I was going to say through the chair. I have Florencia from the development team who has her hand raised. Just whenever you want to have her speak, let me know. Okay. About this, um, I guess I'd say I'll I'll leave it up to the board if there's if we need more. I sort of feel like the point was belabored. I think more like if um it's it's a site plan review. It's mostly we do ask it normally, right? We haven't people sort of come and give us what they're planning. I understand it's early in the process. I think

for our purposes um I want to make sure we listen to more folks and I'll sort of give my more thoughts on it, but um just to put in a pin in it, I think like the things that I'm thinking about are normally we have some of those things. Normally there's a been a meeting with with a public meeting with folks, right? We're like we asked that for a single family. We've asked people to meet with their neighbors. So, those are some of the things that I'm thinking about before I get my formal comments, but I want to make sure we get to the people. Um, so please just state your name in in city or town residents.

My name is Fiona Jatan Singh. I'm a resident of Worcester. Um, I'm not only a resident, I was a former candidate for school committee. I'm also a mom. I'm also a realtor. Um, I do appreciate development in the city and I appreciate that they're taking a a unused lot and making a building, but like you just mentioned, there needs to be more community input. a a 225 unit building potentially could house a thousand people. If a thousand people are going to be living this close downtown, we need to think a lot more about how it's going to impact all of downtown. Right now, we have buses, yes, but they don't always run on time or efficiently. So, that might be 500 cars. Like, where are they going to park all those cars? Yes, there's some bike parking, but um because most people can't effectively get where they want to go using our city buses, most people have to have a car to get around in Worcester. Um yes, it may be walkable to some stores downtown, but there's not even a grocery store like within a mile of there, unless you go all the way down to Compare Foods. Um also, the schools are already overcrowded. Like, which school is going to take the burden of all of the kids that are going to be there? Probably out of a thousand might be 500 kids there, right? So, we have to think about how this is going to impact not just that block where it is, but the whole downtown area. And we need to have more community input. I only found out about this a few hours ago because I saw a flyer on Substack about a protest happening at city hall uh from the carpenters union about tiffs being given out to these big corporations that are doing all this building and and them getting money, but you know, a lot of other builders not having or other small business owners not having as much tax breaks. So anyway, I only just recently found out about this and the paper like he just clarified says 125 units, but only those that are in the room right now or online are hearing that it's 225 units, which means it's exponentially bigger than what we actually thought it was. And there's no community input except for this one meeting right now.

So I feel like we need to have a bigger conversation about this because it's going to impact way more than just that that property. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, if anybody else would like to come forward, just state your name and city and town of residence. Um, and just as a reminder to put any comments towards me, please. Uh, Addison Kahali, uh, Worcester. Um, I'm here to talk about the historic lower Pleasant Street District, which is right across from this building. Uh, so we're just trying to make sure there's no, um, adverse effects from this building. Uh me and my family, we own uh 17 Pleasant Street, which is the old Olympia Theater. It's a historic theater in a historic district. And again, like we're just trying to make sure there's nothing um adverse from this building. Uh we do support it. We appreciate developing the downtown area. Um, so I just have two quick things um that I would request is I did see the shadow study online um but were interested in like the 6 p.m. hour and the sunset like evening hours cuz I believe online it only showed up until like 3 p.m. And then we're also requesting a a wind a wind study um because if any of you have been down on a lower Pleasant Street, uh it's extremely windy. Um and we want to make sure there's no damage to buildings, signage, um I know I've had awnings like rip off the building in the past. Um and that's it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Just state your name and city, town of residence, please. Absolutely. My name is Patrick Kelly. I'm an Worcester native. Um, pardon me. I have something written. No, it's okay. Take your time.

Uh, thank you, chair, for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight. Uh we're here tonight because a proposal for a 19story building in our densely populated city raises serious uh environmental and community concerns. All right. And they deserve far greater public attention than what they've received regardless of where anyone stands on uh urban development. you know, we uh we deserve the community deserves the opportunity to to have a say in something of this magnitude. You know, um we can all agree that projects of this scale should never move forward without full awareness and transparency and meaningful input from the people who live here. You know, a building of this height will have long- lasting environmental effects. While high-rise development can reduce urban sprawl, support public transportation, and those potential benefits do not automatically outweigh the cost, large amounts of concrete and steel create significant carbon emissions before the building is even occupied. All right. Um, carbon before the building's occupied, the structure of this size can alter sunlight, wind pattern, neighborhood temperatures affecting both residents and nearby green spaces. Construction itself brings years of noise pollution disruption to daily life and not to mention in the city an issue that we've been having traffic. All right, we've all driven through it at 5:00. What's most concerning is not just the environmental impact, but the lack of clear communication with the community. Many residents are still unaware of the scope of this proposal and how it may affect their neighborhood or their commercial neighborhood for the business owners here or what alternatives may exist. You know, decisions of this magnitude

should not be made quietly behind closed doors or without without definite public discussion. My position is simple. Before any further steps are taken, the community must be fully informed and fully involved. Residents deserve access to clear environmental data, realistic impact assessments, and opportunities to ask questions and express their concerns of something like this. Awareness is not an obstacle to progress. It's a requirement for responsible planning. For that reason, I'm calling for a dedicated meeting with the city residents to openly discuss this proposal. This meeting should allow for transparent dialogue about the environmental risks, design, alternatives, and whether this project truly aligns with the long-term well-being of our city and its residents. We're not here to oppose growth for the sake of opposition. I'm here to insist that growth be thoughtful, sustainable, and shaped by the voices of the people who will live with the consequences of this every single day. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. [applause] Just state your name and city or town of residents, please.

Hi everybody. I'm Mary Keefe and I'm the state representative for this district, the 15th Worcester and I live on Oxford Street, which is probably two blocks from this development. And um on hearing about the finding out about the hearing today, I started making some phone calls to neighbors just to find out if they knew about this um you know, proposed development. And I have to say for Crown Hill, it's a historic district and it's mostly made up of um homes that were built in the mid 1800s. But part of our um identity is um being a very livable community that's so connected to downtown Worcester and we're really proud of that. Um and we benefit from that. Um so um we also realized the the uh impact of urban renewal and on our part of the city and this particular area we lost a lot of housing, a lot of institution and you can tell just by looking around and seeing the parking um the large amount of parking lots in the area. Um, I hadn't heard about this development of uh Chandler Elementary possibly moving to Fanning, and that's awesome. That's great. That's more of what we want to see is just who lives in our city, families, um, being public and being able to get around. Um, I have real concern as other people have mentioned about the parking because if you go conservatively imagining each unit and I know you're not required to um uh be bound by this because of being downtown. I don't know what they call that the

district, but um but anyway, if you could imagine 1.5 um parking spaces per unit, we're talking close to 340 cars. Um and without providing parking, um where are they going to be? Uh you know, it's it's a challenge for any business on Pleasant Street. they'll tell you the biggest challenge is getting people to be able to stop and do business there without off- streetet parking. Um so and also uh religious um institutions around that neighborhood when it comes time for worship you can see on our street especially on Sundays like it's jammed. I don't think a um fire truck could really get down. So, um, when I talked to people at Crown Hill, like I said, not many people knew about this. No one knew about it, actually. No one knew about it. And so, I'd like to support this request for more community input and really um having people uh have a chance to say um or ask questions. The other thing is when I look at this building and that particular area, um I have big concerns because of some of the changes that we're anticipating. In fact, taking down the Denhome building which is right behind there, right? So, what does that do for this area? And just putting a building there, it's almost like everything we do from that point forward is going to have to be in reaction to this building. So, why can't we think a little more comprehensively and have like a real vision for what we want to see in this area and that this building fits in if it fits in? Um, but anyway, there's a lot of potential here. I just like to see that we make the most of it. So, thank you. [applause]

Just state your name and city town of residence. And after this um Amy Beth, if we could just if anybody online um people online just raise use your raise your hand function um after the person in um in person here speaks we'll go to you as well. Go ahead.

Hi my name is Joe Delgy. I uh am a resident of Worcester for the last uh 26 27 years. Um, and just hearing about this, uh, scaling up from, you know, 120 to 220, uh, units, and I sounded like I think less than half of the units are really family units that are two family, two-bedroom or threebedroom. Um, I think if we're talking about if we're going to justify building a building of the scale using um I it's synergy I guess I was told um using the model of saying well we're going to get tax credits or we're going to get housing credits so we're going to this is affordable housing. I mean affordable housing should include family housing. And if the majority of this is studios and onebedrooms, we're not talking about making it affordable for families. We're talking about it making it affordable or maybe not so affordable for uh single people and uh couples. Um again, I've been single. I've been a couple and I've been a family. Uh so I really shouldn't have a problem with that except I don't like the justification for it. I also uh I totally support having community involvement in this and having some sort of community meeting. I dislike as a resident the idea that we're asking I mean originally this is coming forward for a foot and you know one foot 11 and 58 worth of uh space but the idea that well we can't you know we need this variance because we can't change our building model because we're using um modular um I've been I'm a member of the cooperatives union I've been in construction since 1986 um I'm used to stick building and and building things that you can you can change on the ly uh or with planning I should say. Uh the idea that somehow we have a business model. This is the suit and we have to make it fit the suit. Um I'm you know I don't think we need that kind of development in Worester. Uh we want people who are responsive to the community and we want um you know we want things built again so someone comes

down that sidewalk again the doors don't fly open and knock them knock them down to the ground. Um most of the people are a lot of people are pedestrians going downtown. um they're parking up on the uh in those parking lots in the parking garage that was torn down on that site, ironically. Um but I, you know, I'd love to see this. I'd like to see a development. I would love to see something that's more responsive. I take um what Mary Keefe, Representative Keefe said. Everything that happens after this is a response to this in some ways. Uh that's the way our neighborhoods work. That's why we have planning departments. That's why we have visions uh for the future. And um I do hope that we do something on that lot. I I just want to make sure that's responsible and that it's built responsibly as well. Um we have a responsible uh employer ordinance and we do have a a responsible development ordinance in the city and we should adhere to that as well. Um guys like this guy on C uh Clifton Street, he should be getting a tiff. That looked great. That's a use of a space, right? A local guy doing something improving the community. This is a money grab, right? This is an out ofstate contractor and an out uh out of state um some guy from Blushings designing this building which God bless him. I'm glad he's doing what he's doing. But again, this is about making money, not about improving the community. So, uh hope you guys all have a great night. Thank you.

Thank you. Um Amy Beth, if people online could raise their hands and go ahead state your name and city and town residence.

Ryan, I'm going to ask you to unmute. I'm uh Ryan Chamberlain with Synergy Investments. Um we own uh uh 36 Pleasant Street, which is the the garage that abuts the the site, as well as 446 Main Street, um which is the building I work in. Uh I'm not a resident of Worcester, but I am uh I do work out of that 446 Main Street. Um as a as a developer um we are certainly very supportive of um continued development in in the city. Um certainly most importantly housing as as we all know it's it's uh such a need not only in the city but for the state. Um but uh we can't support um a development of this size and scale. I think everybody's hit on the major points here um that it it does not seem like the community's been involved. There's been a whole lot of work done on uh what the impact may be. I think a few people mentioned wind. Um our building, the glass tower there. Um we've had issues with with wind currently um impacting our windows there. Um certainly a building of this size and scale I think would continue to impact it. So um it's a it's a project that um we can't support. It encroaches on our garage. We think it'll have a a serious material negative impact on the office building. Um and certainly I think as as everybody else here has said um the most important piece of it all is is the impact on the community and feeling like um you know not much has been done uh to to to have a responsible development here. Um, as I said at the outset, we are we are um in support of of some type of housing on that lot and developing that lot, but uh doing it in a much more responsible way. Thank you.

Thank you. Any Beth? Anyone else?

Frank, the architect, you had had your hand raised. I'm not sure if you had anything else to add. Um, I could just respond to some of these um comments about the planting and some of the green infrastructure that might not be depicted clearly on the rendering, but if if that's not the appropriate time, then we could hold off until planning here.

Um, I I think I'll I'll say that I probably overstepped a little into it. So, if you have something pertinent that's sort of quick, um, that's I think a sort of for for us. Um, I think that would be fine. But I also want to say that I sort of overstepped. I think um there's a certain level of like how much it should be us and how much it should be planning. So um yeah, if you have something quick to say about it, great. But also unless the board feels strongly um I'm I'm happy to let it rest as well.

Okay. Well, and just just for you know a quick response with the the developer does own that uh far triangle piece and there is an intent to plant that and make it green as well as develop a full storm water um retention system for the entire building, the lot, the green roof, the public plaza or any planted area. So we're not just discharging all of the water out onto the public streets in which you know that's what's happening now. Um, so it's pretty much 100% runoff into the into the storm sewer system or the street. So we're going to retain all the storm water on site, manage it, use it to uh water our green spaces both at the roof, at the balconies, in the public plaza. So um that's just just in response to some of those comments.

Okay. We also have, if you'll entertain, Florencia from the developer. Sure. Go ahead.

Yes. I wanted to add um also that the fact that we are I heard everything every comment that we have today. Um the reason of this meeting was just to ask Cavarians to see how we can uh design this building so we can present in planning a better building. But we are really open to any comment and we are more than open to have a board meeting with the neighborhood. Um we really want to hear what everyone has to say. This is um we thought that we were going through the proper routes. Um that's why we have several team meetings before actually getting into the planning. Um so we are all on the same page. But definitely um we would like to have the input from the neighbors um and from the community. So just to add into the green spaces that we are definitely doing in this building, not only vertical but also in horizontal um on the first floor and second floor

and the roof as well. Thank you very much. Um Mr. Chairman, can I please just before I forget? Um yes, please. There's been a couple people have mentioned tiffs with this project. There was no tiff with this project. That's I'm not sure where that comes from, but one person says it and everyone picks up on it and before you know it, um it's all about, you know, requesting a tax break uh for the building and um that's not um there's been no discussion of that and I don't believe there's any plan for anything of that nature.

Thank you for that clarification. Um would anybody else like to come forward uh for 56 Pleasant Street or in online? Okay, we're going to start uh board discussion and um and go from there. Uh so just really quickly for myself, um I'm I'm sort of have like very competing but clear thoughts about this. Um before us is 3 feet from the 5 foot. Um it's a real failure of the city to have something this silly come before us. Like I just can't imagine anything as dumb as a hearing for a 19story building that's 225 for 3T from the 5T. like that is a clear miss from the zoning ordinance. So, I just want to call on our city council to like have some sense of what the heck we're doing here. Like why is this getting kicked to us? Why am I in this meeting right now? This is a sort of silly thing that's happening. Um [snorts] what is being requested of us to consider versus like what is like happening is just flagrantly ridiculous. So, I just want to say that like I'm for moving forward generally this um as like 3 feet is silly. I think there should be development here. Um I'm happy with lots of things with it. But I do think you know the city we required we required somebody we didn't require we asked somebody to have a community meeting when they were building a single family home in a single in a single family community with other single families. Um something this size I think before I'm ready to move it forward. I'd like to know that you met with the community at a community meeting. It's pretty standard at this point that we request that you come before us. We'll say did you meet with the community? Um, you know, it's sort of especially as is currently again another constant complaint I have is that one of the reasons I try to knock on neighbors doors whenever there's a development is that the only people who get notified are homeowners and in fact a lot of the city are renters and so they don't even know what's happening in their community because they'll never get that notification. So something like this

just feels like we should have more input than just me. I have lots I I personally would be fine moving this forward. like 19 stories, 225. That's right for this place. That sounds great. But like that's not that should not be decided by me. That should be decided with some input. Other people are in the community. Other people should have a say. Um certainly I want to be responsive to the fact that um we have a lot of carpenters, a lot of um working folks here. So I want to make sure that there's also thoughts about who's building it, how it's being built. Um but those are all certainly things that I think a community meeting would be helpful to have. So, my request and I'll I'll be interested in what other board members think would be to continue this to allow for time for people to have some more input and have a say. Um, but that I'm in general favor of moving forward something that asks for 3 ft from the 5 foot, which is again something that shouldn't have even come before us to begin with. So, I know that's sort of contradictory, but um that would be that'd be my preference is just to give time as we do because if we're going to require somebody who's building a single family home to have some meetings, I think we should require something this big have some meetings before it move forward. So that's that's sort of my sort of two sides of the same like two opposite competing things. I'm happy to move it forward. I'm happy for it to get a real review at the planning division. I think I think even the things that I'm interested in are not actually our purview and I want to be careful that they're not the things that we should be considering. I want to limit us to what we're legally should be thinking about. Um and so what we legally should be thinking about is this 3 ft from the 5 foot. And in that case it's clear to me that um some more discussion should happen but I'm happy to move it forward.

Yeah, Mr. chairman and um we're not adverse to discussion but the we did we have 40 abutters on the abutters list that were notified that's the standard procedure um and I would say that the um request it is a request for relief I I understand that but the request has to do with um a sidewalk that if it were a foot w foot foot wider we wouldn't be here at Um, so, um, and I I would just point out again, um, everything else in terms of the height of the building, the parking, all of that isn't fully in compliance with the zoning ordinance. And when when you comply with the zoning ordinance in all respects, then it that's you get a building permit or in this case you you go to uh the planning board because anything over four units requires a planned board filing and that would be probably more typ typically where people would get um become aware of this. Um but the idea that um we can have a neighborhood meeting, but if the idea is that you know the building is going to be cut in half and it's going to be 10 stories and it's going to have a parking garage and you know um none of that is is really um likely to happen. uh given that you know we do um we are otherwise complying and the idea was to to see if the relief was obtainable in terms of the um width basically the setback and by just increasing the

sidewalk and if so then we would proceed. But the um you know if if it um if that doesn't happen uh then uh they go back to the drawing board and and push the thing back 5 ft and we're not before the zoning board at all. Uh

but in terms of if you're requesting that we postpone it to um provide an opportunity for people to to maybe they'll we can explain it better to them in a different setting. Um you know we're we're um prepared to do that and you know uh we'll do that um and come back the next meeting if that's um what the board wants to see. That would be my preference, but I'll leave it up to the other board members to have a say. Board member Brahmoff,

the the request itself is is fairly dimminimous, and I think this is my 13th year on the board. I know some of you think I'm crazy for doing [clears throat] this, but uh [laughter] um I don't think we've had we certainly have never had a product a project this scale asking for this little bit of relief. Um so I don't have a lot of experience in in that except sitting here for a lot of nights. Um, I think it would I would be most amendable to give give to having the opportunity for me to give it some more thought and to have more input come in from the community. I think that makes the most sense to me at this point in time. But the request is basically dimminimous and you know there's a lot of things you could do to get around that so you wouldn't have to be here today. I don't know what's going to happen at the planning board. That's out of our purview. But I do know that you're asking for a very small amount of relief. You could give the I mean, in my opinion, you give the 1.9 feet to the city and makes it go away or move the sidewalk uh the building back a few feet. But I think what would serve most of the community at this point best was if everybody had a chance to hear about it and to um and to participate in it. So that would be my request is to agree with you to have a meeting and then come back.

Yeah. Board member Cortez.

Uh true to the chair. First of all, um uh a comment and uh then pointing out some of the concerns in here and see what what would be the next move uh uh uh for the project. Um the reality is a downtown is a downtown project. Uh sort of a blends with what has been going in downtown development. Uh uh there used to be a parking uh parking garage there which uh was closed and empty lot there. I always went by uh plus street and look at the lot and they are running downtown doing nothing. So uh by someone coming up and and and bring something to light there uh uh and blend with the with the downtown area uh is is is fine. The uh design uh looks nice and everything else. Uh however there are there are issues in here that even though it may be a a good idea there are something that needs to be addressed there. Uh I'm one of the uh individuals that always uh look at uh parking uh parking availability uh in the city and and I know that cities like the Morester and downtown uh it may not be enforcable to have the required pocket needed. Boston they keep building right next to it. There's no more land available

to for parking. Yet there are there are initiatives to create parking even though you don't have an empty lot to provide parking. We look at uh uh right right by uh the area downtown on Front Street uh the hotel buildings and all those buildings that were there built downtown development. They had to come up with an idea and they have underground parking. They have underground parking in there. They allow this this parking there. Now there's a parking it's a parking garage right next to it. So there was no I don't see that there were enough vision and planning and to resolve some of the things that may be against it. parking, excuse me, even though I didn't hear from from the audience and hear much about parking. I heard about more about the the input from the community and maybe parking it would be one of this. It was sort of a mention there affordability. Yeah, it was mentioned but that's something that that needs to be addressed there for this uh downtown number of uh uh units there is not being addressed. So there are few things in there that needs to before you know that needs to be addressed and perhaps with the input of the community something will come up. Some of the questions in here again a fail a bit a fail I'm sorry. Anyway, uh the parking division, there's a parking there's a parking garage right next to it. I'll say if I'm going to build here, I'm going to work with these people who owns this parking there and see if we would come a parking associates and build two more levels there. Uh that there is a

there is an empty lot around there belong to uh uh uh national grid. Have you worked with the national grid and maybe looking with the city and see what possibilities is to create park in there? So again there are may there are things that can be looked at where how can we resolve some of the things in there. Now there are other issues that were addressed here. Wind safety. We're not going to be coming over here like the Hancock building in Boston or even the glass building down on the corner which when they built they had problems with a windows coming off. Uh so it may be something that we're looking to see because it was pointed out went there to see the engineers or whoever uh comes up and look at what the uh the the the windows installation the type of a windows and they as that it's not going to happen that because the wind they're going to blow out or anything like that. So few things that need to be addressed and perhaps uh with the help of the community you know can come up with with with something to to resolve some of this uh questions but I I and and myself I have pointed out those particular areas that there may be there may be more

through the chair. Um

so a couple of things. Um we have consulted with a a traffic engineer um transportation consultant. Um they have identified um potential uh other parking garages. There are about four garages within just I can just think of off top my head that are reasonably close. Um and parking is obviously um you have to a lot of these if you look at the you know there are studio apartments, one-bedroom apartments and not everyone has a car. Um so that's a given. Uh but to the extent that people do have cars, um you know, in that location, I don't think anyone's going to think, well, I'll just park my car on Pleasant Street. You know, I can get a spot on Pleasant Street. So um you know we have explored that looked at uh various options and would probably if we proceed you know make some sort of arrangements um with various garages um not to you know for people who are looking to lease um a parking space uh but but that can be done um you know offsite I on a lot of this size. Um there's no way to provide parking unless you, you know, the first six stories are a parking garage, which is not consistent with the what the city's trying to achieve with the commercial uses on the first floor and then residential above. Um and I do think that some of the things that were discussed in terms of you [snorts] know the amenities that are

currently available um part of what's going to make the amenities available is you have to have sort of a critical mass of people I think that our customers um you know that would uh frequent let's say stores or um you know uh other uh things that you would expect to have in a neighborhood where you lived. Um so um we have looked into that and we could um when we come back we can perhaps have the um somebody address that issue about how we intend to handle that issue what we expect you know tenants where would they park um or you know what what the thinking is on that and that's certainly something which I could arrange for at the next meeting. I I just want to say that I don't think you should have to do that just to be clear. So I would like to know what other people's thoughts are about it. I think it's a dangerous precedent to be asking people to provide parking when we don't when it's not in our zoning pre things or something before us. That is certainly something I think you should address at a community meeting. I think that's an appropriate venue to to discuss what is going to be sort of the thinking about like what are the amenities, what are the things, how's it going to fit into the community. that very much feels like the heart of a community meeting, but it feels out of step with what the request is in terms of the zoning board and our legal requirements and this hearing. So, I again I'm one person. I'd like to know what other people's thoughts are, but that feels like overstepping for this meeting, but it is certainly important question for the development as a whole.

Uh through the chair, let me follow up on that. Uh and let me let me make myself clear that I'm not demanding or not uh stepping off my duties as a member of the board to request or to demand something that you need to do other than what a requested and what our response of it is and pointed out efforts to try to come up and meet with uh uh with with the neighborhood uh uh input and and request for a better way for them to to you know to have these these apartment these buildings here there may be something improvements so what I'm pointing out is efforts to work out some improvements based on the concerns is all is all I'm saying

yeah and through the chair I I won't go on but the um I I I recognize that having that information available certainly to a neighborhood group might alleviate some of the concerns or fears that people have that, you know, someone's going to be all people going to be trying to park uh in front of their house. Um you know um because of this of this uh development. Uh but we could certainly um you know we'll pursue it and and to the extent that um it's helpful to help people know what's going on. That sounds great. Uh board member Barnhagen

uh through the chair. Um, yeah, there are a lot of substantive concerns here that are really important. Um, and especially the community involvement. I just I feel like there's a substantive issue and there's a procedural issue. And and as mentioned, we're the the actual request, the the the legal thing that this board is asked to look at is a really small minimum. How far away from the sidewalk is the front of this building going to be? And that's it. I mean everything else satisfies every zone every zoning requirement that we have and that we're authorized to address like housing, the height of the building, other setbacks, um parking is not required um as long as certain things are are met. So, but I think what I think the misstep here was more procedural whereas I know that the applicant is coming before us and they're probably I mean I'm just putting myself in their shoes probably thinking we're asking for such a small little thing so we don't need community involvement right now. uh we'll wait until we get to the planning board which is where all the big stuff is going to happen and then we'll have the meeting. But I think you had this is the first public hearing and I think the misstep was even though you're asking for such a small little thing from this board you caught everyone unawares and and people are are concerned rightfully so that this is the first chance they're getting to address this kind of huge development. um even though ultimately whatever this community meeting ends up happening being is probably going to have little impact on what this board can do the next time we meet. And so I'm not sure a community meeting is absolutely necessary for this board to take action other than just like I think it's um uh I think it's a good optics for you to do that before the first meeting which is this meeting uh and the fact that it wasn't done. I think even if we're going to do this at a next meeting, obviously there should be a community meeting between this and then with the understanding hopefully

projecting this out to the community that you're going to have all your your big things addressed at the planning board which is after us. Uh it's not like this is going the beall and endall like we're going to approve this little thing and that's going to go away and the community is not going to have any more a chance to have an impact or have a say or have a discussion with the developer. It's going to be a multi-step process. This is the first of that process and it's a really small step in the process, but it is the first one and I think the optics don't look good when you're coming before a board and the community is saying we just found out about it like three hours ago and especially something of this size. So I would agree that we should have a continuence um again with the understanding that you know when we're going to reconvene I'm it's likely that this is going to move forward because we have so little to address ourselves. So yes, just really quickly if you'd like to come forward just state your name and city and town residents.

Thank you.

Hello. Um, so my name is Genesis Santana and I uh am a resident of Worester, Mass. Um, I'm not sure if anyone is uh awar I'm sure that you guys are cuz both of you guys. Um, the GBV properties, right? I'm a resident of that neighborhood. They have been very well like very good about conversing with the community. They've been excellent with it. Um, and the reason why I want to point this out is because they've been telling the community since before they even since since before they even got the funding, since before anything, they've been very open and honest about the amount of changes that they expect to happen in that neighborhood. Yes, the community is afraid. Yes, they have fears and yes, they voice them. But they have multiple meetings. It's not one, it's not two, they have multiple meetings, you know. So the fact that I as resident of Worcester just found out that this is going to happen today, it is concerning. It is um for a lot of the reasons that was already spoken about. So I don't really think I need to repeat them. Um so yeah, I just wanted to make that statement very clear. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Uh board member Saka to the chair. I agree, you know, perfectly with Borman Barton Hagen's formal comments. Um, I think that this is something that the community needs to be more involved with. Um, despite the small amount of variance requested right in front of us, this is a massive project, the biggest since I've been a part of the board and um, there needs to be another layer with the community involved before we can make a decision, at least from my standpoint. Thank you.

So, it sounds like you have a good sense of where we're at. I think I'm just to be clear, I I'm ready. I think um I'd like to see a community meeting mostly because we require it of far fewer smaller um developments and it feels as somebody who sort of feels like we um uh don't do enough to support our smaller folks. I want to make sure we're at least levelheaded that way. So I'm ready to generally like 3 ft from the 5 foot is to minimist. I'm ready to move it forward, but I do think if we're requiring it for other folks, I want to make sure at least that we're we're going through that process to allow people to have a little bit more of a say. So, if the applicant's amendable, I'd like to request um that they allow us to um to um postpone the meeting to the next uh board meeting with the official equivalent constructive deadlines. Um and we can we'll be at sort of the top of the meeting for the next time.

Sure. And I'm and I'm happy to sign an extension for that purpose. Okay, great. Um in that case, I'd like to make a what? Uh, just to clarify, so that's to February 2nd would be the next meeting and then the constructive grant deadline would be February 24th. Is the applicant amendable to that? Um, yeah, I think we'd want to try and make that work because we need to figure out where we're going. Great. Um, in that case, I'll entertain a motion for 56 Pleasant Street for I'd like to make a motion uh to continue uh 56 Pleasant Street uh to the February 2nd, 2026 meeting with a constructive grant deadline of February 24th, 2026. Is there a second?

So move. On the motion, board member Abramov, my vote is yes. Board member Cortez, yes. Board member Barnhagen, yes. Board member Sacko, yes. My votes yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Um, next up is communications. Uh, discussion of deadlines and schedules. Do we need to do that? We voted on it, didn't we? No, we did vote on them. I just wanted to make sure that everybody was aware and it is posted on our uh website for anybody in the public who wants to know when our meetings and our deadlines are. Um, that is readily available for everyone.

And um, we don't have a full board. It seems like we're losing people. So, I think we can kick the conversation of chair and vice chair till we have um, Tono. I didn't see the minutes before earlier. There's no minutes. Okay, great. Well, then I'll take a motion to adjurnn. Make a motion to adjurnn. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I. Thank you very much.