Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good evening and welcome um and welcome to the Monday, February 2nd, 2026 meeting of the city of Worcester zoning board of appeals. My name is Jordan Burke Powers and I will uh chair tonight's meeting. This meeting of the Worcester zoning board of appeals will be conducted in a hybrid manner with both inperson and remote participation. As a preliminary matter to tonight's meeting, I would like to confirm the board members and staff who are present. Board members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Board member Brahmoff, I am here. Board member Cortez, here. Board member Barnhagen, here. Board member Sacko here. Uh, M uh staff, uh, Michelle Smith,

present. Uh, [clears throat] Amy Bethle, present. And David Horn

here. As um before we start, a few housekeeping notes. Tonight's meeting is being livereamed with from the city of Worcester website and the recording will be available for rebroadcast. This is a public meeting which means both that it is being recorded and that minutes will be taken and published at a later date. The public may participate remotely by calling 1669 2545252. And again that number is 16692545252 with access code 1604564634 or using the link shown on the screen. Once an item is called, there will be a brief presentation of the item followed by any additional comments and clarifications from members of the city staff. Then an opportunity for anyone from the public to speak on the item before we proceed to board discussion and action. To manage remote participation during our hybrid meetings and prevent disruptions, all participants are automatically blocked from unmuting themselves, turning on their video, or sending chat messages. For remote participants who like to comment on an item on our agenda, we ask that you use the raise your hand feature in Zoom during the discussion on that item. If you're joined by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star9. Again, that number is star9 to use your raise your hand function. Staff will then call on members of the public one at a time and give them permission to unmute themselves. If you are joined by phone, you will then be able to unmute yourself by pressing star six. Please note that the um again to unmute yourself is star six. To raise your hand is star 9. Please note the board appreciates brevity in your comments. To

help with the process, we ask all speakers participating in person to use a microphone. Make sure it's green to please clarify um please clearly identify yourself each time you speak. For the first time you speak, please state your city of town of residence for the record. To help maintain an orderly meeting, please address all comments and questions through the chair, that's me, rather than directly to any of the other speakers or applicants. Applicants should be aware that approvals are generally conditional. Decisions are typically signed by the board at the next meeting and filed with the city clerk the following day beginning the appeal period. It is the applicant's responsibility to address any conditions of approval and lack of doing so may result in delays or enforcement. Please contact the planning division with any questions. Any party agrieved by a decision of the board has the right of appeal under Mass General Laws chapter 48 section 17. There are there's one item on our agenda being continued or postponed um from tonight's meeting which I will read through shortly. If you are here on that item, please note that no additional notices will be sent to you before the next meeting. The best thing to do is to call the planning division the day prior to our next meeting to confirm if the item will be heard or postponed that night. At it is not uncommon for items to be postponed multiple times before they are heard by this board. I will suggest for the purposes of streamlining our meeting uh that board member um Barton Hagen, are you able to make uh any motions and that board member Cortez second any such motions. In the event that either member prefers not to do so, I simply ask that you identify another member to do so. All right. We have one item for continuence. 56 Pleasant Street. A request to continue the public hearing to February 23rd, 2026, and extend the constructive grant deadline to March 17th, 2026. Is there a motion?

Like to make a motion to continue 56 Pleasant Street to the public hearing and constructive grant deadline dates as stated. Is there a second? Second on the motion. Board member Brahma, uh, my my vote is yes. Board member Cortez, yes. Board member Barnhagen, yes. Board member Sacko, yes.

My vote's yes. Okay. So, if you're here for 56 Pleasant Street, please talk to the planning division um about uh the um uh about when it will be heard next. Okay. We are going to take um an item out of order because there is a request for an interpreter for item number six um 540 West Boilson Street. If somebody is in need of um interpretation, please let us know. Otherwise, we'll ask the applicant to come forward for 540 West Boilson Street number item number six. Yeah, we're taking item number six. Go ahead, just state your name and city or town of residence for the record.

Sure. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, Matt Eckle. I'm an attorney with Fletcher Tilton. On behalf of the applicant, uh town of residence is Burlington, Massachusetts. With me this evening, we have uh Mr. David Guerrera from GPR Engineering and John Whipachowski from Town Fair Tire. Uh the proposal, we're seeking to change a privileged pre-existing non-conforming use to a use of a similar nature in the RG5 zoning district to allow a motor vehicle service use. We're also seeking a special permit uh separate from that uh to allow this same use. Uh the reason we're seeking these two different special permits is this lot is bifurcated by a zoning line. So we are in two different zoning districts, the BL1.0 and the RG5. Overall, we're seeking to renovate a portion of the existing structure at 540 West Boilston Street undertake significant site improvements and operate their retail tire and installation facility at the site. Overall, the existing conditions, it's the lot is just over 67,000 square feet. you can see up on the screen now. It's a kind of zshape shaped kind of tetris-shaped lot. Uh the zoning line goes kind of right down where that arrow was kind of through the middle of the building. Uh the existing building itself is just over 20,000 square feet. There you go. You can see the zoning line how it cuts through both the parking lot and then the building as well. Uh we're proposing to use a portion of the existing structure again to operate a tire retail and installation facility. By way of brief background, Townfare Tire has been in business for almost 60 years and has about over 120 stores, mostly throughout New England. Its main business is the sale and installation of tires for passenger and light truck as well as custom wheels. And they provide services that include wheel balancing and wheel alignment. Uh we are proposing anticipated hours of operations of Monday 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Tuesday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and then closed on Sundays. Uh I believe

there might have been a reference to the hours of operation in the staff memo. Uh the one change there was Monday being till 7, not 6:00. The majority of the space that would be occupied, about 9,000 square feet of the 12,000 ft we're going to operate in total would be for this retail component. Uh if anyone's been ever been in a town fair tire before, you go in, there's a waiting area if you're having your tires installed and then there's a bunch of tires. So you can look at the tires, obviously, look and feel them, see what tires are right for you, and then purchase them. And then part of that service is then have them installed. So the remaining 3,000 square ft of the building under this application would be six service bays. Five of those bays would be the actual installation of tires and the remaining bay would be for alignments. Uh it's important to note the town fair is different than a lot of other motor vehicle service or repair uses. They're not doing oil changes. They're not doing, you know, fender benders. They're not getting out scrapes or or bumps or anything like that. It is all the tires, the installation of the tires, and then potentially alignment. So, the proposal does include, as I mentioned, six total bays. Those would be to the plan self. If you look at the plan here, we might have the floor plans that we can get to in a moment. Uh, I'll also note no customer vehicles will be stored overnight on the property. You come during the day, you pick out your tires, you get them installed, you then take your vehicle home. Uh, as mentioned, they don't perform any oil changes, repairs, tuneups, shocks, mufflers, anything really other than tires. Uh, we are proposing 58 parking spaces. Uh, currently there's about 92 parking spaces. So, a significant portion of this project is to those infrastructure updates. Uh it's a very old parking lot that currently exists. So we'd be shrinking the drive aisles so they're more appropriately sized. Uh we'd be reducing some of the uh imperous material down by about 9% and therefore increasing the open percent open space by about 9%. We're also uh contemplating some other improvements such as

accessibility improvements to make it more accessible to actually get into the facility itself uh from the handicap parking spaces that will be provided. We're also increasing the landscape buffer areas as [snorts] well as uh providing plantings and approximately 11 trees which we believe will enhance the pedestrian and neighborhood experience as a whole. So significant updates to not only the building to retrofit it for tire town fair tire but also uh to the site itself. Uh you can see here this is the landscape plan. So you can see the the trees and kind of the larger circles being placed uh throughout the the property mostly around the edges of the property. Uh we're also a number of plantings around the perimeter. There are some existing uh plantings kind of to the rear of our property which which I believe are on the next property over and we won't be touching or affecting those at all. Uh we did receive the staff memo uh and 95 to 99% of it we are we are fine with all the conditions. The one condition we'd like to discuss with the board is there was a recommendation for an additional four trees. Again, we're providing 11 trees. You can see where they're placed, I think, in an effort to be consistent on the ask. Staff is asking for those four additional trees. As you can see, we don't really have a whole lot of area to put them. That would make sense. Uh the only remaining spots would block existing signage either for our property or the abuing property or would cast shadows and loom over existing vegetation. So, we would ask respectfully that the board consider uh striking that condition from from the memo and from the decision. Uh we do obviously value the open space and green space we're providing and we think overall this is a significant upgrade to the site. Um I would also just note that there is there's one uh waiver referenced in the memo. I would also request formally that that that's granted if the board sees fit. Um, with that I I'll pause and and take any questions the board may have.

Thank you very much. Uh, city staff

through the chair. This is Amy Bethl for the planning division. Uh, for 540 West Boilston Street. Presently on premise is a vacant 2000 approximately 20 thou 20,049 ft commercial building with two tenant spaces previously used for retail and an associated 98 space surface parking lot. The applicant seeks to renovate part of the existing structure to operate an approximate 10,828 square foot townfare tire facility. Uh approximately 7,978 square ft retail and storage to support a an approximate 2,850T 6 bay tire installation center. um which is a motor vehicle service use with the secondary approximately 9,918 square foot tenant space to remain unchanged with a retail use. The applicant seeks to reconfigure the parking facility to provide for 58 approximately 58 parking spaces related landscaping, pedestrian infrastructure and loading and to conduct associated site improvements. The property is splitzoned between the BL1.0 zero, which is a business limited zone, and the RG5, a resident's general zoning district. The requested relief is a special permit to extend, alter, or change a privileged pre-existing non-conforming use. Um, the existing retail use is non-conforming within the RG5 zone. To extend, alter, or change a privileged pre-existing non-conforming use to a use of a similar nature. The existing use is privilege non-conforming because part of the site is located in the RG5 and the um motor vehicle use is a use of a similar nature and then to allow a motor vehicle use in the BL1 zone is that is a use that is required to have a special permit. Um the applicant is proposing 58 parking

spaces, 12 of which will be compact spaces, which is 20% of the spaces. Um which is compliant with the 58 spaces required by zoning based on the proposed 14,800, sorry, 14,800 square ft of retail use. um which is calculated by one space for every 300 ft² and 5,242 ft of retail storage which is calculated at one space for every 750 ft. The applicant is proposing a total of six new garage bays on the south side of the structure, five bays for tire installation, and one bay for alignments. Uh the applica the applicant is proposing landscaping improvements to bring the property closer to compliance with regard to landscape buffers between the parking areas and property lines whenever possible and 11 new tree plantings and reducing excess width of the drive aisles resulting in a net decrease in impervious surfaces. Um the applicant already alluded to the hours of operation and um the applicant is not the building owner. So um they have no knowledge of how the adjacent um vacant tenant space will be used. So staff noted that only a continuation of the historic use is permitted which was a retail use. Um let's see. So, the applicant is proposing many improvements to parking areas, including accessibility, um, narrowing the drive aisles, um, eliminated parking in the front yard setback, and installing the 11 new shade trees throughout the parking area to improve compliance with zoning requirements. Um while the proposal is a dramatic enhancement over existing conditions, it remains below the minimum requirements for landscaping with respect to perimeter shade trees and shrub plantings interspersed between

shade trees along streets. Um, and that's why staff is requesting the additional four shade trees to total 15 um of one additional species to help increase canopy variety while still less than otherwise would be required. Um, the applicant has indicated no changes to lighting. Um and staff would recommend that if any fixtures are proposed to be retrofitted that they be replaced with dark sky compliant lumers uh with full cutoffs and that lighting be of a warmer temperature. Um and then given the scope of work proposed, it is not expected that EV parking spaces will need to be wired and inspectional services has indicated that the applicant will be required to provide a full code review to ensure that EV charging spaces are not required given the charges changes proposed and should consult with their architect to verify that EV spaces will not be required. Um, and the last item that I have on here is the applicant proposes screening for the dumpster and tire enclosures with a stockade style fence. Thank you very much. Okay, so again, since we took it out of order, if you're here for item number six, 540 West Boilson Street, um, please come forward. Otherwise, um, if you are online, please use the raise your hand function. And again, you can use the raise your hand function if you're on your phone by pressing star9. There is somebody. Okay. Um, go ahead,

John. I have asked you to unmute. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Great. Uh, good evening. Good evening. My name is John and I'm a Worcester resident living on Fail Street as an a butter to the proposed location for the variance in question. [snorts]

My apologies for not being present for the meeting and for the forthcoming subpar conveyance of my message as I'm currently battling the flu. Um, while I understand this variance uh to be in the same retail classification as previous variances that have been allowed, I disagree with the spirit of the claim. While previous variances were granted with a heavy leaning towards improving the neighborhood, the current proposal does no more than to oversaturate an already available community resource, which also negatively affects the uh the livelihood of many locallyowned businesses in and around the neighborhood. In addition uh the addition of a 13th auto repair or maintenance facility on or around West Oilston Street with this being the fifth location with tire service directly in its name. It's not only opposite of being beneficial to the neighborhood but also comes with a proposed plan that has a direct negative impact to the neighborhood with added noise pollution. The residential classification of the property in question may not have stopped variances for retail businesses in the past. However, those businesses never came along with constant usage of air ratchet guns and other air ratchet tools ringing throughout the neighborhood every day except Sunday until 7 or 8:00 p.m. [snorts] I, like many others nowadays, work from home during the week. and the addition of a business that is already well accounted for in our immediate neighborhood and will add significant noise pollution to the surrounding homes does not and should not qualify within the spirit of previously granted variances. As a side note, within the past year, I was quoted replacement tires for my vehicle by T Town Town Fair Tire in Auburn at over

$1,200. And I was able to get the same tire work done with the same brand of tires at Minne, which is adjacent to the lot in question for half the price, around $550. This is the same miny that the applicant referred to as Midas in their filing because they have no history in or care to know our neighborhood. After sitting in on many ZBA meetings over the past year and seeing concerns of friends and community members pushed aside by the board in favor of business interests and speculative land developers, I was entertained last meeting when an extended amount of time was spent on whether a convenience store on Cambridge Street could have a service window open during business hours over concerns for neighborhood noise pollution. I hope our neighborhood gets the same respect and discussion that the neighborhood on Cambridge Street received last meeting. In the event that the board feels that this retail establishment, which is uh motor vehicle service use establishment, meets the same variance considerations as former businesses that sold food, vegetables, and Halloween costumes. I'd ask for the following. that the bay doors be located to the west boilston street south side of the build uh sorry west side of the building to reduce noise pollution concerns. Currently those doors as proposed open directly to residential houses that are on Francis Street area and would provide an echoing noise to all houses in the area. Number two, to require the closing of bay doors before the use of any air powered tools. Three, that work does not occur in the parking lots when bays are unavailable. And four, that all sidewalks on all sides of the building are cleared of snow after every storm. Currently, the fail street side of the building sidewalk does not reliably get

snow removal, even during this last storm. And although this portion of the building will not be part of the town fair tire, uh, as it hasn't been for the past few businesses, the snow removal still needs to happen if they're going to be part of that building. Uh, in enclosure retail variances do not equal motor vehicle service use variances, and this should this should be wholly rejected. However, if it is accepted, like I assume it's going to be, the bay should be moved to the uh the side of the building facing West Boilston Street and every effort to reduce neighborhood noise pollution should be made. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. [snorts] Uh is someone else a There is no one else with their hand raised. I do also want to bring to the board's attention that there was a an a late received email from a nabutter um in your packet. Um just so that you're aware. Yep. From Brian Keiny. Key. [clears throat] All right. Uh if I may respond briefly, Mr. Chair. Yes, please.

Uh just a couple things. As mentioned, you know, we we've heard now a couple times the 13th motor vehicle repair. We do think we differentiate ourselves by focusing solely on tires. This is not gasoline. This is not uh auto repair. It is just service really ancillary to putting on the tires that are purchased at this very location. So, we do think we're different. We understand there are a lot that might evidence that, you know, it's a it's a good place for it. Obviously, there are some residential neighbors and we're sensitive to that and for that reason, we are not proposing any work outside. We are not proposing any overnight parking. All work will take place inside the bays and the bay doors will be closed. Um so we are happy to continue to work with the neighbors. We we want to mitigate noise. We want to be a good neighbor. Uh obviously this is a well-established business that has certain protocols in place to remain a good neighbor. So we understand the concerns. The bay were specifically designed because of some accessibility issues to actually be able to get into the bays. It's not as easy as just turning the whole building. So, we we did look at this from all angles, but a lot of the parking lot improvements uh really go well with where the bays are proposed. It's also, as you can see from from the plan, the bays are set about halfway into the the the lot itself. They're not kind of right on the sidewalk. They have plenty of clearance between that and setbacks. And with the uh protocols and work occurring indoors at all times with doors closed, uh we're happy to continue to work with neighbors to make sure that noise is not a negative factor. Okay. Uh not seeing anybody else come up. Uh we'll go to board discussion. Um this actually this was act one of my biggest questions I had about this project as well was sort of the discussion. Um I was surprised in the findings to see that it wasn't sort of West Boilston Street um that the bays were on. So, um, if you could just talk a little bit more about sort of what are the considerations as to why, um, it's sort

of facing the residential space and not sort of the more obviously well traveled space on West Boilston. Um, and the other piece is I guess I'll say is that um, uh, Town for Tire in Auburn definitely most of the time unless it's like very cold has the bays doors open. And so what are the ways in which um we can you know neighbors can ensure that actually this will be operating differently from the sort of other town fair tires that people are used to.

Yeah. So I'm John Whipowski for Town Fair Tire. Uh Woodstock Valley, Connecticut is where I reside. Um the as far as the noise, the air compressors nowadays are you can actually have a conversation next to them. They're they're no longer the loud um piston type. They're rotary type. They don't make a lot of sound. The bays have to face the west because uh it's just that the the way the building's constructed um we have to enter through the west and have actually have to have a ramp to get up in. There's not enough room in the back because it's a narrow drive lane and to put them on the I guess would that be in the is that the north side? It's

Yeah, they uh it it would obstruct all the parking and it just doesn't work for our our typical layout. So, they can't enter the front. There's a height issue on the side, the west side. There's not a height issue to get the bays in.

And as far as the doors being closed, I mean, we can definitely close the doors. We can have you have them automatically close, you know, if we have to. Okay. Um and so the other question I had was sort of around the staff's um recommendations for the four extra trees. Um I see that you've sort of put um some buffers in the back um and also some it looks like a couple of trees. Can you just walk through what are the buffers on sort of the side where the um where the where the bays will be open sort of back um yeah sort of the back of the parking lot. I can't see north or south in here but I am David Gar from GPR one of the main designers for the project. So um you know the trees were were kind of spread out. We uh we hired a um um landscape architect to uh design the plan. He chose uh native trees that were on the western recommended plan list. Um there's als uh an existing arbor line on the eastern side. Um it's kind of shaded. Yeah. Right where the cursor is now.

Those are uh going to remain. It's a prepper screen right now. Um and there's a two existing trees up by the residential building. Um you know, we we went by the the recommend um recommended zoning guidelines. Um we feel that, you know, there's not enough space to put the four extra trees. They're they're very spaced out right now. Um I think if you put in the four extra trees along Francis, you kind of run the risk of overcrowding them. These are significant like larger trees when they mature. Um so you know you have an issue of overcrowding and I don't know if that goes to the aesthetic of what Worcester is intending to for the um the zoning. Um in the front you have the issue of the signage. You really don't want to put trees in front of the signs and block the view of the signs or the storefront. So we um decided with uh to go with shrubs um some low low growing shrubs and then um you know two trees along the the min um the trees along Francis I believe provides the most mitigation for the heat islands um you know if we if we put more trees along fails you know you you don't you're going to get shade on fail street which doesn't really um make much of a for our project site. So, um yeah, I mean [clears throat] the um proposed landscaping plan is a pretty good one that we that we went with. I think it's, you know,

and I would add though, as you can see from the plan, the majority of the trees are down there on Francis opposite of the the bays, which should, you know, right away, but also in the future provide some sound mitigation. And the idea, to David's point, is trying to add any more there, although it might at at one point provide maybe more of a visual or sound buffer. It's liable that they just be overcrowded. The ordinance calls for one tree every 20 to 25 ft and that's where that number is coming from. And we do front on three different streets, but as you can see up at the top, the building's right on the property line. There's nowhere to put trees there. So, we thought this was the best way to space out the trees, really enhance the lot, enhance the property, and also mix in some plantings as well to to prov, you know, to beautify it, but also to provide some some sound mitigation. And that's kind of where that uh plan came from.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean for myself I'll say when I was out there I was thinking more where the arborvites were. That's why I sort of highlighted that place and just wanted to know what the thoughts were as a as a as an op if there was a place where there's opportunity maybe to add another tree. It seems like that would be the place um based on the plan and and having been out there. Um so that's why I asked about it. Obviously we don't want to dig up wellestablished plantings, right?

Um all right, I will leave that. Um I guess for the board members I think for us to consider are sort of the the public comment um and for um and the staff recommendations around four additional trees um and sort of the location of the bays themselves. I'm interested to hear what other board members are thinking about those. have um I would say I'm I'm sort of of um I definitely am I'm hearing the [clears throat] um neighborhood's complaints about having um using a special permit for motor vehicle which is different than just sort of a a normal business. Um and on the other side of it, we do tend to not tell people how to use their spaces. So I'm sort of of of many minds about this at the moment. So I'm looking forward to board discussion. Uh board member Brahmoff. Um, thank you. Um, through the chair, um, to the staff, um, where specifically were you requesting those additional trees go? Was there, um, specific sites you can point to, spots?

Sure. I'm going to ask Michelle to assist if I missed the spaces that we had talked about or she can jump in.

Sure. Through the chair. Um, given that so many plantings have already been provided, uh, staff was letting the applicant make those selections. However, um I think there are two locations in the southern parking lot within the two kind of landscape islands that naturally provide for an opportunity for planting. And then in the T-shaped configuration in the front lot um also affords itself um nicely to provide without changes to um the physical infrastructure that's being proposed. There's also potentially on the kind of triangular corner by the min key location there potentially another opportunity for a tree without making further modifications. They could also provide them additionally along the street along uh Francis um or in any of the other locations. Our understanding was that they were trying to preserve sight lines for signage. There are three existing signposts along West Boilston Street which is why they're not proposing trees along the street edge there which we would typically look for. And then similarly hoping to have signage on the front of the building. So again I think that's why you're not seeing trees in the parking lot there to kind of preserve those sight lines. So, um, ultimately we haven't conditioned it in a way that provides that they have to provide it in a specific location. We've given them the latitude to choose where that would be. Um, should the applicant or the board want to dictate, you're welcome to do so. That's just not how the conditions written up. And obviously, the applicant's looking for you to strike that condition as well.

Okay. Um, just to be clear, so on uh I guess it's southside, the bottom of this where there's the two islands um the gray spot there and then the hatched spot to the right of it. Is that where you're recommending possibly for possibly certainly we think trees could go in there? Those strips are five feet wide, so they should be able to support a tree

and that would help screen it from the neighbors versus um uh um reorienting use of the building or the the bays to um West Boilston Street. I mean, that makes the most sense for commercial use is that it faces the commercial street, not the residential streets. And I take it you're very much against that, but we're trying to balance the impact on the neighborhood. Um, let me ask one other question while I'm at this. Um, uh, is there a access to Francis Street from the parking lot? Am I seeing that correctly? That's correct. Yes.

And, and, uh, would you be, uh, willing to close that off? I think that has to do with the truck traffic coming in and exiting. It's it's it's viable. I think it's viable to the site. Um, getting back to your trees and back in that little island, would you want trees or arboritis in that little narrow strip? Right. No, the arrow right there.

There. Yeah, there. And to the right of that from where I'm looking. So, one issue that I'll bring up with that grow growing a tree on that island is there's an existing suranhole for the building there. So, it would provide a an obstruction to the okay a full grown tree. Um, and there's also the drainage line. So, it, you know, that's why I think we were proposing um I believe ground cover for that for that little island. So, is that why it's grayed out as ground cover or arborite or something like that? Yeah, the hatch the ground the dark hatches for uh ground cover. So there is plantings. Yes, there is plantings. Yes.

What about additional plantings AC along Francis Street? That seems to be um you know where you most particularly because of the location of the bays where you most impact the neighborhood. Yeah, we have no problem putting more trees along Frances Street and I don't have a problem putting our providers in that little strip. Okay. So, um, and as far as the, uh, um, conditions, um, be willing to condition it on, um, when there's all the work, uh, occurs inside and doors are closed during working hours when except, you know, uh, ingress and egress of vehicles. Yes, we accept that condition.

Okay. And you can't close off that access to Francis Street. No, doesn't work. Okay. So, arrivite or similar plantings on the street, you want something with some height. So, I figured I wouldn't put anything low just for the marb. The thing with the arborites, they grow high and also they're um it's still green in the winter. Y and they'll block a little of the sound and certainly some of the look. And I don't have an issue in, you know, mixing in arbitas on Francis Street in between those trees if it, you know, makes sense with, you know, that's what I'm talking about. Yeah. Okay. Or some use that grow up, you know.

I mean, um, as much as I miss the Halloween outlet, uh, it's going to be a great improvement to the building. Um, I don't know whether, um, it's going to be the most trees in a four mile square radius. Excuse me. The landscaping there is going to be a a big big part in that section. It'll look nice. I I hope. Um [clears throat] All right. I don't have any more questions. Okay. Uh board member Cortez.

Sure. Chair. Um in general I uh view uh this type of a business uh Boston street is all along the line is all different type of a business gas stations uh stores uh is it's a commercial street to me you know I'm familiar with with Boston street what goes there and what's uh what really have an a negative impact to the to the community. Uh about traffic uh there's already a business there with a number of uh number similar number of parking spaces. So I don't think that there would be a much of a tension on on on on traffic there. Uh my uh one of my questions was also uh the appearance of the uh the uh uh base location which you know facing both Boston Street that I I agree with you know Nevada there and basically anyone you know uh here in in in Shbury We have an example of the Firestone on on Way City Plaza where they have the plaza on the front and then the base are not facing you know the side but you have the uh u you have the u the car entrances and everything on the back side. So, I would consider I'm I'm I'm not really uh looking into favor, you know, that the the the way it is and I hear you that you probably wouldn't have a problem to change. Please correct me if I'm if I'm wrong.

To move the location of the bay doors is the base. We looked at this building 100 different ways and that's really the only way the bays work for for our business. They can't be located anywhere else in the in the plaza. Is that what you mean? Yes. Yeah. So, what you're saying is in response, what you're saying is that they that there is no way no means other than cost or whatever to to move it on on on the side.

Yeah. Because if if they get anywhere in the front, you have that drive lane, which is almost it's a fire lane, and you'll have cars pulling in and out of that. And the cars being on the west side, there's no internal u problems with traffic flow. It's all kept to the west side. Yes, there won't be no problem with traffic, but I'm I'm looking at uh the the image of heaven and and and from there and what I'm trying to find out what actually is the problem not to have him on the side. So that's the front of the building there, which which opposes all the parking. And that's that's not a good uh it's not a good retail uh operation because our cars park in the front, you go into the store and you talk to the the salesperson. Salesperson comes out, looks at your car, and then we take the cars and put them on the side and bring them into the side of the base, which is all kept. I'm I'm not debating but would you say in parking

but if you move it then of course parking would be would have to re uh realign based on what the entrance says the way it is you say in parking yeah this actually how it is right now but if the basa move uh parking spaces would have to be uh actually move accordingly

well on the west side. Uh if the entrance was moved to say on the west side, the entrance of the store, there's no ADA access because of the R, you know, it's we can't put the bays in the front. They have to we we've got it designed where it's on the side, the west side. Um I I

the only thing I can do to make the bay doors look nicer is make them all glass so it looks like a storefront. Okay, I uh I I I made my point and um for the rest of the board to con, you know, also uh considered and and see where we go with that. Um the other uh my other question here is uh regarding parking of course you the number of parkings and accessible parkings goes with a table uh and you probably already we didn't we didn't see where the accessible parkings are and and that's that's going to be I'm sure that that's going to be uh a given that there would be accessible parkings designated accessible park. My question is where are those how many of those which are based on the table but where are they located the accessible pockets?

So through the chair if you look at the cursor it's kind of towards the top um there's three spaces there. We're reworking the uh crosswalk so to speak or the the um the uh grading to make them actually accessible. It's not as accessible a building right now as it should be. So that's part of the improvements. So towards the top left of the site are the proposed accessible parking spaces and then you'd cross over kind of in that hatch line and then be able to access the building from the front there. I see. And again the other, you know, the other issue with, you know, the questions and we hear the the idea of the bay and if we had a deeper lot, I think it would work better, but the geometry of this site, again, having this kind of, you know, block Z, uh, site really, that's a pinch point. Excuse me. That's a pinch point right now, uh, where the, you know, the front of the building is and where those parking spaces are. It's just, it's too much going on there to have that and the bays fronting there. That's the one place to go from kind of the top to the bottom of the site. So I think the geography of the lot plays into that. Also the fact that the accessible area which you you mentioned Mr. Cortez brings you into both locations as well. Now there are two two tenants two storefront locations here. Um so that kind of funnels all the accessibility there. So there's kind of a number of reasons that go into this and and again we are happy to continue the mitigation of you know additional plantings but uh it just it does kill the project to try to rework the bays. It just doesn't work. Yeah, I won't be worrying too much about it code inspection which uh looks into accessibility parts. You know, when when they come up to look at it that they if there are if there are any problems they would

absolutely and that's again part of this overall project is cleaning up the whole site and improving accessibility. So, we are complying with the number of spots and the grading to get into the building. Um we're talking about a retaining a retaining wall here. Um is is that retaining wall uh would have a type of a fence on top or just the the retaining wall is will have a a guardrail or or fence on top. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No further questions.

Thank you. Uh board member Barhagen. Thank you through the chair. Um, I think as far as, uh, the type of business, uh, I don't think, uh, I I'm of of the mind that we shouldn't be telling people what to do with with, you know, the if if there are a whole bunch of competitors in this area. It's not a that's a business decision to make. and the the zoning uh you know it's it's a it's a non-conforming use but it's within um it's within this zoning district's ability to have this kind of uh business there. Uh so I think that answers that question at least for me. As far as the the configuration of the bays, uh I think I think enough has been discussed here that I'm I'm happy that the applicant has has um described for us the re the good reasons why they cannot face it towards Boilston Street. Um and again, I don't I don't have the expertise to tell them that they're, you know, that they are doing that wrong. I think they have come to the decision that the bays have to be on the south side. Um, and I'm okay with that as well, even though it does face a residential street. So, I think the compromise here is to make sure that there is enough screening and vegetation on that south side between those bays and the street, Francis Street, that um that uh there's be enough soundproofing and and and visual proofing. And also I think you know I think the board if there were everyone's willing to do this we should come with some perpetual condition about the bays being closed during business hours while operations are being undertaken in those bays. Um I think between those two things uh I would be okay with um approving this. Um, but I I'm not sure how many additional trees or whether we want to say trees or arborvid or how we want to

uh handle that wording wise. I'll leave up the future discussion with the board. But, uh, for myself, that's that's what I'd like to see. I don't have any other questions or anything. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, uh, board member Sacko to the chair. Uh, nothing new to add here. I am on the same page with the rest of the board as far as the blockage on Francis Street. Other than that, I'm no problem moving this forward. Thanks.

Okay. Um, it seems like there's some consensus on the board. Um, I'd like to take up board member Bart Hagen's suggestion um and uh see if people have some solutions to the wording around the trees and andor adding a perpetual um [clears throat] uh I think we actually have a we have a now lost it. Um here it is. We have um So there's already some through the chair. Yes, I have um very many suggestions. If you're open to my suggestions, I'm taking suggestions. Please go ahead.

Um let's see. So the first one, the automative the automotive service shall be limited to service along Oh, sorry. There shall be no motor vehicle sorry shall be limited to service alignments and there shall be no motor vehicle service repair slashd display if that was the concern that there was going to be additional motor vehicle services happening. Uh motor vehicle service shall be conducted entirely indoors. Absolutely no outdoor service display shall be permitted. Garage doors, these are all bullets. Garage door bays shall remain closed at all times except as necessary to allow cars to enter and exit bays in order to limit noise effects on the neighborhood. Next bullet, hours of operations shall be limited to those specified by the applicant. Operations outside of those hours shall not be permitted. Um, something else that was discussed, another bullet, um, was that garage bay doors shall be fully glazed to improve aesthetics on Francis Street. Um, and then something else that I forgot to mention is that another uh approval that's going to be needed by the applicant is because they are proposing drainage and grading changes to that side where the bays are located, they are um also going to require a parking plan approval through the planning board. And I'm not sure um if Michelle has anything else that she wants to add

through the chair. I would just um be cautious too related to the changing the doors to glass. I don't know if there are any noise attenuation impacts on that. If you were to go to something that's sort of more aesthetically pleasing to try to address Mr. Cortez's concern, I just don't know how well the glazing is at attenuating noise. So, if that's a concern that you're also trying to temper for, just something to kind of consider and balance. Um, but otherwise I I think Amy Beth covered the things that I heard you all discuss related to the additional trees. It sounds like your preference is to see trees along Francis Street. So you could add that to specify that and rather than doing just arborvite, you could choose to do something that's evergreen. So that gives them an option of different, you know, evergreen species. Right now they're deciduous trees that they have specified there. So that would give some variation but also you know allow them to do something that maybe is a little bit more robust than just a arborvite um something like a spruce or something along those lines.

Through the chair I believe we um discussed that and agreed to plant between the trees along Francis Street some kind of evergreenery. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. Can I ask there's used there's all sorts of one other thing is is it um possible to put a sign uh facing the parking lot right turn only on Francis Street when you're exiting? Sure. I think that'll help mitigate some of the traffic in the neighborhood. Who knows who's going to obey it unless the the neighbors come to get the entire business want to go home, you know, from there. I'm sure they'll just

they have to go all the way out and back in. I think they'll probably just do it. Yeah, um that that works for me. I think the only thing just to just to finish up here, I would say um George, if it's okay with you, I would rather us privilege um kicking the sound down than the than the um than the aesthetic for for Francis. So, I guess if if it's okay with you, I'd like us to encourage um that the bay doors that keep the the sound in the best. If I I definitely would go along with that and and any sort of things to make it look That makes sense. Okay. Um not glazed just thicker thicker door.

Yeah, thicker door. We're I think we we'd preference in this case something to make sure that the sound keeps in. Yeah. Okay. Um, in that case, uh, it sounds like, um, I don't think we, uh, need to rehash, unless you have them all, all of the suggestions, but I will take a motion unless there's further conversation through the chair. Can we just get clarification on exactly the trees? Um, do you mean trees or shrubs or you don't you don't care which it is like a U is going to be something that's more like a shrub than a, you know, tree? So just to for our benefit so that there's not a misunderstanding

because right now there's condition 1B which the applicant has decided wanted to be struck initially but now we're not striking it we're amending it though but we have to know what we're amending it to unless we just want to keep four additional minimum 2.5 caliber deciduous shade trees and they can decide wherever they want to put them. I think we want to privilege them on Francis Street. So I think we want to amend it. Uh go ahead. Well, I was going to say on on Francis Street I if in addition to the there's two, four, six trees there between them or even replacing them. I don't know if I want to do that. I don't think we want to do that.

Um, but between them or uh uh evergreens that are going to grow up, not little shrubs, but that will or a nice hedge a nice tall hedge. Nice hedge in between. Those are always Are we talking a tree or a hedge? because they are different. So that's what I think that core misunderstanding that I want to make. Trees and a hedge. I'm thinking trees and a hedge. Trees and a hedge. Yeah. Okay. So everyone understands that. Okay. So but in between I don't think you're saying adding more trees. You're saying in between the six. So no. So the answer is to keep the six there and have hedges in between. Hedges, not trees. Yeah.

Okay. So, so we're striking the trees and you're adding a condition related to installation of evergreen shrubbery interspersed along Francis Street. Correct. Okay. Thank you. We're clear. All right. Uh in that case, I will entertain a motion on uh on to close the hearing. I'd like to make a motion to close on 540 West Paulson Street. Is there a second? Second. Um, uh, board member Brahmoff, my vote is yes. Board member Cortez, yes. Board member Bardagen, yes. Board member Sacko, yes.

My votes yes. Is there a motion on 540 West Boilson Street? like to make a motion on 540 West Boilson Street for a special permit to extend, alter, or change a privileged pre-existing non-conforming use. A special permit to extend, alter, or changed a privileged pre-existing non-conforming use to a use of a similar nature, and a special permit to allow motor vehicle service use in a BL1.0 zero zone with the staff conditions and the memo on pages four on page four of nine with uh 1B amended as discussed and with a new perpetual condition about uh motor vehicle service being uh remaining indoors and with the bays uh sheltering noise from the neighbors

and the waiver as requested by the applicant is there Mr. Chair, our apologies for I just wanted to clarify the timing. The one discrepancy uh we the if we're going to adopt this as word for word the Monday says Monday through Friday is 8 to 6. We were seeking Monday just 8 to 7 the one discrepancy in timing. Okay. If the board could consider that we appreciate and with the hours of operation as stated by the applicant through the chair did you also want to add a revision to require a right turn onto Francis? Yes. Yes. So a sign for right turn. Okay. So, we have and signage uh on the Francis Street exit. Yeah.

Got it. Um ju just to be clear, uh this this does include um doors closed during working hours except uh no outside work. Um any extra are provided. That's all included in this. So, yes. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. So, we have I'll just read it again. So, the automobile service shall be limited to service alone. There shall be no motor vehicle repair display. Motor vehicle service shall be conducted entirely indoors. No outdoor service or displays permitted. Garage bay doors shall remain closed at all times except as necessary to allow cars to enter and exit bays in order to limit noise effects on the neighborhood and that the hours of operation shall be as specified by the applicant with the modifications specified here related to Monday being till 7 p.m. Um, any operations outside of those hours shall not be permitted. So that would sort of address the uses. Then we have the right turn only restriction to Francis and the change of B to interspersed evergreen shrubs along Francis in addition to the the trees shown on the plan. I think that's all that.

All right. Uh is there a second to that motion? I do second the motion as stated on the motion. Board member Brahmoff. My vote is yes. Board member Cortez. Yes. Board member Barthagen. Yes. Board member Sacko. Yes. All right. my votes. Yes. Um, next up, we're going back to Thank you very much. Thank you. Um, we're going back to item number one, uh, which is 172 174 Shrewsbury Street. And I'd like to thank, uh, the interpreter for your service. Thank you very much for coming.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. For the record, Mark Borenstein. I'm an attorney at the law firm of Prince Leel here in Worcester representing the applicant. Uh it's been uh almost two months since we last appeared before you with respect to this particular project. Um if we've got a short slide deck just to kind of run through just to refresh folks. So this pertains to the existing uh historic brick building on Shrewsbury Street at 172 174 Shrewsbury Street. Um the applicant is seeking to uh renovate the existing building to provide 44 residential units. Uh the applicant is proposing to add two stories to the one-story addition in the rear that you're seeing right there. Uh we've got some renderings of what the building would look like once it's u built out. So that's a side view from East Park. This is uh the rear entrance. So, as a reminder for the board, there is an entrance from the parking area in the rear, and there's also a entrance at the front on Shbury Street, which would actually be the main entrance to the building in accordance with the CCOD uh design guidelines. You can see right there in the uh left corner there. Uh some of the modifications include also um adding a window to the right um which uh will uh replace an existing door. Uh so uh these uh modifications to the facade of the building were done in accordance with uh communications with the preservation planner for the city of Worcester. So we still have not appeared before the historic commission but that would certainly be required in addition to applying for site plan approval and a special permit. Um as a reminder for the board this particular project would be an eligible development. We are proposing to meet the inclusionary zoning by providing additional affordable units at lower at at greater levels of affordability than what is actually required to make it an eligible development. Um the board will call that kind of the the two points of of discussion at the last meeting and why we sought the continuation related to uh comments from the neighborhood related

to the off- streetet parking. Uh the applicant is proposing 17 off- streetet parking spaces for the 44 residential units. um seeking relief through a variance but also uh relief through the IZ special permit. Uh in our discussions with the board, it was recommended that we meet with the neighborhood to talk about the off- streetet parking uh because that was a concern that that the neighbors raised and and the board thought it it warranted additional discussion. We met with the neighborhood association. Uh we offered up to the association said if folks are aware of opportunities for leased off- streetet parking, please contact us. Please tell us their names. the applicant is happy to lease off- streetet parking to further uh provide additional off- streetet parking for purposes of the project. That being said, I I would assert for the board that we have a traffic uh impact assessment for the development given that this is in a very transit-rich uh uh economic corridor. The expectation is that all those additional park spaces would not be needed, what would generally be required under the zoning ordinance and that the access to Union Station, uh the great facilities of of of pedestrian connectivity in the neighborhood with with different businesses and restaurants and also bus stops would provide um additional opportunities for a multimodal um transportation um opportunities for for folks. So, uh, after meeting with the neighborhood association, we only had one particular property owner reach out to us offering parking. Uh, that property owner was willing to provide five parking spaces, um, at a pretty significant cost, which was not financially feasible for the applicant. Um, so at this stage, we do not have any additional off- streetet parking to lease to, um, for for purpose of this particular project. uh separately, the applicant uh conferred with their commercial loan broker to evaluate whether or not they would be able to finance a mixeduse building. And so the the the recommendation previously or the discussion previously related to converting the front of Shrewsbury Street into a commercial unit, the broker indicated that there would require more equity. There would

probably likely be higher interest rates and and ultimately be much more difficult to finance this project if it was a mixeduse building. Uh as as a reminder for the board, the applicant is proposing uh maybe go to the next slide, please, Amy Beth. Uh that amenity space on the ground floor. So the board will recall that uh we are seeking a variance for the front yard setback in that uh the CCOD requires a front yard setback if you have ground floor residential units. So although there aren't ground floor residential units directly on Shbury Street, which is the intention behind the CCOD provision, in addition to creating a uh a vibrant and walkable uh space, um we are still meeting the purposes and intent of that by not having uh units directly on the street. Um we'd also uh just highlight the fact that this is a historic building. We're not able to provide large glossy windows as you might see in other areas of the CCOD. That being said, the amenity space will provide a more active space. So, as folks are walking by, they'll see that that activity um in that amenity space. Um so, with that, I'm I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have based on the discussions that we had with the neighborhood. Um this is an aerial of of of um Shrewsbury Street, and you can see that most of the areas there are occupied by buildings. Many of the buildings don't have off- streetet parking. That's a common trait in the Shrewsbury Street neighborhood. Um, but with that, yeah, happy to answer any questions the board may have.

City staff,

through the chair. [clears throat] So, this application was heard in front of the board back on December 8th, and it was continued to allow for the applicant to have a community meeting in response to board comments and and community member concerns that were expressed at that hearing. Um, the concerns primarily related to the amount of parking that was provided, access to the site, as well as a question about the feasibility of the commercial unit along Shbury Street. Um just a reminder in terms of what's in front of you, uh variance this evening for 10 parking spaces from the 27 space requirement. Um and then to have essentially 59% compact spaces on the property uh of the 17 spaces that they are proposing to provide for the 44 residential units that are proposed. And then again related to the front yard setback, um even though it's an existing building, once that use gets converted and has ground flooror residential, regardless of where on the first floor those residential uses are, there's a requirement for a variance for that if they're not able to provide that. The alternative to that is that the entire first floor would be commercial space. Um so even if they were able to convert that that front space into commercial, they would still need that variance. So just want to clarify that. Um obviously you heard the applicant indicate they're proposing to have kind of amenity active space there and then they do have a direct entry into the residential um component uh from that that location on Shbury Street as well. Um happy to talk through in terms of parking the options like we discussed last time. you know, essentially the way to solve for that um around the variance would be providing off-site parking um which sounds like the applicants explored or an alternate um would be changing the number of units um in order to to deal with that. So, those are the the sort of options for like alternatives. Thanks.

Okay, I'm guessing there's some public uh comments. So, um, if you would like to speak on 1721 174, um, please come forward, um, and just state your name and city of town of residence for the record and just make sure you speak into the green, uh, microphone.

Anthony Petroni, Worcester. Um, I'm coming here before the the board, Mr. Chairman, on two wearing two hats. One is I'm the president of the Joe Deaggio Little League. I had called in a couple months ago and that league has been in existence for over 30 years servicing boys and girls uh ages 5 to 12. Many may remember was in the newspaper they took the old uh Lady Mark Commel church uh property private development came in built um numerous units at Alter on the row u mind you which is currently still I think has 30% vacancy um just keeping that in mind. Um but I come here to let you know that um the concern that we have and I also the other hat I should say is I own five Rizzo court which abuts uh the property in in in question is the parking lot that the city has made for public park use is concerning because it is a visual court is a private way. So that 30 unit parking spot is going to be used now that we only have one field with lights. That field is going to be used seven days a week and at night. Flipping back because I live in the neighborhood and have property in the neighborhood. The first floor of the building in question had a restaurant, a very vibrant restaurant called Anony's. And before that it was called East Park Grill. the back parking lot to this property would get filled immediately. So, where did everyone park? The closest place on Rizzo Court, which there was no parking lot. So, just imagine living there and my uh property does not have a parking any driveway. The one next to me uh three does, but I think I mentioned before between both properties there's 12 cars that live there. So, that's just 12 cars. I could show you pictures of the the storm we have and let you know how awful it is to just for these people

to live there. But putting aside my concern mainly, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we don't have enough parking. And what assurances are we going to have when these parents come to park in the the parking lot and not be filled because public parks close at 10:00? We have numerous parks in the city and we do have park security, but it's not enforceable. If you live off of Bell Hill and I part of my league is at Bell Pond. We we draw kids from there right across where Bell Pond is. That's public that's public property, but all the residents park there. It's not enforceable. So cars that are going to be in that parking lot are going to be from the the building. I mean, it's just common sense. 44 units to me 27 and I just respectfully disagree that you're not going to have one person having a car in 44 units. So, I think that the number was short from the beginning and and I'm not saying I'm objecting to this project because that's not what I'm here for. My concern is how do we assure that people that live there, I have handicapped people, as I said, Mr. Chairman, before they live on the first floor, where do they park and where do the people come to play baseball and watch their kids play? Because that lot is not for the businesses. It's supposed to be for public use. 30 spots in that lot. And you know, Matt is right now. I like I said on the phone I could show you that the city on the lot when they made the parking lot they took seven spots outside of the parking lot and made it for diagonal parking but again with with the stipulation for park usage right now the lot is closed so it's not being enforced but that's where people are praying I don't know what's going to happen come the spring where the people are going to park and those are the people that live there never mind that this field will be used seven days a week hopefully and at night. So that's my concern to the board that I hope you keep in consideration that there is no parking. The attorney

just mentioned that he couldn't get parking more than only five. That's goes to show you the restriction that is down in the neighborhood that people are going to park. Now I I know that if I was paying rent even $1,500 $2,000 and I come home after work at 11:00, I'm going to park at the closest place I can. And if that means on Rizzo court or in that parking lot, I'm going to do that. So, I just hope that the board will keep that in mind that the families are going to have to that live there and that the families are going to have to play uh baseball and watch their kids play. Where are they going to park? Thank you. Thank you. Just state your name and city and town of residence, please.

Good evening. Diana B and Carrie Worester. Um, couple of concerns I have with this. Um, I I don't own property and I don't own a restaurant, but I've lived there all my life. I walk pretty much at sometimes twice a day up and down Shby Street. And it was great with the snowstorm. It looked beautiful with the exception of the fact that I went by purposely to take pictures with my vehicle so we could see what it actually look like during a snowstorm. We live in New England. No matter how we look at this, there's going to be snow. There's going to be less parking than we have access during the summer. Never mind the fact that we've waited as residents um for a number of years to look at what happened with our Joe Deaggio baseball league and not having something for the kids and now we finally have it and we're not going to have any place to have the parents park. Um we can [clears throat] talk about uh bus transportation but let's face it, it's extremely limited. It's certainly something that the council has discussed a number of times. We It's not as though we have a bus coming up and down Shby Street every five minutes. Um the fact that we are looking forward to the baseball field being open and having access for our kids in our neighborhood and other neighborhoods uh certainly is beneficial to everyone. And we did have a meeting. Uh we had one meeting and I found it ironic that during this one meeting there were no suggestions on what they planned on doing um when they were looking at this project. They didn't come in with any suggestions except for asking us uh restaurant owners, residents um in the

neighborhood association for ideas on where people were going to park. They were looking for us to look for their parking lot. I was just a little curious on if we were going to get paid, if we were the realtor and they weren't the person that was doing that. But that's what occurred. So, it wasn't a meeting where it was beneficial to have a discussion because there was no discussion. We explained what we were concerned with and they said, "Well, you you probably can help us look for parking spaces." And that's not what happens and that's not how it it's been done in prior years because we certainly have other housing that has been built. Um and we could go down Shby Street and see those places and there is parking. Um I I would say that um when I look at this I have some I have a number of issues but my biggest concern is that there's no justification to ignore that the existing residents and businesses that are there are important. We can't ignore who already is there. We can't say you're going to park on the side roads. We have a number of restaurants. Thank goodness they employ a number of people not only in our area but throughout the city and surrounding towns and they're beneficial to everyone. So with a stroke of a pen a vote that would ignore the fact that we already have some issues and it was extremely evident with the snowstorm and we can say well it was one snowstorm. We live in New England there's going to be several snowstorms. We also have to take take into consideration that when we have heavy rains the other three seasons even in the winter um we have areas on shoes we street that flood so you there's other areas on choose street where you cannot park a car at all because if it's going

to rain your car is going to have water up in over its tires. Um, so we have we still have existing flood areas. As much work as the city has done and DPW has made some improvements, we still have problems with that. So that limits what we have for parking also. But when I look at this um I go back to a struggle for pen, a vote that ignores the issues that we are looking at and that we are interested in. We're not saying no housing. What we're saying is make it so it is conducive to the neighborhood so that the constituents that live there, the people who are renting, the people who own property, the people who are running businesses still have opportunities and they count. They matter because that's what we look forward to. That's what we work towards. Um in in the last part of this I'll I'll end with um as as we look to say we are looking for additional housing. I can't imagine that we are actually saying 44 uh proposal of 44 with 17 parking spaces and not taking into consideration that that would probably be the impossibility of what we're looking at because even if you are remotely working, you are still at some point going to the grocery store. you are still looking at traveling, which indicates to me, yes, I can ride a bicycle to wherever I'm going, but that's not going to be that often either because I go back to it's nighttime, it's cold, it's New England, so they're going to have vehicles. And I I I ask you that you take into

consideration the existing residents that are there, the businesses that are there, and that's what keeps us going. Thank you. Thank you. Uh we'll take um one more in person and then we'll go Amy Beth to see if anybody would like. So if you're online um while the person comes forward, just use the raise your hand function or press star nine to raise your hand. Um and uh thank you so much.

Steve Germaine um resident of Worester. Uh I represent the property that abuts at 170 Shbury Street. We've been there since 1954. The building next door has always been commercial. There's been mentioned various uh restaurants, other businesses. Hacking again is always always a problem. So, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but you're talking 44 apartments. If you think 44 apartments is even going to have one car, you could have anywhere from 44 to 88 cars that people could have two people live together, two cars. That area you got Yeah. You have the train station down the end of the street. The people that live across at Mount Carmel Alta, they thought, "Oh, we're going to get people from Boston. They're going to come in, take the train." This is Worcester. people aren't walking up to the train. They're not taking a train to work. They're not taking a bus to work. They're taking their vehicle if they're working outside of the home. So, the it's going to be a a real burden on the neighborhood with that. And then with your Joe Deaggio coming in and I believe um the former owner has a lawsuit against the city that's still pending. Um, I think it's out for appeal that he his lawsuit was that the street was too small to hold the traffic for Joe Deanio. I'd have to have Anthony come back to uh comment on that because he would know more about it than I would. But how can you if the former owner says it's too narrow to put anything there, how can you approve putting 44 units there? It should stay commercial. Nobody's against it. It's always been commercial. Our building has been there before longer than we've been

there. So, we've been there for 72 going on 72 years. And if it was appropriate for apartments, somebody would have done it over the last 72 years. It's just a bad spot. There's no room to put housing in there. I don't know if Anthony you go you want he can defer more towards the uh the issue on that litigation with the city over the street. Thank you.

Thank you. Um before we before if you'd like to come up you can. There's no requirement to do so. Um but before you do I just want to make sure it looks like no one's online. Okay. Um if anybody else would like to speak you can't speak again or if somebody else would like to speak uh you can come forward. I'll I'll ask that you be brief since you spoke before, but please do feel just state your name again for the record. It'll be real quick again. Mr. Jim, what Steve was just saying that I

just state your name again real quick. Sorry, we're still um just to to let that be known that that is and I did have a a lawyer look at it and it is still pending. So, Mr. Paul Mary's lawsuit, he had hired Don O'Neal to um to to to look at that. So, I know Mr. O'Neal say he could uh give better detail on that but it is still pending. The jud judge has not given his appeal uh decision yet. So thank you. You should definitely not do that. Thank you very much. [laughter] Thank you. Uh so can I respond, Mr. Chair? Yes, please do.

So I I I appreciate the neighbors comments. Uh they they were at the last meeting and they were at the neighbor outreach meeting. I appreciate them taking the time to to provide that testimony. I I would say I strongly disagree with the the the statement that this is a bad place for housing. I think this is an excellent place for housing. I think that, you know, as we look at the development of the city and we think about where we want density, we want it in places like Shrewsbury Street. We want places that have commercial activity, we want to have places that we can walk to that are near transit. And so when we think about the now next plan and what we're trying to implement as a city, this is exactly it. Now, I recognize that parking is challenging in Sh on Shbury Street. No one's doubting that. Um, and I appreciate the comments about the prior use of the building for a restaurant. Uh, because when I think about a restaurant, that's quite a bit of traffic. People coming and going. And it reminds me of the fact that, and this is in the materials, the off- streetet parking requirements for that building to be a commercial use is the same as the expanded building. So, if we did not have those two extra stories, the off- streetet parking requirements would be the same for our proposed residential use. So just think about that. So we understand that parking is a challenge. There were people coming and going for years in this Anony's restaurant, but somehow businesses were able to function. We were able to go on. Now I recognize there's additional density. Things change, but I think that the statement that somehow these additional res these additional residential units are going to somehow upset the the equilibrium of parking in Shbury Street is is is a bit of of of an overstatement. Um, I would also like to note that the applicant is happy to support any enforcement efforts that are needed with respect to the uh the park the parking area for the park the Joe Deaggio ballpark. We're not seeking to use that parking area to the extent that we can um you know speak with DTM and support that. We're happy to. We're not looking to prevent kids from playing baseball or having families enjoy East Park. uh to the extent that it's

permissible uh we're happy to uh assist the ab regarding efforts to have accessible spaces for for his residents. That seems like an excellent u idea. Uh in terms of drainage and access on Rizzo court, uh this this project would require approval by the planning board. Uh we had an IRT meeting. There were some discussions with uh fire about Rizzo court. Uh we have a circulation plan that was submitted with the planning board materials that shows an emergency apparatus being able to enter and exit the back of the property. Um, I would just remind the board that we're not proposing any site modifications to this parking area. This parking area is existing. It existed when it was a restaurant, when it was a commercial use. We're just seeking to convert the interior use and add some additional residential units. Um, so I would also just like to uh remind the board that we are providing affordable units in this particular building. Uh, which will have some units at 60% AMI. Uh we we want to have a more inclusive and equitable city and I think this will be a great opportunity to add that um to Shrewsbury Street. Um which those affordable units tend to have a lower uh demand for for off- streetet parking. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have.

Okay. Uh we'll go to board comments um and then um sort of um uh we'll move from there and see the chair. We do have somebody with their hand raised now. I apologize. Yes. No, no, please let the person go. Rob, I'm going to ask you to unmute. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes.

Hi. Hi, everyone. Uh, councelor District 2 councelor Robert Pada. I was just um, you know, understanding that the concerns of the of of the neighborhood and and um, you think it would be great to have more housing on Shbury Street. seems like um you know that building would would be a great fit for for housing and understanding that there have already been lots of businesses in there that have you know parking coming and going. But I I do understand the concerns of of the uh folks in in the neighborhood. I was just curious um and and I believe is would there be any options to um eliminate any housing or apartments on that front, you know, facing Shoes Street and keep that as commercial. I apologize if this already this has already been discussed, but was just curious if that would be a way to um kind of ease worries about parking while also, you know, moving forward with the project and also, you know, keeping that commercial feel on Shbury Street. Is is that possible or in the works at all?

Thank you. Through through me, the applicant, please. Yeah, through the chair. Uh so so counselor, what we're proposing is to make that front area an amenity space, not an actual residential unit itself. So the front will include an amenity space and bike storage. We're proposing 24 interior and 24 exterior bike storage spaces. So they'll give folks an opportunity to bike to and from the property as well in addition to the bus service, the bike, the walkability, and and Union Station. So unfortunately, there isn't an opportunity to remove a unit in the front. We we've already removed that unit and we're proposing an amenity space in lie of a commercial unit

through the chair. He muted himself again. So I'm going to see if he wants to unmute. Yes, I did unmute it. It wasn't letting me. Thank Thank you. Is I mean is there any way possible to keep a commercial space where I know there was a barber shop there before. Uh it would be great to continue to have that, you know, commercial continuity along Sh Street there and opening up a space for, you know, more more local businesses. Is is that any way uh we'll have an answer for you. My suggestion is to not mute. Go ahead. Yeah.

So So through the chair, uh we're currently we we recognize the the desire to have that commercial unit. Um, as I mentioned previously, the applicant conferred with their commercial loan broker to see if it would be possible to finance a mixeduse building. It would be, as folks know, it's difficult to pencil these developments in general. It's even more difficult for them to pencil a mixeduse development. I would note though that I spoke with the architect today um just evaluating this particular space because I knew it's such a touch point and given that um the the floor plan is fairly open if in the future there is an opportunity for a tenant to come forward and depending on what the zoning requirements are the the space could be converted into a commercial unit. All we would have to do is convert that new window to a door and that could be a commercial space in the future. I I would just note for the board that I represent quite a few property owners in the city of Worcester that have a lot of empty commercial space on the ground floor. I recognize the plannings initiative that we need to have ground floor commercial. Otherwise, if we don't provide for it, we will never have it. This provides an opportunity for us to kind of have this stop gap where we're providing an amenity space now, but it could lend itself to a commercial unit in the future depending on changes in ownership or or industry conditions.

Okay. Thank you. But I I do want to know too just in regards to the parking. I know Wister Research Bureau put out a report either last year or the year before about parking and and pointed that a lot of renters tend to be have you know renter households have one car or fewer. So I I hope some of that information might alleviate some parking concerns but you know this building does really align with the Wister now next priorities and density in our neighborhoods and housing. And I think the housing obviously will help local businesses and through patronage and and really create more density in the neighborhood. Um certainly appreciate the boards and and the building and and the representative uh to work through this with the community. But I I you know I do think it's it's it's a value ad for the neighborhood. So just um but I understand the parking concern. So thank you.

All right. Is anybody else online? every raise hand. Okay, we're going to go forward with board discussion. Um, so [clears throat] this has uh come before us and I will say I have um I found myself on both sides of sort of thinking about how to go forward with a vote on this. Um, I think ultimately where I sort of fall down on this is that um if it was like an abandoned building where no one was coming and going um and we were adding something to it, I would I would have concerns. But a commercial business as it is actually has cars coming and going as is and people sort of make a way to go through. Um I want to say also I think I've been thinking about like where where is the disconnect between sort of the clear data on sort of people's parking and um and uh and like the belief that everybody has two cars. And I think maybe the reason that I sort of come down on the side of understanding that people actually do get around the city without cars is that I'm related to poor people and working-class people. Um, and I live in a very poor working-class neighborhood. One of the poorest zip codes in the state, um, is where my house is. It's where I represent. Um, and so most of the people I know don't have cars. Cars are actually very expensive. They are a middle class to upper middle class um, lifestyle investment. Um, a lot of people say like, "How do they get by? How do they get to the supermarket? They do what people who have to get by do. They Uber. They ask for rides. They get around. Most of my family members who live in Worcester actually don't have cars. We are the exception to the rule. Um because again, we are, you know, I happen to u be on the upper uh middle class most places, but upper middle class for my neighborhood. Um and so for the income of the people in my neighborhood, we earn more. So, we have we have a car, but that's not that's not an access point for most of the people who I'm who I'm related to in who live in the city and not and not the majority

of people who we rent to um in who are like renters in our building and our three- decker um and certainly on our streets. So, I understand those concerns. I think um 17 is is a lot less um and if it was any if it was like we're building something new, I think I'd be probably on the other side of this. But because there's already a restaurant which has a lot of people coming and going um and other things have functioned, I'm sort of I'm I'm willing to allow the tenant to figure it out. And again, also because of the nature of having affordable units, it's not going to be high luxury units. Um, so I I think you'll probably still have trouble getting through the board, but I guess I'll say for myself, um, I'm willing to let people like choose them, like use if somebody needs a parking spot and they need a car and there isn't parking available, then they probably will find someplace else that's there's other places apparently up the street that are not rented currently that they could find a place to go rent. Um, and so I' I'd rather I always on air on people making those decisions for themselves and not making it for them. So, that's where I fall on this. Um, we're going to keep it to the board since we've moved on to board discussion. Uh, board member Brahmoff.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. I think you summed it up well, and I pretty much agree with that. Um, I think that lot of, um, occupancy of this building over the years, restaurants, offices, barber shop. um they found a place to park and they're probably more intensive at a busier time of the day than residences. It it is a big ask on the parking but I think that's a a decision that tenants will have to make when they decide if or uh if they want to live here or not. So I'm agree with you. Thank you. Uh board member Cortez to the chair the project on insolve is is good well plan uh the combination of uh I have no problem with the combination of commercial and and residential u um however as I heard and I look at it and familiar with the area uh seems to me that the big issue here there's no question about it is parking anything else it revolves but the root of the problem is parking it goes anything else I think it will go by whether whether the majority is commercial or in I think everything the root is the issue is parking I heard that the meeting took place, but I heard that from one of the abadors

that this was not a two-way discussion. So, I'm not sure if you you know that's what I heard. You can you can maybe come up to when we are concerned where where is it? I heard that the meeting was more to ask questions for the abadus and no input. So since the main issue is parking,

I would have like to know what the neighbors recommend to you as a solution in terms of parking. So through the chair, so just to be clear, I think the the conversation was initially a presentation and then we recognized that we, you know, the neighborhood would like to see more parking and in order to appease the the neighborhood and and make the project potentially more um even marketable to to different tenants, right? There, you know, there are folks that don't need parking, there are some that do, right? And so it it's definitely an added benefit to have off- streetet parking. We indicated to them that we have reached out to the different portions of the community to seek parking. We could not find any parking. Um I started calling clients who live who have properties in the neighborhood asking for parking. Um and like I said, we were able to find one option that was just not cost effective. Um and so at that point, we turned it over to them and said, "Listen, we recognize you want us to lease parking." That that's what they that's what they wanted to hear from us. And I said, "We're happy to lease parking if you can help us find the parking." And that's kind of where where we ended the conversation. So I I would not say it was us showing up saying, "Show us, you know, where can we find parking?" There was definitely a dialogue, a lot of dialogue. There were probably about 15 people in the room. Um I think it was a constructive discussion, you know, and it's just it's it's this kind of difference of opinion as to whether or not there should be two cars for every unit or there's we can be um you know, more forward thinking in terms of what our offshoot parking requirements are.

Uh sure, the chair. I'm you know as I give a lot of credit for the project uh uh affordability apartments and by the way how many so uh we're going to be providing I believe it's seven uh affordable units total seven

out of all the other numbers okay so fine um besides uh besides that and I ask a question what what and what was that the neighborhood recommended in regards to resolution of pocket and if I made sure the chair to have one of the members that if if that discussion was not two-way maybe a possibility that one of the aaras if they want to come in and and and come up with maybe a potential solution for parking may I invite yeah if there's a solution I'm happy to hear it

if if they would like to come up, I'm happy to talk. Um if you uh sorry, just for the record for um the law we if you if you have something you have to to speak in, but uh the the uh the chair will open back up public conversation. Um and if you can just please for the record state your uh name again for the record if you'd like to say something. And and the reason is because I'm I'm I'm in the middle in here.

Understand? because it is a good it's a good thing I'm providing housing and wish that we need it uh is good person here but I'm I'm looking at you know being in the middle what would be the best here I know again back to pocket it's not just it's not just the res the residents around there because actually Shbury street neighborhood is more uh is in the business increased is no residential as it used to be. So it's all business restaurants and old business around

which they have no parking in the area. I know because they come in and they lining up finding parking spaces they going out to the side streets find parking and come in and and and and eat at one of the restaurants. So the actual business right there now with limited parking for residents of this project come in and looking for parking where they are occupied by the by the local businesses and if residents comes in and it come in I'm I'm going to be looking up for parking space I parked here. So that means the business lost a a potential and and the opportunity for the clients to park. It's is the I'm looking at the impact to the community as a member of the board. Sure. And this is a a big negative impact. And I'm not looking and and I'm looking at the business the business on shoes street would suffer about pocket limitation limitation on parket. So I just make make that point that it's not just necessarily the neighbor the neighbors there because usually we we point out at uh members of of the neighborhood. Sure. the the main part of that affected by lack of parking actually would be the business the the their businesses would go down as it happened on L on on Kelly Square with the limitation of parking a lot of businesses suffering and if we continue to do that our businesses and in and which would be would be terribly affected so that is that's a negative impact as a member of the look at a negative impact including packet. So this is th this is my point and I make it and I make it clear to the

rest to to the rest of the board, you know, but uh I I I'm still uh I invited I invited uh members of the uh uh the if they like to uh propose uh uh a solution for parking regarding that but I didn't see nobody there. So, you know, coming in as long as they come in and and come up with a a solution here, welcome as the chairman supported it. If not, you know, I I I have to make a decision somehow.

Yeah. No, I I understand that. And so, so through the chair, I would just note that um you referenced the Canal District in Kelly Square and to the chair's earlier comments, you know, that was an instance where we had new developments on fairly undersized lots, right? In this particular instance, as as I mentioned before, this was most recently a commercially occupied building, right? And if you look at the minimum off- streetet parking requirements, I think it's like 43 off- streetet parking requirements required for that existing commercial use. Yet, it only ever had those 17 parking spaces. And I recognize that there's, you know, new uses in the neighborhood. There's additional uh commercial businesses. And there's but I mean, it's not as if this is the canal district per se, right? We've had a lot of longtime businesses that have been operating, restaurants that have been operating there for years. They're staples of the community. I commend the Shrewsbury Street Neighborhood Association. I told them at the neighborhood outreach meeting. They are the envy of the city. They have a strong backbone. They they advocate for themselves. I mean, you can see them here this evening. I recognize that and I appreciate that. But what I'm saying is this was previously fully commercial. We adding residential. It's a different type of use. But the minimum off- streetet parking requirements which is how we assess what the minimum requirements needs are for a development are effectively the same if at if we were to make these renovations and add those additional additions. So um I think the solution would be off streetet parking at least off street parking if we could find it. It's currently not available. So I think it becomes a philosophical decision for this board. Do we allow a project that's compact, dense in a in a walkable commercial area go forward or do we, you know, do we do we have to, you know, put it aside? And so I think this is a benefit to the neighborhood as as the counselor noted. And I I I would hopefully request that that the board members approve this application these applications. Um

I'm I'm not hear any any anything else from from the public and uh your uh options there to uh potential solution there and looking for other sites and work out you know how find some parking for for the uh for the residents somewhere around there. uh you know uh that that I I I may I may make the point of my concerns regarding regarding the area there. Uh I'll uh I have no further comments, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Very thoughtful um and and more to think about for this project. U board member Barton Hagen. Thank you again.

Thank you through the chair. Um, I was not here on December 8th, but I've did my own certificate. I, uh, so I'm up to date on this. I watched the very extensive testimony and, and, uh, from that date. Um, so I appreciate all of that. Uh, I guess I like to think of this as it's kind of like an eitheror proposition. Um, so I like to look at the alternatives here. So uh remind me of the the traffic study. Correct. Uh shows that with this number of parking spots that the traffic will not increase over the previous commercial use.

So we have um from Stonefield Engineering Josh through the chair Josh Herman from from Stonefield Engineering. He's available. Their firm prepared the report. Um I don't want to speak out of turn, but um my recollection is that there'll be fewer trips with the residential use versus the commercial. There will be certain times a day where there might be more, but overall different peak times,

right? And so, [clears throat] so I, you know, obviously everyone I think on the board shares the concern that the the level of parking is not uh where we would hope it would be. Um the problem is what's the solution? Uh it seems like there's no no way to increase the number of parking spots through leasing in the immediate area. So basically what that tells me is we're stuck with this number of parking spots for this whatever this development might be. This is the number of parking spots it's going to have. A commercial use would require more parking spots. Uh if that's what you had just

it's they're essentially the same but in terms of what the existing if if this building were to remain commercial the minimum street parking requirements would be the same as what the expanded building would be for residential purposes. And so the um another option might be to reduce the number of units, right? Which would which would through the chair render the project no longer financially feasible.

Okay. So that would essentially um not have anything in that space. At least your have anything in that space. Um you could have a commercial you could change it to a new commercial use, but you already you're talking about how well there's not going to be you can't even find a commercial uh tenant for that front room. Um I know that's mixed use. It's not 100% commercial, so it might had some difficulties that a full commercial might not, but um and that wouldn't solve anything with the now next thing where we're trying to increase the number of units overall. Um and this says low income units. There's 44 units, only four of which are onebedroom. The 40 of them are are studios.

Correct. And I understand the concerns of neighboring businesses and the lot that's used for the park. Uh and but that's a that's a policing and enforcement issue. If people are parking in places they shouldn't be. Um I'm not sure it's it's not the applicants or the owner's responsibility to police who's parking where off your site. Certainly.

Um sorry. So, so, so basically there's there's no ideal choice here. It's you either we either approve this project with with what I think everyone here understands is probably not enough not ideally not enough parking or we deny the project because it doesn't have that parking and then I don't know what is going to happen in the space and we lose the ability to have nice compact dense um housing development with some lowincome availability and mostly studio apartments on right next to um a heavily trafficked corridor with lots of restaurants and businesses and not very far from public transportation.

So, I'm leaning towards approving this and I just wanted to go through my mental uh processes on this um just for the benefit of the board. But uh that's where I stand. Thank you. Appreciate it. Oh, you're requesting the waiver? Yes, we would respectfully request the waiver. Thank you.

All right, board member Sak being the anchor here. Um, do the chair, I'm a little disappointed there's been no adjustments made to the proposal. I think we left the meeting two months ago with the impression of, you know, we're going to come back discuss it again after a public meeting, which didn't sound like it went over too great with the public, and then a revised proposal saying that this is just too much to handle for the community. Um, you know, this is my neck of the woods right down the street. I probably pass this street five times a day. I used to get my haircut from that barber shop and I would park a quarter mile down the street just for the haircut. You go to the parkway in a Sunday, you're parking past the park. I think having 44 units there is just is just too much. I, you know, stand exactly how I did two months ago. I don't understand how we're talking there's no resolution to limit the units when we're talking about building two more floors on the existing building. Can you explain that for me a little bit because I guess

so in order to make the entire through the share to make the entire project financially feasible there's a certain number of units that need to be provided to make it pencil um in order for the construction cost to make sense in order for a lender to come in and finance the project. And so the 44 units the addition was required in order to kind of provide that requisite number. But there's no way to eliminate those two extra floors and just keep it fully

according to the existing proformer. No, there's there's no way. And I I through through my discussions with the applicant, we've we've gone through this and and in terms of the the disappointment, I I understand that the project is substantially um what we presented previously, but there has been extensive efforts undertaken to try and find off streetet parking. I've reviewed uh easement agreements off of Shrewsbury Street to see if we could lease parking spaces. I mean, we I've called clients um I've called other I've actually called property owners um in the canal district to see if they have available commercial space and I have a client that has a ground flooror commercial unit right near the ballpark that cannot lease that commercial unit. So, we evaluated all this criteria. We spoke with the applicant's uh uh commercial loan broker to see can we finance a mixeduse building. Ultimately, the project that we're proposing today is something that can be financed and that can bring this pro this property to u productive use. Again,

I appreciate your efforts on that. And it just to me it sounds like there's no way to do this without having a direct impact on the local community on the business owners and the you know just that's to me it's what it sounds like.

So, so through this I would not say when you say direct impact I think we can look at it through a couple lenses. In terms of off- streetet parking, I think there's a concern regarding what the off- streetet parking situation might be on the site. But in terms of impacts, I think the restaurants on the street would appreciate to have 44 additional resident res residential units where folks could visit their establishments for lunch. I know I personally, you know, given where I live in a kind of more suburban setting of Worcester, we'd kill to be able to walk down Shrewsbury Street and go to Volterno for for for lunch or dinner. I mean, you know, this is this is the the type of development that we want to see in the city of where it's walkability where folks are able to, you know, uh go get their dinner or stop at the grocery store and and pick up a a carton of milk. You know, this this is kind of the kind of the the the pieces that we need to put into place to build the city that we hope to see in the future. So, um, in terms of impacts, I think this could there could be a significant amount of benefits to the Shoesbury Street Neighborhood Association, and I wouldn't dwell simply on off- streetet parking. That's all. Thanks.

All right. Um, well, let's let's take a straw poll so that we have a sense. I'd like to have a sense of where the board is on this. Um, and I'll just I'll just say again that I just really appreciate the thoughtfulness of the board on this. Um when I say I've been on both sides of this, I really do mean this. Like I have on one side of it um um felt like uh that I that would definitely uh that um I I've been on both sides of voting yes and voting no. Um and so I' I've really thought I really appreciate the thoughtfulness of everyone's comments. Um I think um board member Cortez, your comment about the changing in in parking dynamics has hit me as well. Um [clears throat] I'm I was thinking a lot about that that sort of like you know people coming and going and now there'll be times where we'll be open but more static. Um and so I think ultimately and again I really appreciate everyone's thoughts. Um my thinking myself is on is where board member Barnhaken laid which is essentially that like in the end um what we want is to have more density in places where people can walk people can walk to their places. Um but this is not an easy like it's not uh like I understand both sides of this. So it's not I I want to say for myself I I really appreciate the the thoughtfulness. So um if other people have thoughts about it uh please do say so after hearing other people. Um but if you would uh let me know where you plan to vote so that we can give it a sense for the um for the applicant. So I'm I'm currently yes. Uh board member Brahmoff.

I am too. Uh board member Cortez.

Sure to the chair. Let me uh allow me to uh make one last comment and and or maybe a point. Um again uh I'm looking at either either way here. Um and it happened it happened that I reading uh newspapers and reading articles on Facebook here and there. It happens that this uh somebody put in a a a comment or something and I I forgot what the uh uh what the site was about this project here and there indicated that the solution would have been to build a a a parking on uh two or three level parking where you have the actual 17 parking spaces. I I I read that and I think I think that that was somehow mentioned at the last meeting in here. U but according to you is highly costly to do that

through the chair. I we don't have requisite space to build a parking parking garage behind the the property. I think there's already been Yeah, it's I think we're already folks are raising concerns about a fire truck getting through. Even though we we have a plan showing that a fire truck could get through, we don't have a suitable space for for a parking deck. Yeah, that I that I don't know. I I just haven't, you know, Yep. and and bring it up. But I guess I guess it's not it's not enough it's not enough room even to build to build one.

So through the chair, I think a lot of this is education, right? I think folks have to see the constraints of the site. They have to see or understand the previous uses of the property to understand the project. And so it's it's easy for folks to say, "Oh, well, why don't you lease parking offsite? Why don't you build a parking facility?" And unfortunately, some of these developments don't have large pieces of land or have the have the uh financial means to build a parking facility. I mean, the Mount Carmel site has a parking garage cuz it's 300 plus units, right? This is a a renovation, adaptive reuse of a an old historic building. So, there there are limited options in terms of of of funds, in terms of financing options and and space.

Yeah. It's not for me to dictate what what actually you you get to do. I'm just looking at you know again the impact and uh I hear enough I didn't hear any more recommendations from from the abusers. Uh no further comments Mr. Chairman. Uh I just I do need to know where you're if you're planning to vote yes or no. Uh uh with that base I I would be forwarding to Okay. Thank you.

Uh board member Bart Hagen. I think, you know, I I I will be voting yes just because I think that the the pros outweigh the cons and I agree that people will self- select a place if they see that there's only 17 parking spaces and they have two cars. I don't think this is going to be the development for them and so I think there's going to be self- selection here. I think the pros outweigh the cons. So, I'd be voting yes. Board member Sacko. Thank you. Um I'd be no.

Okay. Uh if that holds, which I will ask uh you to keep that because that has big ramifications if you plan to change um that would be enough. So um with that, I will take a motion to close the hearing. Like to make a motion to close on 172 174 Shrewsbury Street. Is there a second? Second. On the motion. Board member Brahmoff. My vote is yes. Board member Cortez, yes. Board member Barnhagen, yes. Board member Sacko, no. My vote's yes. Is there a [snorts] motion on 172 174 Shrewsbury Street?

Like to make a motion on 172 174 Shrewsbury Street for variance for relief of 4.8 8 ft from the 5ft minimum yard front yard setback requirement for buildings with ground flooror residents within the CCOD. Variance for a leaf of 10 parking spaces from the 27 space minimum off- streetet parking requirements for a multifamily dwelling and a variance for a leaf of 9% from the 50% maximum compact parking space requirements with the staff conditions on page five of nine of the memo and actually five and six of nine of the memo and the waiver as requested by the applicant. Is there a second? So move on the motion board member Brahmoff. My vote is yes. Board member Cortez, yes. Board member Bart Hagen,

yes. Board member Sacko, no. My votes yes. Thank you very much. Uh like to thank everyone for a thoughtful conversation. Thank you for the comments. Um I'm going to ask uh can somebody make a motion for me to uh uh for for a uh re recess make a motion to for a recess? Second, please. Second all. All right. Uh we will come back in uh in seven or or five minutes. All right. Thanks. Thank you.

Next applicants online now back in session 143 Highland Street. Patrick, I've asked you to unmute.

Yes, I am here. Good evening, chairman of the board. Um, I wanted to say first of all, uh, thank you. Uh I believe last year, I believe it was Feb or March, um that you have approved of us to be established here at 143 Highland Street, which is Abella Pizzeria. Um we've had residents and our um local college students say thank you uh to to me and and our employees just for bringing something new to Worcester. So I do appreciate it um for the approval of that. Uh I I come to you now just to uh simply ask for a um um a variance uh for the I believe for the approval the original approval of ZB uh 1 199623 and um I just come to you also for a special permit to ask for uh a request for a um a beer and wine license please. Um, uh, to conclude, I did speak with, uh, this morning I did speak with Caitlyn, uh, Caitlyn Carolyn, if I'm saying her name correctly. Um, she is the owner of the Soul. Um, as you all are well aware that The Soul has the, uh, the biggest parking lot um, on our on Highland Street.

[clears throat] So, uh we have come to uh an agreement and she does um approve uh if it is if it is granted uh to us for the uh beer and wine license. Uh all that she asks is that um is that I have a signage just just stating that you know uh on the side of our building that we have a a sign just saying simply stating that we have parking around the back um and that we respect our parking lot. Um, so, so and I just want to say thank you. [snorts] [clears throat] All right, go ahead.

Thank you through the chair. This is Amy Bethle for the planning division. So 143 Highland Aav presently on the premise is a food service establishment that excludes the consumption and sale of alcohol and the applicant seeks to amend the original approval from uh the item zoning board 1996-023 to allow for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages and to reduce the number of parking spaces. This property is in a BL1.0 zero business limited zoning district and in the commercial corridors overlay district elsewhere. Um the requested relief is an amendment to the decision from the zoning board case 1996-023 um for the special permit to allow a food service including the consumption sale of alcoholic beverages and/or providing dancing or entertainment use in a BL1 zone um and a variance for relief of nine spaces which would be 50% from the 18 space minimum parking requirement for food service use that includes the sale and consumption of alcohol. ol. Um, so this is the history if you will. In 1996, the Sahara Medic Mediterranean restaurant applied for a special permit from the ZBA for a food service use with the sale of alcohol and for relief of the required number of parking spaces for 70 occupants and was granted a special permit for the use and variance for 45 parking spaces, which was 65% relief at the time from the zoning board of appeals. The ZBA decision was subsequently appealed by Abutters and an agreement was reached on March 9th 1998 through the superior court and a revised decision recorded with new conditions related to parking and operations of the use. The variance was modified to grant relief of only 14 parking spaces which

is 40% from the 35 space requirement for an occupancy of 70 persons. Um given that at the time 21 parking spaces were proposed to be provided via a combination of on and offsite parking in 2015 the CCOD elsewhere was established at this location reducing the parking requirements by 50%. Um, and so that's that piece for the parking. And then renovations at this location took place in and around 2022 after the original applicant at the time, the Sahara restaurant, vacated to convert the space into Hefllin's Deli. The bar was removed and walls were constructed to separate the dining room into multiple spaces and a deli case/counter was installed for ordering and payments by that prior operator. The Heftlland's Deli Bella Pizzeria and Patrick who was the applicant commenced operations in February of 2025. It's an approximate 2200 square foot full-ervice sit-down pizzeria restaurant and which also includes takeout and delivery with an occupancy of approximately 70 occupants or approximately 65 seats without any additional renovations. So he opened the restaurant as it had been renovated. Um they are not proposing any changes to the interior or exterior of the building from its present condition. Um we're asking that um a question for the applicant from staff is if any renovations are necessary for the additional alcohol service operation. Um and then the alcohol the applicant is not proposing any outdoor seating or entertainment and that their existing hours of operation which is which are 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily are

expected to remain unchanged by the proposal. Um, and then the applicant had indicated that they have a lease for an ex an exclusive lease for 10 parking spaces on site, but staff notes that given an existing dumpster that seems to be on site. Uh, there's and the site infrastructure that only nine parking space are spaces are practically usable. Um, and access from the southern row of parking spaces provided on the lot relies on an existing deed cross easement with the abuing owner to the south at 122 West Street. Um, the question from staff to the applicant on this is they should address how snow removal is handled to maintain that number of parking spaces in winter months and clarify how customers are directed um, parking that parking is available for patrons, which he already did. He stated that he's going to have a sign on the on the side of the building. Um, another question for the applicant is if they've considered having any bike parking available for employee or patron use. Um, and then a couple of notes that any future expansions and occupancy will require an amendment for further parking relief to this and then any and then an onremise liquor license will be required through the license commission as an additional step. um if the relief is granted this evening. Thank you.

If the applicant could just answer the questions from the staff regarding um are you doing any inside renovations to sort of expand the service? Uh no chairman I'm not. So and um you're not planning to have any entertainment or any Okay. No. And how and um there was a big snowstorm. How did you keep the space available?

Yeah, we I actually called right cuz I I knew we would um have a big one, which we did. Um yeah, we did our best to well, we went ahead and called um one gentleman from a from a snow removal company. Um so he did make the the spaces available for us. Um he did it overnight, so I'm not sure how he moved, but he was able to, you know, give us our our our spaces. So, um, so, so that's, you know, that that that that's what that and I make sure to to be on top of it and to make sure I call them ahead of time and, you know, set appointments that we have that, uh, snow taken care of. [snorts] Okay. Um, is anybody here for 143 Highland Street?

Yes, please come forward. Just state your name and city of town of residence.

Hello, I'm George Nannis. I live in Westboro, Massachusetts on 7 Phillips Street. Uh I'm the butter at 122 West Street. Um as he mentioned a col mainly a college bar, college students can't drink liquor anyways. But my main complaints are is that as the butter, he doesn't do an appropriate job in maintaining even the parking lot that we share. Uh so we have a cross parking agreement. I can use his and he can use mine. But when he plows snow, he shouldn't take snow from his parking lot and push it down to mine. If that's his res his his solution, that's a wrong solution. Number two, even at the present time, we're constantly uh patrolling and cleaning up our parking lot from the from the debris from his restaurant the way it is now. And if he can't control the restaurant without liquor, I don't know how he's going to control the restaurant with liquor. He also mentioned beer and wine, but here it states alcohol. So, I'm not sure what he's really applying for, if he really knows. So, I don't I don't know if he's applying for strictly a beer wine license or an all alcohol license. Uh, that's a little bit surprised to me. But again, as he stated, it's a college bar, which is most of his patrons, and most of college students are under 21 years old, uh, or a majority of them. Um, the other factor is during the snowstorm, he only like shoveled the sidewalk up to his building. He didn't sign, he didn't even do the do the parking lot uh side of the sidewalk. He left that empty. So, his management skills at this point have been lacking. So, I vote I hope if I have a vote, he would not be able to expand the operation of his business with a liquor license.

Okay. Uh if you could if you could clarify for the board um are you applying for um an all alcohol do you know or a beer and wine? [clears throat]

Oh excuse me. Uh yes it'll be it'll be an all alcohol. I apologize. So through the chair um in the original findings he the applicant indicated that he was applying for a beer and wine license that was previous to us finding the um previous decisions and subsequent appeal. And so when the previous decision and appeal were found the condition within that um within that decision was for an all alcohol license the Sahara was granted an all alcohol license. So that's the that's the permit that currently was granted to that property. Um so when I brought that to the applicant's um attention, I don't want to speak for him, but we had talked about saying he he could do the beer and wine, but he wanted to leave the option open since the special permit was already granted for the all alcohol that if that wanted to change in the future that that was an option for him.

Okay. Thank you. Um, is anybody else here? It doesn't look like it. Is anybody online? Please use the raise your hand function or press star 9. I do have a hand online. Okay, thank you very much. If you could just state your name and city of town of residence.

Hi. Uh, John Peretti again from Worcester. Um, in addition to being a Worcester resident, uh, I also am a WPI alum. [snorts] Um I during my college years spent some time in the Sahara. Um it was great to have a location so close to the school that uh the older students could go to the ones that were of age. Uh there are a lot of grad students at WPI as well as uh doctorate students. So having locations that are close by that uh provide competition in the area for the other establishments uh would be would be great. Um my only dismay is that you are only looking to stay open till 10:00 and not later and not have music as they did uh when I went to college there. Um, I think more options for the students in that area will make Worcester more attractive to for students to come here. I understand there's some concerns uh about snow removal, but [snorts] uh you know that's there's other avenues to uh work that out. Um, as far as I'm concerned, 90% of the people that went there when I I went there were were people walking there. uh there were some people driving and and they made do to uh have a good time at at the Sahara and at the uh at the locations uh in in the area. So I am for giving them whatever variance and I'd strongly consider expanding uh what you can do for the students uh in the WPI community in that area. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Um I'll wait to see if somebody else is online that has a uh there is nobody else online. I do have two comments to the chair. Okay. If I'm if you're okay. Yes, please. Okay. Um I do want to highlight that we do have a condition of approval about snow removal um that stipulates snow storage shall not occupy any required parking spaces or landscape buffers and snow shall be trucked offsite uh once snow storage areas reach capacity or begin to impede visibility. Just wanted to point that out for the board. And then secondarily, the the question that has gone unanswered once we're done with the um public comment is that we're curious about the bike parking with the applicant. Thank you.

Yes. Go ahead. Uh just uh state your name again for the record, please. George and Annis. So, one more point. I also adjacent to that property own uh 14 I'm sorry uh hold on 14 Birkshshire Street which is a three family house with uh nine bedrooms um and the tenants own multiple cars so they should also be able to have assigned parking spaces as well um I think the liquor license could negatively impact the use of the tenants their rights to the parking space as well. So I don't think I understand. Are they

So we have a So there's two parking lots. One that's owned by the um occupant or the the applicant, one that's owned by me, but we have a cross parking agreement, right? Um he wants to dominate the parking lot by having 70 patrons inside that restaurant. Yet that parking space belongs to me and is used by my tenants. But if uh if my if my my tenants who are lower middle class work have cars come back at 7 o'clock, 8:00 and the restaurant fills up with people drinking. Um where are they going to park again? It's another parking issue. Okay. And my parking lot is larger than his.

Uhhuh. Okay. Thank you very much.

Through the jar, I can help clarify, too. We'll try to pull up an aerial image, but you'll see there's two parking lots that are adjacent to one another. And so there's there's cross easements. So basically, you enter this parking lot that's owned by the gentleman who was just speaking. Pardon as we try to pull up an image um to come onto this lot. My understanding is the lease that's been granted. So that the applicant is not the owner. Um and I'll ask them to correct me if I have that wrong, but my understanding is the applicant is not the owner. they're a lei and their lease provides them with 10 parking spaces and the rights to 10 parking spaces on the actual premises. So they're not saying that this particular tenant has any rights to use the parking lot um that the landlord has the right to potentially use on the neighboring property. Um but just the parking spaces that are on this property here that you see outlined in yellow, the 143 Highland. Just just to clarify from the lease that was provided says 10 spaces. Staff have noted that practically one of those spaces like Amy Beth said is is occupied by a dumpster. So you know functionally it's nine spaces that are available there. Um but just to clarify there's an old um easement from the 70s. Um and and apologies we're um I think having some uh loading issues with some of the internet streaming today. Uh mine my connection has been a little sluggish. So but we'll try to pull that up.

Yeah. While that's getting pulled up, I'd like to move us forward. Um, so um I'll say for [clears throat] myself um I really appreciate the um applicant and the the um Abutter coming to speak. Um most of the issues appear to be um not our jurisdiction um but rather just bad um neighborly stuff. So the two ways that I think we we historically deal with that is for you to call the um enforcement um and so if those if they're not clearing as per the requirements um so just so you can kind of see it um and [clears throat] um if they are getting blocked like those are issues that are sort of not I I feel like aren't a reason to um to for me at least not a reason to change although other board members should definitely share their their considerations um you know, the Sahara is where my wife first started drinking. Um, she's a college student, um, when she legally was allowed to drink there. And so, um, I think what we're doing is returning it back to the what it was allowed to do. Um, and people figured out how to park there. People, my wife and I went to the Sarah all the time. Um, and sometimes we parked around there, sometimes we didn't. U, but it wasn't, uh, people sort of figured it out. So, um, if it was, it's not a dramatic change to what was there. Um, and, uh, I hear the concerns about snow removal and I definitely hear the concerns about being a good neighbor. So, my, so my comment to the applicant is to just clean up your what you're doing. Um, don't have trash, make sure that you are picking up after yourselves. Um, and definitely make sure that there's snow removal. Um and if not, there's a reason you've been notified of this and so enforcement will be sort of more easier to happen against you because you know that we're um prioritizing this uh for this area. So

that would be my way my be my preference to how to deal with this. Um but I look forward to other comments. Board member Brahmoff. Well, having uh owned a restaurant in that area with without a liquor license and then with a liquor license, I realize how important it is. And when I first reviewed this, I said, "Well, this is a no-brainer." this had a restaurant with a with a liquor license. But it feels like um uh at least from what we've heard that the um owners feels his responsibility stops at the door and doesn't realize uh there's the sidewalks, the parking lot. um the neighbors are part of his responsibility and we're adding um uh a significant asset to that and it comes with even more responsibility. Um, so, uh, at the moment, um, uh, I'd like to hear how that's going to be addressed and, um, you know, not just snow removal, but the neighborhood and making making it the restaurant work is not just making it work inside the building, but in the neighborhood. So,

if the applicant would like to I think uh, thank you, board member Bravo. If the applicant would like to say more about that, please.

Oh, yes, of course. Uh, I'm sorry. This is Patrick Joseph again. Um, I I wanted to say um first of all, I do apologize because um I am fairly new to to the city of Worcester. I'm from Hopkin. Um so I am new to to Worcester. Uh so I do apologize. I don't mean uh no harm to our fellow neighbors um to our students and to the gentleman who who spoke earlier from I believe 122 West Street. So uh I do apologize. Um but I will definitely be more mindful for sure uh moving forward uh in terms of our uh in terms of parking um our snow removal and just being mindful of um you know uh what what we are doing and and we always make sure too that we if this gets approved uh we will make sure of course we will never uh uh sell uh you know beer and wine to people who are underage. Of course, we will always uh make sure that everyone is u of of age to um be able to um have beer and wine. Um so, yes, with that, I would say I do apologize, but yes, I I do would like to, you know, make things right and of course um be able to do my part and to help the the the fellow, you know, neighbors and and be respectful, of course. Thank you. uh board member Cortez

um through the chair. Um the uh I guess the uh the what I'm hearing the concerns of uh sort of uh I guess indication by here that uh the sharing parking spaces that you actually uh takes takes more of his parking spaces uh and not taking care of it either. So I guess the I'm not I'm not sure what kind of a contract you have uh what kind of a contract written contract or is it on a lease or something that you can claim a violation uh of of that of that agreement uh which is not before you know it's is not appropriate to to enforce whatever agreement you you have but that's an that that's an avenue that I'm I'm I'm seeing because I'm not sure that is obviously there is problem a problem there regarding uh the the the the compliance with the agreement of of the sharing parking spaces. So uh that's that's my only comment I have Mr. Chair.

Uh board member Bart Hagen through the chair I from city staff I'd like to just clarification. And it says the applicant indicates they have a lease for exclusive use of 10 which we now know is nine because the dumpster is is that it's not shared is exclusive. So they have no one else can use those nine spots or is that not the case

through the chair? Those are the nine spaces are the spaces that are located on the property at 143 Highland Street. So the applicants um again the premises that they occupy in terms of the agreement the language from my read of the agreement related to the easement it's a cross easement it doesn't necessarily specify but basically they don't have any right to lease the parking from the neighboring um if their landlord didn't authorize them to do that. So I would say they don't have any right to use that parking based on the terms of the lease. Okay. And that's that parking where that white car is just to the south.

Correct. Yes. You can see the curb cut over on the right hand side. And if we kind of zoom in, you can faintly see the striping of the the parking stalls that are kind of right at the property line there. Um so those are the nine spaces that they through the lease have access to use. Um and there's obviously no other tenant on that property itself. Okay.

Yes. Although we technically can't, but I'll I'll Yeah, go ahead. My last point is that George Nannis, my last point is that okay, we have a cross parking agreement, but why would he put his handicap space on my side and not his own? So, I think he's either misunderstanding the agreement or taking advantage of the agreement.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. So, o overall, I mean, this sounds like a lot of uh neighborhood um um getting along with your neighbor issues. Uh which I agree is not it's not within our purview. It's not something I don't think that we should necessarily, you know, vote something up or down of because of someone's not getting along with their neighbors. There are now going to be conditions of this application that are going to require this applicant to do certain things that will make it easier for Butters if there is a problem in the future and they're not complying with what they're supposed to be complying as far as snow removal, as far as parking, as far as serving underage um drinkers, there can be enforcement and that would you would call the worst enforcement. I I hesitate to use those as reasons why, you know, in a vacuum this is not something that should be approved or should be denied. Um so I think with that being said, um I think I'm I'm inclined towards u voting in favor of this. I just want to mention that the applicant needs to request the waiverss.

Yeah, if the applicant could request the waivers as uh stated, there is no waivers. There is through the chair there. There really wasn't a plan submitted with this. So, they're requesting all of the plan requirements. You don't see the bullets because it's 100% of what's required. Yeah. Oh, I got it. Okay. I'm sorry. Yep. If the applicant could request the waiverss. Patrick, if you could unmute yourself again, please. Oh yes, sorry. Uh yes, chairman.

Okay. Uh board member Sako, no additional comment. I just hope that the um applicant would take better care of his property after this vote. Thanks. Yes.

Um through you uh Mr. Chair to to uh staff. Um um in the past we've um given um I don't want to say temporary or conditional approval. So this approval is good for a year and if there's no complaints then you know uh it becomes permanent or something. Is that something uh you're not looking too happy over there Michelle? uh through the chair. We certainly discourage that because it's been my personal and professional experience that people forget about those things and um that over time, you know, they'll continue to operate um even if there are no complaints. Um so the board can do as it wishes and we will do the best we can to enforce that um as staff uh in terms of of that type of condition and obviously the burden is on the applicant, but I just again that's my my commentary related to that type of condition. Um it's just that that is a challenge to enforce on our end, but ultimately you're welcome to impose any condition. I would say, you know, there was no such condition previously for Sahara. Um and certainly we'll be happy to forward the concerns and complaints and would encourage the applicant or the neighbor um if there are issues um to call the city so that someone can go out and enforce related to snow removal. We will submit a complaint related to that along West Street um to 311 tomorrow.

Okay. I think um unfortunately it comes to the neighbors to to speak up when it's not appropriate. But I would hope that after listening to this that the uh applicant um becomes quite a bit more attentive to uh his impact on the neighbors.

Yeah. All right. Um I'll entertain uh so I'll just I'll just echo that. Um, I guess I'll just speak uh to the applicant directly like uh you should not um uh take this as a warning that you should not have um that everything needs to be cleared and you need to be a much better neighbor. Um and um and I drive I mean this is my neighborhood. We go by there. I haven't actually been to this uh restaurant yet since it's changed out. Um but u but um but it is my neighborhood so I go by there every day. Um, so I'll make I'll also make sure to um let the city know if there isn't enforcement. I mean, if you're not uh clearing paths and being a better neighbor. So, um I agree. I tend to think we shouldn't like these are neighbor issues, but there are serious issues. I want to say that we do take them seriously. So, um you should know that we're going to um that you need to just be better as a neighbor. Like I think that's a bare minimum. Um but um uh okay with that I'll take a motion to close unless people

like to make a motion to close on 143 Highland Street. Is there a second? So move on the motion. Board member Brahmoff. My vote is yes. Board member Cortez. Yes. Board member Barthagen. Yes. Board member Sacko. Yes.

My votes yes. Is there a motion on 143 Highland Street? like to make a motion on 143 Highland Street for a variance for relief of nine spaces from the 18th space minimum parking requirement for a food service use and a special permit to allow a food service including consumption sale of alcoholic beverages and/or providing dance or dancing or entertainment use in a BL-1.0 with the uh staff conditions on page four of seven of the staff memo and the waiverss as requested by the applicant. Is there a second? I do second the motion. On the motion, board member Brahmoff, my vote is yes. Board member Cortez, yes. Board member Barnhagen, yes. Board member Sacko, yes.

My votes yes. Uh, please get the um the uh enforcement inspectional services uh contact info. If you have any other issues, please do let them know. Um and uh that's an approval, but uh you know uh do better as a neighbor. We'll do when it um I'm sorry, just just one point if I may add. Uh I would you in fact cannot. We are we are actually done. So if you have anything else please do contact the planning division. Um next up is 26 Milton Street. If the applicant could please come forward.

Uh good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Um my name is Donald O'Neal. I'm a lawyer here in Wester here this evening on behalf of Milton Street Properties LLC. Um I have two applications, 26 Milton Street, 28 Milton Street. They're essentially identical um in terms of um the relief that is being requested. Um and I don't know what if um the intent would be to take them both simultaneously. Uh yes, if we could open 28 Milton Street as well. Okay. Um

thank you. So um in this um filing um basically there are a total of six units. Um all six of them require um relief from uh the setback requirement for the retaining wall which runs along the back of the property. Now that retaining wall was installed um in 200 approximately 2007. Uh my client has actually only owned the property for a couple of years. Uh so that was it was like that when he purchased the property. So that the relief that we're seeking um in that situation uh works out to be um 12 variances I guess or actually um [snorts] six variances. Um and that all relates to the fact that uh these units are going to be um intended to be single family attached dwelling units which requires a property line uh to go through those walls which would otherwise be a grandfathered situation. Up until two years ago, this was just one big lot with a retaining wall in the back. So by coming in with this proposal, we have to subdivide the property which provides for the property line running through the retaining wall. So then you have a situation where uh there's supposed to be a 5-ft setback and that would be 5T on either side. And also uh on the rear of the property um there are a couple instances where it's it's closer than 5T to the property line. So

that that's the basis for the um relief and from the accessory structure which is as is the retaining wall which has been there for almost 20 years at this point. Um the other relief that's being requested has to do with the height of the buildings. Um the height of the buildings when measured from the front of the of the units uh is 40 ft. Um it is basically the other three sides of the property uh these are in compliance or very close to the 35 foot limitation. Part of that has to do with the fact that it's on a hill. Uh so it's it's much shorter in the back than it is in the front. And in the front uh there's a need to maintain basically the driveway entrance to for the parking underneath the property uh because you don't want to have a a sloped drive uh in terms of u the safety of the occupants and the convenience of the occupants. Um so under the ordinance uh the measurement takes place at the front door. That's the only face of the building that actually exceeds the uh height limitation. And and with regard to that, I would would just point out that this is an RG5 zone. So if you were to build a three family, uh the height limitation is 50 ft. If you would build a all six units in one building, it would be a a multif family lowrise. the height limit is also 50 feet. And if you were to build a high-rise structure, which is allowed again by Wright and an RG5, it's 90

feet. So, it's a kind of a peculiar provision in the ordinance that if it's a [snorts] townhouse or a duplex, um there is a 35 foot height limit, but there's no such limit uh if they were all combined in one large building or in a three- decker itself. So the the relief has to do with again the topography on the site and also the pitch of the roof um is uh steeper. Uh it could have been possible basically if that was modified to take a few feet off the uh height limitation, but basically it complies all the way around and it's in an area that has um similar structures, taller structures, uh all in close proximity. And if you go up there and look at the property, um it's not uh driving down the street, all of the other houses appear to be about the same height. It's not noticeable in any way, at least to my eye, uh that this is in any way, significantly higher than the surrounding properties. Um the other relief that we're requesting for the two uh middle units uh which would be 26B and 28B uh is for um [snorts] relief a special permit to uh comply with the uh driveway off-street parking requirements in terms of imperous area uh and some of the setback provisions. Um it's almost impossible when you have a triplex to meet the impervious coverage

provision um for the middle units. And in both cases in this instance we're right around 61 62% coverage. Uh but if you the other out the other units are actually um well under or or under or well under the 50% provision. So that if you were to combine them all, um there's enough sufficient frontage basically in green area that would bring you into compliance. But it's just given the width of the lot and the need for the driveway width and the walkway and so forth. It's just basically impossible to make that compliance. Um this project is also going to require um site plan approval. In fact, we started off at at site plan uh and then the issue some of these issues arose in terms of the that I've that I've just explained. But the work will require um site plan approval from the planning board and also one of the recommendations in staff's memo is for uh paving of the uh frontage in front of the property. Uh there's another uh some other newer structures that are down kind of on the left hand side as you come up. Um it looks like they've already paved the section in front of their property. Um we have already made a filing with the planning board um and would anticipate have no objection to the paving requirement um and uh we'll be proceeding on that if if we get your approval. Uh again, moving forward on that, that would also require, I believe, probably an 81G filing in in terms of doing the work in

the street. Uh and in connection with that filing would be um a provision for uh drainage uh infiltration on site. Um and again, that would be addressed at the planning board level. Um the same would be true um [snorts] it it it um I'm not sure in terms of catch basins or anything of that nature. I don't know whether conservation commission filing would be required but um um maybe maybe not but definitely site plan with the planning board. Um I think that the Topography on the site again uh makes this um difficult to um comply completely particularly with the um height provisions in the front of the building and then also the um impervious areas for the middle units. Um I did look at staff's memo on page six. Um they're also the memo is basically identical in between the two of them but there are two conditions. Uh number one has uh I think it's 1 A through F. [snorts] Uh number two was just a provision for the U ANR plan to be provided. Uh and we have no objections on either application to the recommendations by staff. Uh and also there is one waiver for each site which is uh identified and I would request those waivers and um be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you very much. Uh staff

sure through the chair. This is Michelle Smith in the city's planning division. In front of you this evening we have these two applications which are as sort of summarized effectively part of this one project. Um so what you can see in the images here are sort of six different townhouse style units. were constructed at this point um without permits um so what what you see has not gone through the permitting process I mean building permits site plan um as well as really from this board so just kind of contextualizing sort of where we are um the applicant was uh issued a cease and desist order and has proceeded to obtain permits um or apply for permits with the hopes of obtaining them from this board as well as the planning board there will be a requirement uh to answer attorney O'Neal's question related to the conservation commission um for a notice of intent with the conservation commission given our understanding of the scope of work that's proposed for the road in addition to the site itself. Um obviously that will be retractive um in part. So in terms of the relief there are a total of 12 variances and two special permits that are being requested um after the modifications. So at this point you'll see them kind of redlined in the memo, but essentially the applicant had requested relief for a variance for height in two different forms. Height we measure in stories as well as feet. Originally we thought they needed relief for each unit um from both requirements but subsequently realized that actually they do comply with the height in terms of number of stories. So they don't comply in terms of feet. So they are five feet over uh the the maximum height limitation, the 35 foot requirement that we'd have for this type of dwelling. As was stated by right, if this was on either lot a three family, they could go up to 50 feet. Um but that that's um the requirement for this type of housing is 35 ft. Um in terms of the other variance, so again each lot, so since we have six of those u we've got six variances uh relative to height and then um for the retaining wall. So, if we go

to I don't know if we have an image of the retaining wall at all, the existing wall. So, you can see the larger um kind of masonry uh wall in the back. Um that retaining wall was installed back around 2007 or so. Um at that time there was a prior approval for a multif family building at this location um that came in for site plan um and proposed a retaining wall. This wall was built in a location that was not the approved location on the plan that was owned and um constructed our understanding by a previous owner. Um and so that that wall was clearly constructed in a way that did not comply with the requirements at that time it was one lot and so as a result of it being one lot. The only way that it did not comply was with respect to the rear. Um the the wall itself is too close to the the rear lot line um kind of varies that specific distance varies and meanders across the the course of the lot. Um but in terms of um what they are proposing, each zero lot line on kind of the townhouse lines creates a new form of relief that's needed and it actually exacerbates the relief that's needed because there's no way to create a physical setback from the retaining wall. So they would have to design it in a way where there would be, you know, small wall segments with a steep pitch slope that kind of went in between each section of wall um adjacent to the property lines, which probably wouldn't make a lot of sense, but ultimately that that's the request that they have. So the relief relates to the side and to the rear. And again, it varies by lot. On all sides, it's 5 feet. And on the rear, it it depending on which lot you're referring to, it varies. So I'll just note that that's outlined by lot in the memo. And then the two interior lots, if we go to the civil plan, you'll see the two [clears throat] interior lots. Um, as attorney stated, they're often challenges when the frontage is sort of the bare minimum frontage. Um, and someone's proposing a driveway to a drive under garage. uh there's typically a challenge in meeting our 50% impervious limitation in this district. So the applicant is seeking for both

internal lots if you will relief relative to that specific requirement um that 50% threshold. Um and then that's specific to both interior lots but also on lots let me get this one right in terms of the lot numbers. So this is on 26 Melton. So the right hand side um of the the property that you're seeing on the screen um that structure they're seeking relief from the setback requirement for the driveway which is a three-foot buffer. Um they have less than that um so that's just under a foot and so we're requesting that they try to adjust that to increase that buffer but still won't fully be able to resolve that. So they'll still retain the need for that particular special permit. Um we have proposed conditions um in the memo that try to address uh relief that was previously requested for the other lots on each end um where we've either identified that they no longer need the special permit or that they can cure that easily through a condition. So um it's our advice that the applicant can withdraw the requested special permits for lots A and B on uh sorry lots A and C on both 28 and 26. Um but they would still need the really fun on B. Um, in terms of the conditions, not a ton to highlight uh that hasn't already been covered in terms of the the frontage pavement. Um, that's that's probably the biggest one um that the board's not typically used to seeing. And again, that will require approvals from planning board in terms of site plan 81G as well as the conservation commission filing. Um, our questions and comments were really mostly about storm water. You can see a lot of the sites being rendered impervious through the changes that are proposed by the applicant. We will deal with that at site plan. So a lot of our notes were about some of the challenges and the need for the infrastructure that's been installed likely to be daylighted for staff to be able to go out and inspect and verify

that that was installed properly or be reinstalled um given the state of construction that the site's in. Um so mostly a heads up for what to expect um in terms of next steps were the board to proceed with an approval and the applicant able to continue forward. Um again the comments are pretty parallel on the two lots. So really just minor suggestions related to the the interior lot line shifting that and reducing the width of the driveway on those um interior lots.

I have a question for you. Um do we so if we do move this forward um we have to both make a positive um request for variances and also a withdrawal. Is that correct? That'd be correct. The applicant has requested already the withdrawal for the variances. So they should make the request relative to the special permits. I'm not sure if I heard attorney O'Neal state that and I I apologize because I had to step into the hall for a moment. So

yep. And and I can I can accommodate there. Um so um with respect to um lot 26, I would request a withdrawal of the variance submitted for uh height measured in stories for lots 26A, 26B, and 26 C. uh and the special permit that was requested for uh modifying parking, loading, and landscaping for lots 26A and 26 C. And for uh 28, I would request a withdrawal for the heightened stories on lots 28A, 28B, 28 C and the special permit to modify parking, loading, and landscaping for lots 28A and 28 C. Um as uh recommended in the staff memo.

Thank you. Uh is anybody here for 26 Milton Street or 28 Milton Street? Is anybody online uh please raise your hand or use your raise your hand function or press star nine. Um all right. Uh we're going to get started with um with uh board comment and then we'll move from there. Um okay. So, I um we're not in the cache basin exact uh we're not in a butter um but uh my father-in-law lives not far from this um and I was actually surprised that this went up cuz this was a terrible construction. Um as you can see from the picture um there was absolutely um spillage into downhill. It's a very steep downhill. Um I when I first read this filing, my impulse was to tell you to tear this whole thing down and start from scratch and do something you can legally do. Um because it is ridiculous to ask us after you've built something to come and like you've broken the law and you're just like well I mean what do we do? Like my impulse is to tell you to tear it down and start again. Um this is absolutely atrocious. It was atrocious when it was being built. It was atrocious that this happened. It's atrocious for the environment. There was construction down the hill that was approved. I'm worried about I mean we don't I'm sure it's fine but like there was definitely um dirt and spillage down the hill. It's very steep. sort of thing that conservation would definitely care about. Um, this is this is like the worst thing that could happen. Um, I don't I I don't know who the developer is for this, but my feeling is that they should never be allowed to work in the city of Worcester because this is absolutely atrocious. Like, you cannot I understand that like the relief itself is actually not the problem. You could have gotten it. We're a pretty easy board to get approval from. At any point, somebody could have come before us and said, "This is what we want to build. It's not terribly different. That's right. From what's out there, but like you have to do that. You

can't just build and hope for the best. That's not the way this should work. It's really awful. Um I am mindful that it's already pretty bad out there. And so I'm not going to make a suggestion that we tear it down. I am amendable to making uh to allowing some of these variances to go forward, but I am not happy to do so. Um because my first impulse was to say, "Heck, what the heck is this?" Like I saw it as it happened. I complain to the city about it. I was like, "What is going on here?" Like this is this was terrible. There was never a part with this process that it wasn't an embarrassment. And I just kept like even the site now is an embarrassment. It's still not protecting the environment the way we expect in the city of Worcester. So, um everything about this is a problem. I just want to say like this is a real problem. uh and not the way things should happen, especially again because this board is actually really e we are so easy to deal with from the side of of having to get things through here and it's just not the way things should happen.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, could I respond to that?

Yeah, please go ahead. Um so um we do there was a building permit pulled um on one of the buildings um and um the uh owner of the property is is here with me this evening. Um and [snorts] um you know he hired a licensed site contractor. um he didn't know that the permit wasn't pulled for both properties. Um [snorts] you know, he's he's paid the application fee. Um and it's something that we're we're looking into, but in terms of uh this came as a surprise to him as well, and he was relying upon uh the site contractor or not the site contractor, but the construction supervisor to handle that. Um and so this when all of this sort of came to light um in connection with the filing um with the planning board then it that's when the issues surfaced and certainly um when I was initially contracted to to to contacted to do this the site filing I I didn't I didn't know that there wasn't one building hadn't had a permit pulled on it. um you know and uh nor did the owner. Uh so he is is is trying to um extricate himself from this situation. Um, you know, in terms of the neighborhood, um, uh, impacts, um, I think it'll be beneficial to have that street paved, um, particularly in connection with the other pavement that's done. So, I mean, that is a positive. The streets are

pretty rough in in that area. um you know even the uh even the better streets um you know u are either narrow or um and poor condition but this this would be an improvement to that. Um I think the units are first class. I mean pretty nice. I mean they're using good materials. Um and I think that the um [snorts] uh overall when it's you know completed um it's you know it's a kind of a fine addition I think to that street and I do think it it is does fit that street in terms of particularly with some of the more recent um construction [snorts] that has gone on there but in terms of u this is not something which um that he was aware of uh and is kind of mortified by it himself. So, I mean, you're not alone in in having that um um you know, uh reaction. Um and so, um you know, it's just it's not something which um he knew about. um and and certainly wasn't the way he planned to do it and um didn't even you know and has paid the um you know the application fees that are um would be required you know to for the file the application why it wasn't done um you know who knows but I did speak with um the code department uh and if we once we secure uh if we're successful the required permits. There there'll be a sit down with um with the code department and in all likelihood there'll be some fines that will be levied uh for you know working without

pulling proper permits. Um so that's but that's you know um down the road a bit. Um we still have to get through the planning board. I still have to get through the zoning board. But it wasn't um this this wasn't the plan. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Go ahead. Through the chair. [clears throat] Excuse me.

Um moving forward, I I have to say that I'm pretty appalled at the whole project here. Um and and and it is the owner's responsibility in my opinion for anything done under a building permit. That's it's the owner's responsibility. I have to say I'm not pleased with the contractor. I want the owner to know that moving forward if you're going to plan on using the contractor again, I think it's going to be very difficult for just the permit approval in the way he submitted documents, the person that you had submitting, you know, made it very difficult for us to even understand what permits are for where here. So, moving forward after site plan is approved, we're going to be looking for all new building permit submitts. And yes, we want to have a sit down because we're talking about fines that are going to be um established and accordingly uh for the project. And I highly recommend that you really consider using a different contractor because based on what I have now, you know, I'm going to be babysitting this project moving forward and it's it's really going to be difficult um for you as the owner trying to get past this and get moving on the project. And I apologize for taking the time. Please do take the time.

I felt it was due. I I uh very much appreciate it and please take the time because I am also I [clears throat] think frustrated. Um okay, I'll say this. My feeling if you ask I'm going to vote yes on these. Um I feel like it is most it is done. It would be worse to take pick it up. Uh the street desperately needs to get fixed. So if for any other reason um this street getting improved and it better it best it better be the best road private road in the city when this is done. Um, I think it's it's it's going to be an improvement when it's finished and it does in it is not out of line to I agree with um with uh the attorney. It is not it is totally in line and frankly would have been something I would have been happy to vote yes on. Um it was it's not it's not the it's not the it's it's it's that there are certain things you would do like putting in hail bales like making sure like uh making like making sure you know we don't know what infiltration for sure got in, right? there's just steps that the permitting isn't just for uh checking a box to make sure all those things happen. So, um I I will cut you off because I want to keep moving this along and I'll say I understand that um that uh um so anyway. So, I'm going to vote yes. Uh, but just know that I'm begrudgingly yes because I think it is better for the neighborhood and for this project to move forward and to move out of our jurisdiction and into the next phase of this because that's I think the best thing to happen is to get when it gets when the snow gets cleared, for it to get paved, for it to move forward, for it to get finished up, it's mostly done anyway. That's my preference. Um, but I want to hear from the other board members before I come back. Uh, board member Brahmoff

through the [clears throat] chair. Well, I think he said it, so there's not much for me to add except I agree with him. Uh, board member Cortez,

I echo all your word, all all your all what you said, Mr. uh, Powers. Uh, uh, infur infuriates me. just that going up and coming up for us to try to vote and you know and and cover and cover up. Uh is is an upset about that. Uh it just should not happen uh anywhere. I wish that there were some type of a fines when people don't do those kinds of things but unfortunately we don't have that. Hopefully someday maybe we can propose that the people would be fined for do for doing this kind of stuff.

It sounds like it might happen but it won't happen from our board. Yeah, exactly. Yes. Um All right. Uh board member Bart Hagen

uh through the chair. Thank you. Uh I mean I think everything's been said that needs to be said. I share the the outrage that how could something like this get this far along without approval? It's it's kind of and there has to be some kind of consequence to that. It and again it sounds like it's going to be down the line somewhere and the applicant has agreed to all the conditions staff is imposed on this. Um and you know if this if this were coming before us before it would being constructed. This is not a significant amount of relief that's being requested either. Um as stated by Mr. O'Neal. It's just it is a little gling to approve it now after we can see it's been up already. So, but I agree with the chair that it's at this point it's you know there's no use crying over spelt milk. Let's just move it forward, get to the fines and the oversight that has to happen through code and through the planning board and everything else that has to happen. And hopefully from now on you're going to dot your eyes and cross your tees and maybe get a new contractor and make sure that everything you do um is on the up and up. But thank you board member Sacko.

Nothing new to add here. No other comment. Yeah. Uh I have a question for you. I I I have a question. um possibly through uh uh code inspection or or to us or anyone. Uh, is there a a way or or is it feasible or is it appropriate that before they continue with with the with with the project that we will stop by and see what other violations are in place before they they move on

uh through the chair. I'm pretty sure that we've addressed all the violations that are there currently [clears throat] and there is no no violations that exist to my knowledge that um we haven't already addressed. So, moving forward, we're looking for new permit applications, all new uh submitts uh and then we'll be discussing uh fines appropriately for the project without permits. Thank you. All right. Um, I'm ready to move this forward if uh if there's nothing else. Um, and I'd take a motion to close. I'd like to make a motion to close on 26 Milton Street and 28 Milton Street. Is there a second? Second. On the motion, Board Member Abramov, my vote is yes. Board member Cortez, yes.

Board member Barnhagen, yes. Board member Sacko, yes.

My votes yes. Is there a motion on 20 Let's take it one at a time. Is there a motion on 26 Milton Street? I'd like to make a motion on 26 Milton Street uh for a variance on lot A, B, and C for relief of five feet from the 35 ft uh maximum height requirement for a single family attached dwelling in an RG5 zone. For lot A and lot B, a variance for a leaf of 5 foot on the sides and 4.75 ft on the rear from the 5- foot minimum setback requirement for an accessory structure. For lot C, a variance for relief of five foot on the side and two foot on the rear from the five- foot minimum setback requirement for an accessory structure. And for lot B, a special permit to modify the dimensional layout and/or landscaping requirements, loading requirements, and/or the number of required parking spaces, including the conditions on page five of 10 of the staff memo and the waiverss as requested by the applicant

and for the and for the variance on lot A, lot B, and lot C to be um to be sorry, friendly amendment um to be uh uh I forget the word removed. Withdrawn. That's what I'm looking for. Okay. And for the special permit on lot um A and C to be withdrawn and the REM right the the retraction of the variance for the story relief for lot A B and C and the special permits for lot A and C. Is there a second? So move on the motion for 26 Milton Street. Board member Brahma. My vote is yes. Board member Cortez. Yes. Board member Barnhagen. Yes. Board member Sacko. Yes.

My vote's yes. Is there a motion on 28 Milton Street? I'd like to make a motion on 28 Milton Street uh for uh the removal of the story based variances for lot A, B, and C. A variance for lot A, B, and C for relief of 5 foot from the 35 ft minimum height requirement for a single family attached dwelling in an RG5 zone. Um the removal of the special permits for lot A and B variance on lot A for relief of 5 foot on the sides 1.6 feet in the rear from the 5- foot minimum setback requirement for an accessory structure. A variance for lot B for relief of five feet on the side and 3.7 feet on the rear from the 5- foot minimum setback requirement for an accessory structure. a variance for lot C for a leaf of five foot on the side and two foot on the rear from the five- foot minimum setback requirement for an accessory structure and for lot B a special permit to modify the parking dimensional layout andor landscaping requirements loading requirements and/or the number of required parking spaces um including the conditions on page six of 11 of the staff memo and the waiver as requested by the applicant. I think also the the withdrawal of special permits on lot A and C. I think you got the variance but not the special permit.

And the removal of special permits on lot A and C. Is there a second? Second on the motion. Board member Brahma. My vote is yes. Board member Cortez. Yes. Board member Barnhagen. Yes. Board member Sacko. Yes. My votes yes. Thank you. And clear it off. Thank you.

All right. Um, next up is number 722 Cumberland Street. Good evening once again, Mr. Chair, members of the board. For the record, Attorney Mad with Flesher Tilton on behalf of the applicant. I reside in Burlington, Massachusetts. With me is Mr. Michael Armani, the owner of the property and the applicant. Uh we're here before you this evening seeking an amendment to an existing 1985 special permit to allow two additional residential units to pre an existing multif family low-rise dwelling located at 22 Cumberland Street. Uh the permit originally authorized four units uh and we are seeking again to add two additional units. Uh we're also seeking variances uh from two-dimensional regulations within the code. The first is the lot area requirement. We're required to have a total of 17,000 square ft for six units. We have 14,631. So we're seeking just under 2400 square ft for the relief for that. We're also required 12 total parking spaces. This does require a 2:1 parking ratio. Uh which is obviously fairly high for smaller units. But that being said, we are adding one space uh to this existing parking lot. So we would need relief for three parking spaces total. So overall, we're proposing six units, a total of 10 bedrooms, and nine parking spaces. Uh the way we're hoping to achieve this, we're going to renovate a lower portion of the existing building. So there will not be any exterior changes. We're not adding out up, back, or any direction. The space already exists within the building. Uh and then again the one additional space within that existing parking lot out front. Uh the total lot size as I mentioned is 14,631

square feet and this is an RL7 district. So multifamily residential lowrise is allowed per the special permit obviously as that's what we're trying to amend. Um just a little bit more by way of background the the existing building as I mentioned contains four units. I'll call the the four units uh currently being located on level one and two. Uh again, there is a lower level, but there is a slope to this lot that goes back. So the basement or or lower level, whatever you'd like to call it, has a full walk out. And you can see there in the bottom right picture that kind of looks like the front of a building, but it actually is the rear of the structure. So you have a full walk out from that lower level into the backyard. And obviously that density is is somewhat hidden by the front of the building where it looks like just a two-story building. So, a unique condition based upon the slope of the lot uh where we're able to hopefully add these units and and add to the housing stock within the existing confines of the building. Uh the renovation itself at some point, Mr. Armani purchased this back in uh 2023, I believe, at some point since the 1985 approval, part of the lower level was built out. Uh you can see there there was a spiral staircase that actually went down. So, it was somewhat of a BLE unit, although it was somewhat of a standalone living space, a unique condition that obviously we we inherited when Mr. Monty purchased the property. So, there's not a lot of work to actually be done on the left side. It's almost ready to go as a standalone unit. It just needs to demolish the spiral staircase. The current right side of the building on the lower level is common space, storage, and utilities. So, we're proposing a uh one-bedroom unit there and then a new kind of much smaller common utility room which will be accessed from the the common stairway. Um so, two standalone units down there. One will be a little bit larger because it takes up the whole footprint of the left side and the one on the right side will be a little bit smaller because it also accommodates that common uh storage and utility area. Um, you know, we we undertook this project because we view

it as a good way to add to the housing stock without changing the character of the neighborhood. Again, you won't see any visual changes from anywhere on the property, but at least alone the the front of the property. It'll still look as it does today, uh, but takes advantage of some builtout space already and some space that's really kind of wasted as as dead storage space. Uh, as part of the project and working with staff, we've agreed to put two new uh, trees to the front of the property as well as add bike racks. Uh again, we think we're we're pretty close with the parking ratio, but knowing that we do need relief for parking, we are happy to add the bike racks to encourage an alternate means of transportation. We're also about a quarter of a mile away from from a bus stop. So, we think this this 1.5 per unit parking ratio is is appropriate in this situation. We did receive and review staff's memo. We have no issues with any of the conditions of approval. Uh we think they all make sense and we're happy to do so. Uh, and finally, for the record, I'd like to formally request the waiverss as noted within staff's memo. Uh, so with that, it's pretty straightforward project. I'll pause and take any questions the board may have.

Uh, staff, city staff.

Sorry, through you, Mr. Chair. This is Michelle Smith again in the city's planning division. So, the applicant [snorts] seeking a request for two variances. Um, first for relief of lot area. um also for relief of the parking requirement. And then finally seeking an amendment to the ancient special permit uh granted back in the 80s that allowed the use in the first place um when the property was of the same zoning and still requiring a special permit to allow multif family at the site. [snorts] So they are seeking that modification. So we have recommended conditions on page five. Um Rybright their option would be to add an ADU that would require no additional parking, no additional lot area, etc., etc. So really above and beyond an ADU, they're really only asking for one additional unit um at the property. Terms of the parking ratio, they have nine parking spaces proposed for 10 bedrooms. Um so, you know, practically speaking, we think there's adequate parking. Um there's on street parking in the the neighborhood. The neighboring property is actually owned by the city. It's the conservation commission property. Um so we'll just make a note too that if there's there end up being physical alterations to the ground, um I believe there is a wetland on our property. So there may be a need for a filing with the concom but um we'll take a look at their revised plan. At this point our request is for them to expand one of the parking stalls. Um they're proposing to just sort of restripe and unfortunately there's not quite enough room to get in um the additional parking space that they're proposing. So in order to accommodate that um we've asked them to add a little bit of additional pavement. So in doing that um we had previously proposed two different options. They could either get another um a variance for an additional parking space or make that change. their preference is to just provide the parking space. So we would recommend that you strike in our um recommended conditions strike C um 1C uh which will resolve for that and then of the variances they would be seeking the variance for three spaces not for four spaces. Um so through discussion that's their preference um which is you know

the minimum amount of relief necessary. um happy to answer your questions if you have them. But really the the comments that we had I think the one remaining question was just about um trash bin and where the trash bins would be stored. It's only five units so they can have city pickup. Just wanting to make sure that wouldn't interfere with any of the parking spaces. Um and otherwise there's nothing really proposed to the exterior and um the site is in our background or baseline growth area. So, it's not necessarily within the walkshed to transit, although it's it's just outside of that about a third of a mile um to transit. Happy to answer questions. Thanks.

Uh is anybody here for this? No. Is anybody online? Uh this is straightforward. Um I'm a easy yes. This is you're not doing anything interesting. Um and this would be great to add to things and this seems straightforward. And you're adding just a little bit of pavement to add some more parking. So, they're also adding a parking spot. Um, makes this is a no-brainer to me, so I'm a yes. Uh, board member Ramoff, I agree. Board member Cortez, no comments. Uh, board member Barton Hagen, uh, agreed. Uh, board member second. Agreed. All right. In that case, I'll take a motion to close. Like to make a motion to close on 22 Cumberland Street. Is there a second? Second. On the motion. Board member Brahma. My vote is yes. Board member Cortez. Yes. Board member Barnhagen. Yes. Board member Sacko.

Yes. My vote's yes. Is there a motion on 22 Cumberland Street? Let's make a motion on 22 Cumberland Street for a variance for relief of 2369 square feet from the 17,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement for a multifamily low-rise dwelling in an RL7 zone district for leaf for of three spaces a variance for a leaf of three spaces from the 12 space minimum parking requirements for a multifamily dwelling and amendment to a special permit to allow for a multi-family low-rising dwelling in an RL7 zone with the conditions except for 1 C which is stricken of the staff memo and the waiverss as requested by the applicant. Is there a second? Second on the motion. Board member Brahmoff. My vote is yes.

Board member Cortez. Yes. Board member Barnhagen. Yes. Board member Sacko. Yes. My votes yes. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Um next up is 12 Malden Street. Go ahead. Evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Uh, you got to turn it on. Oh, there you go.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Uh, my name is Joe Duket from Badich and Dwey. Um, here on behalf of Wolf Farms LLC. Uh, joining me online tonight is the, uh, the applicant, uh, Gary. Um, as well as Raphael Hernandez, the architect, and John Grineer, the engineer for the project. Um, so as a brief history of the background for this project, uh, the Worcester Planning Board recently recommended and the city council approved a reszoning of the streets along Milton or Molden Street, excuse me, um, from the more restrictive RS7 zone to the RL7 zone uh, to allow for specifically these types of developments uh, single family attached uh, uses. If you go to the next um page here, so you can see the development here in the neighboring development at 17 Malden Street, which is a 12 unit uh condominium complex. Uh very kind of similar but very different um design, but more so shown for purposes of the density and kind of the character of the neighborhood. Uh so what the applicant is proposing here is a uh 12 unit single family attached uh development um consisting of four buildings with three units each um uh landscaping two bay garages um there uh plenty of trees because this has to comply with um more than one building and a lot approval. Uh so there are actually more trees that are being added to this plan in addition to what you're seeing today. Um the um there have been questions with city staff about um considering alternative types of developments here. Um but really um we I know that this is the first time the board's seeing the project. But um there has been about six or seven different iterations of this project already. So it has been very thoroughly vetted. Um we have brought the buildings

together um much or closer which actually have triggered an additional special permit for a reduction of the drive aisle with uh to increase the distance between um the buildings shown here and the neighboring property. So there will be additional landscaping there um but yeah um the style of again the style of development. So you can see with the renderings here um we there was consideration of having front-facing units but um we think that you know it was very intentional in the design and you know Raphael's happy to share his opinions as to um how this looks for the neighborhood but compared to the condominium development certainly that is the front entrance to these units here. So even though it is the side profile of the building, I I mean it speaks for itself, I think, in terms of the approach and the development here. Um so I mean given the time of night, we're we're happy to answer any questions the board has if you want to hear from any um anybody else from the team, but I'll I'll leave it there. Um

thank you. I'll also request the the waivers stated. Oh, perfect. Thank you very much. Uh city staff. Sure. Through the chair again, Michelle Smith and the city's planning division. Um so in front of you is a request for a variety of relief related to this proposed uh single family attached or kind of townhouse style project. Um you can see from the renderings that they've provided there are three units in each of these buildings. Um so the applicant is proposing I'm sorry three units in three of the buildings and one that has four. Am I getting that right? Uh three units in each of the four buildings.

Thank you. Um, so I I just looked at 13 in terms of your buy rate options and I was like that math does not work. Sorry, it's getting late. Um, so the applicant is proposing a total of 12 units, three in each of the four built of each of the four buildings. Um, they're seeking relief from the dimensional requirements specifically related to lot area into frontage. Um, the relief that they're seeking um, they've kind of paired that nexus related to the by right option. So by right in this zoning district dimensionally speaking the applicant has adequate frontage and lot area to construct up to 13 units of multif family um low-rise uh dwelling. Um so they have not opted to proceed with a multif family low-rise option. Um we'd encourage them to explore that. That's not their preference from our understanding through our conversation. Um you know the specific reasons that applicants council could represent to you if you'd like to hear more. But essentially that's that's I think what's driving the number in terms of what's being suggested here as it relates to the relief. Um in that sort of by right option they would still need a special permit to allow the use um mind you because this is a zoning district in which we only allow up to two units by right. Um so really by right they could have two lots um each with two units and an ADU so essentially six units. Um so they're seeking obviously in excess of that um in terms of the requirements that we have. [clears throat] Um so they're seeking that special permit to allow the use those two variances and then the special permit as was described related to the dry vial width. Um we require 24 ft. The applicant is proposing 20. Um they've reduced that in response to staff feedback about the sort of overall impervious nature of the site and the kind of aesthetic that appears you know mostly related to parking just from the street. You kind of look at it and you see the two ends which have been nicely designed in terms of making them attractive to have a unit that's accessible from the street. Um but just overall in terms of the site design, you

you predominantly see the parking area. Um in terms of our comments, um one of the comments that we'd had was if the applicant had considered taking one of the structures and kind of reorienting it so that it would basically run parallel to the street and shifting the location of the proposed driveway to be able to accommodate that. There would need to be some other site design changes. Um but it asked the applicant if if they had explored that. Um so maybe they could talk a little bit more specifically about that. Um otherwise, you know, each, as you can see here, each um unit provides for garage parking and then essentially a surface parking. So there's really enough for two garage spaces and two surface spaces for each of these units. And then that does not include anywhere in that kind of dry vial. We'll make a note too that there is a guest parking space that's shown, but it's in like the fire lane. Um so that will need to be removed and reconciled across the different plan sets. Um, our understanding is that we believe their plan is to use a a dumpster for waste disposal, but not positive. So, hoping they could clarify um on waste disposal. Um, if there is a dumpster, we have a condition that requires that that be provided with um a solid style fence for screening. Um we have a variety of conditions that we have requested related to additional tree plantings particularly along um Malden Street to provide some additional screening so you don't kind of see the parking from the street to try to mask that a bit more u with some additional landscaping um right now the applicant's proposing a few trees but we're looking for some additional trees uh which would otherwise align with what the requirements would be in the city subdivision regulations. Um, as far as parking goes, um, they have some bicycle parking that's proposed, um, on the site as well. Um, but again, parking isn't necessarily the concern here. Um, in terms of other comments, I think really most of those items are conditioned. I will note that by virtue of the number of um, units, uh, they end up with 12

units, which does trigger inclusionary zoning. So, anything less, fewer number of units would not provide for that. Um, at this point we don't know if they're planning to provide the units or do payment in L. My suspicion would be payment in loo. Um, but ultimately they make that determination when they would come in for a site plan more than one building on a lot um as part of the planning board review which will be required in addition to the conservation commission review um that will likely be required um based on the the ground disturbance that is proposed. This is within uh walking distance um to transit within our managed growth area. So encouraging greater density in these areas in terms of our long range plan and vision for the area of the city. Um ultimately um that is there really in front of you in terms of the comments I mentioned a lot of comments just around trees fencing um kind of typical pieces that you would see um reconciling across um ultimately there's nothing in here that um dictates changes to the design in terms of orientation. So if that's something the board wanted to explore that's not captured just to clarify in any of the conditions. Happy to answer questions. Thanks.

I'm guessing Mark doesn't have anything to do to you want to testify. Great. [laughter] Uh, is anybody online press star nine or raise your raise your hand function? I do have Raphael online. I'm not sure if he wants to. Oh, um, thank you. Um, just available for any questions. Thank you.

Okay, just keep yourself Don't mute yourself so it's easy for us. But that sounds good. Um, okay. Um, [clears throat] I'm ready to I think this is a good project. I think you benefit from the fact that literally next door is a um like 80s version of this but much less nice. So, this is definitely in line with sort of what's there. Um, yeah, '7s I guess. So, um, this is I think my biggest concern was sort of the blocking that sort of like we don't want it to we don't want the face of Milton to be sort of just a wall. So, I think the the Raphael's um sort of renderings to create like a front works really well. I think the city's suggestions to just add some more vegetation in the front to break that up even a little bit more. I think that that's in the recommendation. So, I think that's great. Um I don't have anything else. I think this is a really great project. There's good density for the city, but it'll be really nice, I think. And again, it's sort of an upgrade from what's there, but not different.

Uh board member Brahmoff, I have no comment. I agree with you on that. Board member Cortez.

True. to the chair. Um just one question perhaps to the staff uh regarding the uh interest uh between the two buildings. Is is is there something that could be a a line between the two uh the two uh uh buildings, the ones on the right, the ones on the so that vehicles, this is a safety issue. vehicles. We know that it would be vehicles coming in this side. Vehicles coming out is the other way. So you see an in and out. So by putting a Dan line between uh between that uh uh road or aisle.

Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Stripe. Stripe. Sorry to interrupt. Striping it. Yes. Yeah, that is correct. Yes. So to avoid you know cars coming you know avoiding cars coming on the left side and maybe someone coming in. So

sure I I can say generally speaking we find that in this type of development it's not necessary um you know striping actually encourages cars to go faster um based on on studies and in roads. So if you remove for example your center um you know dividing lane people actually don't know where what space is there. So they actually tend to slow down. So, as like a traffic control measure, there's studies that actually demonstrate that removing striping makes it safer. Um, on this is on streets. This is obviously a driveway, but kind of functionally would have the same effect. Since this is 20 ft, you know, your standard travel lanes like anywhere from like 10 to 12 feet wide if you're on a highway. Um, we think, you know, 20 ft is fine. That's our minimum standard for two-way traffic. So, it should be adequate to accommodate that. You know, our parking space, a compact space is like 8 ft wide and that's still got room. um nine feet wide, you know, again for another parking stall. So, if you can kind of imagine yourself in that space traveling through um we're not necessarily concerned about that. So, I'd say I'm not a traffic engineer, but I would guess that the that our DTM would recommend against that just given that component related to safety, but also just, you know, these types of areas don't even necessarily often need like a stop sign, you know, stop control. um just the way that the number of users and kind of the nature of the use isn't like you're in a commercial shopping plaza or it's like residents going to their house um you know and hopefully being courteous for their neighbors. Um there is a turnaround in the center if we go to the civil plan there's sort of a hammerhead at the end of the driveway which allows for um folks who might be you know backing out of the sort of parking space to be able to kind of turn around. you can see on the sort of top right hand corner. Um, and then there's also in the middle there um for a fire truck to be able to kind of back up um and not have to back out onto the street. There's a a turnaround. So, it would be kind of like a three-point turn. Um, and then that will be reviewed further through site plan as well. So, if if there is a concern related to that circulation, we can evaluate that through site plan. But, appreciate that.

I I I I would like I would like that. I think is is is really sort of a ideal in common for uh drivers to understand where they going and what they coming out. Thank you. Are you are you I'm putting that if if if he has if he has a problem or doesn't have a problem with that. I would have liked to have included as part of the job. I

Okay. So, I guess I' I'd say um let's let's talk about it because based on based on what the based on what Michelle said and um the study, I would actually not have us stripe it. So, I would love other people's thoughts about that. Um let's um so let's go to board member Barton Higgins. Um your general thoughts and then that thought about striping. Uh board member Sackle, then we'll come back to board member Brahma for myself. Uh board member Bart Hagen.

Chair. Uh, I just want to clarify that the applicant is okay with all of the conditions there. There aren't a small number of them and a lot of them have to do with some of the things that were mentioned as far as, you know, the dumpster and the turnaround and the extra trees and is the applicant okay with all of those? Uh, so with the exception of one G and it's only because we are not providing a dumpster. Uh the intent is to have the residents um they'll have their designated trash within the garage and they'll wheel it out to the end of their driveways come trash pickup day and we'll arrange for private trash pickup. So the applicants requesting removal of 1G because it's not applicable to Okay.

Correct.

Okay. Um, otherwise, yeah, I think I I was concerned as well with the with the just a blank wall, uh, if that was the side of the house, but I I am very encouraged by the rendering. Uh, that makes it appear that the side of the house looks like the front of the house is was driving by, which I think makes a huge difference because I think there would be some concerns if that weren't the case with the with your the way that you're orienting your buildings. I think that is a valid concern, but I think I think the way that this is handled here addresses a lot of those concerns for me at least. Um, and I do agree that planting extra trees uh on on Malden Street would also uh uh work and that's included in the condition. So, I think I think that's captured as well. Um, I would be against the striping. I don't think it's needed.

Thank you. Uh, board member Sako. Uh, no additional comment. I think this is a great project. Uh, do you have thoughts about the striping? I don't think it's necessary after hearing what Michelle said, too. Just um it's a very interesting study, too. I didn't know that, but um I take her word for it. Uh board member Brahma. No. Uh I I agree. I think Michelle came up with a good point and it's interesting study. So, okay, let's move on. Okay. Uh in that case, I'll take a motion to close. I'd like to make a motion to close on 12 Men Street. Is there a second? Second. My vote is yes. The motion to close. Board member Braov votes yes. Board member Cortez, yes. Board member Bart Heagen, yes. Board member Sacko, yes.

My votes yes. Is there a motion on 12 Mil Street? I'd like to make a mot 12 Malden Street.

On on 12 Malden Street, variance for relief of 3790 ft from the 36,000t minimum lot area requirements for a single family attached dwelling in the RL7 zone. variance for a l of 159 feet from the 300 foot minimum frontage requirements for a single family attached dwelling in the RL7 zone. Special permit to allow a single family attached dwelling in the RL7 zone. and a special permit to modify the parking dimensional layout and/or landscaping requirements, loading requirements, and/or the number of required parking spaces with the uh staff conditions on pages six and seven of 10 of the memo and the waiverss as actually you did request the waiverss. Yes. And the waiverss is requested by the applicant.

Uh is there a second? Uh excuse me, Mr. Chair, sorry. Just striking. Uh, excuse me. On striking condition 1g. Totally forgot. Thank you very much for catching that. Yes. Is there a second? So move. Uh, on the motion. Board member Brahmoff. My vote is yes. Board member Cortez. Yes. Board member Barnhagen. Yes. Board member Sacko. Yes. My votes yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Go Pats. Next up is 342 West Boilson Street.

Evening Mr. Chair. Again, for the record, Mark Borenstein chair at the law firm Prince Level here in Worcester representing the applicant. requesting an extension of time of 6 months for variances related to height and off streetet parking. The project uh I wouldn't say stalled but was in a pause over the last year due to some limited funding from the state but we're hopeful now that the project can move forward with um funding that hopefully will be available. So with that happy to answer any questions the board may have. Uh staff

through the chair for 342 West Boilson Street. The applicant is seeking an expens extension of time for this item. The original expiration date was February 11th of 2026. An extension of 6 months would make the new expiration date August 11th of 2026. I don't see anybody here. Is there anybody online? Okay. Uh, that sounds fine. Does anybody care to move forward? Like to make a motion to close the hearing. Is there a second? So move. All right. On the motion to close, board member Brahmoff. Yes. Board member Cortez, yes. Board member Barnhagen, yes. Board member Sacko, yes.

My votes, yes. Is there a motion on 342 West Boon Street? I'd like to make a motion on 342 West Boonson Street to extend the variance deadline by 6 months so that the new expiration date is August 11th, 2026. Is there a second? Second. On the motion, board member Brahmoff, yes. Board member Cortez, yes. Board member Barnhagen, yes. Board member Sacko, yes. My votes, yes. All right. Thank you. We do have something. Thank you. Uh we did not vote on the uh meeting deadlines and schedules. So we need to vote on it. Does anybody can uh Is everybody good with that? Make a motion to move it. There is someone with their hand raised. Um Oh, I'm not sure. We can go ahead and unmute them. I'm not sure if it was rel.

It's David Saddowski. Hi, Mr. Chairman. It's David Saddowski. I want to talk about a decision after this hearing gets over. Uh we don't do that. Um but if you would like to send a message to the planning uh the um an email to the planning with your thoughts um that is the way we can handle it legally.

What about a decision you might be signing tonight on uh something that was approved at the last meeting 2028? If you if you have if you if you have a concern, you have to bring it up for a reopening of the hearing or you have to um or uh so you you because we signed them, but we can't change them. We've already closed the hearing and voted on it. So, if you have concerns with it, you have to you have to basically reopen the hearing or or appeal or appeal it. So, if the wording is incorrect, I have to appeal the decision that's going to be signed. Is that correct? If the wording is different from what we agreed upon at the hearing, then you should email the planning division and they can fix it. That's the way to handle it.

All right, that's what I'll do. Thank you very much. No problem. Thank you. All right. Uh, we have to vote on the meeting schedule. Um, can I get a motion? Do we have a printed Excuse me. Do we have a printed copy of the meeting schedule through the chair? We more we I don't know if I have one physically right now. I can send one to the printer and grab it and hand it to you if that would help. Uh if if can you email me? Yeah, we can email it. Yeah, for sure. That would be great. Yep. Yeah, we'll we'll send it out via email to everybody again tomorrow. This is for um I I think Amy Beth, if I'm not mistaken, I think we actually mean 2027, not 2026. No. Oh, my fault. We will circulate that. But

let's not vote on it. Clarify. Yeah. What was supposed what we were looking for authorization on is 2027 so that we can move forward with like reserving the rooms and everything. You can send us both. Um we will we will re revisit both and we can hold this so that we don't have a we don't have everybody here. Is do we have minutes? I could I didn't check. I'm sorry. There were minutes from both the 29th and the 12th of January. Anybody has objections. Could we make a motion on them? No objection. All right. Can somebody make a motion for the approval of minutes for Make a motion to approve the minutes from December 29th, 2025 and January 12th, 2026. Um, on the motion, board member Brahmoff, uh, do I have to second it? Oh, second. I did second. Second. Yeah. Board off.

I wasn't at the 20 the December 29th. So, my vote is yes, except the January. We'd have to take them apart. Do you want us to take them apart? No. I mean, you don't need to do it. I was just comfortable. It's simple. It's fine. All right. Uh, board member Cortez, yes. Board member Barnhagen, yes. Board member Sacko, yes. My votes, yes. Uh, I'll take a motion to adjurnn. I'd like to make a motion to adjurnn the meeting. Vote on, um, elections. We don't have everyone here again. Okay. Uh, all to adjurnn. All right. All in favor? I. All right. Great.