Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, folks. Good evening. We're going to get started. Uh, welcome to the Wednesday, January 28th, 2026 meeting of the city of Worcester Planning Board. My name is Albert Lvali. I'll chair tonight's meeting. Before we begin, a couple of brief announcements concerning how our meeting will proceed tonight. Uh, first, all our meetings are in a hybrid format. You can participate either in person at city hall or by going online to worcestermath.zoomv.comj1617314979. Uh and just to cable services or maybe rose I think there's an echo somewhere. I think it's the TV. Uh 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. Uh for remote participants who would like to comment on an item on our agenda, we ask that you raise your use the raise your hand feature in Zoom during the discussion on that item. If you're joined by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star9. Staff will then call on members of the public one at a time and give them permission to unmute themselves. You can do that uh either through the Zoom app or if you're joined by phone by pressing star six. Um next I note this is a public meeting which means it is both being broadcast and recorded.

Hi.

That's interesting. It sounds weird up here too. Uh, Rose, do we have maybe cable services could give us a hand? Cable services, would it be possible to up the volume a little bit? We were getting some feedback from the TV, but I think it should be okay now. Is this any better? Oh, okay.

Try this one. All right. uh play a little musical microphones then. Um so what I was saying is uh this is a hybrid meeting. I discussed how you could sign in online which hopefully isn't relevant to the folks that are here in the room who are having trouble hearing me. Uh next thing I would note is this is a public meeting. It is both being broadcast and recorded. Minutes will also be published at a later date. To help with that process, we ask all speakers participating in person to use a microphone and to please clearly identify yourself each time you speak. And the first time you speak, please also state your city or town of residents for the record. To help maintain an orderly meeting, please address all comments and questions through the chair, that's me, rather than directly to any of the other speakers or applicants. Uh there are a couple items on our agenda tonight that are going to be continued or postponed. I'm going to read through those shortly. If you're here on one of those items, please note no additional notice will be sent to you prior to the next meeting. The best thing to do is to call the planning department either the day of or the day prior to the next meeting to confirm if that item will be heard or postponed that night. It is not uncommon for items to be postponed multiple times before they're heard by this board. Once an item is called, there'll be a brief presentation of that item uh by the applicant followed by any additional comments and clarifications from members of the city staff. then an opportunity for anyone from the public uh who wishes to speak on that item. Uh what we typically do is ask folks in the room uh to speak first and then we uh go to online once um everybody here has had an opportunity. Uh and then once that's done, we'll go to board discussion and action. Um lastly, all applicants should be aware that approvals are generally conditional. Decisions are generally signed by the board at the next meeting and where appropriate filed with the city clerk the following day which is what begins any appeals periods. Decisions are typically not released to the applicant until all conditions of approval have been satisfactorily

addressed. Is the applicant's responsibility to address conditions of approval and a lack of doing so can result in delays or enforcement. Applicants with questions are asked to please call the planning division uh about that. Okay, moving into continuences. There are two tonight. Item number one, zero Chester Street, a definitive site plan. The request is to continue the public meeting to February 18, 2026, and extend the constructive grant deadline to March 12, 2026. And item number two, 149 Malden Street and Zero Morgan Street, a definitive site plan and definitive subdivision plan. Request to continue the public meeting to February 18, 26, and extend the constructive grant deadline to March 126.

Is there motion to Sorry. Uh motion to continue item one and postpone item two. Second on the motion. Mr. McCormack, yes. Mr. King, yes. Mr. Delera, yes. Mr. Tumi, yes.

I vote yes as well. That motion passes 5 to zero. Uh moving into our regular agenda, we have one item of new business tonight. Um just before I call this item, I have a couple comments uh for folks that are here uh who I think are probably interested in it that might be helpful. Um, first thing to know tonight is that this is a preliminary subdivision plan. So, uh, something to know about preliminary subdivisions. Um, they're required for non-residential subdivisions. It's the first step in a two-step process. Uh, and they're elective for residential subdivisions. The purpose is to uh afford an applicant an opportunity to get comments from the planning board, from members of the city staff, from other interested parties, perhaps you all, uh before they advance their plans to a further stage and come back for what's known as definitive subdivision, uh a definitive subdivision plan, which is the actual act that gives him permission to create the subdivision. Um, next thing to know, a subdivision is not a site plan. So, our primary concern in reviewing a subdivision is uh in deciding whether or not this board's primary uh decision is deciding whether or not it complies with the city's ordinances related to subdivisions and whether or not any waiverss of those ordinances are appropriate given the individual particulars of that subdivision. Um, what that really means is, you know, it's not uncommon for residential subdivisions to so show example, you know, houses that they're planning to build on these lots, but that's actually not what we care about at this stage. Uh, if appropriate, they eventually have to come back for a site plan um to get those particulars of the house lots uh approved. So, just to review, tonight we

are here to provide commentary. We can either as a board we'll have the opportunity to either approve or deny this preliminary subdivision plan. That action has virtually no meaning. Uh this is really just an opportunity for the developer uh to come and interact with city staff, get city staff comments, interact with this board, get our comments, get an understanding of what we might or might not approve uh and also engage with members of the public uh to get your comments as well. Um, I do know that there are a number of people who have reached out with written comments. I see a number of people in this room more than usual who I presume are here on this item. Our request tonight would be uh we we want you all to have the opportunity to speak. You we're we're delighted that you're here. Um let's try to be efficient about it. So, you know, somebody's already made all the points that you want to make. Um maybe don't make those points. If you got different ones, that's fine. Um but let's kind of move through in an orderly process. We don't typically limit the amount of time you have to speak, but if um you know it's going on and on, we will ask you to yield the floor to someone else. So with that said, let's call the item. Uh the only item we're going to hear in new business tonight is item number 30274 and 300 Salsbury Street. This will be a public meeting for a preliminary subdivision plan. I believe you're the applicant. Good evening. Uh my name is Sam Forg. Uh I'm representing Expedited Engineering and also the Salsbury Hills development uh for the subdivision at 300 Salsbury Street.

Excuse me. Is this better here? Perfect.

Excellent. Thank you so much. So, uh, I guess before starting off, I I I want to echo the sentiment that, uh, that the chairman said as well. Um, you know, I pushed for this process ultimately for um the understanding that this is probably going to be a sensitive project and to basically make people aware that this is the uh you know the development that we're putting forward is something that um you know is intended by by Salsbury Hill. Um and obviously wanted to seek out for commentary, consideration and you know uh understand exactly you know what the board may or may not approve relative to waiverss and other things as well. So appreciate everybody coming out for this. Um and um I guess I'll move forward. So as you see on the screen um there are 18 new lots as part of the subdivision. Uh lot 1R which is the existing mansion at the top of the hill is not part of this. Uh though there is an access easement currently through the property right now that has been granted and that will have to be realigned along the top uh of the culdesac. Uh so this is the survey here. Um again showing that axis easement through um just talking through the existing conditions. I'm sure everybody's well aware of them, but ultimately the the grade slopes uh pretty steeply from the northwest to the southeast. There's an existing collection area to the east of the access drive. Uh that is basically a collection area for storm water currently that has no controls. Uh if that were to overflow, it ultimately does overflow into Salsbury Street right now. So part of some of the storm water concerns and things like that that are uh that have been brought forth, part of what we will ultimately do as part of definitive subdivision and definitive uh

subdivision planning through this board uh will have to address those storm water concerns. Um [clears throat] as part of this too, this is just the existing additions and demolition plan. uh there is a considerable amount of uh mature vegetation that will obviously have to come down as part of this through the preliminary plan. We do not have any sort of landscape plan at this point. Um the intention is for that to be part of the definitive uh filings in the future. this uh you know understanding that this has a lot of residents abuing uh one of the things that was brought forth by planning uh was consideration of construction sequencing and so what you see on screen right now is ultimately like a stage one of what the construction may look like. Uh they wanted to make sure that there was still going to be access up to the mansion at the top of the hill. We've provided that temporary access and the intention for what would ultimately happen in terms of construction would be along the northern edge first and construction of the culde-sac. Um and ultimately the the access that gets up to there which would be the permanent access to the mansion and then ultimately from there construction could happen on the southern portions and the and the western portions of the site. This is the layout as it is currently shown. Uh we do have a uh a new road. It is a dead deadend street. One of the waiverss that we have put forth as a potential was an increased length of the road. Um I want to stress to you that this does not mean that we're getting more lots out of this by having that extension. Um there are other ways of configuring such that we would have

enough lots even if it were to be pulled back as well. The reason for having it uh was just simply just trying to get grading up to a certain point a certain elevation again as you are well aware from forestry up to where that mansion is there is I think it's roughly 50 to 60 feet of vertical change. Um, sorry.

Okay. I don't know what you

Sure. And I Ma'am, I appreciate the question. You're not supposed to do that. Uh, and I'd ask you you not to just um if anyone from the public does have questions, as I'm sure you will, uh, let's let the applicant present their plan and then let's ask uh to clarify afterwards. Um, just because we keep minutes, people are participating online, they can't hear you.

I I I do understand, ma'am, and and I'm sorry, but this is a public meeting and it's not just folks in this room who are participating. You're not speaking into a microphone. You're not It's not your turn to speak. Uh that's all a little problematic. Good. Thank you. So, moving forward, um again, there are 18 new lots created as part of this subdivision. Centrally located is a storm water basin. Um again, going back into the waiverss, the extension of the road will not mean that we're getting more lots out of this. We had interpreted the subdivision rules to state that it was the length of road would be to the center of the culde-sac which is why we didn't change it at this point until like hearing from you guys about the the anticipated waiverss. Um having two sidewalks on the street I understand is the city's standard. What we're proposing is just for the the section where the storm water basin is for it to just be a single side of sidewalk. Uh there would be uh continuation of sidewalk and connectivity for pedestrians through a crosswalk um down on like the the lower level closer to Forest Street. Uh [snorts] and then as far as the reduced width of the road, it's just trying to reduce the amount of impervious area. A 24T road is is is a is a fairly common road for um you know uh you know this amount of traffic. This is the road would essentially only be used by those that are residing within the properties. Uh so reducing that width is just a matter of just trying to get the impervious areas down. Um the other thing of note on here is that we will have to seek a special permit for the common driveway. Um, I did want to understand the board's position on the common driveway because

we can, um, as you see right now, we have three lots that are connected into Salsbury Street. Each of those gains frontage. Each of the three lots off of the common driveway gets frontage off of Salsbury Street as well. Um, so whether or not you'd be amendable to having those three lots onto Salsbury Street, um, is is kind of a a direction that we would like to see from you guys as well. Um and that would ultimately not result in a special permit necessary. Thanks. Uh this is just a dimensional plan. It shows that we're meeting the setbacks required for each of the lots. Uh the RS10 zone has a minimum size requirement of 10,000 square feet. Um, I know that some of them are are really close, um, as as noted in some of the comment letters. Um, but this is ultimately what the uh what the zoning bylaws allow and that's what has been put forth by the developers for their intentions at the site. Another comment uh that was received is just in terms of the representative photos that were provided. Um, these are by no means any sort of architectural plans at all. Uh the developer has not sought out for architectural design at this point. All we were trying to highlight um are that we're trying to work with the grade as much as possible to have walkout basements and also tuck under garages similar to what you would find on Atgo Street at the top of the street as well. Uh in terms of grading again um I guess the highlight of it is is the new road. Uh we come off of Forest Street at about a 2% grade, ultimately ramping into a 5% and through the Stonewater Basin about an 8% grade. At the culde-sac, it's a 3%

grade, which is the maximum allowed as part of the subdivision rules. Um and I think that's about it of note on this page. As far as the the utility plan, again, this is baked at about, you know, 60% at this point. Uh we have coordinated with DPW. We've received their comments. Uh I've spoken with with folks in the water department as well. Uh honing in on what the standardized details are for the city is going to be happening as part of the definitive filings. So again, this is more of representation of ultimately what's to come, but not any by by any means like the the final plan at this point. This is just getting back into the to the road grading. So yeah, and I think honestly I I'll probably stop at this point to allow for commentary from the board and uh ultimately from the public.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Turn it over to Miss Russell from planning for staff comments.

Thank you. Uh my name is Rose Russell. I'm a planner in the Wester Planning and Regulatory Services Division. Sorry about that. Um I'm just going to give a brief overview of this project, talk a little bit more about a preliminary subdivision filing and what the board is evaluating tonight. Um so the application before you is a preliminary subdivision application for 300 Salsbury Street for construction of a 556 road terminating in a culde-sac. Uh the intent of the subdivision is to construct 17 single family homes. The subdivision is ultimately an 18 lot subdivision. Um, and that last lot is going to be 274 Salsbury Street. The existing house at the corner of Forest and Salsbury Street to remain. Um, so it's a 17 new homes, 18 lot subdivision. Um, and then as stated, lot 1 R is the mansion at the top of the hill. Um, that property is wholly out of this scope of the subdivision. Uh, it's owned by a separate property owner. So, we just want to make that really clear uh that that property is not included here tonight. Um so, as the board chair discussed a little bit, preliminary subdivisions are elective. The applicants choosing to do this to benefit from staff feedback, board feedback, public um public comments, um and participation in the process. So, tonight the board's really evaluating whether or not they would grant the waiverss for a subdivision. Um and so subdivisions were evaluating the roadway and the lots to be created. Um the houses themselves are not really what's being evaluated at this stage. Um and those would be later reviewed during a site plan review process. Um site plan review is required for all um lots within a subdivision. So that would happen later along with a definitive subdivision plan which is required. Um, and all folks that received notice of this hearing would receive notice of any future hearing um, of a definitive filing of a definitive site plan or of a special permit. So, what the board's

considering tonight um, is the culdeac. So, that ends in 556 ft. Um, as applicants stated when they first applied, they had measured the length of the culdeac to the center of the island. um staff later on we reviewed confirmed with TPW and the way that the subdivision regulations read is that we measure the length of the deadend road or the culdeac to the very end um rather than in the center of the island. So that wasn't a waiver the applicant was originally seeking um but subsequently through staff review we identified that the it is just about 50 56 feet over that maximum length. Um so there's a couple waiverss the board is evaluating tonight. One of those being the dead end length. The other waiverss the board is evaluating tonight is sidewalks on both sides of the street. Um it's a little bit difficult to see in this plan. Um but on lot 8 R. It's this large one in the middle. Um it's where the detention system is proposed for the roadway. That is a very steep section where the applicant's not proposing sidewalks. Um, so they're seeking relief from that requirement. And then the final waiver they're seeking tonight is from the minimum roadway pavement width. Um, so the city requires a 30 foot width and the applicants proposing a 24 foot roadway width. So those are the things the board's evaluating tonight. We have a lot of recommendations. Um, we've listed in our memo. We did receive comments from the Department of Transportation, Mobility, DPW, Water and Engineering Divisions. Um, some folks we have online with us tonight, but I do just want to highlight we received some preliminary comments from the fire department and ultimately staff is reviewing this project at a preliminary level. So, there may be things that we aren't able to identify at this stage um given that the plans

are preliminary and that a lot of the um more in-depth proposals have not been prepared at this time. Um, so things like a fire truck turning plan, a cut and fill plan, some more detailed erosion control and storm water plans. Um, those haven't been provided. So staff's not able to review and comment on those to the extent we would um, when folks come in for a definitive plan. So I just want to make that clear. Some comments we did receive from the Department of um, public works. We just want to highlight in regard to the storm water basin. Um, we just ask that the applicant work with both the um, Department of Public Works and Transportation to evaluate these things prior to filing a definitive plan um, and come back with these issues resolved. Um, some of the comments we make in our memo um, is in regard to this temporary turnaround. So the board is really evaluating the road as it leads up to the culdesac. Past the culdesac, there's about a 250 foot common driveway. This is only allowed via grant of a special permit through the planning board. Um so any common driveways that serve three or more lots require approval by the planning board. Um and as you can see, it stretches from the culde-sac down and it serves those four homes. Um, so that would be permitted separately and that is not part of the public road that the applicant's proposing to lay out through the subdivision, although it's ultimately connected. And as part of that, we do just want to make note that this is a very large parcel in the city. It's about 8 and a half acres. Um, the applicant has over 1,000 ft of frontage along Salsbury Street and about 211 ft of frontage along Forest Street. Um so the applicant does have other alternative options that

where they could permit um development on the site by right. So there's a number of lots that could be developed that have adequate frontage that have adequate lot area um in this RS10 zoning district which is the most restrictive residential zone we have in the city. Um and because that access exists along a public road they would be ANR lots. So, as long as they meet zoning, they'd be able to be developed by Right. What we're seeing tonight is the applicant coming in to lay out a subdivision because of a lot of the steep grades that exist on the site. Um, especially along Salsbury Street right at the corner. Um, I can't see the road on the other side. I think it's Beachmont. Um, right at that corner, it's very steep. So, the applicant is proposing to site the houses almost on the top of the hill. and along a number of them they're proposing to use the houses as um as grading. So they're doing the drive under garages along a lot of the subdivision, but they're we just encourage them to continue evaluating the architectural styles where they can further limit development um and maintain some of the existing forests, some of the existing um features that we'd like to see retained to the extent possible. Um, but it's really some of that steep grading along the street that's causing them to not want to develop homes that lead right out onto Salsbury Street. All right, so I think I'm going to leave it there. I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have. Um, thank you.

Thank you, Miss Russell. Uh, any additional comments from members of the city staff? All right, hearing none. Uh we'll open it up to public comment. Um the way to do this is just come on up one by one, use a microphone. It needs to be green. Uh there's a little button to push if it's not. And then just state your name, city of town, or residence, and let us know what you think. One and then two if that works. I'm Frank Callahan and I live at 53 Elm Street uh near downtown, but I grew up near Butternut Hill where the proposed S division is located. As a follow-up to my letter of opposition to the planning board, I have the following information. The traffic at the intersection of Salsbury and Forest is often busy, and I've heard several anecdotes on the how dangerous the streets are there. In fact, few people choose to walk on the narrow sidewalk on Salsbury opposite the site as they fear of the closeness of the oncoming traffic uh could be very dangerous to them. It is in this dangerous stretch that the subdivision proposal asks for three driveways on Salsbury Street with two of them at the sharp bend at Beachmont, which is a blind spot for oncoming cars. I feel that cars entering and exiting driveways here would be very dangerous. In addition, that stretch of Salsbury Street is a steep embankment and so a lot of earth would have to be moved to construct the three driveways. The construction of these driveways would be very disruptive both to the drivers and to the neighbors. Though the Cow Tavern is owned by the developer, it's my understanding the restoration of that structure is being handled separately from the subdivision proposal. And so I hope the developer works closely with Preservation Worcester in protecting what is one of the two historic taverns

here in the city of Worcester. Also uh concerning is that the proposal calls for a new driveway for the cow tavern and it's very very close to the dangerous intersection. About a decade ago, the parents of the subdivision developer donated their more than 7,000 square foot home to the Chabab Lub Lubovich. Unfortunately, this community has been unable to maintain the house and over time it has become derelct and the neighbors have many anecdotes about the problems with this empty house. I talked to one gentleman, he said he drove up the driveway, the front door was wide open and then I talked to somebody else and they said the reason the the door is wide open is because of mold and mildew. So, it's in very poor condition. Though the mansion is now separated from the proposed development, the driveway to the mansion is on Salsbury Street and is owned by the developer, not the Chabbad. Under the subdivision proposal, that driveway would be removed for the construction of the proposed houses on Salsbury Street. This subdivision proposal instead calls for the access to the mansion to be on the proposed common driveway at Forest Street. However, the proposed common driveway is longer than the 5T, which exceeds the city's regulation for such a development. As a result, uh the road would be shorter there and there'd be no access to the mansion. In addition, it is my understanding there is a limit to of six houses for a common driveway in the city's regulations and by my calculations there are 14 houses on the proposed subdivision. Also, it is my understanding that any development over five houses must have an affordable housing component, but I have not found that position uh provision in the proposal. In conclusion, while the subdivision proposes housing, the new road and driveways would further increase the dangerous tra traffic problem at this key intersection and easily outweighs the need for new housing in Worcester. In addition, more and more housing is

buil being built at the far end of Salsbury Street. For instance, Salsbury Hills keeps expanding with more units being added all the time uh presently and there's the potential for 80 more units there. Next door to Salsbury Hills is the Arbella at Brown Bramble Hill development with hundreds of planned units to be built. These will only add to the already considerable traffic at the intersection of Salsbury and Forest Street. Thank you very much for your time. [applause] [applause] Just one item to note in case anybody was curious about it. the affordable housing provision. Uh it's 12 or more units and they don't have to tell us yet. They have to tell us before the definitive site plan whether they're going to have one of these units, it would be one, uh be uh restricted to affordable or to do the payment in Lu uh which is 3% of total construction cost. Just so everybody knows.

Hi. Um, my name is Edita Filibbertie and I'm a resident of Worcester and um, I will echo a lot of what uh, Frank Callahan said. Um, 14 houses exiting onto Forest Street very near to the intersection seems like a very dangerous uh, thing and the three curb cuts, the three driveways on that curvy section of Salsbury Street. Um at mo uh most of us are aware uh that Worcester has made attempts to make the streets a safer place for pedestrians and cyclists. I was really encouraged by Worcester's participation in V vision zero. I applaud the attempts at improving crosswalks and cycling lanes with paint and better signs. However, we're a long way from having safe sidewalks and bike lanes or even adequate size shoulders along many stretches of our roads. Saying you want to achieve a more pedestrian and cycling friendly city requires matching development with appropriate infrastructure. In this situation, we have a main road, two main roads, Salisbury Street and Forest Street that are already overburdened with car traffic. The approval in recent years of many large developments just north of this area without any road or sidewalk infrastructure improvement has made the situation go from bad to worse. It used to be unpleasant, but now it's more dangerous as well. There is sidewalk currently only on one side of Salsbury Street, and it's very narrow, so walking on it is really not safe. The fact that the road is curving and narrow makes it even worse. While I have given up altogether walking on this stretch because it's too dangerous, what I can't give up is cycling on this road. It's the main road heading north toward Holden. In fact, I know many cyclists who ride, as I do, around the Holden reservoirs

and loop back around into Worcester by this route. While we have never felt completely safe, the degree of concern has steadily risen as development has gone unchecked along Salisbury Street. I would also remind you that Salisbury Street is designated by Worcester as a bike route. Anyone who rides a bike will tell you that one of the most dangerous times for a cyclist is not driving riding with the traffic. It's coming to a driveway or a cross street where a car might be turning in or pulling out. Cars have a tendency to come out as far as the driver needs in order to see in both directions. The larger the vehicle, the farther out they come in order to see over the front of their car. This almost always results in the vehicle crossing the sidewalk if there is one or crossing into the shoulder space where a cyclist or a pedestrian would be. Cars sadly are almost never looking for a pedestrian or a cyclist unless there are clear crosswalks or some other visible attention getting sign. In addition, there is an everinccreasing number of vehicles associated with every new house that is built. We all see them. They are ubiquitous. UPS, FedEx, Amazon, just to name a few. And they're almost always stopped along the streets beside a driveway, just another obstacle for pedestrians and cyclists to go around. I saw in the proposed plans that there would be at least three new curb cuts for driveways along Salsbury Street with the rest exiting and entering onto Forest adding to this already congested section. I did not see anything in the plans for widening the road to increase the shoulder space for cyclists or adding sidewalks or in any way

addressing the issue of matching development with vision zero's goal of making our roads safer and more userfriendly. I would hope that the city does not approve this plan in its current design as it seems to me like zero vision. [applause]

Who'd like to go next?

Good evening. Uh Martin Richmond from Worcester. I'm a director of butter on Butternut Hill. Um I wonder if we could go um if if it's possible to the earthwork plan. So I wanted just you know I want to acknowledge my my friends that have spoken already and a number of things that I would certainly agree on. I wanted to maybe make two points. One is when I look at this plan, we're actually on the um the corner of the top of um of this plan on Butternut Hill. What I see is a change of character of this landscape um and the significant um change of old growth um in the area. And it looks like I don't know what the percentage would be, but probably 80 or 85 90% of the of the growth being cut down and and uh and eliminated. So I I would um from a perspective of a homeowner in that area um you know look for an alternative um and um I think a landscape plan for a definitive um plan is really important um in this regard. The other is I saw I heard the applicant refer to um the um extension and the possibility of moving some of those homes perhaps to Salisbury Street and I would really encourage the the planning board to think differently on that. I think uh as as the has been commented any you know acknowledging their right to build any extensions of driveways into that area would be very dangerous. That is a you know we live um on Butternut. The bottom of Butternut is really a blind drive on both sides and the traffic goes really really fast. So I I'm um uncomfortable with two additional you know outlets onto Salsbury Street. I would be really scared to have uh more. you know, the landscape um on this property um is is a challenge uh to um to to the building. We know, you know, there's a specific house they built into a hill where they can't hardly get into their garage the way that they had to build, you know, that driveway. So, um I think there are certainly some challenges perhaps they can be addressed. Um but these are the two things that I worry about most, the the earthwork here and and the driveways

on Southbury.

Okay. Thank you. Uh just a [applause] come on out. Just one thing I wanted to say in in response because I know this uh gets talked about a lot and Miss Russell covered this, but I wanted to make sure folks understood. So this is a definitive subdivision because of the road, not because of the number of houses. So, what's what's causing them to come and have to get approved at all before any board in the city of Worcester is the fact that they're putting a road in. Uh, if they wanted to do what they can do just as of right, um, we've I I've seen some plans that have been approved over the years or uh, drawn up. They could put a number of driveways, get the same number of houses on this land, result in the same amount of clearing, but put all those driveways out on the Salsbury Street. And to Miss uh Philertie's point, I'm also a cyclist. I have that used to be on my running route as well. Uh I know how dangerous that section of street is. I don't think you folks want that. I don't think the developer wants that. So this the point I want to make to you is I've been on this board for eight years now. I'm just a citizen. I don't work for the city. I've seen a number of projects come before this board where opposition uh forms to the project um that the end result is the developer chooses to do what they can do as of right which is a worse development for the neighborhood. So when we're sitting up here what we're trying to do is navigate that very narrow stretch of yes uh this is going to be a major change to the character of the neighborhood. They could do most of that change as of right. It would be worse for everybody involved. This is probably better. Let's try to make it as as much better as we possibly can. Um, that's where that's my perspective. You're welcome to your own and we're delighted to hear it. So, I'll stop talking. Ple please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Laura Lennis. I live on 35 at Sego Road. I made a um petition and it goes as follows. We the undersigned are in opposition to the development of the proposed subdivision for 17 houses at 274 and 300 Salsbury Street, Wester Mass 609. We believe it will have an adverse effect on traffic patterns, historic landmark buildings, natural animal habitat, flooding created by destruction of woodlands, antiquated city infrastructure such as water pipes, quality of life for surrounding neighborhood, potential damage to a butter's properties from excavations, slope stability issues, and potential blastings. I sent it out to about seven people and we got 127 signatures opposing this. Um, some of the commentary was a number of concerns. Traffic in particular [snorts] absolutely opposed this entire project. The electric service would be maxed. City infrastructure is not sufficient for additional densification of this neighborhood. Concerned about the interruption of lives, pollution, no noise, heavy traffic, noisy trucks, deforestation, etc. Also on a personal note, as you can see, I'm on oxygen and I'm severely uh worried about the air pollution.

Thank you. Thank you. [applause]

Come on up, sir. Hi, my name is Brian Mcshay. I live on Forest Street and pretty much agree with everything they've all said. I just want to add a couple things, especially after hearing about u the 24 foot road. That to me seems like if you had weather like we had today and the snowbanks are there and everything else and you hit, let's say it's a Saturday night, you got neighbor A is having a big party and a lot of friends coming over, parking on a 24ft road with cars on both sides, even one side is going to be very restrictive. Um, I'd be concerned about uh fire department, police and such other ambulance getting up that area. Um, also the electrical grid like she just mentioned, it's I live on forest and somebody developed the house behind me. They had to go what they had to go through a nightmare just to get electric electricity to one house. Um, I know they had a bank off another area. It wasn't even the Forest Street area. We've had a lot more brownouts in the in the area and blackouts. I remember the first five or six years I was in the area. Not one blackout. And I talked to other neighbors that had been there for 15, 20 years, 30 years, maybe one or two over those that span. We've had probably about seven or eight where we've lost power for like half a day day and it's not always based on the weather a lot of people think you know. So um also uh you know the 20 foot road the electrical one more thing little joke here took me 32 minutes to get here tonight. How long would it have taken otherwise with this group with this group again the traffic everybody can attest to this the traffic coming here tonight was an absolute nightmare everywhere we went. That's again because we have snowbanks everywhere. We have, you know, we have, you know, they're extending out. And again, that t take that takes into the road itself. Imagine if this guy did go, and by the way, I don't think he's going to go with the the worst development

because that's going to cost him more. Not a builder in the world I ever heard of builds anything based on costing more. He's going with the best cost for him. If he did put those houses in you're talking about was set with 15 driveways or whatever, can you imagine the snowbanks on Forest Street and on and on on Salsbury Street? What an what a nightmare. Absolute nightmare. So again, thank you for the time. That's all. Thank you. [applause]

Um I I'm Sarah Lennis. I live up at 35 OGO road was my daughter that you just spoke to. Um we live um a mile [clears throat] sorry mile and.9 1.9 miles from this area that we're talking about and I just probably you nobody knows but we have a wildlife corridor in Worcester 1.9 miles from here. Um, and I know that because my house is embedded into the top of Atgo Road from my second floor, I see into my woods. We've put a trail cam up there. And it's amazing what is happening right here. And I know planning doesn't really have anything to do with it, but we have a herd of deer. Uh, we have flocks of turkeys, foxes, red and gray, fisher cats, bob, we have a bobcat. We He's been recently seen. uh coyotes, a coyote couple, um possums, raccoons, you know, groundhog skunks, red and gray squirrels. Um but we also have a lot of birds up there that nobody is aware of. We've got bar owls, great horned owls, downey and paleated woodpeckers, um the usual finches and chickies and cardinals, robins. Uh it's a migr it's on the migration for uh indigo buntings which are a gorgeous little bird that go down south. We have red tail hawks, cooper hawks, uh sharpskinned hawks. We've got the eagle is nearby, but he doesn't live up in those woods. But the the if you look at the map overview of the fork of far forest in Salsbury, Crocs property is the end of this corridor. A big part

of it and it goes right down all the way to Assumption College. It's all these funky unbuildable lots that these animals are have a whole community up there. So, I just thought you should [applause] like to go next. I will.

Okay. Hi, my name is Lewis D. Roza. I live in the area of the Salsbury Street in Forest Street around the 274 Forest Street um property or Salsbury property, the Tavern. I have been living there since 2007. Uh, first of all, I don't want to be graphic, but I can tell you the number of accidents that I've seen, either motorcycles, I got hit by a car, crashed in front of my house, it hit the pole, and I talked to the police officer and he said to me, "Oh, he's all done. Look at his skull. It's cracked in half." The father came up the street when he was notified in a minivan, turns around, parks on the side of Salsbury Street where there are no sidewalks. He gets hit by a car on Salsbury Street and gets his leg broken. Didn't even get to see his son. He was taken by ambulance along with his son. Now, I understand that people have the right to do what they want with their property, but you have to have certain limits. When I bought this property, I was told you're buying the last Mecca that exists in Worcester. This area here is beautiful. We have all these historical homes. We've got this beautiful park. It's quiet. It's peaceful.

Now, all of a sudden, what happens in Holden? Holden builds all these condo units along Main Street. And the traffic on Forest Street became twofold. Now you could no longer take a left onto Salsbury Street. Or if you're on Salsbury Street, you couldn't take a left onto Forest Street. So what did the residents do? I no longer take a left on Salsbury Street. I bake out of my driveway, go down the street, and I take a right on Art Sega Road. Now I'm inconvenience those neighbors now when they're coming in and out of their driveway. But it gets better. Now I take a right on Manadmok Street and I go down Sagamore Street. Now an interesting fact has happened is all the people coming in from Holden have realized that and guess what they're doing now? They're taking a left on Ado Road, the right on Manadnok Street going down Sagamore Street. It has become a shortcut for them. Now what happened on Manet Knock Street? The city put in a speed hump and they put up a sign saying between seven and nine you cannot take a left. Well, I walk my dog around that area and if I told you the number of cars that take a left during seven and seven to nine is astronomical. People don't care. They have a point to get to and they're going to get to somehow. It has become to a point that I now back into my driveway and come out nose first because the people coming down, they

don't care that I'm trying to get out of my driveway. The only poetic justice that exists there is that on the corner of Salsbury in Forest, the sidewalk justs out and once in a while somebody will leave their front tire or they'll pop the front and rear tire and I pick up hop caps every other day. Okay, that's the only poetic justice when I say, "Aha, we got someone." Because when people come up Salsbury Street and they take that right on Forest Street, they think they're on a highway. They're not going 30 miles an hour. They're going 40, 50 miles an hour. Now, let's push this forward. I know Katie Croc. She's going by the name of Katie Parvin now. I know her well. I knew Barry Croc. I knew him well. I saw him on his last trip before he went to Florida the year before he died. Knew him very, very well. I understand it's their property. They have the right to do what they want to do with the property, but they could not and they do not have the right to come into an existing neighborhood, change what the neighborhood looks like, possibly change the value of the properties. Who's going to reimburse the person that has been there say for 30, 40, 50 years whose house is probably worth $800,000 or a million dollar and now the house is worth $400 500,000. Who's going to reimburse these people for the value of someone coming in setting up a new area? Okay. So now what happens to these people? Is the city going to make good on the rest of that money?

Is the developer going to make, you know, good on that, you know, on those people when they try to sell the house, they'd say, "Oh, sorry, because we've got all these homes that were built here that are now way near the value of the homes that were built there before." That was just something that I had to say, get off my chest. But I've got other things here. I'm here tonight to talk about the excessive number of the buildings that are proposed for the area and listening to Mr. McShet as he was explaining about the snow. If you go by there now, the snow that we've had and we've had more in the past. Imagine people rent or hire a snow plow to go in there. They go into the area. They go around the culac. What are they going to do with that snow? Right now, what they do, I can tell you what they do. They come up forest. They circle around Salsbury and they leave all the snow on 262 Salsbury Street, which happens to be that big white house on the left hand side. I have cut the BMS for the people to walk on the crosswalk. Guess what? The minute these guys go by, I have to go in the back at my snowblower and do the same thing again because I'm concerned of the people that have to cross from the side of Salsbury onto Forest Street because now there's a Burma of snow about 2, three feet high and they can't do it. There's no access to it. I understand that all of this needs to be taken into account. I wouldn't want to be sitting in your

chairs and making this decision, but I've read Cynthy Gray's letter and I've talked to several of the neighbors and they're quite concerned. Imagine having to blast. I've walked that area. Imagine having to blast that hill which is ledge. What's going to happen to the homes that are nearby? I can give you a case in point. When not seo road was f they were redoing them about three four years ago. I had just had the pipe the water pipe onto my property redone. the cities, not mine. Mine was brand new. The traffic going by with the heavy equipment, the trucks loaded with material, the vibrations. I could feel them in my house. One day I'm walking outside and told my say, "See, it seems like there's water coming out of the the curb." She goes, "No, probably not." Said, "Yeah, and it's portable water." I called the city water department. They came up. Sure enough, the new pipe that they had installed with the vibrations, they told me this with a heavy equipment, it broke. Now, imagine blasting, moving that dirt, putting in all the pipe. It's just impossible. Imagine the poor people that have been living there for 30, 40 years. And we go ahead and we allow this to go in 17 houses. Now, why is it that the the tavern has been closed for about you see 18 years? Why was nothing ever done about that? It

has just been there. The city needs to take it needs to ask a lot of questions of the developer. Are you planning for this? Are you planning for the livelihood of these individuals? As a young lady that was here talking about how her lungs have been damaged, how air pollution is very important to her. Well, it's very important to me and to all of us, but as you get older, your lungs have to work a lot harder. If the pollution is there, you got noise pollution. You're gonna have light pollution. Before coming down here, I turned on to my friend. I said, I wish I had a tape recorder to tape all the horns while we're sitting down at our dining room table. All the horns, the cars jocking for position, screaming at each other. This is now in the cold. Imagine it's summertime. How can we ask these people for more? Again, like I said, I wouldn't want to be in the planning board's seat because it's a no-win situation. It really isn't. Now, I have some concerns. While doing this research and doing some other research, I found that at one time there was an oil spill in that property. I don't know if the city's aware of that. I don't know if it was ever cleaned. No idea. It's in the on the internet. I found it. Another thing is has the city or the planning port or anybody uh I understand there is an endangered species. It's called the New England North Reed grass

and it exists in two places in Massachusetts. in the Burk. She is in the other place. You guessed Worcester. Has anyone looked for that? Is anyone aware of that before making these decisions? It's on the endangered species list right now in state of Massachusetts. Okay, last but not least, the possibility of this development going in and of the um checking of the values of the houses. What kind of houses are these going to be? I know the gentleman over here explained saying, "Oh, this was just a prototype that we put there." And but are they going to be compatible to what we own? What's the value? Just to be clear that that's not part of this particular approval. Uh this particular approval is just related to the division of the land in the associated road work. Uh and again it's preliminary. So this is step one of two.

Mhm. Well, I just want you to know the board to know how we feel about our properties, how we feel around the area. You can't walk in that area. 7 to 9 and 5 to 7, forget it. The traffic is horrific. If you don't believe me, I welcome you. Come to my house. I'll take have a seat. I'll give you a chair and you can sit there and count the number of cars. I don't think there's anybody uh on this board who isn't familiar with that intersection. Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you. [applause]

through the chair really quickly for folks joined online. Um we're taking comment in the room first and then we'll move to online. Um if you want to raise your hand now, you're welcome to do so. Um but we'll get to you after folks in the room. Thanks. Can we go one and then two? Is that okay? I actually was going to make a request. So somebody who's online, um Sydney Gray, she was mentioned, she actually has to leave, but she requested I don't know if it's okay if she could just briefly speak. And I My name is Eric Rosenthol. I live at 29 Sego. I'm happy to speak after her, but I was wondering if we could make an exception in this case. I'm sorry. The gentleman's requesting somebody online apparently has got another commitment that they need to go to. I I don't mind, Miss Russell, if we can. Uh, do you want to say her name again? Cindy Gray. Cindy Gray, you should be go ahead good to go ahead. Cynthia.

Thank you.

Hi there. My name is uh Cynthia Gray. I live in 21 OIGO and I work in regulatory compliance for pharmaceutical companies ensuring that manufacturers meet strict federal requirements. Right. In my field nothing can move forward not even preliminary unless there is defined testing plan and clear evidence that the required analysis will be performed. We do not rely on assumptions and we do not approve anything without the data to support it. So my spirit I bring that same standard of evidencebased decision-making to this process. With that I assume the applicants were provided our formal objections which clearly outline the technical issues and safety concerns that must be addressed. Yet none of these required assessments have been provided nor is there any indication in their documentation that they intend to perform them. So, I understand the board is reviewing the construction plans right now, but construction plans are not a substitute for the required safety assessments. A construction plan shows how they intend to build build. The missing engineer analysis show whether they can build safely at all. Those are two very different things. And this matters because the board's decision-making process directly affects a number of residents who could be negatively impacted if these risks are not fully understood. That includes not only the geotechnical slope stability, storm water blasting and vibration risk, but also the traffic impacts that increase potential for accidents on roads that are already constrained. Without a traffic study on any analysis of how this development will affect vehicle flow, slide lines or emergency access, the board does not

have that information needed to evaluate public safety. It is also important to note that the applicant appears to have provided an assessment for only one house. This is a subdivision with many homes, each with its own grading, foundation conditions, and potential impacts on abuing properties. A single assessment cannot be extrapolated to an entire development. Every home would require its own analysis to determine whether it can be constructed safely on its specific lot. Without that, the board is being asked to make decisions based on incomplete and non-representative information. I also understand that several city departments have raised questions and issues they want to applicants to address. Those concerns should be made available to the public and to abuing neighbors so we can understand the scope of these risks being identified. Transparency is essential when a project has the potential to affect safety and stability of existing homes. The board has stated the applicant has a right to develop these homes under Massachusetts law. Specifically, MGL chapter 41, the subdivision control law. A property owner has a right to apply to develop their land, but they do not have an unconditional right to build. Chapter 41 gives the planning board both the authority and the responsibility to require safety, engineering, drainage, grading, and traffic analysis before granting approval. Approval is only permitted when the applicant demonstrates that the subdivision will not create unsafe conditions or harm of budding properties. Those requirements have not been met here. And with that in mind, if this applicant proceeds without required safety assessments, and blasting, vibration, slope, instability, drainage failures, or traffic impacts cause damage to abing homes, who's responsible for those costs? Will the applicant commit to paying those damages? Without preconception surveys, vibration monitoring, slope stability

analysis, storm water modeling, and a traffic study, the financial and physical risk is shifted entirely onto existing residents. The people who did not choose this project, but will bear the consequences if something goes wrong. Finally, I understand the board is considering approval the approving the waiverss rights. Approving waiverss before underlying safety assessments are even planned removes critical protections before the board has evidence that the project can be built safely. In my regulatory world, we cannot wave testing requirements before the testing is done. Waving comes after the data, not before it. Granting waiverss is now would be premature and would expose residents to unnecessary risks. When these foundational assessments are missing, the board I don't see how you could even make a prelim preliminary approval. The aptly had all this time to do just some fundamental assessments, do their own research, but did not do that. So, I do not care about the construction of what you what you plan on building. I care about what assessments you have done to ensure the safety of me and my neighbors. Thank you. [applause]

Thank you for your comments. Just a couple of points. Um to be clear, this is a preliminary assessment. The the point of this process is for them to come and understand what assessments are going to be necessary before we approve anything. Uh waivers aren't approved today. They're asking us to give them an indication whether or not we would be willing to consider approving waivers. As it relates to the three waivers they're asking for, uh they're not really so much safety related as um contextually related. I don't know if that makes sense. Uh, and last thing, the previous commenter referenced a bunch of subdivision control law, which is great. Uh, just want to point out our our the point I was trying to make to folks in the public is they're here for a preliminary subdivision approval. There is a pathway to build just as many houses without a subdivision. The subdivision is the road and the lot related. they can do a process called ANR, which stands for approval not required, uh, divisions on this lot and wind up with the same number of buildable lots. Those lots would potentially, some of them will require site uh, plan approval, many of them will not. That's the alternate pathway that they have available uh, within kind of the Massachusetts rules. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you. [clears throat] My name is Eric Rosenthal. Uh I live at 29 ATO road. So I am a direct abuter to the uh properties that we are discussing this evening. Um I live there with my wife and four children. Um one of whom has respiratory uh conditions and another one who has um severe autism spectrum uh disorder. Um I'm a physician. So, I have multiple public health concerns um specifically with um the uh uh significant excavation that's going to be occurred and that's going to cause the release of um fine particles um some of which um we are not aware of. Um that could uh negatively um adversely affect the community at large. Um we don't live on an island. We all breathe the same air. So all of the particulate that will be released will be inhaled by all of the members of the community. The other thing I wanted to speak about was [clears throat] um so my uh um seven-year-old um who has autism. He um rides a special um a bus every morning um to school. Um the bus, you know, we all are aware of the snow that is currently kind of surrounding the streets. Um, I would encourage you not to allow this waiver um of going below the minimum threshold um to navigate uh a street um with a city bus um especially with the snowbanks. Um that uh would be impossible at this point. Um and so I'm just using my son as an example, but this is, you know, this is a neighborhood with children. We have a neighborhood school, several neighborhood schools. So presumably there would be um children living in those houses. So from you know um allowing the school buses to go through um into that community um and to take care of um ch uh you know children that require um transportation that would be an impossibility. The other thing is I would also you um encourage you not to

approve the waiver of not having sidewalks on both street uh both sides of the street. Um it's [clears throat] really a quality of life. Um, I also think it's a a public safety thing as well. Having um uh sidewalks on both sides of the streets just makes the area um safer. Um and um so I would encourage you not to approve that wager as that waiver as well. And with that, I yield. Thank you, sir. [applause]

Hello, I'm Diane Berg. I live at 10 Forest Street. I'm directly on the corner of Forest and Oiggo. I've lived there for 30 years. I've raised three children. Uh I love my neighborhood. I'm attached to it. But I have to say that in that time, uh the amount of traffic going by the front of my house has increased exponentially. When I first moved in there, I had three small children, including an infant. Um and I was quite struck by the volume of traffic at certain times of the day. Not just the rush hour in the morning and the evening, but um when the schools get out around 3:00 in the afternoon is often quite backed up. In the ensuing years, that has become so much more the case that it'll be backed up several blocks. And so, this is three, call it an hourong period at least every single weekday. This is disruptive. As many of my neighbors have mentioned, it makes it unsafe to walk in the neighborhood. This is a family neighborhood. These are three, four-bedroom houses. A lot of my neighbors have small children, like the gentleman who just spoke. Um several people have addressed what is already happening with regards to using the Sagamore Manadnok at Seiggo um maze as a shortcut to and from Park Avenue. These are were once quiet side streets that have become so clogged at certain times of the day that speed bumps have been deemed necessary. There is a Flag Street school bus stop at the corner of Sagamore and Menadnock. Uh there are children standing out there, you know, at the appropriate hours every single day. The increase in traffic is already posing a danger to the children and the families in our neighborhood. People walking dogs. I'm not even going to talk about the snow banks because that's mother nature. But we don't need to make things worse by adding um let's face it realistically 34 more cars coming in and out of driveways at that intersection. I'm very glad that uh Sarah Lennis addressed the wildlife situation, which is something else that concerns me,

having lived directly across the street from the lot proposed. We see a lot of wildlife just from our house. We see deer, uh we see foxes, we see lots of turkeys. We can be sitting on our porch in the summer and they will come right across Forest Street on a quiet day. We'll have deer in our in our yard. I don't want to see those animals lose lose their habitats. Also, I'm bound to say I don't feel like this proposal is being made in good faith. I've lived across the street from this property, as I say, for 30 years. I lived through the year or two when the cow tavern was turned into a fraternity house um for Assumption College students. And this was a nightmare that many of my neighbors who lived there at the time can attest to. My children were all school age. They were being kept awake all hours of the night. Many of my neighbors were constantly calling the police. and the what had been the driveway to a home had become a parking lot. This was incredibly disruptive. I don't feel that the owners of this property have the best interests of the neighborhood in mind and I feel this project would be detrimental in every conceivable way and I can't see any benefit to it at all. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. [applause]

May I speak? Yes. Go ahead. Um, I don't want to repeat any everything that everyone has said. My name is Elsie Uelman and I'm a 42-year resident of of Worcester. We used to have property at the corner of Nelson Place and Grove. So, I'm very familiar with the character of the neighborhood. I [clears throat] just had a couple of questions. So that part of the off the culde-sac that that's looks like a B boomerang, what is that for? There are no houses there.

That Sorry, you do have to address your question to me. I know it feels weird uh just the way the um meeting order is supposed to work, but uh I can answer that. That is a driveway for the mansion that's on top of the hill. uh they have an access easement through this property um that has to be maintained. Okay. So that's go that's being integrated into this project.

Yeah. So it already exists is my understanding and Miss Russell can correct me. It already exists but uh there a portion of it is getting replaced by the road with the culde-sac on it. Um so they're replacing it. You can kind of see I I believe it's not the darker line. It's actually the lighter line that kind of goes up and around. Um is where it exists currently. So it's already there. Correct.

Okay. Um All right. So it it just made me curious to know whether that potentially would be leading to more development if that mansion were to be sold. Just speculating. just speculating. I don't I don't know. Um and another question was are the [clears throat] are the plans including clear cutting? Yes, ma'am. Clear cutting.

There not there is a plan I think Miss Russell is looking for now that shows the extent of the work. It's not every single tree on the property, but it's substantial. So, um, just on that alone, I I just wanted to say that, yeah, they have every right to do whatever they want with their property, but um, I would appeal to the owner of this property to think about responsibility. That, you know, life is not only about rights, it's about responsibility. And this is a treasured part of Worcester. It's an open space and to develop it to this level which is so overwhelming really it's overwhelming is irresponsible. I just feel like it's not in keeping with the the vision of of Worcester which is we're supposed to be a green city and here we are taking another big parcel of land and destroying it. And I can see at least 34 cars there. Maybe 60 uh snowblowers, lawnmowers, pesticides, herbicides being put on these beautiful green lawns. It just is appalling. And that's all I have to say.

Thank you. [applause] Other folks in the room, come on up.

Hi there. Tina Lo, Worcester resident. The only thing I'm going to say is I'm obviously it's a room full of passionate people who want our green spaces to stay green. Don't want that intersection is chaos as you know. I exercise and run in that neighborhood. I've almost been hit at least twice up by the um Christian Science Church where it's the only crosswalk in that area. But as someone who bought a house in a neighborhood that was directly impacted by Holden's growth, I'm a cutthrough between Holden Street and 122A. When we bought the house on Lancing A, we had no traffic. We were so excited to like I mean I came off Elm Street and when all of the subdivisions were built up there, it became chaos. People driving down the street at 7 a.m. to bring their kids to school doing 40 miles an hour, dogs being hit by cars. I mean, I have to check three times before I step out onto my property at three lancing to walk across to one lancing because of how fast people take the turns. So, I think a lot of what you're hearing tonight, which is not necessarily due to the things that you are going to talk about or that you're going to work on, is that there's a passionate thing about this kind of change where there's already chaos. Um, secondly, the one thing I did want to bring up is that we've had a lot of infrastructure issues on Salsbury Street already with two major water main breaks. How is how is that going to be addressed? Like, or who's going to pay for any kind of like more water pressure going through those pipes that are already ancient that we've already had problems with? Um, and I just see that as part of the issue with this building other than the fact that we're going to kill a lot of animals. Thanks.

Thank you. [applause] Anyone else in the room? You can ask a question, but you have to come up to the microphone um to answer the question, but

I am Chris McGovern and I'm a resident of Wester on Salsbury Street. I wasn't planning on speaking so I apologize if I come across discombobulated because I am. But one of the things I want to address um when we bought the house 20 years ago, Salsbury Street was two lanes. One going to Park A, one coming up from Parkav. Um in the 20 years since then, one lane was split, so it became three. Now it's four lanes of traffic in front of my house on Salsbury Street every day. Um, I work in Sutton, which is a 30-hour 30 minute commute. I have to go to work 10 minutes early, so I get to leave 10 minutes early because if I wait until 5:00 to leave, I can't pull into my driveway because people are backed up on Whitman because they can't get out on Salsbury. So, I had mentioned that in a letter years ago, and they put up one of those no lefthand turn signs. Nobody enforces it. I sit in my sun room every morning with my coffee and cars do it consistently. There's no one checking, no one stopping. Drivers don't care. They just want to get away from that light, which is a whole another issue at the bottom of Salsbury and Park isn't timed right. Park Parks Park Avenue gets like three minutes for a green light. Salsbury gets 10 seconds. I mean, you let five cars through. So, it creates a big a big backup. But I know that's not what we're supposed to be talking about tonight. But the issue I just want to echo is the the traffic is ridiculous. And if you lived on Zbury Street, you'd know it's ridiculous and it's changed exponentially in 20 years. And I can't imagine this not even creating more chaos, more traffic, more backups for the side streets and the cutthroughs because nobody's even enforcing those no left-hand turn signs.

Nobody cares. They'll do it just to to to, you know, ease the minds of people who complain about it, but nobody follows up. So that's all I want to say.

Thank you. [applause] Hi, my name's Elizabeth Heert. I live off of Salisbury Street and I share a lot of the sentiment that's gone on. But I have a question because I've heard you say it twice, Mr. Lavali. We're here tonight because you're preliminarily looking at this structure to the housing, but you've said a couple times that they could do it differently. You said something about 15 driveways on Shrewsbury Street. So, in my mind, I'm thinking, is the construction inevitable? Because I know in my mind what I would like is for it to stay exactly as it is and maybe for the tavern to go away in a light or some kind of control to go there. But I'm feeling after tonight that that's not going to be the outcome. That the outcome is going to be that there's going to be some houses. It's just what it's going to look like.

It's a good question and so I'll try to answer it as honestly as I can. Uh lots of times in my experience developers come before this board and they propose something and we approve it and it never gets built. And there's a million reasons why. Uh a lot of them are financing things like interest rates. Some of them are personal to the developer. Maybe they get a bunch of projects approved at once and don't have the financial backing to complete them all. Um, I don't want to comment on this applicant specifically and I don't know whether or not they will follow through on this uh development should we eventually approve it. Um, I think if you Googled some of the other properties they own in the city, I there have been cases where things have gotten approved and and not ultimately move forward, including on this site. to directly address your question though of is it inevitable that housing will get built here. If you ignore what I just said of hey maybe they don't build it. Uh the subdivision that you there's basically there's more than three but let's simplify it. There's three types of approval things that come before this board and subdivisions are a big important one of them. Uh our role is to there's a Worcester has a ton of ordinance pages and pages of ordinances about subdivisions. Everything from how wide the streets are, sure, whether or not you can have sidewalks and where they have to be, where the street lights are, all that stuff. Uh we're supposed to look and because there are so many rules, look at the exceptions to the rules where the developer says, "I can't do this because of hopefully a good reason." and decide whether or not that's an appropriate waiver. That's the purpose of this board as it relates to subdivisions. They don't have to get a subdivision

here to build a bunch of houses, the same number of houses. you know, if if the concern was uh this is a 17 new buildings going in, uh if we don't approve this subdivision, well, they can still put 17 new homes and it's probably a in my in my opinion, uh it's a worse it's going to result in a worse development for the neighborhood should they move forward with that development. And for the folks that are talking about Salsbury Street, I would point out, you know, just a little further up the road a few years ago, we had a steep slope trigger. Uh, a couple different houses have gone in up there um with driveways entering on Salsbury Street. Um, I I don't know who it was that was saying they've almost been hit there twice, but uh when I was a runner, I very nearly got hit right in front of one of those houses.

Oh, I believe it. There's a fairly new house uh that they just finished up after 3 years of building and a massive tree went down right next to it. Yeah. I mean things do happen. So I I can't say nobody has a crystal ball. Nobody can see the future. This board has a very narrow purview and our job is really hopefully influence this development given the myriad rules and regulations that um were asked to weigh in on in such a way that it's a better development for the neighborhood than what would happen otherwise uh should it get built.

Okay. Thank you. [snorts] Hey there, I'm Keith Lenire's uh one Germaine Street. Um I share my neighbors concerns uh about this project and I have a question that I guess is maybe part rhetorical and and part practical. Um with projects like this, it seems like you know Worcester's going through a lot of unchecked growth, a lot of unchecked development. Uh we the residents and the taxpayers of this city don't seem like we get a lot back for all of this. There's houses going in all the time, subdivisions, large development projects. Uh as others have alluded to, the infrastructure doesn't seem like it's keeping up with that. I've talked to people in the city who say that their schools are getting overcrowded. There's neighborhoods without sidewalks. People can't walk, bike safely in the city. Um, so sort of like the rhetorical or practical question I have is who keeps an eye on holding the city accountable for its own plans like vision zero, which is supposed to make the city more walkable, less dependent on cars, uh, allow people to safely get around walking and biking. Um, it seems like in order for our concerns to be heard, we have to organize and descend on every single planning board meeting or zoning board of appeals meeting that concerns our tiny little piece of the city. This is a a prime piece of urban real estate and it's basically going through a a suburbanization um kind of a a building here. like why isn't the city kind of following its own plans? And who is it that's going to be holding the city accountable? Is this going to go in and then, you know, we have to go gravel to our district city councelor to have them put in a couple of speed bumps because that's what they actually have the power to dole out. Why isn't the city uh following a more systemic and structural approach to

making the city more safe, livable, and walkable for all of us? because I just see continued evidence that the city is undergoing massive and rampant speculation. The only people that are benefiting are the real estate speculators who wisely purchased property here 10 or 15 years ago when they saw the rising tide in Boston coming and they knew people were going to be uh moving out here. And it seems like those of us that want to be here for the long term, I'm not seeing a good reason to stick around in Worcester past the time when my kids are at a at a high school, honestly. So, I just want to know like practically what would you recommend as a planning board for if this does go forward? If we do see this suburban style going uh development going into our neighborhood, what are we supposed to do about it? Who who do we turn to for help? Thank you. [applause]

Uh great question. Um, if you had an entire doctoral thesis worth of time, I I might be able to answer that. Uh, but I'll give you a short story, which is uh you you probably know I know you ran for city council. You probably know that the planning board is appointed um by the city manager and approved by the city council were citizen volunteers. Uh, and we get sort of the way it worked in my case is you really have to recruit for this position if anybody's interested. this board, many other boards in the city uh need um need members, need need citizens. This is a this board's purpose, it has a a very narrow defined statutory purpose. Uh but really it's a public it's a it's a venue for a public meeting um about what's going on in the city. And I been on this board, it's coming on eight years now. Um, I joined specifically after the result of a national election uh that I didn't favor. And the point that people made was if you're frustrated, you have to get involved. Uh, and you know, I run a company. I don't have a ton of free time, but I could volunteer. You know, I didn't want to run for office, which you did, and I'm sure I hope that was a rewarding experience, but I'm sure was also very frustrating. uh I could volunteer for this and I have some expertise as it relates to land use and real estate development. We need other people to come and weigh in on this. And unfortunately uh being on this board for eight years, the the reality is we're just sort of uh overwhelmed by the amount of development that goes on in the city. You know, our typical agenda is 10 to 15 items. We couldn't spend we've been talking about this for 90 minutes. We couldn't spend 90 minutes on every one of those items. And they're all they all matter to to people as much as they matter to you

folks uh about this thing that's happening in your in your neighborhood. Uh I'm also a resident. I I've also seen developments that I like or don't like um that are nearby my home. Uh so I I I empathize with you. The city uh it it keeps growing. I mean the the reality of this site that many people have acknowledged is that somebody owns it and uh going back to the founding of our country, we give a lot of rights to land owners. Uh and in Massachusetts specifically, we have very few restrictions in terms of what they can and cannot do on their land. You know, we enforce zoning, but we can carve out exceptions to zoning. This is the most restrictive zoning uh in the entire city. Uh, I'm a housing advocate, so I actually think that more housing is good. More density is good. Uh, but it has to be good density and it has to be balanced with neighborhood concerns and infrastructure and things like that. Uh, I don't know how much more I want to talk about this. I I I don't I think a lot of uh institutions and systems and thinking that was developed in the postw World War II era uh are kind of meeting their match right now in the modern moment. Uh and city development, real estate, uh there's a lot of people with a lot of incentives to keep it the way it is. Uh, and the result of those incentives are that we're going to keep seeing stuff like this and we're going to keep seeing kind of the big cruise ships that this board approves on a routine basis in the, you know, downtown business corridor and that frankly benefits a lot of people in the city and it disadvantages a lot of people in the

city. It's just change. Uh, I I don't know what to tell you folks other than that. Um, the best you can do is try to influence the process by coming out and having conversations, talking about what's important to your neighborhood, getting creative to the extent you can. I know um, many folks pointed out concerns, equal number of folks in addition to pointing out their concerns said, "Hey, what if, you know, I wonder if the developer thought of X, Y, or Z um, you know, that might improve things or make them make this a better development." That's really the the best outcome that there is of a process like this. I hope that helps. Anyone else from the room like to speak? Come on up.

Hi, my name is Carol Cronin. I live off of Salsbury Street and my question is twofold. Has there been a uh study done on the traffic in said area? And if so or if not, is the developer going to pay for the entire infrastructure on the roadways?

Uh I can answer that question. Um so the city uh does not require traffic studies uh below a certain threshold. Um, and I'll tell you why. Try to explain it how I think of it. So, this is 17 new homes. And I know that sounds like a lot when you live next to them. Uh, but if you were to zoom out a little bit into the broader neighborhood, there's many, many hundreds of homes and the people driving through, many, many thousands, maybe tens of thousands of cars uh that drive through that intersection every day. So, the question isn't is the traffic good or bad. That's not really what a traffic study answers. It answers, will this make it noticeably worse? And it won't. Uh just just by virtue of the fact that this is even if everybody has three cars that lives in this development, that's it's just not enough cars to materially affect the traffic. And I know how frustrating that can be for folks to hear because you're experiencing how bad the traffic is right now. Uh unfortunately, we don't put that on individual developers to fix. It's really the city. uh in infrastructure planning. You know, people talked about a rotary would be a great idea there, and that might be true. I'm not a traffic engineer. We can't make them build the rotary. We can ask our city councilors uh and the Department of Transportation and Mobility to do the best that they can to prioritize that project and start the long process of doing it. Um, as you may may or may not be aware, you know, like Mil Street got redesigned, now they're um moving on. Um, I can't remember if it's Pleasant that's next. Uh, they systematically move through the city and try to redesign these things to incorporate what they call complete streets. So, um, it's part of their vision zero plan. they they have all these plans uh but it takes so long to

do anything uh that uh it will be a while um and unfortunately that's true for this neighborhood regardless of this development and to really answer your question um it it just doesn't so it would be me many multiples of this would trigger a traffic study uh in the traffic study would just say whether or not that development made materially worse.

Okay. Do you know if they if the city has any plans to revisit that area regardless if there's a development that is going to be built for say traffic lights to at least allow the people to drive through at a normal speed without cutting others off? I'm not aware. I'm not a city employee. Uh I I Miss Russell may be aware and may not be aware because the Worcester is actually a fairly large city. We have a you know hundreds maybe thousands of employees. So uh the department that works on that doesn't tell me.

Okay. All right. So would they, and just bringing this a little further, would the cows tavern be removed to expand the intersection? Um, that was what something somebody in a letter suggested that I read today. Uh, and I I mean it sounds like a good idea to me without knowing anything about it. I know we moved the other tavern, the Sterns Tavern, um, kind of in the uh, Webster Square Main South area. They used to move buildings. That's about all I can tell you. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Anyone else in the room? Miss. Russell, do you want to facilitate anyone online?

Yeah, absolutely. Uh, and I just want to throw it out there, um, that if anyone has questions or concerns that you can reach out to the Department of Transportation and Mobility, um, and advocate for improvements you'd like to see in your neighborhood. Um, so they can be reached at mobility.gov. Um, so those folks out there are always looking at these kinds of things. So direct your inquiries there. We're happy to facilitate, but they're just not as familiar with um, the improvements they're making. Um, so we do have a couple folks joined in online. If you're called in, it's going to be star nine to raise your hand and then star six to unmute. Uh, or if you're on Zoom, you can use the raise your hand feature. So, first up, we have um, Eric Stratton if you want to go ahead first.

Yeah. Hi, thank you. Um, Eric Stratton, I live at 353 Salsbury Street. Um I will try to be brief. Um and I appreciate uh this this um you know board's time and the fact that you are allowing people to speak and answering their questions. Um it is greatly appreciated. Um as others have said, I have uh serious concerns with regards to the impacts that this development will have on traffic especially at the intersection of Salsbury and Forest. um as well as um potential impacts due to the grading and the um essentially the the clearing of this property. Um I actually came through that intersection earlier this evening um coming home and it took me more than 30 minutes to just get from um Osteigo to the intersection of Forest and Salsbury. Um so 30 minutes worth of traffic. um not really due to the snow banks, just simply due to the volume of traffic there of people trying to turn. Um so in the event that this uh subdivision is built, um you know, my my deepest sympathies to the people living there, um you know, you'll get home eventually, I'm sure. Um the the concerns I really have are this is going to increase a lot of the traffic and the houses that seem to have driveways along Salsbury. The development of this property gives me concern. Um, we've had a number of houses built recently along Salsbury, um, across from Newton A and and nearby that have caused some serious impacts on Salsbury, specifically with regards to traffic, um, noise, pollution. Um, and it's caused a lot of problems. Um, I know myself, um, you know, we had a number of cement trucks queuing up outside of our house, um, while one of these houses was under construction. um they're out there prior to the allowed hours for for noise um basically just queued up and waiting to

get started and idling their engines because they they can't stop spinning a drum of wet cement. Um, with the looks of this plan, um, it's a large number of houses and while I realize they may be able to to able to develop by right and that it may not be, um, as desirable for us, I think it also would be less desirable for the developer in that people who could potentially buy these houses simply won't want to if it's a poorly designed neighborhood or poorly designed layout. Um so I do um hope that the developers are going to work with the city um and the residents to address some of these concerns and that may mean reducing the number of lots that they're trying to develop. Um I also have concerns with relation to the uh tavern as well as the mansion. Um, I realize those are not necessarily parts of this plan, but having these properties, um, one of which is historic and frankly is very clearly just being neglected and allowed to to rot, um, you know, frankly doesn't bode well in terms of as good neighbors or um, you know, uh, uh, you know, really a good faith development effort. Um, if if they were looking to do that, I would hope that they would have something in this plan saying here's their plan for that building, for that tavern that they will be restoring it or if they are planning to raise it, you know, telling people what their plans are rather than simply leaving it to rot. Um, the same goes with the mansion up at the top of the hill. Um, there's no plan really there. It may be a different owner, but again, um, it gives me concern that, hey, you're building this whole development and then you're leaving this large structure up at the top of the hill to to rot. Um, I would hope that with regards to the concerns about sidewalks and the the roadway width, um, I would urge this board to not grant those um, waivers um, or exemptions or whatever the appropriate term is. Um, I I I enjoy narrow city streets um, probably more than most. I think it's helpful. It can add for a lot of traffic

calming, helps keep people from zooming about. Um, however, um, I do have concerns with regards to when people do have gatherings, when there are snow emergencies like we have currently, it it can create significant impacts and um, uh, cause for concern when it comes to issues of either fire or emergency vehicles. With regards to the sidewalk, um, we should not be giving people variances or waiverss from having basic infrastructure for our city. Um, frankly, as part of this development, I would hope that we would urge them to add sidewalks to Salsbury Street as well. Um, and so, you know, again, part of that being, you know, a good neighbor, um, if you're going to develop, you know, be a good neighbor, add sidewalks so people can continue to walk and improve our infrastructure for your neighbors. Um, so I'd hope to see that happen as well. Um, uh, with with that, uh, that sort of concludes my comments. Thank you again.

Thank you. Next up, we have a Jim Halpin. If you want to go ahead. Thank you. Can you hear me? We can hear you.

Thank you. Uh um Jim Halpin um 30 artgo road. Um I had um submitted a letter to the planning board uh because we are traveling this week. We knew we couldn't be there. We weren't sure we get a chance to speak. I won't reiterate the points I made in that letter. The two opposition points are traffic which has been covered um and the um the amount of modification to the land for this subdevelopment plan is extensive. Massive tree removal. And what really concerned me that point was the um the increase in cut and slope um fill into this plan to create level lots. um really concerns me. I already have water problems on my basement on Art Seaggo Road. We run a sump pump. Um so this concerns me greatly. a specific question to the planning board about the um the site plan I'm looking at shows all the lots on the north side um that back up to artigo road shows greatly increased slopes flowing down into the backyards of all the abutas they wrap hulahan Iggins McMaster the lots labeled there I haven't seen anything in the plans that show any kind of mitigation of surface water runoff there catch basins drainage swailes. So the specific question is can the planning board require that um uh from the developer at this stage of um you know it's a preliminary plan. Um and I also brought up in the letter that I think that approving any waiverss for a minimum road size or sidewalks on only one side to me seems to be just um an opportunity to um cram more lots into the buildable

land here. and I would encourage you to deny those waiverss. Um, I'll thank you and I'll listen to your response. All right. Thank you, sir. Um, M. Russell, I I don't know the answer about the appropriate stage to condition uh runoff mitigation. Is it would it be the definitive subdivision or would it have to be in sight plan?

Um, through the chair, I think the definitive subdivision is really getting at um mitigating storm water as it relates to the roadway. um storm water runoff um and meeting the Massachusetts stormwater standards for the individual lots um would be something through the site plan process where we'd be reviewing the extent of the impervious surface and mitigation on site for each lot um but the subdivision would be the roadway.

Okay. Uh hope that that was clear. BA basically it's not at this stage, it's at a later stage that that would um come up though it's a legitimate concern to raise and you know the developer can certainly hear us raise it now. Uh which is really the point of a preliminary um subdivision plan like what we're doing. I hope that helps. Um, it looks like we do have one more person joined online with their hand raised. Um, Kim, if you want to go ahead.

Yes. Hi, my name is Kim Sowski and I live at the top of Beachmont Street and I just want to say that the um the traffic is bad enough on Salsbury Street now and I can't imagine how much worse it's going to be with this development. I came to the meeting late so I apologize. I was not able to get all the information at the beginning and um my family has lived on Beachmont Street since the mid 1960s. So needless to say, I've seen a lot of changes in this area of Worcester. And I I'm really upset to hear that um from hearing all these people speaking that the the uh land is going to be brought down in elevation to accommodate these lots and there's going to be a lot of clear cutting of trees and not to mention the traffic and the old as Mr. Stratton previously said the um the old uh tavern that's there in the corner is basically falling apart. It's it's deteriorating due to neglect and that the mansion up at the top of that private drive has windows that are all completely boarded up. And I'd love to know what the appraised value is of that entire lot and what the asking price is for that entire lot. But I just would say that I'm just I really think that you really need to reconsider what is going to happen to that property. And I'm not familiar with all the waiverss that were discussed because I came in late. But I really hope that you do not approve any of those waivers. And that I think that everybody who's

spoken out tonight against this development has some very concrete and definitive um opinions on what should happen with this property so that if it is developed that the number of houses needs to be dramatically reduced. There's that's way too many houses for that property there of 17. and I agree about the re real estate property values and everything else everybody has said and thank you for your time. Thank you. Anyone else online?

Um I just want to check Eric you still have your hand up if you had any additional comments to provide. Otherwise, folks can use star star 9 to raise their hand if you're called in, star six to unmute, or raise your hand on Zoom.

I'm sorry, Eric. I give you one more chance. Sorry. Go ahead. Apologies. No, no, no additional questions. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Awesome. Well, thank you everyone for your comments. I don't see that we have anybody else um online with their hand raised. I just want to make one slight correction to the um concern about the intersection. We did get an update today in our memo. It's outlined in red um about the intersection and improvements. We are expecting DTM to install a traffic light at that intersection. Um when that gets installed um I can't speak to. It obviously needs to go through a process, but it is targeted as uh a future update at the intersection. So hopefully that eases some concern.

Not sure if you heard that, but Rose is saying uh DTM actually does plan to install a traffic light at this intersection. We don't have a timeline on that, but uh that apparently they let us know that today. Um all right, final call for comments. hearing none. Uh would the applicant like the opportunity to address anything they've heard before we kind of go to board discussion? Sorry, put on the spot.

No, no, not a problem. I I certainly appreciate everybody coming out and and kind of raising their concerns. I think that uh some of what you know the chair has mentioned is is is true obviously in that you know there are other ways to develop this uh such that I think would be worse and I think that part of the reason why we're here is exactly what's kind of come forth here is is trying to hear you guys out and understand your concerns so that we can build something that's a little bit more palatable and better for you ultimately. Um I tend to be more of an open book as well. Um, I'd be happy to sit with any of you or or you know, heed your calls or or whatever to kind of talk through any of the, you know, any of the design decisions or anything that's on on the paper right now as well, just so you are understanding it that much more. So, I'll just leave it at that as well. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. All right. We're going to move to board discussion now. Um, Mr. McCormack, would you like to go first? Um, sure. Um, yeah, I guess just to start by saying thank you to all of the um, members of the public who uh, provided comment and thank you to the chair um, for fielding a lot of those comments and questions. Um, and particularly I know this came came up a lot but highlighting that this is a a byite process. Um, the sub definitive subdivision approval. Um generally if uh an applicant meets all the requirements um in the city regulations they are allowed to move forward. Um they're looking for a a few waiverss um and then also noting that you know they they could uh in an alternate scenario um be doing strictly an ANR um project here which would not be uh I don't think that that would result in as good a project for the city or for the butters. Um I guess in terms of the waiverss that were requested um I some just going through them. I I believe there's only three. Um for the roadway width and for the dead end length. I don't particularly have an issue with those two. The the dead end length is uh only slightly longer than what is typically allowed. Um, in the roadway with uh they're requesting 24 feet wide. Um, I live on a 24 foot wide road. Um, and I with many more cars and uh houses on it and it it seems to function pretty well. Um, I I would hope that the applicant could take another look at uh the sidewalk uh waiver request. I I do think it would be beneficial to have

sidewalks on both sides of the city or of the street. Um the the city obviously is uh trying to move aggressively with the complete streets plan. Um and you know I think even though there wouldn't be a lot of uh foot traffic on on such a small dead-end road, I I think it's important to uh still be thinking about that. Um in terms of the uh common driveway um which would be a separate special permit, so not part of this uh subdivision application. Um, I do think that would probably be a a benefit and I would support that. The common driveway would prevent three additional uh driveway curb cuts onto Sal directly onto Salsbury Street. Um, so I think preventing that and allowing a common driveway onto this new road would be a better outcome than having the three new driveway driveways onto such a busy road. Um otherwise uh for the for the site itself um I know a lot of the butters commented on this but I think that the two main ones uh for me would be uh the traffic um and the the grading for the traffic I obviously I'm not as concerned with the volume of cars that would be created from 17 new house lots. Uh it's it's a pretty I think as the chair mentioned a pretty small amount compared to the uh hundreds or thousands that would be going that already use Forest and Salsbury Street. But I I think the the traffic movement of that that turn on to uh Forest Street should be, you know, looked at carefully to make sure that this isn't going to create uh even worse traffic conditions, especially during peak travel hours. So that would be one thing I would be looking for. um as well as the pedestrian connection from this new road onto Forest Street. Um, additionally, I I I don't really know if it's um the reasonable to put this on the developer, but um obviously a

sidewalk on the north side of of Salisbury Street. Um there isn't one there today. It seems like this would be an opportunity to at least plan for uh and grade for the city to install a sidewalk. So hopefully the the city can work with the developer on that to make sure that's included in any future plan revisions. Um and then yeah, I mean I I I know we heard a lot of concerns about the grading and the loss of vegetation on on the site. Um I do hope that the applicant can look at uh possibilities to reduce the amount of grading and erosion control uh or uh potential for erosion uh issues. um and potentially reduce the amount of uh existing mature vegetation that would need to be removed from the site. Um otherwise, I was happy to hear that inclusionary zoning was uh would be applicable to this project. I was unclear if that if that applied to subdivision uh projects. Um, and yeah, finally for the cow tavern, um, it's not really within this board or this application's perview, but uh, hopefully the applicant is is hearing the calls of their neighbors and I would say the board and the city that, uh, they are in control of a very important historic resource. Um, and hopefully they can take action as part of this project to uh, make improvements and um, stabilize that building. So um overall I you know this is a byray project as was discussed um I know there's this is an impact uh for the for the neighborhood and uh it's a it's a a large change but um you know it does meet the if it generally meets the requirements uh of the subdivision rules regulations I would I would support it.

Thank you Mr. McCormack. U Mr. King, any comments from you? No, just that overall I do appreciate the abutters coming out to kind of give their feedback. I hope that this project does continue with that and having the abutters work with the developer to push feedback to listen to them and make sure their thoughts are heard as well. Overall, I'm okay with the first waiver. So, the 24 width road and the dead end road. Ideally, we'd want sidewalks or I would want sidewalks where we can just ensure the whole area is walkable, but other than that, no further comments. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. Delera.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I think um our chairman did an excellent job. either does usual thoughtful job explaining the circumstances about the board's purview here and how the developer can essentially construct this project with an ANR plan. It's basically going to have the same number of houses and the same amount of trees cut down, the same amount of impervious surfaces built, all concerns that are expressed by the neighbors and the abutters. All of this stuff can happen as a matter of right. Um it's unfortunate, but under the state law, that's how it works. Me personally, I live nearby. Uh, I experience the traffic all the time. I drive through the street flooding at the base of the hill all the time. My child had a bus stop on Salsbury Street right across the street from the site. So, I really do get it. Um, the approach with the new road that's presented tonight, it seems like it's the lesser of two evils. It reduces the number of new driveways and curb cuts on Salisbury Street itself compared to the alternative ANR option which again the developer could do by right. So, if this is the direction that this project is going to go in, I know the city staff and the planning board is going to do whatever they can to make the inevitable result as good as it can be and to make to make sure that all the building requirements and the rules that are in place to protect the abuters uh that all of those will be followed in whatever subdivision plans uh come forward as the review process goes forward. Um, I believe sidewalks should be installed wherever possible. And in general, um, I hope the developer

would take into consideration all of the concerns that have been expressed here tonight, um, and through the correspondence that people have sent in. And I hope that the developer would consider the various uh potentially negative health impacts, safety impacts, traffic impacts, environmental impacts, um issues related to drainage, and just overall quality of life impacts that this development could possibly have on the area. and if the developer absolutely must build housing on this land that they might consider scaling it back in scope and again to take the concerns that have been expressed here seriously.

Thank you. What's up? Thank you Mr. Delera. Uh Mr. Tumi again [clears throat] thank you for everyone tonight. It's uh been a very informative, very interesting. Again, I think the chair has done a great job uh keeping everyone informed as to everything tonight. Um Rose, what's the planning board's relative 24 versus 30? Is 24 viewed as an issue or is that something we're comfortable that that's a reasonable concession?

Do the chair. That's a standard for the roadway width. So like curb to curb 24 ft instead of 30. Uh we typically would leave this up for DPW or DTM to comment on and it wasn't flagged as a concern um in either of their comments. Um so in lie of that I I think we would be supportive of the reduction in width um given the limited number of homes along the road.

Okay. And again, the the sidewalk relative to where the uh the catch basin is for that, again, it says a wooden guard rail. I think that needs to be a fairly substantial cyclone fence. And that if you do have a sidewalk there and you have young kids, that just is a very dangerous spot. And again, I see that as, you know, my 12-year-old self still looking, gee, that'd be a fun place to go down and play in and uh do [clears throat] stuff in and just to be able to keep people from from being in that area savings uh just the safety factor. Uh the other thing I looked at that I think would be a a great gesture to the neighborhood is if you can add sidewalks along Salsbury Street. I don't know how that would impact impact those lots along that uh the s north side of Salsbury Street, but the ability to be able to add sidewalks there I think would add a lot of goodwill to the neighborhood. It would only go possibly so far beyond the property, but again it still is a uh uh would be an improvement on what's there uh right now. And again, the the length of the 550 versus 556, um I'm not sure where the number 500 comes from, but I don't see 556 being an issue relative to uh being an obstacle.

Thank you, Mr. Tumi. Um, okay. For myself, uh, maybe I should start by saying, um, for the folks in the public, uh, one thing we didn't mention tonight, I said there's a lot of regul regulations and rules. Um and uh we're actually very lucky on this board that we have a [clears throat] very dedicated, very talented um planning staff in the city of Worcester who reviews uh these plans extensively for compliance with those rules. So that's a little bit Miss Russell, it's also Michelle Smith. Uh there's many other folks in in that group. Uh and then there's many other departments in the city that that touched it as well. So, um, people mentioned specifically the Department of Transportation and Mobility, also DPW, uh, they're reviewing for different components of this, um, related to the safety. So, uh, that that's been going on for a number of weeks in conversing with them, uh, about that a little bit earlier today in the preliminary nature of this plan versus what will eventually become a definitive site plan should the applicant move forward. Uh the concern that city staff has that I want to make sure I convey to the applicant is that there are a number of things that because this is preliminary we don't know yet. Um some of the uh butters commented on this publicly you know you haven't checked x y and z. Uh I know you're aware of that. City staff has flagged that. that's um noted extensively in the conditions in the memo different things that we want to see and certainly uh speaking for myself but I suspect for my uh colleagues on the board we would expect those conditions um particularly as they're requesting additional information or clarification or detail uh to be addressed when you come back um and I'm I'm sure that you're aware of that but I wanted to call that out for the butters on the record as it relates

to the waiverss Uh, I agree. I don't really think the um difference between 500 and 556 ft here uh is going to materially change anything. And it it probably does make it a little bit easier um in terms of the overall development cohesion uh to have the culde-sac situated where it is. My understanding is they would remove the landscaping island from the middle of it uh to comply with um the 500 foot limit which I think would be a net negative. Uh I also think though it's not contemplated here but I just I just want to note this because the the driveway that extends kind of from 8:00 or so on the culde-sac uh is a common driveway with four houses. I think that's a actually a really good idea to reduce curb cuts onto Salsbury Street. Uh, I would love to see it have a sidewalk on one side. Um, I don't know if it does or not. I don't believe it does. Uh, and I don't know if we can condition that as a driveway, but it will need to come back for a special permit. So, that's something we'll probably request. I think, uh, Mr. Tumi's suggestion, I I have no idea the feasibility. It might it might have been Mr. McCormack, but I have no idea the feasibility of adding a sidewalk to Salsbury Street, but that would be tremendous. Uh, and that would turn um at least my kind of hesitant, yeah, we're probably gonna, if you meet all the conditions, approve this and grant the waiverss to enthusiastic support. Um, because the that area of the city is in desperate need of pedestrian infrastructure. Um, there was right when I started on this board, uh, somebody was killed a little bit further up Salsbury Street in a pedestrian fatality. It's not uncommon in that area. Uh, and I think that concludes my comments. I I so I support I support the waiverss. Uh, I would want to see sidewalks on both sides of the both sides of the street. Um, I could be persuaded by Mr. Tum's

comment about the fence uh because I, you know, we don't want to make a worse condition. Um, and it is a very steep uh hill there. So, uh, unless there's any further board discussion, I think we're ready for a preliminary or a motion to approve or not approve the preliminary through the chair. Really quickly before we move on, we have someone with their hand raised online. We've moved on from public comment. You don't have to take it. I just wanted to let you know if you would like to hear it. Uh, I I do think we've heard sufficient public comment and I and it's our policy not to go backwards. Um, so do apologize for that person. However, the opportunity to comment when we have a more fully developed plan uh at some point in the future.

Okay. With that, I would make a motion to approve the preliminary subdivision plan for 0 274 and 300 Salsbury Street subject to staff recommended conditions on pages 2, three, four, and five of the staff memo. into. Yeah, I think that's that covers it. Second on the motion. Mr. McCormack, yes. Mr. King, yes. Mr. Delera, yes. Mr. Tumi, yes.

I vote yes as well. Motion passes five to zero. Uh, wish you the best of luck as you continue to develop plans. Thanks everybody. Where are we? Uh, moving on to other business ANRS

through the chair. We have four ANRS properly before you on the board. Um, and I'll be brief. Uh, and for any folks in the room, feel free to reach out to our office tomorrow with any questions. Um, our contact info is on the top of the agenda, so feel free to give us a call, send an email if you have any follow-up questions. Um, so first ANR up before the board tonight is 24 Sherbrook Avenue in Lake View Street. Um, this ANR plan is to reflect a property conveyance from 1980 where a ANR plan was not recorded at the time. So, the property has actually already been conveyed. Um, this property is the one in the middle. So, it's two non-buildable lots known as lot A1 to the north and lot A2 to the south. Um, neither of them have sufficient frontage, but they're not meant to be held uh individually, but to be held lot A1 with lot two, the two northern ones, and then lot A2 to the south with lot one to the south. Um, so it's just to correct the record on an earlier unrecorded ANR plan. After that, we have 14 Emory Street and Lash Chappelle Street. This is um an existing single lot. Today we're in the RL7 zoning district. The proposal is a single family attached style dwelling which requires 25 ft of frontage along an improved right of way. Emery Street's a public street uh up to typical standards. Lash Chappelle is a unimproved in this section at least private street. Um but it is on the official map. So all lots 1 through three have sufficient frontage in the RL7 on Emory Street. They're not using Lash Chappelle for frontage. 132 Morland Streets, not properly before the board. ANR4F is 5 Forest Hill Drive um which is a public street to the north. To the south is Morland Street. It's also a public street. We're in the RS7 zoning district

here which requires a minimum of 65 ft of frontage. Uh both lots have frontage on both streets uh and both in excess of 65 ft the minimum required. Um and next up we have 55 Picasset Avenue. Um this is an one lot today. It's 55 Picasset which is a public street up to typical city standards. The minimum frontage is 65 ft. Um both lot one and two have in excess of the minimum required frontage. Um and last up here we have 93 Elton Street. This is one lot today with um it's been constructed three units single family attached townhouse style units. Um each requires 25 ft of frontage which all three lots have. I will just make note Ellen Street is public. Um 330 ft east of Boston Avenue to where it becomes unimproved, not on the official map. So you can see the um portion denoted with a dotted line. um that is not part of the street and they are not relying on any of that four frontage uh for that lot three. So they have in excess of frontage on the public street to the left of that line. So those are the four ANRs properly before the board tonight. Sorry, five ANRS.

Is there a motion to endorse? I would make the motion to endorse. Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormack? Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Delera? Yes, Mr. Tumi. Yes, I vote yes. That motion passes 4 to zero. No communication items tonight. Do we are we talking about CMRPC? I think we can hold that till next meeting. Uh and we do have minutes in the drive if the board's ready to vote.

Awesome. Uh so we'll hold the discussion on CMRPC. There is one set of minutes from January 7th. Are there any uh additions or corrections? Hearing none. Is there a motion to approve? To approve the January 7th minutes. Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormack. Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Dela? Yes. Mr. Tumi? Yes. I vote yes as well. Motion passes 5 to zero. Is there a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second. All in favor say I. I. I.

Five to zero. We're adjourned. Thanks everybody. Good night. Thank you.