Planning Board - Regular Meeting

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. Can we just do an audio check for Board Member Brandon King?

Board Member King, I can hear you.

Great, thank you. Steve Carey in the Planning Division here. Can we do an audio check for Board Member Anthony Dallara?

Anthony Dallara here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, folks, we're going to get started. Can everybody hear me back there? The fact that you're not saying no I think means yes, so. Great, good evening and welcome to the Wednesday, August 26th, 2026 meeting of the City of Worcester Planning Board. My name's Albert LaValley, I'm gonna chair tonight's meeting. Before we begin, a couple of brief announcements concerning how our meeting's gonna run tonight. First is, like all our meetings, this meeting is in a hybrid format. You can participate both in person here at City Hall or by going online to worcestermath.zoomgov.com slash j slash 1617314979 or by calling in at 669-254-5252 and entering access code 1617314979 followed by the pound sign. To manage remote participation during our hybrid meetings and prevent disruptions, all participants are automatically blocked from unmuting themselves, turning on their video or sending chat messages. For those participants who would like to comment on an item on our agenda, We ask that you use the raise your hand feature in Zoom during that discussion on that item. If you're joined by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star nine. Staff will call on members of the public one by one when we get to that time and give them permission to unmute themselves. If you're joined by phone, you can do that by pressing star six. For folks in the room, we typically take public comment from you first and just sort of raise your hand and come up to the microphone. Next, I note this is a public meeting which is both being broadcast and recorded. Minutes will also be published at a later date. To help with that process, we ask all speakers participating in person to please use a microphone, to please clearly identify yourself each time you speak, and the first time you speak, please also state your city or town of residence for the record. To help maintain an orderly meeting, please address all comments and questions through the chair, that's me, rather than speaking directly to any of the applicants or other commenters. there are a couple items on our agenda that are going to be postponed tonight i'm going to read through those shortly if you're here on one of those items please note that no additional notice will be sent to you prior to the next meeting best thing to do is call the planning department the day of the next meeting as it is not uncommon for items to be postponed multiple times before they're heard by this board once an item is called there will be a brief presentation of that item followed by any additional comments or clarifications from members of the city staff Then comes the opportunity for anyone from the public who wants to speak about that item to do so. First here in the room and then for those folks who are participating remotely. Lastly, all applicants should be aware that approvals are generally conditional. Decisions are generally signed by the board at the next meeting and where appropriate filed with the city clerk the following day. which is what begins any of the appeals periods. Decisions are typically not released to the applicant until all conditions of approval have been satisfactorily addressed. It is the applicant's responsibility to address conditions of approval, and a lack of doing so may result in delays or enforcement. Applicants with questions on that are asked to call the planning department. So moving into postponements. Tonight, item number five, 114 Lincoln Street, a definitive site plan. The request is to postpone the public hearing to September 16, 26 and extend the constructive grant deadline to October 8, 26. Item six, 256 and 262 Sunderland Road, a definitive site plan. Request to postpone the public hearing to September 16, 26 and extend the constructive grant deadline to October 8, 26. And item number two, which is 24 through 28, Chequesset Road and 029 Dominion Road, a definitive site plan in MGL 81G, private street improvement. They request to withdraw without prejudice. Is there a motion on the postponements and the request to leave?

I would make a motion to postpone items 5 and 6 and to withdraw without prejudice item 2.

Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick.

Yes.

Mr. King. Yes. Mr. DeLera. Yes. Mr. Toomey. Yes. I vote yes as well. That motion passes five to zero.

This is harder enough. This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. We also have the matter of the fee waiver request for Chickesset Road.

Thank you, Mr. Carey. To my colleagues, the applicant for Quesset Road has requested a fee waiver. My understanding is staff took a pretty significant amount of time reviewing this. And it's this board's policy not to grant those except in extreme cases. But if anybody feels otherwise, speak now. Hearing no one, do we need a motion on that, Mr. Carey?

Sure. Motion to not grant the fee waiver for the 81G and site plan approval for Chickasaw Road. I would make that motion.

Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick? Yes. Mr. King?

Yes.

Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. That motion passes 5-0. And into our agenda. I'm looking at the right agenda. Hold on a second. All right. First item we're going to hear tonight is item number one, 1 Jackson Street. This will be a public hearing for a special permit for relief from minimum off-street parking and or loading requirements, dimensional requirements, et cetera. Mr. O'Neill. Is your microphone on?

Try again. Here we go. Donald O'Neill, lawyer here in Worcester, here this evening on behalf of the applicant in this case, Jackson Street Apartments LLC. Also with me is Michael O'Rourke, who's the manager and principal of Jackson Street Apartments LLC. Available online, I believe, is Rafael Hernandez from Acropolis Design, who has prepared the architectural plans for this project, and I believe Victoria Epstein as well from Creighton Manning Engineering, who did the transportation management plan, and she is available for any questions that you may have for her. Also, I did speak both of them. There was a couple of questions that we had from staff today regarding the architectural plans, which Raphael is here for, and Victoria can address any questions regarding the transportation management plan. With that, one of the conditions of approval that we'll get to is for an updated plan reflecting the change in the percentage of units which would be affordable and she can address any questions that you may have concerning that this property is it's an existing old apartment building eventually that was converted into warehouse use and would believe 1969 upon original construction it was five apartments one for each floor and then the records indicate that and 1912 or 13 it was converted to 12 apartments and remained in that configuration until 1969. And what we're looking to do in this situation now is to convert back to 32 apartments. And the breakdown on those apartments are nine studio units, 14 one-bedroom units, and nine two-bedroom units. There is no parking available on site. Basically, the building occupies pretty much the entire lot. And so what we're seeking... from the board is a special permit for a reduction of 16 parking spaces. We have already been to the zoning board and had a reduction through variance of 20 parking spaces for that location. And this would special permit that we're requesting now is available to the applicant because of the inclusionary zoning compliance that we have submitted. The idea basically is these apartments would be rented to people without cars. There is no available parking on site. However, there is a need for apartments, particularly ones with an affordable component. And in fact, that this unit may have a greater percentage than the formal requirement that we are needed to request for the inclusionary zoning. And that's a strong likelihood that the percentage of actual affordable units would be greater than that. However, they would not be deed restricted for the 30-year period. People would know going in that there is no parking, so they wouldn't rent, or they would make their own arrangements with respect to parking off-site in a garage or some other location. We feel that the need is present and that based on other experience of my client has similar properties and the actual number of tenants who have vehicles is very low. um and situation would be that if that turns into a problem then people won't rent the apartments which would be the risk that the owner is you know prepared to take but we feel this is a location where It located a couple of blocks basically north. It would be in the downtown overlay district. There is no parking requirement. So with the boards, if you would like, I could turn it over to Creighton Manning just to kind of walk you through the transportation management plan that they prepared just to sort of address any issues that you might have as questions after that.

Yeah, let's do that.

Hello, can you hear me?

Hi, we can hear you. Go ahead.

Excellent. Good evening, Chairman LaValley, members of the board and staff. My name is Victoria Epstein. As Mr. O'Neill mentioned, I'm the traffic engineer for the application with Creighton Manning Engineering, affiliated with GAI Consultants. And as part of this application, we did prepare the transportation management plan. And with the change in the affordability ratios, there are just some impacts to our narrative that we wanted to touch on. Mainly wanted to highlight that while affordability is a factor that can contribute significantly to reduce parking demand, it is not the only factor that we look at. There really are several factors, those being location, size of the units provided, and affordability, which will be met to some degree, albeit reduced. ALL OF WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO A REDUCED PARKING RATE AND VEHICLE OWNERSHIP AND ARE ALL EVIDENT AT THIS ONE JACKSON SITE WHERE WE BELIEVE THAT THE SITE WOULD EFFECTIVELY OPERATE WITHOUT PARKING. TO JUST KIND OF HIGH LEVEL TOUCH ON SOME OF THESE TOPICS, LOCATION, OBVIOUSLY WE ARE WITHIN THE MAIN STREET CORRIDOR INFO GROWTH AREA. You know, very good connectivity and walkability to downtown, nearby bus stations, Union Station with extensive public transit opportunities. Dialing into the size of the units and the development, the fact that there will be majority studio and one bedroom units plays into reduced demand per unit compared to a site that might offer two bedroom, three bedroom, four bedroom units. ALL THAT COMBINED WITH THE AFFORDABILITY AND THE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT WILL BE PROVIDED WOULD ALL CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT WOULD REALLY THRIVE WITHOUT PARKING AND IT'S ALSO NOTED THAT THERE WILL BE INDOOR AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WILL BE AGREEING TO PROVIDING ADDITIONAL EXTERIOR BICYCLE PARKING WHICH WILL PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE MEANS IN A VEHICLE TO BE ABLE TO TRAVEL TO AND FROM THE SITE AND IN ADDITION I do think it's important to notice from a technical standpoint that we look to publications such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual when we consider these factors. And this generation manual contains several data points which support these statements, and then as you kind of start to whittle away at the demand of, say, a similar development that would be in a very suburban area, you know, doesn't have this accessibility to public transit, to downtown commercial areas, you kind of start to see a reduction in parking. So all of these combined would just really fare well for this site. Lastly, just to kind of reiterate what Mr. O'Neill said is that the development would kind of have its own ability to self-select and work with tenants that will look to move into a place that can meet their transportation needs. And this is also supported by industry data. There's been research done that suggests that future tenants will look to apartments that don't provide parking if they find that it is suitable to meet their transportation needs. And on the other side of that coin, if they do require parking to support their needs, then they will go look for residence elsewhere. So with all these in mind, we feel confident that this site would be able to operate effectively without an off-street parking supply. And I'm happy to answer any specific questions if the board has any. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I should just add as well that I did review the recommended conditions of approval suggested by staff and were agreeable to those conditions.

Okay. Thank you very much. That said, additional comments from city staff?

Through the chair, this is Michelle Smith in the city's planning division. Can you guys hear me all right?

We can.

Great. Okay. So, as you heard, this is a request for a special permit for inclusionary zoning incentives for the property at 1 Jackson street. We're in a 3 zoning district as well as the overlay. So our commercial doors overlay district, and 1 of our denser business districts, the existing 5 story building that you see on the screen here, the intent is to convert that into a multifamily high rise with 32 units. uh the applicant was previously in front of the zoning board to seek additional relief related to parking the topic of tonight's conversation through variance for what is essentially an excess of what the planning board can authorize through the special permit that they're seeking from you this evening so there are a number of different Density incentives that are provided for inclusionary projects that build into their scope inclusionary units, if you will, as part of what we call eligible developments. And so that enables them to seek the special permit that they're seeking from this board this evening to reduce the requirements automatically based on the amount of affordable units. They get some initial reductions. and then some further reductions by the transportation demand management plan that you heard Ms. Epstein speak to just moments ago. And so after all of those automatic incentives are taken into consideration, what they're seeking from you this evening really equates to four parking spaces of relief, while practically speaking, there are no spaces that are being provided. So some of those incentives automatically reduce that, and then the zoning board already took care of the spaces that are above and beyond what you can grant. So that's what they're in front of you for. So we do have a number of conditions of approval. And I think most of the comments that we've had at this point have been addressed through conversation with the applicant or in the comments this evening. I think just notably that over the course of the project in the event that some of the board members maybe saw conflicting information in the documents provided, the sort of assumptions about affordability with a capital A, have changed. And so you heard Attorney O'Neill mention that what the kind of deeded commitment will be, it may be different from the reality of what the leasing looks like. But we are looking at the deeded commitment when we're talking about affordability and And that's kind of what we take into consideration. So those numbers adjust in accordance with that. So we have recommendations for conditions of approval. I do want to note just one change. This is an inconsistency or typo within those conditions. So want to make that suggestion to the board members before moving to So specifically, I believe it is under condition six. We actually have a reference to four exterior bikes parking spaces. We're actually asking the applicant to install six exterior spaces, which would equate to with the 26 spaces that are going to be provided interior to the building for bike storage. This would basically bring the project up to a one to one ratio for bike parking. which we think given the fact that there is no parking that's being proposed for the project would be an important amenity. So this just reconciles. There's another condition that already refers to six bike racks being provided. But we are just talking about the number of bike spaces under that condition. So if we can reconcile that to say six, that would be great. And then I will note for condition two, which is a requirement to update the transportation demand management plan to reflect the final affordability ratios, as I was referring to that. that's happened over the course of the project. There are a few comments from the Department of Transportation and Mobility that should also be referred to in this item. That memo was issued on July 17th, so just wanting to ensure that in addition to those final affordability ratios, it would include the recommendations for from DTM dated 717. So those would be the two modifications that at this point we are requesting that you make to the. Conditions that are provided in the memo, otherwise the conditions mainly refer to elements of the building that. That require them to comply with that transportation demand management plan to help moderate for parking. And they also relate a bit to the commercial quarter overly district and some reconciliation across architectural plans and the documents that have been provided. From what actually exists on the site today, there have been some relatively recent changes to the exterior of the building and the building is in this interesting transitional state from a historic perspective. We're in the process of listing this on the city, the. List of the city uses to designate properties as historic as part of a grant that we received from the Massachusetts Historical Commission, which we expect to conclude at the end of September. So any alterations to the building once it's listed on Macris will require a demolition delay waiver and the changes that we have conditioned related to the architectural plan should reconcile. for what the application the applicant has indicated they intend to do and align with the historic commission's ultimate objectives assuming that this end up ends up being listed on macros before further alterations are are made and also would potentially open up if the state agrees potential tax credit doors for the applicant but that's to be determined at this point through the review process by the state so just wanted to clarify that as well I think that is really it as far as the questions that we have this evening since those have been answered via email and via phone with the applicants council and design team. So happy to wrap the comments up there and answer any questions. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. Additional comments from DPW on this item?

This is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. At this moment, we don't have any comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Anyone in the room wishing to comment on this item tonight? Seeing none, is there anyone online with their hand raised?

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

OK. Board members. Mr. McCormick, can we start with you?

Sure. Yeah, for myself, I don't, I don't have any concerns with the special permit request. It's really just for four parking spaces. It seems like a great redevelopment of an existing historic building. And I think it's the request is reasonable, and I'd be happy to support it.

Thank you, Mr. King.

I would echo board member McCormick's comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. DeLero.

I agree. I have no questions or comments on this. I support it. Thanks.

Thank you. Mr. Toomey. No additional comments. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Rosende.

No additional comments. Thank you.

I also have no comments. This is an existing infill development, reusing a building. I don't mind. I generally don't believe we need parking requirements as a city, which is particularly true in the downtown districts. So I'm happy to support this. Mr. McCormick, it is a public hearing. If you'd like to make a motion.

I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick.

Yes.

Mr. King?

Yes.

Mr. DeLera?

Yes.

Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Five to zero hearings closed.

I would make a motion to approve the special permit for 1 Jackson Street subject to staff recommended conditions of approval on pages 2 and 3 of the staff memo with the amendments to condition 6 regarding the bicycle spaces and to incorporate the DTM memo dated July 17th noted in condition number 2. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick? Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes, five to zero. That motion passes.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Next item on the agenda will be item number three, 25 through 27, Perkins Street. This is a public meeting for a definitive site plan and a public hearing for a special permit for relief from minimum off-street parking and or loading requirements related to inclusionary zoning.

Good evening. My name is Jacob Lemieux with Hancock Associates at 315 Elm Street in Marlboro, Mass. I'm the civil engineer on the site project. Also on the phone today is Acropolis, who is the architect. Are you able to pull up the... Oh, you've already got that up. So essentially the petition... the demolition of the existing three-story three-unit building on the construction of a five unit five-story 23 unit building under the inclusionary zoning benefit with parking reduction regulations we're proposing 23 units five affordable units with 25 parking spaces proposed inside the building There are 2 site driveways the building is steeply sloped up as it goes up Perkins Street so the building is sort of tiered into that slope as you can see here there are 2 curb cuts from Perkins Street that lead to the 2 levels of garage. Can you go to the. Perkins Street side or others is Perkins Street. So this is the looking up towards up Perkins Street. If you want to go to the next slide. These are the views from Perkins Street on the bottom left hand corner from the budding house to the north. On the bottom right hand corner. There's a external patio area there that is outside of the building for residents. That sits on top of the parking garage underneath it, which helps to bring the massing of the building back further away from that property line while maintaining some structured parking there. If you want to go back to the site plan. So we've got a near the main entryway. We've got a proposed parking or bicycle parking spaces for about 10 bicycles. We've also got about 15 inside as well. So that would be about 25 bicycle parking spaces inside and outside of the building. If you want to go to the next slide. stormwater management on site is just handled by. 3 small SC 3, 10 chamber systems which are just chambers that are buried under the ground provide stormwater storage. We're providing treatment to the runoff that we're generating on site and also reducing are matching the flow rates to make to the municipal system. To what is there currently existing. If you want to go to the next page. We're also providing a robust planting plan. We've got landscaping all the way around the structure. We've got a landscape buffer buffering the patio area. We've got taller landscape buffers on the other side to help hide that taller wall section. And we've also got a staircase that goes to Westminster Street so that there's some pedestrian tie-in to Westminster Street from the entryway. If you want to go to the next sheet or the... This is just the maneuvering plan. So I was hoping you had the photometric plan. I don't believe the photometric plan made it into our slide deck. Okay. Okay. Well, that's fine. Photometrics, essentially, we're providing lighting on three sides of the building, Parking Street, the northern and the southern southern Westminster side of the building. We're only having some area lighting like some motion sensing lighting on the rear of the building for security, but there'll be no permanent lighting on that side on the side of the patio. Any lighting trespass has been reduced to less than a half a foot candle at the property line as was requested. Rafael, I don't know if you want to go into the architectural design and the look of the building.

Yes, thank you. Rafael Hernandez, designer, Acropolis Design. We, Worcester, Massachusetts. So the ground level has a stone, thin brick veneer product to kind of ground the building to the site. The upper levels have balconies and It has a more suburban type of look to the building since we're a little bit further away from downtown with the pitch roofs and the gabled lines. The projecting balconies also include all the HVAC equipment. The windows and doors will be energy efficient, double hung windows and sliding doors. We haven't decided on the siding, but it'll be a lap siding or shingle siding with some panel siding included in the building and asphalt roof and the garage doors will be a carriage style garage door and on the upper portion of the site on the right side of this image is going to be an outdoor space for the tenants of the building that's only accessible by the tenants and inside we have the parking on each level and a mix of One, two, and three bedrooms. Thank you very much.

And to summarize, what we're asking from the board today is the special permit with the inclusionary zoning reduction in parking spaces of 34.5 spaces and then a waiver for 10 further spaces for a total of 25 spaces provided. And Yeah, I think we should open it up.

Okay, thank you. Staff comments on this item?

Sure, this is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. This is before you for both a site plan approval and a special permit under the inclusionary zoning provisions. The trigger for the site plan is obviously the number of units as well as the slope that it's on. Under the special permit, they are seeking relief of essentially five spaces. So there are 23 units proposed. 46 would be required if they were not providing any inclusionary units. But they are providing 15% affordable units. So that gets them a reduction of six spaces. They have provided a transportation demand management plan. which gets them a further 25%, so a further 10 space reduction. And then they're seeking by special permit a reduction of five spaces to have a total of 25, as the applicant noted, for 23 dwelling units. Those spaces are located underneath the building. We had asked the applicant to request postponement prior to the last meeting. And they did. So they could address some issues that we had flagged. And they have addressed those issues in the intervening weeks. That was to make sure that the garage layout could just accommodate vehicles with the locations of the footings and columns. And they have provided an auto turn analysis for that that has been satisfactory at the Department of Transportation and Mobility. We also had a little bit of concern just about the location of one of the infiltration units relative to a downslope retaining wall, but they've provided an impermeable barrier to prevent any water seeping from that infiltration unit from affecting the structural stability of that wall. And then they also have agreed to retain four of mature trees that are currently on the site upslope, separating it from the abutter on the upslope side. So your memo in front of you does have sort of the remaining conditions of approval that I think are largely annotational at this point. They have also just today or yesterday submitted some revised architectural plans in response to our recommended conditions of approval that's appreciated. They've added some additional fenestration on the left side of the Perkins Street elevation where my cursor is indicating right now. um which we appreciate because it gives a little more symmetry to the building and then on the ground floor they've added a another window into the garage on the left side of the doors the sort of upslope garage doors and then down here we're glad to see that just because we want to sort of be thinking about the visual impact of this um of this building on the on the PERKINS STREET, SORT OF STREETSCAPE TO THAT END. THEY'VE ALSO PROVIDED SOME DETAILS FOR THE fall protection wall that's going to be on top of the retaining walls, as well as describe the staircase that's going to be connecting the site down to Westminster Street, which will be sort of a masonry concrete built into the slope. I think that's all I have for now. And yeah, glad to answer any questions that the board might have.

Thank you, Mr. Carey. Any comments from DPW on this item?

This is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We don't have any comments at this moment. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. Okay, folks from the public wishing to speak on this item. Yeah, the thing to do is just come up one at a time. You can use any of the microphones. Just make sure it's got a little green circle. That means it's on. And a reminder, we just need to know your name and your city or town of residence.

Hi, my name is Rhonda White, and I live... at 29 Perkins Street, right up slope from these folks. I'm here on behalf of my husband, Scott White, and his mother, Bernadette, who own the building. And they asked me to read this document, OK? Scott and Vernon Debt White, property owners of 29 to 31 Perkins Street, easterly upslope abutters of the proposed build at 2527 Perkins Street, would like to lodge an objection to the proposed build. Our family has owned 29 to 31 Perkins Street for over 80 years. My extended family, who grew up in this home, includes Whites, Motherways, McKiernans, and Kellys, many of whom have gone on to become Worcester firefighters and Worcester police officers. Our family has deep roots in this community. Perkins Street in Worcester, Mass., is a historic residential street named for members of the prominent Payne Sturgis Perkins family. connected to the historic Oates estate. 29 to 31 Perkins Street was constructed in 1890 during the height of the industrial era, and 25 Perkins Street was built 10 years later. Unlike many historic homes that underwent modern gut renovations, 25 Perkins Street retains its original interior woodwork and original stained glass windows. It's a beautiful building that exemplifies the turn-of-the-century construction of that era. Homes such as this one are what give Worcester its abiding charm and personality. The proposed new build would not be homogenous with the existing structures in this neighborhood. This would result in the loss of a historic building. The slope at the site of the proposed build at 2527 Perkins Street is considerably greater than 15%, and we are concerned about the possible structural ramifications of this build to our own home, which resides uphill from the proposed build. We would like to know what assurances we will have regarding the integrity of our own structure during and after construction of this new building. Gravity is a relentless force. Our building has been standing without any structural problems for 136 years. If our structure does sustain damage due to the various actions involved in the demolition, site prep, construction, and settling of the slope in the years following the proposed build, would we be compensated by the builder for our loss? Are there specific actions we must take to protect our investment in our home? And if so, what are those measures? Will a core sample of the hill be taken prior to approval of this construction? Will a retaining wall be installed at the boundary of our properties where it abuts 27 Perkins Street? If so, what assurance will we have that it is of sufficient depth and thickness to provide ongoing stability for the structures above it? According to the ordinance, plans involving tall retaining walls adjacent to property lines undergo intensive evaluation regarding structural integrity, proximity to lot lines, and impact on neighboring properties. Will we be appraised or apprised, excuse me, of the results of these evaluations as abutters? Will this ordinance be duly enforced in this instance? Will the privacy fence be installed between our properties? Our concerns also encompass the imminent loss of privacy in our side yard, which faces due west, as well as the potential loss of our view over the city, the loss of the shade trees, although that was addressed. Excuse me. I lost my place. And the amount of noise a 23-unit building would generate. In addition to the foregoing, we are very concerned about the parking problems that are bound to occur with the development of such a large building. Average American family has approximately two cars per household with 23 apartments and only 25 proposed parking spaces. Where does the planning board expect the remaining 21 cars to park? This is especially a problem in the wintertime due to plowing concerns, but realistically, it'll be an ongoing problem regardless of the time of the year. Are there sufficient fire hydrants to accommodate a project of this size? Is the capacity of the existing water and sewer infrastructure sufficient to cope with the 23 additional units? A five-story structure in a community of one to three-story structures will be discordant with the existing architecture. The amount of trash generated by 23 additional units will be excessive. Where will the trash be kept on the property? In conclusion, we object to any building code requirements being waived to accommodate this building. Other property owners in this neighborhood, without exception, have had to rebuild following fires. There's been several buildings that have burned down, and they have been required to rebuild on their existing foundations following destruction of their properties. the applicant seeks to raise a perfectly fine historic three-story apartment dwelling in order to build a five-story, 23-apartment dwelling, we would expect these owners to be required to abide by the same set of rules as everyone else in the neighborhood who's had to rebuild their properties out of necessity rather than choice. That's all.

Thank you for your comments. Come on up. Well, what we'll do, folks, is we'll hear from everybody and then give the applicant an opportunity to address some of the issues that you all raised.

My name is Allison Ledoux. I'm the homeowner at 26 Perkins Street, directly across the street from the proposed construction. I did submit these comments in written form to the planning board office about two weeks ago. I've lived in this home since 1993, 33 years. My residence is a single family home as are the homes on either side of me. My neighbors all around have been stable residents for decades. Many of the homes in this part of the city were built years and years ago and were the long-lasting solid construction of their era with classic architectural features adding value to the homes. And as you heard, I'd like to applaud my neighbor, Rhonda, who explained the historical value of the neighborhood. I think that's a very important point for your consideration. Other houses in the overall neighborhood or a combination of older single family homes and two family homes which have been in families for a long time. And the residents of our neighborhood tend to be stable and committed rather than transient as would be the case with apartment complexes where residents tends to be more of a short term nature. In considering the stability of a city, it is beneficial for the community to have stability, to have long-lasting residents who are invested in the care of the city that they have called home. My objections to the proposed construction include the following. Number one, according to the architectural rendition posted on the city's website, the entrances and exits to the underground parking area of the proposed apartment complex are directly across from the front of my house. The constant in and out traffic will cause disruption and congestion in what up to now has been a relatively quiet neighborhood with minimal traffic. Number two, the very large structure of five stories high is not consistent with the other homes in the area. The lack of aesthetical unity, no matter how nice looking the building may be, would present a commercialized neighborhood rather than the residential area it has historically been. It would seem likely that this oddity would decrease property values in the long term, impacting the longstanding stable neighborhood residents and upstanding city of Worcester citizens who would discourage, and it would discourage stable families from seeking single family homes from moving into the area in the future, which is something that we should all want for a city that we care about. This would have lasting generational impact and that should be seriously considered the proposed structure would be a blight on the community rather than an improvement unfortunately this will hurt existing families who have been city residents for many years and are invested in the community Number three, if this demolition and construction were to move forward, the process would wreak havoc and create chaos and frustration for those who now live on the street and in the immediate vicinity. Construction can typically take months or even years, and this is a particularly complex, involved process, especially given that Perkins Street is an extremely steep hill. One can only imagine the nightmare of an even mild winter, never mind a harsh one. The disruption to lives and families that would be caused by a major long-term demolition and construction project would be serious and damaging, devoid of any benefit to residents, the neighborhood, and the city. Number four. Given the tight space afforded to multi-units in the proposed building and the limitations of underground parking, what will be the parking situation when residents of the proposed complex have guests? It could result in a multitude of random cars being parked all along the street and the surrounding streets as well. you've probably noticed many drivers today lack social respect and they would be parking directly in front of all the area homeowners front doors and walkways this could cause homeowners to feel unsafe going from their house to their car and so forth it would be an eyesore for the neighborhood and deprive neighbors of privacy number five An apartment house of this size could attract a transient demographic. Single family homes and even two or three family established homes tend to attract a more stable population and a much better community atmosphere. Short term dwellers are unlikely to be invested in care for their city or neighborhood and could potentially cause substantial disruption to a currently peaceful area of the city. Number six, the large building would also undermine the beauty of nature and obscure the views from neighbors' windows who can currently enjoy the atmosphere of nearby Greenhill Park The existing trees are a buffer to the busy traffic of Lincoln Street at the bottom of the hill, giving long-term residents the benefit of being apart from the noise of the busy city street, while at the same time living in a location with convenient access to major roadways. Overall, I object to the proposed project as articulated above, and respectfully ask that you reconsider allowing this to move forward. I'm happy to provide any additional input or have further discussion upon request. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you. Additional folks in the room wanting to comment on this tonight? Not seeing anybody. Is there anyone online?

Not seeing anyone with their hand raised.

Okay, let's move on to board discussion. Mr. McCormick, are you willing to go first?

I suppose. Yeah, so for myself, I do appreciate the... Well, actually, before board comment, did we want to give the applicant a chance to respond to any of those questions?

Yeah, actually, thank you, Connor. Go ahead if you'd like to address any of that.

Yes, so just... Some of them are dressed out right such as there was a retaining wall previously proposed close to the 29 lot line that walls been removed now we've got that patio there at surface level so any all walls on say are 4 feet and under. Which is generally below the threshold that you need an individual building permit for each wall so we don't foresee any issue with that as far as The abutting property foundation, I could say that the construction is about 30 feet from the existing house. If that's something that an abutter is concerned with, then I would recommend that they have an inspection done. and then they can have an inspection done after the construction has been completed and then either file a suit against the builder or the builder's insurance company, which is generally standard practice for this sort of thing. Yeah, I think, I think, you know, to speak to some of the comments about what kind of people that it'll bring in, you know, I think think that the reason that this area is zoned this way that allows this is because we we need the units we need the units and we need the people and the fact that we're providing above one we've got one parking space for each unit and two extra spaces for visitors we think is generally beyond what is provided in these kind of projects however I will say that it did work out fairly nicely with the building layout. In terms of construction itself and noise we're not asking for the applicants not asking for any waivers to the to the noise ordinance in the city or any relief other than anybody else would get so there's no noise generation here that's that will be in excess of anything that's allowed via the ordinance. I think that's it. The trash yes, there's an there's an internal trash from on the if you go to the second floor. would be in the architectural plan. Up one. Yeah, right there is a trash room that will, that the trash will be kept in.

Okay, the only other thing I thought you might want to mention, there's a question about adequacy of both fire hydrants and utility availability. That seems like that's under your purview.

Yeah, and you know, we've We have adequate flow capacity there. There's an eight-inch water main, which is certainly sufficient size for a project of this type. And this project's been reviewed by the DPW, and they're satisfied that the available utilities will be sufficient for the project.

Okay. Thank you for your comments. All right, Mr. McCormick, back to you.

Thank you. Yeah, for myself, I do appreciate the comments from the butters that we heard. I do understand this is a significant development for the neighborhood. It's a lot larger than a lot of the surrounding buildings or homes. um however i think i'm looking at this uh in kind of two buckets and those are the two approvals that we're looking at tonight one is for definitive site plan so this is largely a buy right development so we're really uh reviewing the the site uh itself to make sure it complies with zoning uh requirements and then the special permit request which is for uh relief from five parking spaces and i think one loading space um for the special permit request i i would be willing or amenable to supporting that request um i you know i think as we kind of discussed the last um with the last case um you know i i i think there's uh i would agree with the chair's comments uh previously that that there's a lot of um the minimum parking requirements are pretty high anyway, and I think it's reasonable to grant that request. In terms of the site plan, I think the applicant did a fairly good job of constructing a site or building of the size on the site. I did have maybe one question. The ground floor along Sorry, what is it? Not Perkins Street. Westminster. Westminster. What's the material for that? It kind of looks like a foundation, and I'm just kind of curious, you know, what that would feel like along Westminster Street. Just didn't want to make it look like a basement facing the street.

Rafael Hernandez, Acropolis Design. Yeah, it's a... It's stone veneer material, and there will be openings on that facade also for windows, so it shouldn't feel too much like a, essentially like a high barrier wall. And it'd be a natural-looking material. It hasn't been finalized, but it's going to be probably boral, which is a product that you mechanically fasten to concrete so that we don't have a lot of exposed foundation and it looks natural and it'll tie to the ground around it and the landscaping.

Okay, I thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah, I just want to make sure there was a little bit of fenestration along that frontage, which I think we're looking at Perkins Street on the screen right now, but was concerned about the Westminster side. But yeah, I think that, okay, so there are some windows there. So yeah, I think that plus the landscaping. uh satisfies my my concern there so otherwise yeah i i do appreciate this is a much larger building than what's typically in the area but it does comply with the requirements of the site plan review and i would be willing to support it thank you mr mccormick mr king

Not to belabor similar points, but I do feel this aligns with the targets for the city and what we're looking for in this area. So I'd be happy to support it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. DeLera.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I echo my colleagues on this one. As I understand it, this site would allow a fairly substantial structure anyways even without a special permit so i appreciate the butter's concerns here but again this is something that meets the requirements and i would also add that aesthetically it looks pretty good it looks better than many of the other projects that have come our way and so i'm pleased about that thank you thank you mr delara mr toomey

Yeah, one question relative to the parking is pretty much one space per. Will those be assigned spaces, one per apartment, or is it going to be a first-come, first-served? Someone has two cars, you'll be rented without parking.

We're indifferent. So, I mean, it may be best to assign the spaces. That way everybody knows where they're going in there and the visitor spaces stay open.

Again, the concern there is the previous person we had, they were talking that they're renting specifically without other restrictions. The lease is going to be one per apartment.

Yeah, I think that we can, we'll be happy to do that.

Other than that, I'm supportive of it.

Thank you, Mr. Toomey.

Mr. Rosendeck? No further comment. Thank you.

Okay, just for myself, I thought Mr. McCormick's point was a good one about the Westminster Street facade. I'm looking at your planting plan, and I don't see... I see you've got some infrastructure there, some utility infrastructure on that side, kind of below where those windows are that look into the parking garage that we're looking at on the screen right now. I'm wondering... Is it possible to add some plantings in there to kind of soften that a little bit on the street level?

Could you pull up the planting plan, please? Oh, you are. Yeah, so you're talking about between the sidewalk and the plantings we have up there. Yeah, I think we could definitely, there's nothing there besides some manholes and pipes, so we could definitely fit some additional plantings in there. Maybe some shorter stuff to contrast off the taller arborvitae in the back.

Yeah, I mean, this plant looks like you do have some plantings planned for there. The one that I'm looking at is the site plan that's got some colored bushes on it, but it's not this.

Yeah, we had modified the site plan per the city's request to get rid of the smaller shrubs that we had over there and put some taller evergreens there to better cover that tall foundation section.

okay yeah good to know um then thank you for answering that for for myself i would say uh mr mccormick laid this out fairly well where there's there's two elements to this that fall under the board's fairly narrow purview the first is a special permit where we are considering granting relief to five parking spaces. So reducing the amount they would be required to provide by five. And the second is a site plan, which is a very specific review that falls under this board's purview. There's a set of, I think, 14 criteria that we review things against. And this building really would be allowed as of right So we're just kind of considering that in a very narrow box and talking about landscaping and what we can do, given that it can be put there to kind of soften the effects on the neighbors that you folks came here tonight to voice. uh in that respect you know i i actually agree with mr delera i think this is a fairly well uh designed project given the topography of the site being you know sloping so aggressively downhill i'm very familiar with this area i lived on shrewsbury street for a long time and i'm a runner so i ran here constantly and It's one of the reasons I ask about how tall that building looks from the Westminster Street side, because there are some buildings in that neighborhood that are really up close to the sidewalk, and it's not a great feel for being there. I also know that the applicant is going to be replacing the sidewalks. As part of this project, I know that's a condition of approval, and I think all of those things are generally positive. And as I stated a little bit ago, I'm in favor of generally reducing parking requirements, so I'm inclined to support that as well. Data suggests that far less than two cars per household parking space-wise is being utilized. In the United States, we have something like five available spaces per car. So we're dramatically over-parked. It adds a lot of expense to the cost of housing, and that leads to folks really struggling to pay their rent. So I'm, in general, very supportive of reducing parking minimums. Any other comments from board members before we go to a vote?

This is Steve Kerring, the Planning Division. We do have one more condition of approval just relative to the retaining walls. This is something that we intended to include and just slipped up. It's a standard pre-building permit condition of approval when we have retaining walls that just have some element to them that make us want to make sure there's just an extra check on there sort of stability. So the suggested pre-building permit condition of approval is that the applicant provide a copy of a plan prepared by a professional engineer for the proposed retaining wall and a PDF of the same to DPRS, our division, consistent with the approved civil plan. So essentially asking the applicant to provide just a stamped engineered plan for those walls. If the applicant is amenable to that.

Just to clarify, those are for the wall with the fall protection on it?

I think we'd be looking for, I think there's three retaining walls. There's one sort of on the north side and then two. Yeah, so four for all those walls. Okay. Yeah, we can do that.

Okay, thank you. All right, Mr. McCormick, I think it's to you.

Okay, I would make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. Five to zero, that motion passes. The hearing's closed.

I would then make a motion to approve the definitive site plan and the special permit for inclusionary zoning parking relief for 2527 Perkins Street, subject to staff recommended conditions of approval on page two through five of the staff memo, including the additional condition related to a stamp pertaining wall plan outlined by staff.

Back out. On the motion, Mr. McCormick. Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. That motion passes 5-0. Thank you very much. You all have a good night. Good luck. Thank you. Sure.

Is there a process? I know I understand that it meets all the specifications of zoning and so forth, and I understand you're abiding by that. However, is there... An appeal process that neighbors could engage in. What would be the proper protocol to have this reconsidered by the city at some other level or some other board or committee? What other entities in the city are involved and how could we?

I'll defer that question either to Mr. Carey or to the law department, who can give you the real answer. Sure.

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. For a special permit like this, typically within about a week or so of the meeting, a decision is drafted and filed with the city clerk. There then begins an appeal period of 20 days at which someone can appeal that decision. So you can appeal the special permit decision, Site plan approvals also can be appealed. I don't know the specifics of that appeal process. I'd have to defer to the law department. But it's an administrative approval, so appeals are less common, but still can be appealed. And then, as I said, the special permit is a discretionary approval. There is a 20-day appeal period in which an appeal can be filed. So, like I said, that decision should be filed with the clerk within the next week or so. And if you want to reach out to our office, I'd be glad to update you on when that happens. Sure.

Yeah. My advice to you, by the way, would be to seek legal counsel who can represent you if you want to do that.

And what would the, what does the law department have to say? Is there somebody here from the law department that could address that issue?

We do have Colby from the law department. With regards to, what would be the question you would have? How would we work with the law department to make sure Sure. I mean, I think it would be a filing with the clerk. I guess I'd have to defer to the law department.

The chair, Kobe Watson from the law department. So...

you asking would law department file on behalf of you or what exactly is the question the chair i i think the she's asking if they wanted to file an appeal what does that process actually look like and what i what i was suggesting is you hire a attorney to do it for you but um i don't i'm not aware that there's a form you can just get i'm asking is there an appeal process

the chair this is michelle smith in the planning division i'm remote so unfortunately i can't hear whatever discussion is occurring but i would advise that the board simply advise the person who's interested to reach out to our office after the meeting rather than delaying the ongoing proceedings of board meaning this evening and we can answer the question i'm just thank you michelle i i think our contact info should be available at the front table and on the agenda

No, the planning department. So if you grab an agenda on the way out the door, just on this front page right here, this big blue part, you'll see a phone number for these folks, and they can help you. Thank you. Okay. Let's move on to the next item on our agenda, which is item number 454, Granite Street. This will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan.

Good evening. My name is Robert Murphy with Murphy Associates Environmental Consultants. I'm here this evening representing Mike Pizzarella for a definitive site plan approval for a single family house, 454 Granite Street. Just to let you know, we have been before Conservation Commission. They had approved the project. However, they had made a request that we change the duplex house, the original design, to a single family house. And we are in agreement with that. And the application that we have tonight is for a single family house. We will be going back to conservation and getting an addendum to the order for a single-family house. A quick description, this is Granite Street off of Route 20, fairly close to the lights, near Cliff Street. It is a wooded lot. Fronting on Granite Street, if you look at the plan there, you see to the rear of the property is a wetland that has been reviewed and approved by conservation. The forward portion of the house would require a septic system. There is no sewer available on the street. There is an eight inch water line, plenty of capacity for the local neighborhood and this additional home. On-site drainage, all drainage from the rooftop goes into a dry well system, stormwater management dry well system. As I mentioned earlier, there's a septic system approved, a Title V system, which meets all Title V requirements. We're essentially here tonight requesting site plan approval because of the slopes at the site, the rear of the site. In order to develop the front and have no impact on the wetlands, there's a significant slope in excess of... Excessive 8% which I believe is the the cutoff For that requirement this erosion controls all along the backside again that has been approved by conservation So with that I will answer any questions that you may have

Thank you. Comments from planning staff?

Sure. This is Steve Carey in the planning division. This is a single-family house. The trigger for it being before you is that it's on slopes of 15%. This had initially been proposed as a two-family dwelling with two hammerheads. The issue is that we couldn't really figure out a way. They didn't want to shift the building back any further given the presence of wetlands back there. So there was really no way to have have a parking space in the driveway while also being able to use that hammerhead turnaround. We don't want to see cars backing out onto Granite Street. So I've modified the design to be a single family house with a two car garage so both those cars can use that hammerhead design. Our conditions of approval are just around requesting a couple additional tree plantings such that there are trees every 50 feet along the road in accordance with subdivision standards. And then we have a condition of approval that when I spoke with the engineering firm, I think we're looking to have struck with regards to where tow drains will daylight for that rear retaining wall. It sounded like they weren't going to be using tow drains for wall drainage. So if the applicant wouldn't mind just speaking to what their alternative is just to make sure there isn't any impact of sort of the groundwater on those retaining walls, that'd be great for us to understand And otherwise, we don't really have any concerns about this one.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Carey. Comments from DPW?

This is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We would like for the applicant to provide a plan with all the proposed and existing utility. And that would be our comment for now. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Is there anyone from the public in the room tonight wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none, anyone online with their hand raised?

Nobody with their hand raised.

Okay, moving to board members. Mr. McCormick.

Sure, no concerns for myself. Happy to support this one. I just wanted to clarify through the chair to Steve, was there a change in one of the conditions related to the tow drain, just so I can get that right?

I guess I just would refer to the applicant. Our suggested condition of approval would be to reflect where tow drains would daylight if those are proposed. My understanding from my last conversation with the applicant's engineer was that they were not proposing tow drains. So I just was hoping that if we are going to strike that condition, if they can just address, you know, any drainage concerns relative to the walls.

Okay. Thank you. Anything else, Connor?

No, I'm all set. Thank you.

Okay. Mr. King?

No comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. DeLera?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no comment either. I'm happy to support this one. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. DeLera. Mr. Toomey? No comments. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Resende?

No comments. Thank you.

No comments from myself either. I think we're ready for a motion.

Just to clarify, if the applicant could just comment on what they're doing for drainage for those retaining walls?

The idea is the retaining wall is not a solid concrete wall. It is a pervious wall with gravel in the back, so any water that might get caught in the back of it can pass through the wall. It's been designed specifically to be a pervious wall. It's fairly sizable blocks, but it does not hold water, and especially in the winter, it will not hold ice. Mr. Carey?

As long as, you know, if the board is comfortable with that, I guess I'd ask, I mean, there's sort of weep holes in the wall where the water will be seeping out of?

I didn't hear any question of that.

Mr. Carey's asking sort of how what you're describing works exactly. Are there weep holes?

How does the water get out of the wall? The blocks themselves are not tight to the effect they have. It's like a toothed effect, but they're not watertight. They're weep holes built into the wall is the best way to describe it. Okay. It's been designed specifically not to have a surcharge of water behind them.

Okay.

Okay, I'm satisfied with that if the board is. Would it be possible, I guess I should ask, is it possible to reflect the weep holes on the plan where those are going to be along the wall?

We could add that.

Okay, so why don't we modify the condition D to read reflect rather than toe drain daylight location updated to say reflect weep hole location.

We could have it as a condition. We'll approve as a condition. Perfect.

Yeah, that's what Mr. Carey is suggesting. Sounds like we can do that.

Also, if I could add, the Title V requirements, especially in the type of soil that we have here, you really don't want to have trees within 20 feet of the septic system. Specifically, the roots get into it and mess it up. So we would certainly accept... Your condition as to how the trees are located, we don't have a problem with the number of trees at all. It's just that we're not, we really don't want to have any trees directly abutting the septic system. Understood. So that could be a condition on the number of trees, but the location will be determined by Title V.

Mr. Carey, is that in conflict with what we have written?

I think that we would ask for a tree such that there's trees every 50 feet. I think there is space where the sort of septic system is relative to where I'm imagining the tree to be, where you can see my cursor here. I think there probably is 20 feet of space there. We can add a caveat saying unless tree location would conflict with Title V requirements.

think that's a good idea uh okay i think we can address that um mr king did you comment on this i had no further comments on this one okay thank you mr delera no comment thank you mr toomey no comments thank you mr rezende no comments thank you i also have no comments this has been adequately reviewed by staff and conditioned uh happy support

Okay, with that, I would make a motion to approve the definitive site plan for 454-456 Granite Street, subject to staff recommended conditions of approval on pages two and three of the memo, with the adjustments to conditions 1B and 1D as discussed. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King?

Yes.

Mr. DeLera?

Yes.

Mr. Toomey? yes i vote yes that motion passes five to zero good luck thank you very much uh okay moving on next item is number seven 23 through 37 boylston street a public hearing for a definitive fronted subdivision plan do we have someone from the applicant online maybe yes good evening mr chair hi go ahead

Thank you. Good evening once again, Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name is Matt Echol. I'm an attorney with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant. I'm here before you tonight seeking approval of a definitive frontage subdivision plan for the property known as 23-37 Boylston Street. Just for the record, we've been working with the city to readdress this because the odd numbers don't make sense on the side of the street. So going forward, it will be known as 24A through 34B Boylston Street, just for the record. By way of brief background, this project includes dividing the existing 42,000 square foot lot, which you can see on your screen there, into eight new lots. This will allow the pre-existing structures to become eight semi-attached one family homes on their own distinct lots. Previously, this was for two-family homes on that 42,000-square-foot lot. So this is being done to provide some homeownership opportunities and separate these four two-families into eight single-family semi-attached homes. We did receive relief already from the Zoning Board of Appeal for frontage on all eight proposed lots, as well as lot area for what was known or still currently known as 35 and 37 Boylston Street, which are the top two on the right, because you can see that slope kind of towards the rear of the property line. Those had slightly less square footage, but that relief was all granted by the ZBA previously. This project doesn't really include any work at all. There's no road construction, even though it's under a subdivision. It's a definitive frontage subdivision plan. There is no new structures, but the structures that are existing are ready to be inhabited and occupied, as I mentioned, as single family dwellings. We reviewed the staff's proposed draft decision and have been working with staff for the most part. We have no issues with it as proposed. We did want to at least have a discussion relating to the condition for the proposed new trees. We understand there's a subdivision regulation for a tree every 50 feet in the front yard and certainly understand the value of having more trees in the city and understand why this is a request and it's a consistent request. um but this is a little bit of a unique situation as mentioned there's there's no work to be done at all these are all existing homes existing driveways existing landscaping and trees already on site with no proposed changes this request is really just to take the buildings to eight new home ownership opportunities As the site's built out, you can not get a great idea maybe from this image on the screen, but there really aren't ideal places to put six trees in the front yard. It's small on my screen. I don't know if you guys can see it better, but the driveways are shared between each building, so I'm not even sure the math technically works, and we would only have spaces for five trees if every area had an ideal space for a tree, which I don't believe there is on the far right. We're very tight against the abutter with a small strip of what could be landscaping. The two of the middle kind of you know, vacancies between the homes already have trees. And there's also a severe slope kind of from like where the front door is all the way down to the street. So we're dealing with some topography here. We're dealing with some areas that are already paved as well as mulched. There is landscaping in front of all the homes already in the forms of bushes. There is a significant amount of trees either in between the buildings or to the rear. And as this is homeownership opportunities, obviously there might be some personal touches being put on in the near future, kind of smaller bushes maybe in the front yard. And the smaller bushes, I should touch upon that as well. Obviously, we get why the regulation exists, but in this situation where we have the four existing driveways, We think it's a severe hazard to try to place trees anywhere near the street, especially with the slope of the driveway. It would have a tendency to definitely restrict the line of sight and cause some issues with both maybe pedestrians and oncoming traffic on the street as you're entering and exiting. So we're certainly open to discussion with the board and we respectfully request your consideration. uh to potentially remove condition e or have some flexibility i just don't know as it's written if it's even it's even possible every 50 feet because of the existing conditions with the driveways with the slope and with the exist uh kind of set up how it is right now so happy to talk through that condition more in greater detail and answer any questions the board may have okay thank you additional comments from city staff on this

Through the chair, this is Olivia Hull in the planning division. So not to repeat too much of what Attorney Echol just provided, but this is an application to divide the property into eight new lots. So the two family dwellings are essentially converted to single family semi-detached duplexes. No site work is proposed with the division of the land. The applicant did receive the appropriate relief needed from the Zoning Board of Appeals in order for these each to sit on their own lot. It's now just up to the Planning Board to approve the division of the land. Regarding condition one E for the placement of trees every 50 feet along the property frontages. This is a standard subdivision requirement that we have been consistently providing as part of these frontage subdivision approvals. The trees. are allowed to be placed back 20 feet from the road line, so it doesn't necessarily have to interfere with the sight lines of the driveway. I do understand that there's a limited amount of space on each of these lots. They do each appear from a street view to have a strip of grass between each of the four structures. So if the applicant feels strongly that they're not able to place all trees at every 50 feet, perhaps the board could condition it so it's a little bit more flexible. But ultimately, at the discretion of the board, what they feel is appropriate for the placement of these trees. As a city, we would prefer to see some trees over none trees, but at the discretion of the board. Happy to answer any further questions.

Thank you, Ms. Houle. Any comments on this from DPW?

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

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

I don't see anyone in the room.

Is there anyone online?

Nobody with their hand raised.

Okay, just maybe before we get to board discussion, I'm counting three grass areas in between buildings, which I recognize is less trees than the city is currently asking for. But I'm just wondering, Olivia, would that be an OK compromise, if we could get a tree planted in between each one of the buildings?

Through the chair, I think I'd be amenable to that. Ultimately, as long as the board agrees, I think that's a fair compromise.

The only reason I suggest that, I do think planting them close to the road does introduce a couple of hazards. One that I think is easily mitigated is the sight line issue, but there's also utility poles fairly low hanging directly above that. So I would think that that might be a little tricky, but in between the buildings there seems to be more than adequate space. for myself to the applicant i would i would just say i i think we'd be comfortable compromising but i don't think we're we're okay removing all of the uh all of the additional trees as miss wool said this is a we understand these are existing buildings but this is a not uncommon request uh to this board to apply frontage subdivision uh and we we request these trees whenever it comes up

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, we're certainly open to a compromise as well. And, you know, the real issue is just having a condition that just became unattainable. So certainly three trees with a little bit of flexibility, you know, I think is reasonable. We just wanted to make sure we can apply with whatever condition gets put on the approval.

Understood. Thank you. I'd let my colleagues comment if we're headed in the right direction. Mr. McCormick, do you have any comments on this?

Yeah, I'm happy to support it. That sounds like a reasonable compromise. If the rest of the board and staff are amenable to it, I'm on board and happy to support.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Mr. King? Happy to support this one. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. DeLera?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you articulating that compromise, so I support it. Thanks. Thank you. Mr. Toomey?

Yeah, I was just looking at the overhead on Google Maps, and there are three between each of the buildings, but there's also one to the left of the, I guess, closest to Lincoln Street. Do you actually get four trees by taking each of the four green spaces? If you look at that, the first one at 23, there's a green space that appears to be part of that first one. So potentially four trees, one in each of the green spaces.

Would the applicant be amenable to that?

Apologies, I'm trying to confirm exactly where the property line is. It certainly looks like a smaller area in the plan you're looking at than in Google. I know there's a retaining wall. I'm not sure which side of the property that's on. Again, if there's just a little bit of flexibility baked in, certainly not opposed to a fourth tree, but maybe there'd be a way to have a little flexibility on if it became not feasible to do it over there. We'd be open to that.

I just I don't know how that could be structured But just again don't want to commit to something that becomes unrealistic, but I'm not opposed to a fourth tree Understood it looks feasible, but maybe we can condition the language Mr.. Kerry if you have language, but I was thinking you know a minimum of four trees unless It's determined that only three are feasible or something like that Sure we could say

Yeah, four trees as close to the street as practical given utility constraints. Would the applicant be amenable to that?

uh i would maybe request again where maybe where feasible just because again i'm not not an arborist but the slope gets kind of at its worst right as you right as you approach the street and i'm just not sure the likelihood of survival if you kind of plant it right into the slope even if you're avoiding the utility wires not sure if there's a caveat for you know it's close to the street just where feasible overall perhaps or i don't want to wordsmith it too much for you but um i wouldn't want to get too close to the street and have it die immediately because it's sideways yeah i think um we could add uh yeah where practical given utility constraints um and uh and slope considerations yeah utility and grading constraints

All right, we all seem to agree that that will work. Did all the board members comment already? No, that was my only comment. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Rosende.

I support that compromise and no further comment.

Okay, for myself, I'm glad we got here. Mr. McCormick, I think we're ready for a motion.

Okay, I would make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second. Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Five to zero. The hearing is closed.

And then I would make a motion to approve the definitive frontage subdivision plan for 23 to 37 Boylston Street, subject to staff conditions in the draft decision on pages one and two of the staff memo with the amendment to condition 1E regarding trees as discussed.

second the motion mr mccormick yes mr king yes mr delera yes mr toomey yes i vote yes five to zero that motion passes good luck thank you very much thank you uh moving on to item number eight which is 11 cliff street this will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan an amendment to a definitive site plan

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. For the record, Mark Borenstein. I'm an attorney at the law firm Prince LaBelle here in Worcester representing the applicant, Lilly LLC. This evening, I'm joined by the principal of Lilly LLC, Daniela Matos. Before you is a minor site plan amendment to a commercial development at 11 Cliff Street. After the approval was granted, there was some site work done. They determined that there were some large boulders on site. They ultimately used that for portions of the wall. Special services came out, determined that that required an amendment. So in terms of modifications to what was previously approved, we have that riprap wall, boulder wall, and there is now a septic system proposed on the site. We're not making any other changes to the proposed development. We've reviewed staff's recommended conditions of approval. We do have some questions and comments. So with that, we're happy to address that after staff has provided their comment.

Sure thing. Let's go to staff.

Sure. Steve Carey in the Planning Division. Yeah, this is an amendment to a site plan approval. There had been on the approved plan, which I'm not sure if we have, but... There had been a sort of tiered wall system initially approved for this side of the building, or the side of the site. It's now a sort of riprap slope going down to a boulder wall. We have had a site inspector who's going by and flagged that. ISD, I know, has talked to their structural engineer. And they're comfortable with the stability of the slope. Just for an abundance of caution, we have added a condition just prior to issuance of CVO that that same or another professional structural engineer basically provide a letter just certifying that the slopes remain stable. The other change, as Attorney Borenstein noted, is that there's now a septic system that is proposed. My understanding is that when this building was initially proposed, it was going to be a dry building. It's now, I believe there must be some sort of bathroom or kitchen in there. They do have a water line connection and now a a septic system. ISD also did review that and we heard from them today that they didn't have any major concerns with the way the septic system is laid out. With regards to the conditions of approval, I'm glad to talk about whichever ones the applicants wish to discuss. They are largely just carried over from the prior approval. Some I think I was able to just strike just based on what was reflected in sort of the amended plans, but there were a couple that, a few that had not been satisfied by the revised plans, and that's why they remained carried over. And then DPW Water also, now it being not a dry building anymore, also did issue some comments. We added those. Yeah, but glad to discuss and answer any board questions.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Carey. Anything from DPW before we get to that?

Yes, for DPW, we don't have any comment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.

All right, Mr. Borenstein, what do you got? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So with respect to condition 1C, so previously the applicant was proposing a row of arborvitae along that easterly boundary. Now there's a condition, reflect a minimum of 10 trees along the eastern property line. We're trying to understand if that is an addition or in lieu thereof. Separately, the applicant's principal mentioned to me that there's some invasive species in that particular area, so there'll have to be some clearing to plant these new trees or shrubs. So we're just looking for some guidance from staff as to what is preferred. We're happy, Arborvitae or trees, just looking for some direction there as to what is requested.

Sure, I think as long as what's proposed, I think as long as they're a minimum caliper of 2.5 inches, I think is how we had the condition written. I think as long as that's what's shown there in that plan, I think we would be comfortable striking that condition as it is.

OK, that's fine with us.

So we'll strike 1C.

With respect to 1D, just to provide some additional information regarding the different wall drains, there is some drainage associated with that major retaining wall, I say major retaining wall, the non riprap or boulder wall, there is an outlet in the riprap swale. But in terms of the riprap swale itself and the boulders, those are, they're perforated with a filter fabric. So there wouldn't be an outlet for that, but we're happy to add the drain outlet with respect to the retaining wall itself. So if that's what the staff's requesting, maybe we could just clarify that it's wall drain outlets for retaining wall? Sure. Great. um we would respect so in terms of one queue uh there's a request to provide covered bike parking for employees or visitors uh we're not anticipating any visitors to the site this is really a commercial space for the employees of the business and employees certainly can park their their bicycles in the building itself so we would ask that that be struck as well if acceptable to the board. With respect to 1R, we added two EV-ready parking spaces based on the prior approval. It seems now there's a request for an EV charging space. This is really just a dispatch location for this landscaping business. So we would respectfully request to keep the two EV-ready spaces as shown on the plan and strike 1R. And with respect to 1V, there's a comment from DPW to keep trees at a minimum of 10 feet from the waterline location. So my recollection from the previous approval was that staff requested shrubs and a tree in front of the proposed building. I don't believe there was previously a water line, so that's a new addition. We're happy to remove the tree and the shrubs. We defer to the board and DPW as to what they would prefer in terms of removal of the vegetation.

So. Sure, I can respond. I guess with regards to 1Q, with regards to bike parking, I defer to the board as to whether or not you feel that bike parking, whether covered or not, would be something you'd want to see at a site like this. My understanding is it's a storage for a landscaping business. I think with 1R, I think we're comfortable striking that. assuming the board, you know, but would of course defer to the board. And then where there is to 1V, I imagine that, yeah, DPW was, you know, reviewing this and hadn't seen our conditions around those trees there, which were from a prior iteration of this memo back when this is approved back in 2024. So I think we'd be okay with, you know, whatever trees... removing the proposed trees just only as necessary to keep them 10 feet from the water line. Okay.

So through the chair, then we'll keep the shrubs but lose the tree? Is that what we're proposing? staff's recommending i guess which tree is specifically referring to is that uh i think that's it this that's what the engineer flagged for me as within 10 feet uh can that tree be shifted to be uh 10 feet from the waterline i think it's fine we're happy to shift it so then i think then that condition can remain uh the shrubs though might be within 10 feet i don't think shrubs are an issue for dpw but i defer to dpw it's usually the trees that are problematic

Yeah, I would agree. I think it's the root system of the trees that would be the issue.

Okay, so we don't need to do anything with one V then because it's just tree. Oh, actually, can we just get rid of the et cetera? Sure. Just because that's ambiguous. Great. So we'll strike et cetera. And then I defer to the board with respect to one Q and one R and the other requested changes.

I can speak for myself. One, I'm fine with you have EV ready there. This condition actually says recommend they consider installing. You have installed EV ready spaces, which means conduit. If the demand meets it, then you can put in an EV charger. I'm okay with that. As far as interior bike parking is concerned, it actually says that on the plan. it seems reasonable to me that they can park their bikes inside the building unless anybody has an objection to that. So I guess other board comment on this, Mr. McCormick, do you, do you have any issues?

No, I would agree with your assessment and I'm happy to support.

Thank you. Mr. King.

No additional concern. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. DeLera.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To go back to 1R, I get clarification. So the EV readiness remains, and the request is to strike the requirement, the requested requirement for one online charging station. Have I read this correctly?

Correct. Yeah. My understanding is original approval will require two EV-ready spaces. That's what's been built. And so I'm not sure how this condition snuck in, but the condition's now saying from DTM is recommend they consider making one of those fully operational, which is a little bit of a confusingly worded condition, if you ask me. But I think what we're saying is EV ready was the original intent, and we're fine keeping that in.

Okay. So as long as it remains EV ready, I'm happy to support that. Yep. Thank you.

Mr. Toomey. This is a location I drive by two to three times a week. I'm impressed by anyone that can ride their bike up and down Cliff Street.

That's a fair assessment.

Yeah, so no comments and ready to support. Thank you. Mr. Rosende. No comment. Thank you. Okay. Mr. McCormick, I think we're ready for a motion.

i would make a motion to approve the definitive site plan amendment for 11 cliff street subject to staff recommended conditions of approval on pages two and three of the staff memo uh with amendments to condition uh to strike condition one c amend condition one d and one q do i get that um just strike one q sorry and one r and two amend one v Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. 5-0, that passes. Thank you. Okay. Next up, we have three separate zoning map amendments. I understand there's some folks in the audience here on these items tonight. I just want to kind of give you the overview before we get into each individual one. So what happens here is that an applicant proposes that we make a change to the zoning map. They propose that to city council. City council sends it to us. We're the planning board. We're volunteer citizens, not unlike yourselves. They want us to make a recommendation back to them. Whatever we say, whether it's we support it, we don't support it, they in theory consider that. Then they send it to a subcommittee. And then it comes back from the subcommittee to the whole council, who is ultimately the folks that are going to make a decision on whether or not to grant the zoning map amendment. So appreciate you guys being here. By all means, we'd love to hear your comments. Just want to be clear, whatever vote happens tonight, there's still a few steps in the process before anything ultimately happens. So that said, we're going to start with number nine, which is 25 Westchester Street, a public hearing for a zoning map amendment. That's right there.

Thank you for that overview, Mr. Chair. It's helpful, I think, to the neighbors in the audience. For the record, my name is Joshua Lee Smith. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Bowditch and Dewey, and I'm here tonight representing my client, CMS. To my left, sitting over there, is Jerry Cavanaugh. He's one of the principals. in connection with the project that is contemplated for this site. As you mentioned, Mr. Chair, this is not an application for site plan review, nor is it an application for a special permit or variance or any other type of zoning relief. We're here to hopefully gain support from this board with respect to a proposed zone change pertaining to this site.

So, Steve, we've got a slide deck. Is that ready?

Yeah, so we've got a really brief slide deck just to give an overview, a little context with respect to the site. Your neighbors are here and I believe online who have intimate knowledge with respect to the site. Steve, if you could advance to the next slide. So this is a 16, approximately 16 plus or minus acre property. I'm sure many folks here are generally familiar with it. This site is the formerly most recently occupied by Catholic Charities of Worcester County. The property is owned by Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Worcester. And so for those who are familiar with the property and its former use, the building was most recently occupied by Catholic charities in support of its program pertaining to helping folks with adults with developmental disabilities. They have since moved, I believe they moved to another town, and the property, the building has sat idle for a very, very long time. And for anyone who visits the site, you'll see as you come off of Westchester Street, as you drive up the driveway, you can immediately see that the site has been somewhat neglected with respect to maintenance, repair, maintenance. Starting from the driveway, driving all the way up, you hit Inman Ave, enter the site. The internal driveways, again, are in a state of disrepair. I won't even speak to the building, but the building is also not in very good shape. So what my client is looking to do is revive this building. They are not looking to tear it down, number one. I want to make that clear. They are looking to retain the building and bring it back to life. They are proposing, with respect to the existing building, to convert the building from the previous use, which was a non-profit project, Nonprofit use to a an apartment building. It would be a technically in the city of Worcester. It would be considered a low-rise multifamily building with a 40 plus or minus Units so that's with respect to the existing building that sits there now They are also contemplating some level of ground-up development immediately adjoining where that building is situated there now. And so those would be in the form of townhouse style buildings. And what my client is currently contemplating is between seven to 10 units with respect to townhouse style units. So again, 40 units with respect to the conversion of the existing building, plus between seven to 10 townhouse style units, again, directly adjacent to the existing building. So as you can see here from this aerial view, the vast majority of the property actually consists of woodlands. So I'll get to the meetings that we've had with the neighbors in a moment, but I do want to underscore the fact that the vast majority of what you see that are woodlands will also, my client is fully intending to retain those woodlands. So there'll be a number of other changes, improvements with respect to the site, which we'll obviously share as we hopefully move forward through this process as when and if this zone change does get approved. And we'll be submitting full site plans, fully engineered drawings to provide a little more with respect to those designs. But just to give you a sense, Steve, if you could advance to the next slide. And this is the existing building. I should have shown this earlier. These images don't do it justice. Again, if you go to the site, the building is quite dilapidated and in a state of disrepair. Steve, if you go to the next slide, Again, these are early, early conceptuals, a couple of potential illustrations of possible designs, obviously for the townhouse portion of the project. I'll get to the real crux of the matter with respect to the actual zone change itself. And Steve, if you could just go back to the zoning map again. So I think I may have mentioned this, or Mr. Chair, you may have mentioned this. The property is currently within the RS7 zone. The request here is pretty straightforward. We're looking to have the entirety of the property changed or modified to or replaced to the RL7 zone. So generally speaking, the RS7 zone is the city's least restrictive in terms of basically it allows for single family dwellings. RL7 is a little bit more limited. By its name, it's called Residence Limited. So it is not the most in terms of density that's allowed, unlike an RG5. But the RL7 does allow for the construction of low-rise multifamily as well as townhouse style units. And I do want to underscore as well that if this does get approved, if the zone map gets approved, those two types of uses for those two types of dwellings would still require a special permit. So this would not, if this zone map does get approved to be changed to the RL7, this still would have to go through not only site plan review, but would also require a special permit process. So in terms of just the board, the neighbors, having multiple bites of the apple, there's certainly going to be a process that we'll have to go through in terms of design, review, and vetting of the project. So this is really an early, early initial step. I did want to say just really briefly with respect to the Working with the community, my client has had several meetings, both group meetings, group session meetings, as well as individual one-on-one meetings with the neighbors. I also want to indicate that Councilor Economo is here tonight as well, and he has certainly helped facilitate those meetings. So number one, they're fully aware of what we're looking to do here. we've been open and and fully disclosed what's potentially contemplated we received a lot of comments feedback a lot of comments with respect to not necessarily the the site or the pro potential project itself but some other neighborhood related issues that the that the neighborhood has been experiencing off-site some pertaining to The street itself, Westchester Street, which is obviously it's got some challenges. It's very narrow in certain areas of that street. It's very steep in certain areas. So there were comments with respect to the narrowness, the steepness of the street, the surrounding streets, as well as issues with respect to plowing of snow during the winters and issues with respect to stormwater, those types of things. Some of the comments were on-site related comments and some of the comments were off-site related comments. A lot of the off-site related comments, I think it's safe to say that my client and the neighbors have aligned interests to see that some of those issues, to the extent they can, can be improved. But I did want to just underscore again that we have had several meetings with the neighbors. It's an ongoing dialogue, and we're happy to continue to work with them going forward as we progress through this process. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Move over to staff comments on this item.

Through the chair, this is Olivia Hull in the planning division. So I just want to start by noting that this petition was initially submitted to the board to consider establishing the adaptive reuse overlay district. It was advertised as that way originally. After going through the advertising process, the petitioner met with neighbors and it seems that as a result of discussion with neighbors, the petition was amended to instead establish the RL7 zone. So just wanted to start with that clarification for anybody here. To go over permitted uses that are in RS existing RS7 zone versus the proposed RL7 zone, the RS zone is one of the more restrictive residential zoning districts in the city in that it only allows residential dwellings and some exempt uses by right. The RL7 zone is less restrictive in that it allows two-family dwellings, duplexes by right, and then it also allows three-family dwellings and low-rise multifamily dwellings. structures by special permit. There are also some business and general uses that are allowed by special permit that would include nursing homes, funeral homes, personal service businesses, again, only by special permit, which would not be allowed in the RS-7 zone. Other than that, as far as other uses, they're pretty much identical across all categories. So as far as dimensional requirements go, single family dwellings in both zones are subject to the same requirements, which is 7,000 square feet of lot area, 65 feet of frontage, and a 20 foot front and rear yard setback, and an eight foot side yard setback. The RL7 zone with its more intense residential uses require greater lot area and frontage requirements. For the semi-detached or duplex dwellings as well as the two families, it requires 4,000 square feet of lot area and 35 feet of frontage per unit. Attached townhouse-style dwellings as well as three families require 3,000 square feet of lot area per unit and 25 feet of frontage per unit. Multifamily uses are subject to the 7,000 square foot requirement for the first unit and an additional 2,000 square feet per unit on top of that first unit. It is also subject to 65 feet of frontage for the first unit and an additional five feet of frontage per every unit on top of that, maxing out at a total of 140 feet of frontage for multifamily use. As far as height and story limitations, the RS and RL7 zones are limited to two stories, including an attic, or 35 feet in height for single family uses. Two family uses in the RL7 as well as three in multifamily are permitted to be taller up to three stories with an attic or 50 feet in height. And the non-residential uses are limited to 45 feet in height in the RL7 zone. As far as setbacks, we already discussed that single families are subject to the same requirements in both zones. Multifamily dwellings require a greater side yard setback at 10 feet versus the eight feet that's otherwise required, and then a 20 foot front and rear. As far as zoning history for the parcel, where the property goes, MAPS BACK IN 1971 INDICATE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED RL7 AS WELL AS SOME OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE 1960s ERA ORDINANCE ALSO SHOWS THAT HIGHER DENSITY USES WERE ALLOWED BACK THEN. SO LOW RISE AND HIGH RISE MULTIFAMILIES WERE PERMITTED BACK THEN BY SPECIAL PERMIT WHEREAS THE RL ONLY ALLOWS LOW RISE BY SPECIAL PERMIT TODAY. Then sometime between 1987 and 91, the area was rezoned or downzoned to the RS7 zone that exists today. The neighborhood is primarily characterized by single family dwellings to the north, east, and west, consistent with RS7 zoning with some two family dwellings interspersed. There's also some educational and religious uses with Assumption University existing to the south. The property has historically been used by the church, and historic imagery indicates that it was undeveloped prior to 1960. Upon its construction in 1960, it appeared to be used by the church from there until today. That is all I have to go over for this, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you, Ms. Houle. Mr. Chair, can I just add something really quickly? So thank you, Olivia, for pointing out the initial filing included in AROD, which we agreed to remove, again, in response to comments that we received from the neighbors. The A-Rod, as we'll get to in the next couple of petitions later in the agenda, the A-Rod provides additional flexibility with respect to things like dimensional requirements, parking, etc. We want to... Again, in the spirit of working with the neighbors, and especially from the first big meeting that we had with the neighbors, there was a lot of concern with respect to density. We underscored the fact that even if we pull out the A-Rod and don't have an A-Rod, which would have allowed for a by-right use for one of those dwelling types of uses, that we wanted to assure the neighbors that we accept the feedback from them with respect to density density was clearly one of the uh the um one of the comments from the neighbors uh multiple comments from neighbors with respect to can we provide reasonable density i do want to point out that um initially as we had expressed it to the neighbors we were proposing a closer to a 70 to 80 total unit development for this site. We agreed, again, based on a lot of the feedback from the neighbors, to dramatically pull that back. So back to what I had initially said at the beginning of this, the beginning of my remarks, back to 40 unit plus around between seven to 10. So I did want to underscore that fact that we pulled out of our application the A-Rod. And in addition, we also agreed, based on comments from the neighbors, to reduce the density as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. So now that we've heard from staff and we've heard from the applicant, we'd love to hear from the neighbors if this is the petition you guys are here on. I see one person, two people, three people.

Yeah, no rush. Everybody will get a chance to speak, but come on up.

Yeah, so the way it works is you come up kind of one at a time. And when it's your turn, you have to ask me the question, but the applicant can respond. Just that's all.

My name is Barbara Clifford. I live at 46 Westchester street. That's the corner of Westchester and Barrett and a very close distance to the mercy center, which is the property we're talking about today. Westchester street is extremely busy already. It has been, we bought our house there 14 years ago and it's just built and built and built up the traffic. We have, um, the Willows at the one end and Grove Street at the other end. So it's insanely busy and it's quite a narrow road. So it is essential for everybody in that area to be able to drive and get places. And with the driveway coming out, the Mercy Center, as it existed before, had only one in and out And that was right onto Westchester street. So it's extremely busy. There's been many accidents on it. And, um, we really, really are very, very concerned. That as well as safety for children buses that, you know, it's like insanely busy as we'll see tomorrow or next week when the school start. So we, we are very concerned. There are many other people that want to discuss how concerned we are as a group, and we want safety. And this will put approximately close to 200 people more coming in and out on Westchester Street. So that is a big concern, along with many other concerns that I'm sure others will get to. Thank you.

OK, thank you for your comments. Do you want to come up? Yeah. Can I go first?

I got to go home for bedtime. So Mr. Chair, Mark Borenstein, A.D. Berry Road resident and neighbor of the project. So I appreciate the petitioner amending their petition to change from AROD to the RL7. That was a concern that I had because it could allow for commercial uses of the property. I know that Ms. Hull referenced some commercial uses, but I believe that they're mostly nursing homes and more institutional uses versus more commercial uses in the sense that I would think of. Personally, and I've expressed this to my neighbors, I know it's not a popular opinion, I support housing at this particular property. These will be multifamily low rises. They will not be in excess of three stories. It's, from my perspective, lower density in terms of multifamily housing. So I personally do not have an issue with this particular petition. Ultimately, while the petitioner's representative is saying that they're proposing 40 units in the building and some townhouses. We all know that ultimately once it's rezoned, it could be any project, right? So I'm looking at the use table itself. Pretty limited residential uses, not particularly high density. So I personally do not have an issue with the petition. Thank you.

Thank you. Whoever's next, come on up.

I'm Ricky Green. I live on 5 Napav. I've been there for 40 years. And when I moved up there, there were five houses on my road. Now it's packed with houses. And I don't mind that at all. But to put 80 units in that area with one access road is insane. It's already a mess at the bottom of the hill. There's accidents all the time. When they put these 80 units in, it's going to be backed up to Barry Road. Honest to God. Are you going to put another access road?

Hold on, sir. You have to direct your questions to me.

I'm asking him, are they going to put another access road in when they build these units, or are they just going to keep that one access road?

So I just want to be clear about where we are. So right now, all we're considering is a change to the zoning, which is like the what's allowed, the rules. If they want to do the project that Mr. Smith was talking about, they have to come back for a special permit. So that's when you get to see what they actually plan to do. At this point, it's like, what could they be allowed to do? And just so that you understand this part, because I think it's important, all we're doing is making a recommendation to City Council that they may or may not review at all, but most importantly, they're going to follow their process. So there's going to be another hearing with one of their subcommittees and then ultimately a discussion at City Council. So all I'm trying to tell you is you're a long way from getting to look at access roads and all that stuff.

So you don't want to know about any of that stuff, so what are we really doing here?

Well, they may not know. I mean, when we're considering it, We're not considering a specific project. We're considering the underlying zoning because they could say one thing. I mean, I'm not suggesting this is what they're going to do, but they could say one thing and then just do something else completely different.

So we have to consider all the things they could do. But you should know that there's only one way in and out. One access, 80 units, one way in and out onto a small street. If they don't put another exit, you should know the things like that, though, shouldn't you?

When it comes to a site plan, absolutely. That's when that stuff gets reviewed. But at this stage, that's not actually what we're talking about.

All right.

All right. Thank you.

Hi, Paul Landry. I live at 2 Nap Av. I'm opposed to this. There's way too much traffic in the area, number one. They have no sidewalks on Chester Street. It's a dangerous street. It crosses 122 at the end. There's a major action at least once a week there. Maybe just check the statistics. And for the fact that it's a single-family neighborhood, and you're going to bring all these people that are going to be coming and going. They're not going to be staying there. No pride in the neighborhood. And it's going to destroy the neighborhood. So, you know, I'm definitely opposed to it. Somebody's going to get killed if this is approved. They're going to get killed on Chester Street, and you guys are going to be responsible for changing the zone. That's it.

Thank you for your comments. There's somebody behind you, but then you can go next if you like.

Sorry. My name is Susan Burns. I've lived at 10 Napa for approximately 43 years. I am definitely opposed to this project. I think it's going to just destroy the blueprint of the neighborhood, which is a single family, maybe a few scattered two families. I also feel that if you zone it, you know, if the zoning is approved, it could potentially, and I mean, realistically, I think it will become an Assumption Dormitory. And that will, you'll have another situation like Holy Cross where the neighbors are in an uprise because of its proximity to Assumption College. It's going to be right there. And everybody says, oh, well, they're going to be upscale. Listen, these kids, their families, they have money. There's going to be no problem with renting them out or whatever. Like everyone said, if the zoning changes, like he said, the accidents at the bottom of Chester and Route 122, which is a state-owned road, are astronomical. It's every week. I would encourage any one of you to go to the police, get a log of how many accidents have been in the last five years. Like other people have said, the street is not wide enough. The only way that you could accommodate this zoning would be to widen the street, which would take people's land by eminent domain, which people have lived there forever, and obviously everybody's against that. And I know the one, if it is zoned, if the zoning goes through, people are gonna tend to use the Chester Street exit, if there's an exit. Even if there's two, the only thing that would be logical would be to get one going right out to Grove Street, but that's not gonna happen. So if you have to come out Chester Street, there's gonna be multitude of accidents. Right now, as it stands, one car, can barely get through in the winter. Now, when you're coming up that street and the opening, the major opening is right at that corner, which is very dangerous. When you're coming up or going down in the winter, you're just praying that no one's coming because you're out of control in your car. And there's no way really to change that, you know what I'm saying? It's just the topography of the land. So... I vehemently oppose it. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for your comments. Come on up, sir.

Good evening. My name is William Hughes. I live at 83 Barrett Avenue. The neighborhood is a longstanding neighborhood. On the street on Barrett, Barrett Ave South and Barrett Ave North. We live in North. We have three 80-year-olds who've lived there all their lives. You can look at the area, single homes, single families. Come here, buy a good house. Go to a good school. Live in a good neighborhood. I heard what Joshua said, the attorney, that the plan has been so much scaled back. I did not know that. It was going to be the 40 plus or minus, I'm not sure what plus or minus apartments are, but it was 30 to 40 townhouses now scaled back to, I think he said seven or 10. That's different. But the traffic on that road is now it's a cut through from the west side to really 290. There's 2,000 cars transverse that road a day. I made a public records request to the Worcester Police Department about accidents, 911 calls, et cetera, at the intersection down at Chester Street and Grove Street. There are lots of accidents. There are actually two trees there that bear the scars of many accidents. I did a public records request for 311 events. for the city, basically from January 1st, 2025 to June 1st, 2026, looking at Barry Road, Chester Street, and West Chester Street, which are really the cut through and the parts of this road that would be affected by this development. During this period of time, There were 267 events recorded by 311. Barry Road had 76. Of those 76, 53 were for potholes. Nine were for the street not being plowed. Chester Street had 124. 43 of those were for potholes. 32 of them were for the street not being plowed or sanded or needing pot. Westchester Street had 67. 39 of those were for potholes. Nine for the street not plowed. So the total to 267, 139 of the events, which is 52%, were for potholes. The road in this In the late winter and the spring, we all start to go, all right, we're going to start calling about the potholes. Actually, Councilor Economo actually did a 311 about the potholes a couple of weeks ago. And they came up. I mean, the city is great. They come up and they patch the holes. But it's about water runoff, runoff that comes right down the driveway of the proposed development. Thaws, freezes, thaws, potholes. The lady before me talked about the road. Coming up the hill, it's a blind corner, blind drive. You can't see down, can't see up. In winter, we have strategies. When it snows, you make the corner, you get down to the bottom of the hill, you look up the hill. Is there anybody in the road? Nope. Proceed. Proceed. Minimum speed, 40 miles an hour. Why? Got to have your momentum up because you got to make the left-hand corner, hoping no one's coming down. If someone's coming down, you can always veer right. But if there are cars ahead of you, you're going to have to wait. Why? Because if people don't know what they're doing, it's going to be madness. We don't talk about that. One of the things, the 311s, just for a point of comparison, Grove Street, in the same time period had 321 total events. 82 of them were for potholes, 25%. Park Ave had seven. No potholes, no snow. So it's really involving changing the neighborhood, the nature of the area, longstanding. Traffic, which you've heard about.

You know, the road is small.

We had a flatbed come down Barrett the other day, hauling a steam shovel, making the right-hand corner onto Westchester Street. Almost made it, but managed to ding the telephone pole. Now the pole is damaged. You have two large trucks come up. We're going to have to see who wins. So these are all considerations we live with every day. We like where we live. We'd like to be able to stay there in relative peace and calm. One of the things that has occurred is below this proposed development to the east, Recently, the planning board has approved four single houses to be developed down there, which will add four driveways and subsequent traffic. The other part is runoff, water runoff. One of the things is there's a lot of ledge in this area. And the developer talked about, yeah, there's probably a ledge up there. He didn't want to blast, which is really good. We're happy about that. But any time there's a major development up there, ledge gets moved around and water develops new paths. One of our neighbors at the meeting we had talked about spending $40,000 because of runoff water that changed when Ledge got moved into her house, into her home, that she had lived in for decades, had been dry, and then $40,000 to remedy it. So there's a lot to be considered. I mean, people talk about the trees, the wildlife, et cetera, but it's really the quality and the nature of life for us. We understand that Worcester now, next, projected by, I believe, 2040. It's going to be 60,000 more people projected to live in the city. That's a lot of people. But the people on the hill want to have people that live in single owner-occupied housing. We just had two houses sell in that area that had been empty for months, two months. We like Worcester. We like where we live. Up to you. Thank you. Thank you.

Come on up, sir.

Hi there. My name is Bill Hurley. I live at 46 Westchester Street, the corner of Barrett Avenue, Westchester. I've lived there now for 14 years, and for 14 years I've been trying to get them to properly care for Westchester Street. I mean, the people used to drive up on my front lawn because they thought that was part of the roadway. So I planted grass and playing clean back my property. We've had last month, the truck tractor trailer with excavating equipment came down Barrett Avenue. It hit the telephone pole on the corner, took a good chunk out of the telephone pole and just kept on going down the road. Didn't care. I called National Grid. I called the city. Everybody came up and looked at it, but nobody's done anything about it. It's leaning like this now because the truck hit it. Three days ago, a guy came up the hill, came up Westchester Street, went around that left-hand turn that everybody's talking about, traffic coming up and down too tight. He ran into a telephone pole. He was going too fast. And he just, right off, the whole side of his car, passenger side of his car was torn off and laying in the road. This guy wasn't inching along, he was speeding. I've complained to the police department about the traffic up there. I've tried to get them to do something about it. I call Joe Petty's office and complain about trying to get somebody to come up and write tickets. And... What I end up with is two or three different cop cars that come by my house and wave at me and then keep on going. So, I mean, is this really the true way to run the city properly? The roadway is hell. When I first moved in there, I used to shovel all the gravel down that came down Barrett Avenue to fill in the potholes on the other side of Barrett Avenue. So I'm doing all this labor to try and keep my neighborhood clean and nice, but I can't get you folks to even think about doing anything about paving my street without charging me per lineal foot.

I would point out, sir, that we're not employees of the city of Worcester.

We're residents like yourself. I can't hear you.

Sorry. I would point out we're not employees of the city of Worcester. We're residents like yourself. I understand that. I'm not going to come pay for your driveway or your road, but I understand your frustration as a fellow resident. Okay. So we get anything done about it? I don't work for DPW. I don't work for the City of Worcester. That's what I'm telling you. I'm not the guy that's going to fix it for you.

You're going to build this structure up in there and do something about that. As I've said, there's only one entrance and one exit. That sign over there that says Inman Avenue on the corner of Westchester and the driveway to the Mercy Center, the sign says access to Inman Avenue. It doesn't call that Indian Avenue. That is nothing more than a driveway for the Mercy Center. That's all it ever was. It never had a street name. It never had a, you know, and Joshua came by and I pointed out that's not Indian Avenue at the end of Westchester Street. It's not. It's a driveway. I can walk up to the map and show you right away, but You don't have the room up there for all that traffic. You don't plan to seem to have the room to widen West Justice Street, because you'd be driving through my living room, to be honest with you. There's several houses up there that are 20 feet off the curb, and you can't go any wider the other way because the telephone poles are there. So nobody planned anything. Nobody thinks about anything. So while we're trying to plan this project here, which I'm totally against, but, you know, why don't we actually get down to the brass tacks and talk about what's going to happen as far as planning of that roadway? And if everything's going to enter off of Westchester Street, how are you going to do that? There's been accidents on the corner of Barrett and Nambue at least twice a year. And I'm not talking little fender benders. I'm talking people getting pushed up on people's lawns with their vehicles.

I understand your frustration.

But you guys are in control of anything and can't do much, have anything about anything.

You know, it feels that way a lot of the time. Well, yeah, you know, it looks that way right now. Because truthfully. I'm telling you, it looks that way for me sitting right here, and I've been doing this for eight years. And I would point out, as a volunteer to my community. So while I understand your frustration, you're directing it in the wrong place, sir.

Thank you. Can I say one more thing?

I think the counselor wants to speak.

Can I say one more thing?

Sure.

You know, the bill just come in.

And they'll build that and they'll leave with their big bag of money and 50 yards either way, it looks good. But 100 yards up the road where Barrett and Chester meet, it's small and it's not wide and all these people like they're getting affected by it. They'll leave, they won't even look at, they're not gonna take care of that stuff. We'll end up paying for it with our taxes because they're going to go, oh, it's a cluster, you know what, and we'll have to pay our taxes. We'll put in sidewalks and lights and street lights and red lights. It's not fair. They just shouldn't even do this. It's too much, too many houses. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor?

Where was I going? Um, the one other thing about that is the speed bumps and things that have been built in that area. We did, we did a tornado and you read it better to have, but you didn't do the lower half of barrier.

But I mean, who's, who's you, who's you that you're referring to?

The city, I'm sorry.

I mean, look, this is a public meeting, and the planning board exists for folks to come and voice their concerns about items that are going to affect their neighborhoods.

And what I did at the parking lot meeting, I was inviting Tony and Joshua and everybody to come up to my house and look at the traffic problem before you're building anything. Nobody's shown up. Nobody comes by. I've invited the mayor down to come take a look at things. He doesn't show up for anything. He should be here, in my opinion, but...

I mean, you'll have to take that up with him or vote for somebody else, but... Counselor.

Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Ladies, gentlemen, I appreciate your diligence here and listening to us all. These items that are being spoken of tonight... are what would come of the zone change. And I'm here to stand here before you with my neighbors here to oppose the zone change from RS7 to RL7. I think more discussion needs to take place, more insight into the neighborhood. This is a neighborhood of single family homes, tightly compacted together. what is being proposed would be out of character for the neighborhood. You heard all about the traffic and the only one thing I'll add to it is from Barrett Ave to Midchester Street as you're going down or easterly towards Grove, from November through May, it's all ice. We can put salt on it all day long, but there's just a runoff off that hill that impedes that area. The density in that small area, too, how do we protect those abutters who would be affected the most by that area? Respectfully ask the plaintiff board to protect the established single-family neighborhood in that area. There are no guarantees that this builder will be the final builder. So we changed the zone. It opens up more opportunity. Maybe this developer flips it. the next developer that comes in may have more density to add into that space. It creates a more transient neighborhood, people coming, going on a regular basis. So with that, you know, does something need to be done there? Sure. I don't want a shuttered building there. That's not helping the neighborhood either. but I feel more discussion needs to take place. And with that, I would ask you at this time to oppose the zone change. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else in the room? I've seen anybody in the room. Is there anyone online with their hand raised? This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division.

Apologies. This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. We do have someone going by Rob's iPhone and then someone named Jody as well. So Rob, I'm going to unmute you on our end. You just have to unmute on your end.

Thank you. Yes, sorry. This is Councilor Robert Bellotta. I was calling in to speak on item two. I didn't know if it would be too late to provide testimony. I was not able to get to the meeting earlier.

Hey, Councillor. Item two is Chequesset Road, which was a leave to withdraw. Is that what you're hoping to talk about?

Councillor, you are muted again. Let me see if you can unmute.

Yes, that's correct.

It is already, that's already passed.

So they've withdrawn?

Yeah, they've withdrawn. We granted them their leave to withdraw.

Okay, thank you. I was concerned about just the topography and the private roads there and close proximity to the lake. But I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Yeah, no problem.

Who's next? We also have Jody. I'm going to unmute you on our end. You just have to unmute on your end.

Hello, my name is Jody Chapdelaine and I live 11 Barrett Ave in Worcester. And I pretty much agree with what everyone else is saying between the traffic, the runoff. I left a area that they're trying to build So I could become a homeowner of a single family. I really didn't want a neighborhood where I left. The other items, the woods, they are home to many animals, deer, rabbits, wolves, or I should say coyotes. boxes, turkeys, and to take more of that density. And then also those trees are giving us shade and cooling. And if you take them away and even put little trees, it's still going to take a while for them to grow. So I've also agree with the other items. So I would really like to leave it in our S7, if that's how you say it. And cause like councilman said that, you know, then someone else could even come in and do more. So I would agree to also not pass it. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much for your comments. Anyone else online?

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

Okay. Let's move on to board discussion. Mr. McCormick, do you mind going first?

Sure, I guess we'll start off by saying, appreciate all of the neighbors and butters who came out to provide comment. But I get the way that I'm kind of looking at this is, I think, is the chair tried to describe we're looking at this strictly as a zoning map amendment. Um, I know the, the applicant described a proposed project that they, um, you know, might try to develop should this zoning change go through. Uh, but that's all very down the road and kind of conceptual at this point, um, from strictly a zoning map perspective. Uh, I know this board typically, um, doesn't tend to favor, um, redevelopment or rezoning, um, of. that is kind of inconsistent with the surrounding area. It does appear that the majority of the area surrounding this parcel is RS7 and also above the Assumption University zoning to the south. But I'm kind of weighing that against the existing conditions on this kind of unique large site where there's an existing building that certainly could be redeveloped. And obviously, the city's need for housing and its recent comprehensive plan where it calls for gradual increases in zoning to allow for these kinds of redevelopment. You know, I'm looking at the current zoning could probably fit upwards of 80 or more single family homes if it were subdivided today by right. So I think what the applicant is contemplating is not, you know, Outrageous compared to what what could be done today. Again, we're not looking necessarily exactly what specifically the applicant is proposing, because this is a zone change that affects the property, not the current owner of the property. So. I think in line with the city's comprehensive plan and allowing the existing building to have some better opportunities for reuse and some better redevelopment of that site, I would be open to a favorable recommendation on the proposed zoning change, but I would certainly like to hear from the rest of my board members.

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Mr. King.

Yes, and as it relates to specifically the zoning map amendment on this one, I would be fine with supporting. I do understand the residents' concerns. I would just say as we get towards a definitive site plan, please do come back, but we will touch upon a lot of the concerns mentioned.

Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. Gelera.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, yeah, Mr. McCormick pointed out something important. While maintaining the current zones would appear to be consistent with what's already in the neighborhood, and that's generally a policy that this board favors to maintain consistency and avoid any kind of spot zoning, the effect would essentially be the same in terms of the number of people that might be living if the property as is is developed to its most dense potential. So the question is, is there a better way forward? And so I'm open to seeing what might be proposed down the road with the understanding that there is a process that needs to be followed before anything is approved this is simply a recommendation about whether this property might be eligible to support some other type of development beyond what is currently allowed but again there is an entire rigorous process that must be adhered to before anything might be built on that site down the road regardless of who's the owner so at this point i'm willing to see where this process goes um following the recommendation from this board to the city council and again there is much opportunity for this proposal to even create a zone change there's still much opportunity for a dialogue to transpire regarding that which is completely separate from what may actually be proposed

down the road thank you thank you mr delera mr toomey um again the biggest part of this is what we're making is just a recommendation it's a real decision process since with the city council and that's where that decision is going to be made no matter what we decide this evening. I can see arguments for both sides, but again, even as RS7, as my colleague said, you still get a lot of houses in there, and every comment that was made tonight is still going to be in effect relative to that.

Thank you, Mr. Chimney. Mr. Rosendo.

As an alternate member, I don't get to vote on this, but to the extent that my comments might be useful, I regularly drive down Westchester and Chester. I understand what the conditions are there and what the concerns are. I would say also that as my colleagues have stated, this is merely a recommendation to change a map. Before anything is constructed there, there will be multiple opportunities to be heard on what gets built to oppose what may be proposed for the site. But that all comes down the road. This is merely how this is labeled on a map. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Rosende.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, there's one other thing I would like to mention. Sure, go ahead. In my experience, when Projects of this nature are eventually realized. And again, looking down the road as to what may get built after the process is completely transpired. These are opportunities for underlying infrastructure problems to be potentially addressed. So if we're looking at issues related to water runoff or traffic, While the development is underway, there is an opportunity for some of those underlying issues to be looked at and potentially improved. So again, that's something that may happen way down the line.

Thank you.

Yeah, but at whose expense? The taxpayers, right?

let's let's keep the discussion within the context of the meeting but look I firm for my comments I certainly planning staff knows this and I'm I I find zoning map petitions to be incredibly frustrating I've been on this board for eight years now and I sat through a lot of changes. I have a background in housing development, specifically affordable housing, and that's why I got involved to volunteer my time in service of my community, because I think, well, I thought that was a worthwhile effort. But these are a really bureaucratic thing. Ultimately, the changes we make now result in the city we're going to have in 20, 30, 40, or 50 years. And I think that deserves consideration and careful consideration Where I get frustrated is really two places. A zoning map amendment is a three-stage process typically, where it goes to council first, comes to us, goes back to council, goes to a subcommittee, and then finally gets voted on by council. And my first frustration is that to me feels disingenuous. It feels like it's a pressure, like this board exists, this meeting that you've all came tonight, invented your frustrations with all the different things that you feel the city has failed your neighborhood on over the last, You know, however long you've lived there, some of you very, very long. You come here and you vent that frustration tonight, and then you go to the subcommittee maybe and you vent that frustration then, and you go to Josh's neighborhood meetings and you vent that frustration then, and by the time it actually gets to the vote, the people who you elect will have had that effect dampened. And I'm not speaking of your councilor in the back of the room. I'm speaking of the council at large. So in that respect, I feel we've all just wasted each other's time for the last hour. And I don't like that. So that's a source of frustration for me. Another source of frustration for me is that the city somebody want somebody who lived there a long time and i'm sorry i forget which one you said this uh... talked about when you move there there were five houses and others yeah okay now there's many many more cities changing all the time i'd been sorry i'd i'd understand you want talk but weeks or camp it not doing something is also an option but it's an option that also has consequences so if we just leave this zoning the way that it is you may wind up with an 80 unit single family home development you may wind up nothing happens and that nobody ever fixes your road and the city continues to neglect uh the area all of those are possibilities And it may be that ultimately council passes this zoning change, a different developer comes in and they build something that you hate after many, many reviews by this board and others before it eventually gets to a building permit. Unfortunately, we have to just try to make the best choice that we can in the moment right now. And when it comes to zoning map amendments, I actually... I mentioned I'm a housing person. I support housing. We've got a lot of people coming to the city. I think where the city is really struggling right now is how do they balance the demands of the people who have lived here and have invested their time and financial resources in making the city what it is against the people that we should be welcoming. I don't... Really, you know, an RL7 is actually a really restrictive zoning district. I know Josh said RS7, RL7, they're both fairly restrictive. I don't know that you get, I think you probably get a better project if someone's going to develop here in an RL7 zoning regime. And so for that reason, I would support this. Notwithstanding all the facts, a lot of your concerns come down to the fact that you, one, prefer nobody develop there, which I don't really think is feasible. Somebody will build something on a parcel this size in the city eventually. And two, there's a lot of just stuff that you wish you got better services on from the city, which I'm empathetic to as somebody who lives here as well. I think it's a long way around to saying, hey, I get it. You're frustrated. I'm pretty frustrated too. I'm going to vote to support this. And any other comments from board members? All right. I think we're ready for a motion.

I would make a motion to favorably recommend the proposed zoning map amendment for 25 Westchester St. As outlined in the application seconds.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick. Yes. Mr King, yes, Mr. Dallara, yes, Mr. Toomey, yes, I vote yes as well. 5 to 0.

Thank you members. Mr. Chair, if I may ask, I believe the next two matters are also involving projects. Could we take a five-minute recess?

Sure. Let's do that. Let's be back at 7, 8, 20.

Board members King, McCormick, and DeLera, we're just looking to confirm you're back online with us.

This is Board Member King. I'm back. Board Member McCormick, I'm also back.

Board Member DeLera is here too.

Great. Thank you. We should be starting shortly.

All right, folks. I think we're all back. So welcome back. We're going to end the recess and call the next item, which is... Item number 10, 95 Vernon Street, a public hearing for a zoning map amendment.

Mr. Chair, before I begin, would the board be willing to entertain flipping the order between 10 and 11?

Is anybody here to speak on either of these? Which one would you like? 10? Okay. I think because we've got somebody waiting, let's not do that. What's going on? We have two people waiting. We do. Okay. I tend not to switch it if somebody's here for it. Okay.

Understood. So, Mr. Chair, we're talking about 95, Vernon. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. I'm... Again, for the record, Joshua Lee Smith, attorney with Bowditch & Dewey. I'm going to be really brief on this. Please. We are seeking a zoning map amendment with respect to this parcel uh this parcel is about 1.6 acres in size it is currently within the business office district bo 2.0 and we are looking to simply add an overlay the a rod on top of this parcel in its entirety and as not to fast forward too much, but the next petition proposes also as part of what is being requested an A-Rod as well. So that can't be looked at completely with blinders because we are looking to have some contiguity with respect to both requests. To give a little bit more context, the property is located, as I said, within a BO 2.0 By extending the A-Rod, you would be also extending it from across the street, across Winthrop Street, which is the Worcester Academy site, which is also currently within an A-Rod. So the A-Rod would be an extension both to 128 Providence Street, which is the next item on the agenda, and then to 95 Vernon Street. The a rod, as I mentioned earlier on the last petition is a set of provisions within the zoning ordinance that allows for flexibility adaptive reuse with respect to existing buildings and encourages. all many more flexibility and variety of different types of uses while at the same time because it's an overlay it still honors the underlying district we're not looking to amend the underlying district the current building that's there now is a medical office use My client is at this time not planning on converting that, but they are looking to have flexibility and to provide additional contiguity with respect to the A-Rod, again, which is being proposed with the adjoining property at 128 Providence Street. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Thank you.

Staff comment on this?

Through the chair, this is Olivia Hull in the planning division. So the petitioner, as stated, intends to establish the adaptive reuse overlay district, or the A-Rod, at the property at 95 Vernon Street. The A-Rod was created to foster redevelopment of vacant or underlies UNDERUTILIZED BUILDINGS WITH THE INTENTION OF ALLOWING MIXED USE TYPE DEVELOPMENTS AND PROVIDING DIMENSIONAL FLEXIBILITY AND USE FLEXIBILITY. SO IN THIS CASE ADOPTING THE ARODS GOING TO ENABLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL USES SPECIFICALLY A MULTIFAMILY HIGH RISE DWELLING THAT'S NOT OTHERWISE ALLOWED IN THE UNDERLYING B02 ZONE. This use would only be allowed by granting of a special permit from the planning board as well as introducing flexibility to other dimensional controls like setback frontage lot area etc parking minimums and landscaping and design standards for parking and loading There are also a handful of business in general uses that would be allowed by special permit that are not otherwise allowed in the BO2 zone, including food service, excluding consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages, indoor recreation such as a gym, retail sales, and... I'm sorry, just retail sales here. For some zoning history at this property, Older zoning maps dated 1971 indicate the property was previously zoned RG5. Sometime between 1987 and 1991, the area around this property was rezoned from RG5 to INH, which is an institutional medical zone. SUBSEQUENTLY BETWEEN 1991 AND 2007 THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED TO ITS CURRENT BO2 DESIGNATION LIKELY A RESULT OF THE TRANSITION OF THE ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL WHICH EXISTED HERE BUT THEN WAS RELOCATED TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA. BETWEEN 2002 AND 2007 THE A ROD WAS ESTABLISHED TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. essentially helping facilitate redevelopment of the former hospital property. The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by three-family and multi-family dwellings and some lower density residential uses. There's also some mixed uses here and educational uses such as Worcester Academy and Girls Inc. There's a few commercial uses also interspersed to the north and west of the property, comprising of medical offices and some neighborhood retailers like convenience stores and food, I think fast food shops. as far as land use history goes the property appears to have remained undeveloped prior to 1870 and then between 1886 and 1910 the property was developed with the the aforementioned saint vincent hospital prior to its prior to its relocation in 1980 the zba approved a special permit in variance for the property at 95 vernon street to allow construction of the existing three-story medical office building and that is actually all i have for comment on this but happy to answer any questions all right thank you olivia uh

Yes, moving on to the member of the public. Come on up.

Hello, good evening. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Board. My name is Fenton Bradley, principal of D21 Architects, Attleboro, Mass. I'm here representing the board and unit owners of 10 Winthrop Street, also referred to Vernon Medical Center 1, which is the property just north of the site. We have submitted written comments regarding this application. I won't repeat the entire application. I will just highlight a few items that kind of summarize our concerns. What's a little deceiving on this map is that you actually don't see the buildings. And if you can see 10 Winthrop and 95 Vernon are really close to one another. First just note that we understand again as noted earlier the zone This is just for the zoning amendment and to establish the adapter of reuse overlay district but our concern is that unlike the prior application and the one after both of those kind of zone amendments had some sort of definitive plan or direction that they were going and believe that information was kind of of not a not supplied here. The board is objecting to objecting to this petition at the time. And just want to note that it really matters because 95 Vernon and 10 Winthrop have historically not function as completely separate buildings. If you can see, it's maybe 30 feet right between the two buildings. And there's actually documentation reviewed by the firm identifies long-standing relationships between parking access, existing easements, electrical infrastructure, domestic hot water, fire suppression system, telecommunications, and equipment and other infrastructure. It's a historical agreement that recognizes that the existing parking easement is to remain in effect. It also documents contemplation of separation of water, fire suppression, electrical telecommunications. The board's concern is straightforward. Before the zoning, This change in the matter intended to facilitate future development of 95 Vernon. We believe this existing relationship between the two properties should be identified and the intended redevelopment should be disclosed officially for its impacts to be evaluated. For example, what use was contemplated, residential, senior housing considered, the parking demands, parking circulation, fence and access change, what utilities serving 95 Vernon still originate in 10 Winthrop or vice versa, what price separation work has been completed, if any, and what remains outstanding. These are existing planning issues, not just hypothetical concerns. We also saw also at and item number 11 we did kind of review the 128 in providence as well and understand that this is uh being attached with that and again there they identify 98 units or some sort of development we just think it's just going to be too broad to kind of have this as adaptive reuse overlay district and these two buildings are still connected and i commend the last application but also seemed like they had some sort of public outreach also note that i'm also a property owner at 10 winthrop as well i own a few few units of my wife in that with this holistic medicine um so it is a primary concern and we didn't receive anything about public outreach we didn't receive anything the board hasn't or i didn't receive anything at least understanding the development we could have maybe supported or kind of voiced some sort of these concerns Accordingly, we just respectfully request that the Petit Blanc either continue this matter until 95 Vernon can provide or defer to action until they can provide additional supplemental information with the intended redevelopment. What do they want to do with their adaptive reuse overlay district? We did hear that they not plan to change the use, but have the flexibility for all the owners and developers in the future. But I think just a change in what, I mean, essentially looking at kind of a shared site, the two buildings on, that's being cut in half and not re-zoned part of the half. What happens to the other half? And just to note, it's still a medical office building, 10 Winthrop, still a medical office building with active doctors and medical professionals in there. Again, we're not actually on the planning board to make any decisions on any private easements or condominium rights. But again, just to kind of know the history, 95 Vernon, I believe they were both condominiums, a process of being decondo and redevelopment. Nothing has been done to the kind of adjoining property. And for this reason, we respectfully request either continuance or that we oppose this petition. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Okay.

I'd give the applicant just an opportunity to address any of those.

I believe other members of the board may be online as well.

Yep. And we'll get to them. Josh, you want to go first?

I can speak now or if there are other folks, Mr. Chair, who want to.

Anybody with their hand raised? No one with their hand raised online right now. Oh, wait. Apologies. I do see someone. I do see two people now with their hand raised. So I'm going to call on Conchie. I'm going to unmute on our end. You just have to unmute on your end.

Hi. Can everybody hear me?

We can.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your time and thank you, Fenton, for that concise review. I'm also a unit owner at 10 Winthrop Street, and I'm past president of the board and now clerk. And I did not want to take too much time, but did want to share a little bit of history with the two buildings that are the 95 Vernon that's right behind us. Right now, the major concern that we're having is that there are some still shared electrical units. There's still some equipment that is currently in our building that is being shared between the two buildings. And there hasn't really been any kind of formal plan as to how that separation or that electrical separation, possibly other things, as Fenton was outlining, are going to take place. So because we really only received this information over the past week and a half to two weeks saying that they are planning to kind of redevelop in a different way than originally intended. We really just probably need a little bit more time to be able to make sure that our interests are protected and also to make sure that if it does become an issue where there's, you know, condominium, excuse me, where it becomes residential housing or something else besides medical dental offices or, you know, medical offices in our area, There are only a certain number of parking spaces that we have. And we also do have, again, shared resources when it comes to all of our, you know, separation. So we want to make sure that those things are taken care of before moving forward. So really at this point, we're just asking for some more time. So thank you for that.

Thank you. There was two. There's actually a third now, but I will now say, I see Sam. Sam, I'm gonna unmute you on our end. You just have to unmute on your end.

Good evening. My name is Sam Alkhoury. I'm an orthodontist. I own actually one third of the units at 10 Winthrop Street. I have multiple medical offices, dental offices there. We are concerned about this zoning change. So I just wanted to be on the record. I submitted an email. I hope that the planning board got a chance to review that. Although we are in support of the, basically the housing crisis in Worcester and whatever, you know, we can do, we're happy to do it. And that's why we have these medical offices to support the city. But if there will be some restrictions on our businesses and the use of our businesses, then we can't function properly. Recently, I was elected president of the board, so I support what Mr. Bradley said and what Dr. Capadia said. I myself, I'm an orthodontist, and I treat patients, so the parking situation is already tight. Thank you.

Okay, thank you for your comments. Somebody else?

Yes, I see Cindy. Cindy, I'm unmuting on our end. You have to just unmute on your end.

Thank you and good evening and I appreciate everything that's been said so far. And I just want to reiterate that as a board member, I am a board member. I'm the treasurer as well as a unit owner with Mr. Bradley. And our biggest concern is the separation. So we want to make sure that that's on record. And we're also concerned about the parking as well as How the property will be taken place will be taken care of because currently we do have some concerns about how the property is taken care of, especially the trash. So, with just a short space between us and 95, there are a few things that we need to iron out before. any approvals of reuse goes forward. I, as with Sam and everyone else that spoke before me, we're all in favor of the housing. That's not our issue. So we're not here to block housing, additional housing in any capacity is necessary for the city, especially with the location. So we get that. What we are concerned about is that we're not stuck carrying the expenses of any, Reuse that takes place, so we would love for the developer and the lawyer to actually have a conversation with us rather than we just see something in the mail coming from the city a week and a half before. this here hearing so that is all i have to say hopefully that opens up the dialogue um for us to communicate a little better with 95 or 95 can communicate a little better with us um with that i have nothing else to say but thank you all and we are in favor of moving forward and supporting you all with this change especially the senior center okay thank you uh anyone else online mr carey

No one else with their hand raised.

Okay.

Go ahead, Josh.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So first of all, I do want to underscore, I know that the members realize this, but to the public and to the neighbors here, especially the ones that just spoke, I want to underscore the fact that these are two completely separate petitions. The petition that is item number 11 that the board is going to hear next with respect to 128 Providence Street a completely separate and apart petition i mentioned that just because someone had mentioned that these are somehow connected and they're not a lot of the comments that we just heard are in my view private party related matters private property rights related issues i have some knowledge with respect to ongoing communications between the two property owners relating to separate things like separation of utilities. I'm not aware of parking or there were some other utility related matters, expenses, those types of things. I have no knowledge of that, but I do know that there's an ongoing dialogue between the two property owners with respect to those matters. those issues have nothing to do whatsoever respectfully um in my opinion uh with respect to a request a petition for a zone map change uh and i'll say that the zone map change that we're requesting is is not a change at all whatsoever with respect to the underlying zone so again the the current zone is a bo 2.0 that will the petition has nothing to do with changing the BO 2.0. One of the One of the neighbors had mentioned something to the effect of somehow that if this change were to be approved, that it would somehow restrict the use on the adjoining property somehow. That is not the case whatsoever. The BO 2.0 would still continue to exist. This is merely an overlay district that would be superimposed on top of the existing BO 2.0. And so all of those uses that are allowed in that underlying BO 2.0 zone would still continue to be allowed. The A-Rod, however, would just allow for sort of look at it as a supplemental list of additional potential uses that also could be explored when and if my client or future owner wanted to explore those future uses, including potentially residential. But there are also some other business-related uses that also could be explored. The other big thing I want to underscore too, and this is sort of similar to the last petition, is that by adding the A-Rod and let's take, for example, the multifamily use, which right now a high-rise multifamily use is not allowed within the BO 2.0. If this were to be approved, And again, as the chair has mentioned on the previous petition, this is only a recommendation vote that would be happening here tonight, either up or down. If this were to be approved, that particular use would still require a special permit. So if this AROD does ultimately get approved, recommended favorably by the planning board, again, by the Economic Development Committee, and then finally, VOTED FOR APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT HIGH RISE MULTIFAMILY USE WOULD STILL REQUIRE SPECIAL PERMIT. IT WOULD NOT ALLOW MY CLIENT TO JUST SIMPLY GO PULL A BUILDING PERMIT AND START BUILDING OR CONVERTING. But again, as I said at the outset, my client right now, I can tell you, has no intention of converting this to a residential use. He saw the opportunity as the A-Rod potentially is going to be extended to the neighboring property at 128 Providence Street to also, again, for contiguity, extend for flexibility. But my client, as the neighbors know, my client's building currently is tenanted with medical office tenants. And he is continuing to try to fill that building with the same types of medical office users. He has no intention right now to convert anything. But I did want to underscore that it would not be a by-right use if this got approved. I did receive the letter recently from, there were two letters that were sent to me, one from Dr. Al-Khoury, and then the other one from the architect. who just spoke a moment ago. Apologize, don't have the name in front of me right now, but the gentleman to my left. The vast majority of what's set forth in this letter really, a lot of it wouldn't even come up if we were applying for site plan review. Again, a lot of the issues here that have been discussed are private property rights issues between two property owners. And I acknowledge that there have been and are still ongoing discussions with respect to things like separation of utilities. Those discussions are ongoing. I don't really see that those have any place in a zone map change petition. nor if this did ever get to site plan review. But again, my client doesn't even have a plan or even a conceptual with respect to changing this to any type of residential use. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, thank you for your comments. Just to the folks in the other building, because I feel like sometimes when we talk about this, because we deal with these things often, we sort of lose sight of the fact that you've probably never heard of a zoning map amendment or certainly never come to a planning board hearing. I just want to define a couple things for you that might be helpful here. One is Josh, Attorney Smith was just referencing something called an AROD, which is short for an Adaptive Reuse Overlay District. Zoning is basically a set of rules. We define districts in the city. And then in each one of those districts, there's a bunch of rules about the types of things you can build there, how far apart they need to be, et cetera. an overlay district just goes on top of the underlying zoning when you're trying to promote something in particular so in this case adaptive reuse it would give this is often implied in like a manufacturing building setting obviously we don't have as many as much manufacturing in the city as we used to And so we have these old buildings. We want to adapt them, reuse them. We apply the A-Rod because it gives us a little bit more flexibility in doing that. And that is really what's going on on the parcel next door. What the city often does when someone reaches out for a zoning map amendment is they request that that person also speak to their neighbors and say, hey, do you want to join our petition? Because usually if it makes sense in one place to change the zoning, sometimes it makes sense in the surrounding parcels, and I think that's what happened here. It sounds like this property owner I just said, you know what? It gives me a little bit more flexibility should this ever come up in the future. I'd like to do that. And that's the petition we have before us. The 128 parcel, which is the larger building, is also changing some of the underlying zoning. So it's a little bit more complicated. But your neighbor just wanted to open up some options. Attorney Smith is also correct. Many years down the road, were this ever to come to the place where somebody was going to do something different, there's going to be a lot of engineers and architects and other professionals involved who are going to have to work out how to separate the utilities. No one's going to make you pay the cost of their redevelopment. That's just not how that's going to eventually work. Were it ever to come to that. maybe you separate your utilities at some other point. Interestingly enough, I've been involved in a couple projects involving medical office buildings in the city, and it seems like a popular thing from this vintage that we had shared utilities for these campus projects. Actually, not that uncommon. I don't know how useful that little nugget is for you, but I think it's interesting. So hopefully that helps. I think we're ready for board comment, unless there's anyone else from the public. Do you have any follow-up questions? No? Good. All right. Mr. McCormick.

Um, yeah, Mr chair, I think you kind of summarize my thinking on a lot of that very well. Um, yeah, I think, you know, we're looking at this strictly through a zoning maps amendment lens and. Um, in terms of what the property is requesting to be added to the rod, I think that's, um. reasonable and appropriate for its location in the city, for the parcel itself, and for the additional uses and flexibility it provides. Certainly appreciate some of the concerns that we heard from the abutting property. But again, as you mentioned, I think a lot of those were private property matters that would definitely get sorted out if and when any actual development occurs much farther down the road. So I don't want to belabor it because I think you covered everything pretty well, but I would support this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Mr. King.

Happy to support this one in general. It seems to make sense. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. DeLera.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would echo some of the councilor's comments about the effect that this potential zone change would have. It wouldn't allow anything to happen by right to this property, and so any potential change in use down the road would require a special permit. While I have some concerns about what seems to be a bit of an ongoing set of communications issues between the two adjacent property owners about things like the shared utilities and whatnot, But that's not really something that I think is in the board's purview for considering whether or not to recommend this change. So I would also say that the zone change adding the AROD would neither prevent nor facilitate those private deliberations between the two property owners from taking place. So I hope that they resolve it, whether or not this change eventually goes through. And to that end, I would support this change being recommended by the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Toomey. Thank you. My limited time on the board and learning about zoning and spot zoning. This kind of almost seems like a spot zoning. Shouldn't the city kind of have looked at this as the entire block and said, well, if we're going to make the A-Rod district the entire thing, also take 10 Winthrop Street and make that A-Rod so this entire block that we have becomes the same zoning district instead of potentially having two or three different zoning differences within this small area. I haven't looked totally ahead to what 128 Providence is and what the difference is that they might be looking for, but it just in my mind makes sense. Let's take the entire region of that block and make it all the same thing.

I mean, I don't disagree with you, but I think the technicalities of this often drive the bus. So here's what I know without preempting the next. So 128 is a city-owned parcel, and they want to enable it for housing, which makes a lot of sense. It was all the former St. Vincent's Hospital campus before they moved downtown. And so the idea is they have some very specific requirements that they need to accomplish in the underlying zoning. I think probably when they spoke to this property owner about it, they didn't want to change, you know, because they were using it for medical office use. It might not have been allowed in whatever the new zone is. that we're gonna look at for 128. So sometimes, even though I like where your head's at, the reality is we gotta try to make it work.

Again, I don't know if anyone ever talked to Ted Woodruff and said, hey, we're going to look for this A-Rod. It might make sense for you guys to do this as well. Instead of having what becomes two different problems, they look at it unified amongst themselves to say, yeah, I guess this could be beneficial to us to have it this way, or maybe they say it's not and we want to keep it the same, but... It seems like they weren't consulted about, gee, maybe you guys should do this and we do it as a unified thing as opposed to two separate things. Again, I'm willing to support this. Again, my question is, any reason you can't include 10 Withrop at the same time and just make that continuous to the whole thing or whatever the city is looking for to be able to make that continuous to the whole block?

If whoever sponsored this petition comes back and amends it or gets amended at a later date, I don't know the legalities of all the bureaucracy of this, but I'm sure they could. And I don't know why they didn't.

That's all I have. Thank you. Okay.

Mr. Resende? No comment. Thank you. Okay. I think we're ready for a motion.

Okay, I would make a motion to favorably recommend the proposed zoning map amendment for 95 Vernon Street, as outlined in the proposed petition.

Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick? Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? As a Red Sox fan, this is the only kind of A-Rod I would say at support.

Yes.

Mr. Toomey. Yes. I vote yes as well. That motion passes 5-0. Moving on to the aforementioned number 11, 128 Providence Street, a public hearing for a zoning map amendment.

Through the chair, this is Michelle Smith and the city's planning division just to present this on behalf of the applicant, which, in this case is the city. So, the property is here as you see on the screen that was your senior center property also known as 128 Providence street. And the city holds the custodianship of the property through the city manager's office. So our office, the executive office of economic development has submitted through the city manager request to rezone the property in support of. the hopeful adaptive reuse of the portion of the long vacant piece of the property, which is the former St. Vincent's Hospital nurses building, which, as you know, if you've been to the senior center, is attached to the portion that's occupied and actively used as the senior center. So the department actually put out an RFP for responses for redevelopment of this with the preference specifically for housing for seniors. And the most advantageous proposer was selected, which is Rogers and communities who I know has representation here this evening as well. And my wish to speak specifically to their intentions, but they're a nonprofit developer that's based in Massachusetts and has substantial experience with affordable and senior housing development. And so, since they've been selected, they've been working through due diligence, proceeding with exploring tax credits and the like advancing proposals for. Redevelopment redevelopment of the property, which, if we kind of go to the next couple of slides, I think there's a an aerial image that shows you again what that looks like. Ultimately, their current proposal would proceed with about 98 units of affordable senior housing, 53 which would be located within the existing portion of the building that would be renovated. And then the addition that they would be proposing would have 45 units. So really the purpose of this Uh, hopeful zoning amendment, the city is putting forward here for your consideration would be to pull this property into the, which you can see is located to the South and the adaptive reuse overlay, which you can see is located to the Northeast. So basically extending the adjacent districts over the property. to encompass the entirety of this parcel to enable that redevelopment. Today, the business office district has restrictions, which my colleagues will talk about from a zoning perspective. But from a reuse perspective, this limits that in order to enable high-rise development specifically. And so while high-rise means a lot of things, typically, where we see that as a pinch point is four or five stories. And so this existing building is four stories and the new addition that they are anticipating would likely be four stories or more. So this is a pinch point for the current development and reuse of the site. And so we're hoping to open up that opportunity with the RG5. which would make that buy right in terms of the scale of the development, but also introduce the flexibility with the adaptive reuse, given the fact that that overlay is really intended for properties just like this to help adaptively reuse historic buildings. specifically the nurses building component that's been sitting there vacant and underused. It's directly in line with the purpose and intent of the adaptive reuse overlay. And obviously that our larger objectives for housing production, which we've talked a lot about this evening, that this really furthers that and specifically trying to meet a need that we have for affordable housing and specifically housing for our seniors. So with that, I will let i think attorney smith comment on some other components of the proposal and i'm happy to answer any questions thanks uh thank you michelle and i i'm just going to say again just for the record joshua lee smith with badge and dewey

So as Michelle mentioned, I'm representing Rogerson Communities, who is the nonprofit developer in connection with this project. I'm not going to rehash what Michelle just laid out very eloquently. I will say that Rogerson was awarded as a preferred developer with respect to the long-term leasing of this site, which includes the conversion of the existing building, which is known as the nurses home and also the development of ground up a ground up addition as well as Michelle described in total again 98 units residential units as part of this project I will just want to add a couple of things again it's a little bit of relaying back to the the previous petition Unlike the previous petition which if that ultimately does get approved with respect to the map change Would require a special permit for a high-rise multifamily use we are requesting in working with the city That that the that the underlying use here also be changed So that's a big distinction between this and the last petition the art so it is a this particular partial is also within the business office district. And we're looking to have this be converted to an RG5, which by the way, and Michelle may have mentioned this, would also be an extension because just to the south of this property is also in the RG5. The other extension is the A-Rod, which is exactly what the last petition also was requesting. And in this case, again, the A-Rod, this would be an extension because across the street at the Worcester Academy site is also an existing A-Rod. So two extensions, one from the north with respect to the A-Rod, and then one from the south moving north with respect to the RG5. The A-Rod, as Michelle mentioned, will provide some additional flexibility, especially with respect to dimensional requirements and parking. But with respect to the use, it was important for my client to have this be an RG5 bi-rite multifamily use. These are just some pictures. These are existing conditions, photographs, for those who are not too familiar with the site. And again, a lot of people probably know this generally more as the senior center property. Steve, if you could advance one slide, please. And one more. And keep going. Until we get to, we should have some renderings. Well, actually, let's go back one for a moment right here. So this gives a more graphical depiction of what is contemplated. Now, these are at the conceptual stage, but I can assure you that Rogerson has had multiple communications with the city. Peter Dunn, Paul Marano, Michelle Smith, we went to an IRT. in connection with this project. So the expansion area, as Michelle had described, is planned left here to the west, closest to Winthrop Street. So that will be the ground up addition, so to speak. And then there will be a conversion with respect to a large portion of the existing building, that Nurses Home building. Steve, if you could advance to the next slide. And again, these are at the conceptual stage. However, as you can see to the right there on this illustration is a rendered 3D rendering of what's contemplated in terms of the addition. Let's see if you could advance. And here's another view of it. And one more. So as you can see, the existing building is a four story building. What's proposed is, I think, characterized as a four plus story building. And again, that is the so-called, the new addition is the so-called phase two portion, 38,000 square feet. And that will contain 45 plus or minus units. With the balance of the other existing building containing 53 plus or minus units for a total of 98 units. So we just wanted to share this again. My client's still working through final designs, both with the city as well as the executive office of livable communities with the state. And as sort of been the theme with respect to these last three petitions, there will be an ongoing process. with respect to design and the board's ability to, opportunity to vet the project in terms of ultimate engineered drawings and final architectural designs. So happy to answer any other questions the board may have. Thank you. Oh, and I apologize. I did want to acknowledge a couple of folks, one in the room and then to my left, and then one online. Annika Lambert is online. And this gentleman right here, Ken Christofoli, is also both representatives of Rogerson.

Thank you. OK. Thank you, guys. Thank you for your patience tonight. Sounds like we've covered staff and applicant comments. Is there anyone from the public on this item tonight? Not seeing anybody online. Terrific.

uh board members mr mccormick sure thank you um yeah for myself uh similar to the last application i think this is a very reasonable um request an extension of the a-rod and the underlying uh residential zoning i think it complements or even enables a really important redevelopment of uh a historically significant building as well as um providing the opportunity for uh additional much needed senior uh housing so for you know i think the those collection reasons it's uh i'm very happy to support this and i i'll leave it at that thank you thank you mr mccormick mr king uh happy to support great use of the space thank you

Mr. DeLera.

Through the chair, before we continue taking board comments, I did just want to go over a couple of the differences between the BO2 and the RG5 zone. And I won't harp too much on these differences, especially over the AROD, since we already covered that previously. But I did just want to highlight that the RG5 and the BO2 zone BO2 zones do differ significantly across these districts, with the RG5 being more restrictive in all categories except for residential uses. The multifamily high-rise use is allowed by right in the RG5, where it is not allowed in the BO2. OTHER GENERAL AND BUSINESS USES WITHOUT GOING OVER EVERY SINGLE USE WHERE THEY'RE GENERALLY ALLOWED IN THE BO2 THEY'RE EITHER REQUIRING SPECIAL PERMIT OR NOT ALLOWED IN THE RG5 AND THEN WHERE THEY REQUIRE A SPECIAL PERMIT IN THE BO2 THEY'RE ALSO JUST NOT ALLOWED IN THE RG5. AS FAR AS DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, The BO2 district requires 5,000 feet of lot area and 40 feet of frontage per unit with a maximum of 200 feet where the RG5 requires the same 5,000 square feet of lot area or more per dwelling unit and a 50 foot frontage requirement or more per dwelling unit. However, it does have a lower maximum on the frontage where it caps out at 100 feet for high rises and 125 feet for low rises. AS FAR AS DENSITY REGULATIONS, THE B02 IS REGULATED BY A TWO TO ONE FLOOR AREA RATIO SERVING AS CONTROL FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES WHICH HAVE NO FRONTAGE OR LOT AREA REQUIREMENT. FAR IS NOT APPLICABLE IN RG5 FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AS THEY ARE REGULATED BY THE LOT AREA AND FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT. with the those requirements increasing per unit on the lot as far as the a rod establishment goes um the permitted uses like i said the high rise would be allowed by right however there's certain business uses with the a rod that would be allowed that aren't otherwise allowed in the rg5 such as food use including food service including alcohol sales and consumption gyms and retail um The A-Rod also allows the Planning Board to establish or grant special permits for parking flexibility, dimensional controls, and layout requirements as previously stated on the prior petition. I also want to highlight that this area was zoned RG5 as of 1971, then sometime between 87 and 91, the area was rezoned to INH and then subsequently rezoned to BO2, the designation it holds today, in 2007. And then the A-Rod was adopted to the area to the northwest between 2002 and 2007. um as far as the building itself we already discussed it's currently the home of the senior center it is a designated historic property in the macro listing and the area they're looking to redevelop was the former saint vincent nurse's home i don't want to repeat too much of what was already said i know it's getting late and my computer just died but happy to answer any questions if anybody has any thank you uh okay

Anybody have any questions on that? Hearing none, I believe we had just heard comments from Mr. King, so Mr. Dallara.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So with the potential pivot to housing with the adjacent A-Rod, I think this is an appropriate sidecar amendment to support as well. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Toomey.

Yeah, it's been a long time. This product, this property has been idle. It's great to see it finally get utilized again and happy to support this. Thank you, Mr. Toomey. Mr. Rosende.

No comment.

Also no comment from me. I think Mr. McCormick said it best. So we're ready for a motion.

I would make a motion to favorably recommend the zoning map amendment for 128 Providence Street as outlined in the petition. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King?

Yes. Mr. DeLera?

Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Five to zero. That motion passes. Good luck, guys. Thank you very much. All right. Moving on to A&Rs.

All right, this is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. I think you've got six ANRs on the agenda. I think just four of them are properly before the board. Let me just advance the slides here. Yeah, 12A, 52 Butler Street is not probably before the board. 12B, 13 Southgate Place is, this is actually a city property. So the fee waiver, the fee was waived for this one. Anyway, they are essentially just creating a separate lot with creating parcel A by adding this lot line you see in red here. that basically would not be considered a buildable lot. This is 22 Schaffner Street. This is generally a lot line adjustment. I think so that the driveway that you can sort of see the curb put for is then wholly on one of the properties. This is RG5. Both have the 50 feet of frontage that they need for a single family detached home. 12D is not properly before the board. 12E is another lot line adjustment. I think the only lot line that's moving is the one that's on the left there is shifting slightly to the east. All three of these lots you see will have the 65 feet of frontage needed for a single family detached home in RS7. And then 12S, this is essentially putting out a zero lot line, a lot line along the party wall between this single family semi-detached, AKA duplex, leaving both with the minimum 35 feet that's needed in the RL7 zoning district. So the board's going to be making a motion on 12B, 12C, 12E, and 12F.

Is there a motion on the ANRs? make a motion to endorse anrs 12 bc enf second on the motion mr mccormick yes mr king yes mr delera yes mr toomey yes i vote yes five to zero that passes um no communications or board policy and procedure there is one communication um yeah about

Habitat map for rare species. I'm not sure.

Through the chair, I apologize. I believe that was a carryover, an error from a previous slide deck. I think we discussed that at the last meeting.

Awesome. So no communications, no board policies and procedures. And I take it the minutes aren't ready. And no minutes to approve. Is there a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thanks, everybody.

Thank you.