Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

OKAY, WE'RE ALL HERE. SO LET'S GET STARTED. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. WELCOME TO THE WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2026 MEETING IN THE CITY OF WOOSTER PLANNING BOARD. MY NAME IS ALBERT LAVALLE. I'LL CHAIR TONIGHT'S MEETING. BEFORE WE BEGIN, A COUPLE OF BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENTS CONCERNING HOW OUR MEETING WILL PROCEED TONIGHT. FIRST OF ALL, CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME?

NOT REALLY.

THE AUDIO HASN'T BEEN GREAT LATELY.

IS THIS ANY BETTER?

OKAY. THERE WE GO. SO AS I WAS SAYING, MY NAME IS ALBERT LAVALLE. I'LL CHAIR TONIGHT'S MEETING. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENTS CONCERNING HOW THE MEETING WILL GO BEFORE WE BEGIN. SO FIRST THING TO KNOW, ALL OUR MEETINGS ARE IN A HYBRID FORMAT, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN Yeah, if folks need additional agendas, we can print some, but it's really just the order of business, and it will be on a slide in a minute if that helps. Okay, so as I was saying, tonight's meeting is a hybrid meeting as are all our meetings. You can participate either in person here at City Hall or online by going to worcestermath.zoomgov.com slash j slash 1617314979 or by calling in at 669-254-5252 and entering access code 1617314979 followed by the pound sign. To manage remote participation during our hybrid meetings and prevent disruptions, all participants are automatically blocked from unmuting themselves, turning on their video, or sending chat messages. For remote participants who would like to comment on an item on our agenda, we ask that you use the raise your hand feature in Zoom during the discussion on that item. If you are joined by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star nine. Staff will then unmute callers or folks online one by one. which gives them permission to unmute themselves. You can do that in the Zoom app with a little red microphone, or if you're joined by phone, that will be by pressing star six. Next, I note this is a public meeting, which is both being broadcast and recorded. Minutes will also be taken and published at a later date. To help with that process, we ask all speakers participating in person to please use a microphone and to please clearly identify yourself each time you speak. And the first time you speak, please also state your city or town of residence for the record. You don't have to give your whole address, just city or town of residence. 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. THERE ARE A COUPLE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA THAT ARE GOING TO BE POSTPONED TONIGHT. I'LL READ THROUGH THOSE SHORTLY. IF YOU'RE HERE ON ONE OF THOSE ITEMS, PLEASE NOTE NO ADDITIONAL NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO YOU PRIOR TO THE NEXT MEETING. BEST THING TO DO IS CALL THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THE DAY PRIOR TO OR THE DAY OF THE NEXT MEETING TO CONFIRM IF THAT ITEM WILL BE HEARD OR POSTPONED THAT NIGHT. It is not uncommon for items to be postponed multiple times before they're heard by this board. Once an item is called, there'll be a brief presentation of 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 that item before we proceed to board discussion and action. All applicants should be aware that approvals are generally conditional. Decisions are generally signed by the board at the next meeting and, where appropriate, filed with the city clerk the following day, which is what begins any appeals periods. Decisions are typically not released to the applicant until all conditions of approval have been satisfactorily addressed. It is the applicant's responsibility to address conditions of approval, and a lack of doing so may result in delays or enforcements. Applicants are asked to please call the planning division if they have any questions. Moving into continuances. FOR TONIGHT. SO ITEM NUMBER ONE, ZERO CHESTER STREET, A DEFINITIVE SITE PLAN. THE REQUEST IS TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC MEETING TO MARCH 11, 2026, AND EXTEND THE CONSTRUCTIVE GRANT DEADLINE TO APRIL 2, 2026. Item number two, zero Farrington Street, a definitive site plan and 81G Street opening. The request is to continue the public meeting to March 11, 26 and extend the constructive grant deadline to April 2, 26. And item number four, 112 and 116 Rodney Street, a definitive site plan amendment. The request is to continue the public meeting to March 11, 26 and extend the constructive grant deadline to April 2, 26. Is there a motion on the continuances?

Make a motion to continue items one, two, and four. Can you please either turn your mic on or move it closer to speak up?

Thank you so much.

Is there a second on the motion? I second the motion. This doesn't sound any better. Does that help? A little bit, but not much. I can hear myself really well. How about now? Thank you. Okay. So on the motion, which is for some continuances and postponements, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. That motion passes 5-0. We'll move into new business. My understanding is most folks in the audience are here on item number 14, 1 and 3 Suburban Road. Is that true? Can you all raise your hand if you are? Yeah. So the vast majority of folks are here on that. We're going to hear that item first tonight. Go a little bit out of order. So that's item 14, 1 and 3 Suburban Road. This will be a public hearing for a zoning map amendment. Come on up.

Good evening. My name is Jim Lambert. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I'm the managing director for Wood Partners. My attorney, Josh Lee Smith, I think is virtual and is going to start the discussion. I hope he's there.

Josh, if you're on, it might be helpful if you could raise your hand so that staff can find you. And I think it's star six if you're on your phone.

Hello, can folks hear me? We can. Okay, excellent. Thank you, Michelle. I think you are the one who got me into the meeting. I do want to show my video so that you can see me. And Michelle, maybe perhaps that also needs to be enabled. But

Through the chair, we typically disable that feature due to Zoom bomb issues. I can try to do that, but unfortunately I think if I do it for you, I have to do it for everyone else.

Oh, really? Okay, Michelle, I didn't. It's been a while since I've done this virtually. So, okay, fine, no problem. Hopefully you recognize my voice. I am Joshua Lee Smith. I'm outside counsel for Wood Partners. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Apologize, I'm not able to be there this evening in person. I'm traveling out of town. As you mentioned, Mr. Chair, this is what we are requesting here is a, this is a petition for a zone change. I'd like to start by, and I'm trying to see, Michelle, if the video was being shown, it looks like an outline of the property. Is that right? Do you have our slide deck? or Michelle, why don't we start with the zoning map here? That's fine, I'll start here. Mr. Chair, as you'd mentioned, we are seeking a zone change with respect to this property. This is a multi-acred site. It is split zoned. It consists of the majority, one parcel. However, there is another parcel located closer to the south near Highland Street, which is also part of this property as well. It is split zone currently the vast majority of the site is within the RG5 as shown here in the solid yellow. What we are proposing quite simply is a conversion of the portion that is labeled here as RS7 to convert that to RG5 as in part The city typically likes to have parcels more uniform with respect to zoning districts. Part of the outcome of an approved zone change would allow for uniformity and contiguity. Right now, the site itself is split zoned, but the neighborhood as well is sort of a hodgepodge of different zoning districts. So, for example, to the north, the properties to the north are in the RS-10 district. And then you've got the RG-5 portion of the site. And the RS7 portion of the site, as shown, is actually somewhat of a bridge between two sides connecting the east and the west, making up the RS7. So a lot of the driver for this is to provide some uniformity and contiguity with respect to the zoning districts. This would also, as well, in terms of RS7, and RG5. The RG5 allows for multifamily use. The RS7 does not. And Jim Lambert, in just a moment, is going to provide a brief overview of a potential project that would involve multifamily use. So that's the underlying reason as well for uh the map change uh i did want to say that um we we have um met with the neighbors um uh we've we've met with a number of neighbors uh both one-on-one and uh as we've had a group session as well uh we've had um some discussions with uh the ward councillor as well uh councillor economo to discuss this project. We've also had some discussions with Colin Novak, Executive Director of the Greater Worcester Land Trust, and we see a lot of opportunity for this site, for this project. So with that, I promise to be brief. I'm going to hand it over to Jim Lambert. Jim?

Thank you, Josh. Michelle, if you don't mind flipping to the next sheet, please. So again, Jim Lambert from Wood Partners. Some of you may know us. We were the developers of Alta on the Row, the project off of Shrewsbury Street on Mount Carmel Way. You can see off of 290 just for some context of who we are. We've had a great experience in our time here in Worcester on our first investment, and we're very excited to be here again proposing this project that we're discussing tonight. As you know, the city is in need of continued development of more housing, and we think this location would be a great one to help advance that housing need. So what you're looking at on the screen right now is what we're calling an as-of-right plan. And just to reiterate what Josh had just said, this is a conceptual proposal at this point in time. Obviously, a lot of design FURTHER ENDS WILL HAVE TO GO INTO THIS IF THE PROJECT MOVES FORWARD, BUT WE WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE'RE THINKING FOR THIS SITE, BOTH AS IT'S ZONED TODAY AND IF THE ZONING CHANGE WERE TO GO THROUGH. So I think it's cut off on the top, but what you're seeing right now is a conceptual as of right site plan. And what you see at the sort of the bottom of the screen where you would come in off of Highland Street up on Suburban Road, you would take a right into what would be created as a new entrance into this development. It is contemplated right now for five multi-family buildings and a smaller clubhouse amenity management building with some outdoor amenities that you see there in yellow. These are four-story buildings. The parking is surrounding throughout the site, what we would call surface parked. And this plan right now shows 264 multi-family apartment buildings. TO THE NORTH, THAT PIECE THAT IS CURRENTLY RS7, THAT IS WHAT IS BEING SHOWN RIGHT NOW IS BY ZONING WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED WHICH IS 25 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THOSE HOMES WOULD BE IN A SUBDIVISION THAT WOULD ENTER AND EXIT OFF OF HAVELAND STREET. SO THAT AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT CONCEPTUALLY COULD BE BUILT TODAY UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING IN EACH OF THE PORTIONS OF THE LAND. Michelle, if you don't mind flipping to the next. Thank you. On this sheet is what we are trying to accomplish with the zoning amendment. And what this does is it's slightly different in terms of the number of units. So this would be a 288 unit concept plan, same four-story multi-buildings. This would be six residential buildings instead of five. But I think most importantly, what you'll see is on the northern portion of the site, the single family development goes away. IN THIS PLAN. BY HAVING THAT PORTION BE REZONED RG5 WE CAN SPREAD THE DEVELOPMENT OUT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER UP OVER THAT DIVIDE RIGHT NOW WHERE THE PARKING IN A STORM WATER BASIN IS SHOWN AND I THINK WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO EXPRESS TONIGHT MOST IMPORTANTLY IS If this were to go forward under this proposed plan, what we're willing to do is take the undeveloped portion of the site to the north and restrict that for future development. We've had discussions about how to do that. Our proposal is that portion of land to the north would be, again, restricted in perpetuity, whether that was through the conservation or a deed restriction. I don't know yet. We're talking about ways to do that. But that's the tradeoff that we're proposing to make. That will end up being, again, this is conceptual, but that section of the land will end up being somewhere in the three to four acre range that we would be willing to basically not touch. in the future. So that's really the quick overview of it. I'm of course happy to answer questions, but I know we're here talking mostly about the zoning, but wanted to give the context of why we're requesting that zoning change.

OK, thank you for that. Could you just clarify unit counts again? So in the as of right plan versus the contemplated second plan?

Sure. So in the as of right plan, we're showing 264 units of multifamily housing and 25 single-family homes. And then in this plan on the screen right now, with the zoning change enacted, we have 288 multifamily units and zero single-family homes.

So it's essentially the same unit count?

288 versus 289. It's about the same unit count collectively, correct? Okay. It's just more condensed in this second plan.

Understood. Thank you. Additional comments on this from city staff?

Sure, through the chair. This is Michelle Smith in the planning division. Hopefully folks can hear me. No? You can't hear me? I don't know. Cable services, are you able to up the... Is that better? Great okay so my name is Michelle Smith I work in the city's planning division and in front of the board here tonight we're considering a zoning map amendment so I'm just going to back out before I jump in. Zoning map amendments are not about a specific proposal so if we could actually go back to one of the slides that just shows The change, the board, the planning board here is making a recommendation to city council. So they don't decide anything tonight. They just make a recommendation. There are multiple other steps in this process. Should that recommendation be favorable or unfavorable, it will go to the economic development subcommittee for a separate hearing, which has a similar process in terms of notice. So I just want to clarify this as one step in many for moving this petition forward before I jump in. So this is just that recommendation to city council. And again, it's not about a specific proposal. It's about whether the property should be zoned this way. And that allows for a whole suite of potential different uses, which I'll get into as compared to today versus what's proposed. Just to quickly explain, the areas that you see with the black lines and the hatching here are the areas that are proposed to be changed to essentially extend this bright yellow area in the middle of the screen onto the rest of the properties here that are shown. So those are the properties at 1 and 3 Suburban Road, and I believe it's... 310 Highland Street, this tiny little space down here in the bottom left corner. I might have the address wrong. But the area that's proposed to be affected by this change that has been requested is about seven and three quarter acres. And it includes these properties here. So today this is zoned RS7. The RS7 zoning district is our second least dense zoning district. So that means that we only allow single family homes in this district. Lot area requirement, the seven, denotes 7,000 square feet that's required for a given lot size. And we have a variety of other dimensional requirements, but we generally only contemplate single family uses. So it's a little bit problematic to compare across uses because they're not contemplated anything other than a single family. The RG5, which is the district that's proposed, allows all the range of residential uses that we have in the city by right, meaning there's no special permission to use the property for that purpose. It doesn't mean that there's not an approval process for a large project, but it just means that the use is allowed and that's out of the question. We're looking at other factors as a project develops. In terms of the RG5, when I mentioned the variety of different uses, I mean things like duplexes, townhouses, three families, or multi-families. And those can be low-rise or high-rise. A low-rise structure by our zoning code just means that it's three stories or less. a high rise means it's four stories or more so in rg5 all of those uses are allowed without any special permission as compared to the existing zone that only allows single family homes in terms of setbacks or dimensional requirements the things that guide where we place buildings and and how those can be oriented on a lot the rs7 zoning district generally has slightly more conservative requirements if you compare strictly based on a single family use or based on our other permitted category, which, again, there isn't a direct comparison because it doesn't contemplate something like a multifamily or a three-family. In the RG5 zone, the setbacks that we have are typically 15 feet in the front, 8 to 15 feet in the rear, and on each side, 8 to 10 feet. For comparison of what exists today, those setbacks are a little bit different. So in the existing zoning, you would see a 20 foot front setback and a 20 foot rear setback. Side setbacks would generally be eight feet. And again, that's for a single family, the use that's primarily considered. One of the big differences is because in a RS-7 zone, we really only contemplate single families. Most uses, essentially single families, are limited to two and a half stories or 35 feet in height. as compared to the RG5 district, where the most intense potential use of a multifamily high rise is allowed up to eight stories or 90 feet in height. So they are pretty dramatically different, but we don't have a great gradient of different uses, unfortunately, in our zoning code. We have a lot of very low density single family, and then essentially all of the density in the RG5. So those are some big differences that I just want to highlight for folks. I'm going to talk a little bit now about the history of the zoning for the property, which is actually interesting because it has changed over time. So our oldest maps that we have access to date back to 1971, our zoning maps. And at that time, the parcel was actually zoned RG5. So this property had the zoning that they are proposing here. historically going back in time. It was RG5 in 1971 and it stayed RG5 until 1987. In 1987, a small portion, essentially the first block of Highland Street, that whole area was also part of the RG5 zone. So in 1987, that actually got pulled back one block. So that tiny little parcel that you see, the black little Oklahoma kind of shape there, that was actually changed in 1987. The rest of the property stayed. The rear part that we're talking about predominantly stayed in this RG5 zone until 1999. At that point, There had been a change in the Hammond Heights neighborhood which was historically zoned RL7. It changed to RS7 and at that time essentially that came and extended over and across and connected To the the West where you see the you might be able to read it. It says RS 7 on that top left in blue So this property has been our g5 in the past, but it hasn't been that way since the late 1990s in terms of the use in the area folks who are here are familiar and I'm sure most of the board members are familiar that we're north of Highland and west of Park Ave just on the fringe of the Hammond Heights neighborhood and So you have Haviland bounded to the right-hand side here of the screen, and then Highland to the south, and then the kind of bow you see is Suburban Road. So across the street, we have Doherty High, and generally speaking, the neighborhood is comprised of mostly single-family homes with some two-families and three-families interspersed and some multi-families, particularly along the Highland Street corridor. We also have some open space and institutional uses in the general vicinity. In terms of historic land use, we do have some old files for this property. Obviously the high rise tower that you see on Suburban Road today, it was constructed back in 1965. And through the late 1980s, there were actually proposals from the owner at the time to develop another 380 some odd units. For whatever reason, the owner chose in the 90s to proceed with a change in the zoning and actually came in with a subdivision plan for 19 lots and then backed out of that and dropped that down to 14 lots. But the planning board back in the 1990s did approve a definitive subdivision plan, which would create 14 lots and about 1,600 feet of roadways. So there was a road that went and connected to Haviland Street and then connected south to connect to suburban road in that plan. That's since expired, but just a little context about the development history for the property. I will also note that in early 2024, the Historic Commission did vote to study a local historic district in the Hammond Heights neighborhood, which is the neighborhood that's generally off to the east here. And we would, while the study is still underway, we would expect that the study report will make a recommendation to include Essentially the first block, if you kind of imagine where the backyards of all of the houses on Haviland are, kind of continuing that north up along the kind of parcel boundary that we have there, which hopefully my colleague can highlight so you can kind of see that wooded section of the parcel that's essentially the first lot deep. off Haviland. So most likely that recommendation would come back to establish that portion of the property within that district were that district to be established, which is a separate process, but just want to clarify. since some folks might be aware of that and curious about that. In terms of the change and its alignment with our long-range plan, our comprehensive plan or master plan, as you might have heard terms used, this property is mostly located within a managed growth area, which means that there's a transit corridor within a walk shed, so we call that a quarter mile, and basically the transit corridor being Highland Street because there's transit along Highland Street. And so we want to, as a community, we decided we wanted to encourage housing density within walking distance of transit. And so as part of that managed growth areas in the city have recommendations in the long range plan to allow for increases in density to help facilitate housing production. But I will note that the kind of rear portion of the property, a large portion of that is within just sort of our background or baseline growth area. And I do want to note that these kind of areas were defined more generally. It was not a parcel by parcel analysis, but more kind of corridor specific and looking at geographic areas rather than looking at every single parcel and picking and choosing where they would best align. So I'm happy to talk more, but hopefully that gives the board some information to go off of and that helps folks understand what the board's considering here this evening.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Smith. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM OTHER MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF? HEARING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. JUST FOR FOLKS IN THE ROOM, THE WAY WE TYPICALLY DO THIS IS You sort of raise your hand and come up. You use one of these microphones up here. We'll let folks in the room speak first. We ask, you know, there's a lot of people here. You may all want to speak, so please don't repeat other comments that folks have made. But by all means, and once folks in the room are done speaking, if there's anyone online, we'll give them the opportunity to speak as well. So who would like to go first? All right, you, then you.

Have you purchased the property already?

Ma'am, you have to address your questions for me, sorry.

Have they purchased the property already?

And I have to refer to them. Sure, through the chair. No, we haven't. We have an option to purchase.

Okay. And what neighbors did you meet with? Because I live on Haviland Street and I got no notice and a number of my neighbors got no notice about this. It feels like you handpicked people.

Through the councilor, there was a group of neighbors that we met with a couple of weeks ago. I don't have the list of the names.

How did you determine why wasn't the neighborhood generally notified?

One of the reasons you have to address it to me is it's not supposed to be combative. Got it.

how come the neighborhood in general was not notified and this first awareness that a lot of us had either was by receiving a zoning notice or reading the newspaper on Monday. telling us what the zoning options were. So I'm curious. It feels like they were hand-picked versus giving everyone an opportunity to meet with the people that are making...

an interested offer in this space i i can answer that actually i i think that the first thing to recognize is that this is a many-stepped process so um this company they come in they get an option on the land uh that's sort of step one um and there's probably even a few steps to that uh they're gonna reach out to the city councilor it sounds like city councilor might have known some folks in the neighborhood might have done things informally They're just looking for some general feedback. And then you get to a series of this, which is a public hearing where exactly like you're describing, everybody has to get notice in the mail. And it also, I guess, goes in the newspaper.

No, I spoke with the reporter this afternoon. He found out about it secondhand as well.

Okay, I know a lot of the local reporters sort of pay attention to the planning board site, but here's what I really want you to understand. So tonight, all we're doing is having a public meeting. You folks can come in, share your opinions, ask your questions. If we recommend, sort of regardless of what we do, honestly, we're supposed to make a recommendation to city council, but whether we recommend for or against, they do the same thing. So our recommendation, eh. This goes to then the city council who sends it to the economic development subcommittee.

Mm-hmm.

who has another public hearing, which will have also opportunity for folks who maybe aren't aware even tonight that this is going on to come and speak. You can also go and speak at that. And what I would tell you is that the politicians who make up the Economic Development Subcommittee, they're the ones that are going to actually be deciding this.

I see.

Should they recommend it? It goes back to city council. City council is the authority to act on a zoning change.

Got it. Um, the, uh, Property, it sounds like there are two options that this company's proposing, if I understood correctly. One is to build some single-family housing units in that space. The other is to build a multi-unit apartment complex. Or were they just describing that the single-family homes that could go in that space was... One of the options that space was zoned for are they only interested in building this multi-unit complex and is that complex rentals or co-ops or condos I Can I think answer most of those two so they showed us two plans it's important to note that they're not committing to either of those plans at this point and

when they get to that stage, should they get there, they have to come back before this board for what's called a site plan approval. So at that point is when we really weigh in on, hey, does this building go here? Is this the right number of units, et cetera? All we're deciding right now In this whole process, when I say we, I don't mean me. I mean city council. All city council is going to decide in a zoning change is whether or not allowing that type of use is appropriate for that area. To answer your specific question, though, they showed two plans. One plan was what's known as as of right, as in the zoning that exists today. Right there. They would still need site plan approval. They'd need a subdivision approval, but they could do this with existing zoning. That's this one. which has both. It has the multifamily building and the subdivision, the individual homes. And they said, listen, we can do that. It's going to be the same number of units. Or if you'll let us change the zoning, this is their conversation with Worcester. If you'll let us change the zoning, we're going to do this plan, which is the same number of units. just in a smaller area, and will donate the excess land or somehow restrict it from being further developed. There's a couple ways they can do that, and they're not saying which one they're going to do. Does that make sense? That's correct.

So back to, are those units, regardless if they're using the existing zoning and or THE CHANGE, ARE THOSE GOING TO BE RENTALS OR PROPERTY THAT PEOPLE CAN BUY?

PROBABLY BOTH. IN THE CASE OF THE SUBDIVISION, I IMAGINE THOSE ARE FOR SALE UNITS.

YEAH, I MEAN, WE WOULDN'T HAVE DECIDED THAT EITHER. THEY COULD POTENTIALLY BE BILLED TO RENT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, BUT MORE LIKELY THEY WOULD BE FOR SALE. IT HASN'T BEEN DECIDED YET. BUT FOR SURE THE MULTI-FAMILY OR RENTALS, YES.

So I feel that, first off, I feel that there's a big problem in that neighborhood with traffic problems that we had a meeting about just a week ago today at Doherty High School because they're looking to reconfigure Highland Street from Park Avenue to Newton Square. And we are already dealing with significant traffic flow problems and a lack of care for the residents in the neighborhood addressing those problems. And even with the reconfiguration that they're discussing, still doesn't resolve the issue. excessive amount of traffic we have and a failure of the city to enforce the existing traffic rules that they've set up. So, for example, on Haviland Street, it's resident parking only. We have a lot of parents sitting there running their engines for an hour in illegal parking spots where it's even saying don't park forget whether you're resident or not and nobody's addressing even simple things like that we have a big problem with traffic incoming and outgoing during school pickup and drop off and then because it's one of the major arteries that goes east to west with a huge problem during rush hour for people and this is adding This is adding to the problem. I'm also deeply concerned about an outside company coming in and renting property and not allowing for ownership or not building affordable housing. when the highland house was built they had made a promise to our neighborhood that they would leave that property untouched much like i'm hearing now and they've never kept that promise they've continually whoever's owned the property for significant periods We've been in and out of this zoning room and in and out of court with them trying to not abide by the promises that they made to our neighborhood. And I also think putting an egress or exit street on Haviland Street does not in any way resolve The problem, if you go to Haviland Street in the morning before school starts, it's backed up all the way up the hill. Good luck getting out of your driveway when school is trying to start. So I don't think the neighborhood supports this, but if it did, I would be more interested in having some affordable housing built that was for sale for people to be able to go into instead of luxury rental apartment buildings with no regulation about how much they could jack up the prices. And a landlord that does not live here, is not part of this community, is just looking to make money off the people in this community without any more contribution than paying off the city with some tax dollars. That does not support the community in a meaningful way, in my opinion.

Thank you for your comments.

ma'am do you do you just mind stating your name and city of town of residence for the record do you mind just stating your name and city of residence for the record my name my name is sarah um simsarian i live at 10 haviland street thank you sarah uh just for folks that helps us with uh minutes that's why we asked for that um i believe there was a uh oh okay come on up

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know folks in the back are going to ask you to hold that microphone as close as you can because we're having audio problems.

You got it. My name is Tony Economou. I'm the District 1 City Councilor. I represent this area. And thank you for having us here this evening. Thank you for hearing this. And I would ask that you just please indulge me a few moments as I go through a few things here. that I think are important to be heard. It may not have any bearing on what we're looking at tonight, but I want the people to understand the process as we go forward, as you had explained. And if I may, through the chair, just answer some of the questions this young woman had here as how this all came about, if that's okay with you, Mr. Chairman.

Go ahead.

Mr. Chairman, so through the chair to this young lady, the way this all came about was I was asked to gather some local leaders from the neighborhood groups. So Hammond Heights and Saxon Road are the two abutting neighborhood groups. So I just called on a couple of the leaders from each group, and that's how we ended up meeting at, I forget the name of the church, on Pleasant Street with this gentleman here to go over what's being proposed. That's how that all came about. Pardon? There's several churches on Pleasant Street. Yeah, down by Park Ave. It's set back. I forget the name. Blessed Sacrament. Thank you. I'm sorry. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to explain that. Again, thank you for hearing me this evening. I want to talk about the requested zoning change and what the downhill effects of that change may be. I'm going to start with the obvious, and it's been said already, is traffic. Last week we just had a meeting with the Department of Transportation and Mobility in regards to Highland Street, Newton Square, how that could be reimagined and how that could work. with this being added into it. In my opinion, when a traffic study is requested on this project, if that's part of the approval process, I believe this is a traffic study that needs to go as far as Salisbury Street, Flag Street, Richmond Ave, Pleasant Street, Highland Street, Park Ave, and every street in between. What happens here is gonna affect every street in between because all those streets in between are currently cut through streets. Do I think there should be a traffic light at Highland and Suburban Road? Absolutely, without question. There's also sidewalks there that are not complete and those should be completed as well as part of any kind of zone change here as there are many people who walk that neighborhood. I'm sure as we go through the process, there'll be wetlands and EPA guidelines that would come into play and even conservation requirements. I know this will all come forward as the process moves down the road. When we get to the zone change, I guess my biggest question is, without having an actual plan of what is being proposed, and how much additional land the developer would be seeking in that zone change area I feel a blanket zone change is maybe very aggressive. I would like to see, if it were me, I would like to see the exact plan of what is going to be proposed, what it's going to look like, exactly how much land would be needed to be taken in that zone change to accommodate what they're asking to accommodate. I GUESS IF I WAS IN YOUR SEAT, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE IF I WAS IN YOUR SEAT EXACTLY HOW THAT REMAINING LAND WOULD BE ANNEXED. HOW WOULD IT BE HELD IN CONSERVATION? WOULD IT BE THROUGH A DEED RESTRICTION? WOULD IT BE THROUGH, I KNOW YOU SAID YOU HAD SPOKEN THROUGH THE CHAIR WITH COLIN IN REGARDS TO THE LAND TRUST. I feel those are all accurate things that people would need to know if this were to go forward. I don't have control over your vote, but I can tell you this, as this continues through the process, through city council, through the chamber, through our chamber here down the hall, and through economic development subcommittee, and then back to the council, and all the other various meetings in between, I would certainly be at the forefront of this project and keeping a very close eye on it. So I just ask you to take these things into consideration as we move down the road here in this neighborhood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Thank you, Counselor. Who would like to go next? How about you, sir?

my name is chris como i'm in 286 highland street so i direct the butter on the highland side and i realize this is just about the zoning change but i feel like keeping it the way it is has less likelihood of stormwater stormwater runoff issues i think there's more likely to have issues if the zoning is changed or the impact on the wetlands and traffic parking and noise for the neighbors i also feel is less likely to have an impact if it's not changed with the change i feel that makes it more likely that those things will have an impact From seeing the presentation and the alternate plan, I read that as kind of a threat of, hey, if you don't change the zoning, here's the plan we're going to push for, which is going to put really disrupt Haviland Street. It doesn't seem practical. Like, there's hills back there. I just don't like the way that was presented. So just wanted to throw that comment on there. Mr. Economo had mentioned downhill effects, and I have particular concern on that with any change going on in that property because I'm currently not downhill of it, but I think if they do what they need to do to control stormwater runoff, it goes towards me, and then I will have to deal with the downhill effects.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you for your comments. How about you back there?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Ruth Seward. I live on Suburban Road in Worcester. I wanted to talk about trees. It's something that I don't really do now, but I did for many years with the City of Worcester. I helped repopulate trees in the Burncoat area. I just wanted to say, upzoning for the purpose of development is ultimately an invitation to cut down trees. And when you look at the plan that was proposed, there's a lot of trees in the area that obviously will be cut down. The choice of upzoning so close to where a huge number of trees were already lost for the construction of Dougherty High School would not protect a very important and increasingly scarce natural resource and would not uphold the stated purpose of the current Worcester zoning ordinance. Between 2008 and 2015, Worcester's elected officials were alarmed due to the extreme loss of tree cover in the Burncoat neighborhood. The culprit was the Asian longhorn beetle, as we all remember, an invasive pest that had traveled here as a result of wood packaging that was not treated. The introduction of the pest was accidental, but it resulted in over 30,000 trees being cut down in the city, mostly in one neighborhood. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent to get rid of the pest and repopulate the urban canopy. While burn code has improved from its devastating loss, it has not fully recovered. It takes decades to regrow large canopy trees. Studies in Burncoat show that the urban heat island effect became extreme in this neighborhood, with temperatures rising between 1.8 to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit. In the scientific article, Effects of Urban Tree Canopy Loss on Land Service Temperature, Magnitude, and Timing, conducted by Clark University professors and other state and federal scientists, the conclusion is clear. Quote, urban areas experience elevated temperatures relative to surrounding non-urbanized areas due to the alteration of land cover in what is known as the urban heat island. Trees provide critical benefits to all wildlife and humans. They produce oxygen, they filter pollutants, particles, they mitigate flooding, they reduce temperatures, they protect from wind, and they reduce noise. They are beautiful and they are calming, especially within an urban setting. In spite of these extremely useful provisions, Worcester, like many cities in the U.S., continues to cut down trees in the name of progress. Another Clark University study reported a startling statistic that exactly at the same time Burncoat was suffering a staggering loss of trees, the rest of Worcester lost even more trees due to development. And the development has not slowed down. With regards to Three Suburban Road and the sprawling apartment building plan that has been unveiled, acres of trees will be lost, temperatures will immediately rise, creating heat island effect which ultimately will have effects in the entire city. If the simple loss of acres of tree canopy were not bad enough, on this lot we have acres of trees holding together loose soils and garbage. The ground literally is tree roots. Without the trees, there would be a huge reduction in the water retentive capacity of this land, creating a flooding risk to nearby areas. Though perhaps a developer could replace the volume of ground loss to tree roots on unbuilt land, the existing homes would be at risk for collapse as the dead tree roots rot and the ground around them shrinks away. There could also be a risk to our air and our groundwater, as tree roots would no longer be preventing the loose urban fill from descending or surfacing during frost hues. And when you look at the city map, the city denotes this as a wetland, and trees obviously pull up water in their roots, and that would be lost. My final comment is recklessly deleting trees from a residential neighborhood in a city known for its extreme canopy loss is not good planning. Doing so in an area with unstable and potentially contaminated ground is a public safety issue. Because of this, we request that you deny the petition for the RG5 up zone. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, may I comment?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment? I suggest just waiting until the end. Would you like to speak, sir? You? Yes, you.

Fred Nathan Worcester, let me just say I don't even live in this particular district. I live in the Tatanik area. However, I did not go to the meeting last week dealing with the traffic pattern of the Highland Street area. the rotary but i understand that they want so the way you approach uh the rotary nowadays two lanes they want to limit it down to one lane that's one problem um i understand that with this housing you want to put there that they're 288 units is that correct Okay, so there might be some people who might have one car. There might be some other people who might have two cars. So basically, if everyone has at least one car that's going to live there, you're talking anywhere from 288 cars to over 500 more cars. And if they reconfigure Newton Square down to one lane, at the wrong time of the day it might take you 45 minutes to get from suburban in highland street to park ave or to get up to maybe richmond ave at some point as you want to put housing in here there has to be some common sense way to do it i'm not on the board obviously and i'm happy i'm not because that would be a tough one because Everyone has a right to live someplace. And I heard someone before comment about some sort of affordable housing. So I understand this. Now, I know I'm not talking entirely about affordable housing. was mentioned but i understand that the the term affordable housing is housing that is that costs roughly 1100 a month that's the baseline i don't know if that's true or false but that's another question for another topic so just wanted to throw those items out there thank you for your comments um

Folks, just kind of a general point here. I do understand that there's a lot of related issues that come up when we start to think about a potential project on the site. In many respects, the developer kind of by saying what they intend to do is inviting those comments now rather than later. JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR AS BOARD TONIGHT WE ARE MERELY DISCUSSING THE ZONING CHANGE AND AT THAT WE ARE ONLY MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. We'd like to just keep our comments as focused as possible on that item if we can. Sorry, please go ahead.

Katie Silverstein, Worcester. And I will try to keep it related to the zoning. I have some interesting points to make about this land.

In relation to the zoning, I promise.

My neighbors and I are here tonight to argue that a zoning change on the part of land at Three Suburban Road, currently designated as RS7, would increase the size of an already discontiguous spot zone and would not uphold the conditions set forth in the current Worcester zoning ordinance. I'd like to start by addressing the developer's plans, albeit preliminary plans, should the RG5 rezone be granted. As was mentioned by the district counselor, they are asking for an upzone of the entire area, yet are claiming that they will later commit to some sort of conservation restriction on much of it. This type of upzoning to later downzone makes a mockery of the zoning code and of the concept of zoning in general. We are not here today to look at plans. We are here to talk about a zoning change from single family residential to general residential and the high density builds that could accompany it whether or not they are shown in a drawing. Any underutilized space promised as some kind of benefit is a distraction and irrelevant to determining if RG5 is the best use of the entire parcel. In the case of a zoning change, the burden of proof rests on the petitioner to demonstrate that the change would serve the public interest. The developer has not shown such benefit. Nowhere in the zoning ordinance does it list anything related to offering a developer flexibility in drawing plans, nor anything about increasing the value of land to facilitate a real estate transaction. nor anything about catering to a particular developer's preference for constructing multi-family apartment buildings. And since these items are not in there, we must look at the factors relevant to the proposed zoning change that the ordinance does list. Does upzoning this area uphold the health and safety of not only abutters, but of students attending Doherty High, Midland Elementary Schools, and the Chabad Lubavitch Yeshiva, children who play in Duffy Field, or the many who daily pass by the site on foot or by car? Does upzoning this area promote the preservation of historically or architecturally significant land uses? Does upzoning this area protect natural resources? Would an upzone pose no additional risk of flood or of fire? Would essentially tripling the housing capacity of seven and three-quarter acres have minimal effect on traffic, on schools? Would high-density development encourage the preservation of the existing single-family homes in the area, as well as the Highland West apartments, which we know are serving to meet a current housing need? The petitioner has shown little interest in investigating any of this, but the answer to each of these questions is no. I'd like to pose one more practical question. Why is it that there is a 16 and a half acre undeveloped lot surrounded on all sides by populated neighborhoods? As was noticed, someone has previously thought to build here before. Why has nothing happened? To begin to answer why this site has largely been left alone for the 140 years since the Hammond farm was first subdivided, we have to delve deeper than title research and deed restrictions. Prior to the 20th century, the land at and around Three Suburban Road was called Pete Meadow. That's what first caught my attention because it's not Pete's Meadow like some guy named Pete, but Pete as in those large vacuum-packed bags of stuff you can buy at the garden center. It turns out Pete Meadow was a well-known peat bog and a valuable natural resource. In the 1850s, the Washburn and Moen Company purchased the rights to Peat Meadow and harvested peat as fuel for producing their high-end wire products. In the late 19th century, as anthracite coal became more readily available, the peat lost much of its value, but it stayed a peat bog. When the farmland around it was developed, the bog was damaged, and it began to drain of some of its water, but it remained wet, and it remained an empty spot on an increasingly crowded map. In the first half of the 20th century, the land became a popular unofficial dumping site, partly in an attempt to prepare it for development, a common practice in growing urban areas at the time, but even this failed to make the three-suburban road parcel developable. In the late 1950s, the location was rejected by the city of Worcester as a suitable site for the first Dougherty High School. As recently as 2024, the site was rejected by a well-known development firm for likely similar reasons. The land is very wet, very loose, and very unstable. None of that has changed. Some scientific data is helpful in explaining what's going on beneath the one to two feet of topsoil that make this land look like regular land. It's perhaps too early on in the planning process to require any sort of soil or hydrology report for the latest proposed development. We do, however, have a geotechnical test pit exploration summary report completed by Yankee Engineering in January of 2024. It offers some information that corroborates the site's history as a peatlands and may be of interest to this board. I should note that for whatever reason, no test pits were dug in the specific area of the requested zoning change, but we need not look deep into substrata to know that this land has all its own problems. It sits at the bottom of a big hill off a cliff made by Institute and Haviland Streets and receives a large amount of water runoff during rainstorms. It's also fairly easy to observe, in a non-drought year at least, that it is the site of multiple streams and vernal pools. but we can still make some reasonable inferences about subsurface soil and hydrology based on the adjacent RG5 area that would limit development in the area proposed for rezoning. For the RG5 land, the 2024 soil test pit results demonstrate that much of the land's first substrata consists of a landfill, trash and construction debris up to 12 feet, and only 12 feet because that is where they stopped testing. As they took samples closer to Highland Street moving south, you see lower layers consist of several feet thick damp peat consistent with historical accounts of the land despite it never being designated as an official peat or wetlands. and even lower sit strata of wet gray sand and silt. So why is all this important? Well, we have enough firsthand accounts and soil evidence to suggest that a significant portion of Three Suburban Road consists of a landfill, whether officially or unofficially designated. It would need to be tested and possibly remediated in the same way any landfill would in order to prepare it for residential development. The presence of wet gray sand indicates highly mineralized soils in an anaerobic environment. And with the history of this land provides enough geological evidence to conclude that this land is still serving the function of a wetlands. Though undesignated, like any wetlands, its layers of organic matter, sand, and silt form a natural filtration system, protecting our groundwater from what is above it. Especially important in this case when what is above it is garbage. Landfill remediation over a wetlands has the potential to disrupt these delicate filtration layers and can lead to groundwater contamination. It can take decades to safely accomplish landfill remediation over wetlands, and it has never been done for the express purpose of residential development at the other end. We also have enough historical and geotechnical data to conclude that a significant part of the land at Three Suburban Road is comprised of peat. Peat is interesting stuff. Peat can hold 20 times its weight in water. No man-made concrete detention tank or perforated catch basin could replicate the water retention or detention properties of a peatlands of this size. Peat is also highly compressible. Its fibrous structure can lead to complex deformation behaviors. What this means is that when peat is wet, it behaves very differently than when it is dry. And when it is weighed down with something like a swimming pool, it will shrink unevenly. Dry peat also possesses one other frightening property. It is extremely flammable. Underground peat fires, even controlled ones, can burn for months, consuming everything above ground and releasing noxious fine particulate smoke for up to a five mile radius. When water is diverted with stormwater basins or other management techniques necessary for development and oxygen is introduced underground via drilling or the addition of piping also necessary for development, the risk of underground peat fires increases dramatically. All of these properties together make developing on a peat lands extremely complex with evidence of construction failure possibly taking years to appear long after the developer has left town. I wanted to find some examples, but since peat bogs are relatively rare in Massachusetts, there are few, if any, local developments that have been built on peatlands. But for a snapshot of our potential future, we can look to Seattle, where building on peat is a more common phenomenon. There, a $297 million high school was built on a peatland. It opened last April, and already it has settled three inches in some areas and is still sinking. And this is with all the assurances of geotechnical engineers who claim to understand how to safely build on peat. Meanwhile, in other parts of Seattle, homes built on or near peat bogs are developing sinkholes or left with foundations resting above ground on piles as water is diverted for newer developments and the existing peat structure collapses. Gas lines have broken because sidewalks have sunk. Major roads need to be relocated since they cannot withstand the daily weight of buses. Only after years of crowding and development on peat has the city implemented any kind of safety guidelines to protect homes and infrastructure near peat bogs slated for development, and even this failed to prevent the high school from sinking. The one remaining natural peat bog in Seattle has become so dry from water diversion for developments that it has begun to smolder. Now, if you're thinking maybe we could learn from Seattle and implement their safety guidelines, then we can't because we are not Seattle. We are more prone to temperature fluctuations more in a 24-hour period than Seattle can experience in an entire year. We are more prone to changes in our water table levels, going through lengthy droughts like the one we're technically in now and have been in since 2024, followed by long periods of snow melt and rainfall. And we are more prone to the dreaded frost heave. All of this makes building on peat here even more of a challenge than the challenge it is in Seattle. And then, of course, there's that pesky issue of the landfill sitting on top of it all. We trust that the project manager will conduct due diligence, but in a clearly unusual case like this, can we confidently say we know what due diligence actually entails? So, okay, that peat maybe is too much trouble, and the developer can solve all of these problems by proposing to truck away the peat along with the garbage. But this still fails to address the peat's role in floodwater mitigation. After all, if water can't be where it was, then it has to go somewhere else. Removing or even just disturbing areas of natural water retention would have effects both on and off the property. and risks turning nearby residential areas, even businesses on Park Ave, into a floodplain with property damage and increased insurance costs. So to return to my original prompt, this 16.5 acre parcel of land sits undeveloped because it is not just another overgrown lot. It isn't just a landfill with the potential for a higher use. It isn't even just a peat bog with issues of soft, damp soils that could possibly be overcome with creative engineering solutions and relocation of water. At 3 Suburban Road, we have a woodland holding together a landfill over an unstable peatland abutting densely developed neighborhoods, one of which is a National Historic District and under consideration as a local historic district in the city of Worcester. Several of these homes sit on the edge of this same peatlands. What will happen to them when the land around them changes? Will they collapse? Will they flood? Or will they burn from the ground up? The history of this land as a peat bog Compounded with the issue of legacy dumping of unknown materials and potential toxic contaminants leaves too many unknowns to simply gloss over. We do not know enough about the relationship of this land to water running off of Prospect Hill, as well as water running under it from Salisbury Street on its way southwest. We do not fully understand the level of contamination present in the fill, or if it could be remediated safely and feasibly, or how long that would take. We do not know if the abutting properties can withstand the effect of what all evidence points to as a lengthy, complex construction process that would necessarily divert water and change the topography of an unstable landscape. Without further study to ensure the health and safety of residents of current abutting neighborhoods, students at very nearby schools, and the future prospective residents of the proposed site. We cannot calculate the true cost of any facet of this project to the city, the community, or even the developer. Why, then, would we commit ourselves to something so drastic as a zoning change when it remains unclear if it is even appropriate for the city to be committing itself to this project at all? You don't send an invitation to a party you don't want to hold. You don't upzone in hopes the developer doesn't use all the land. Upzoning sends a message that the city believes this land can and should be fully developed to a high density. And without considering any of this additional information, it would be an unnecessary, irresponsible measure to accommodate a single developer and not based on any known benefit or risk. This kind of arbitrary zoning alteration would undermine the sensibility of the zoning code and diminish public confidence in decisions made by the planning board. Less than 30 years ago, this board determined that RS-7 was the best use of the three suburban road land that intersects with carefully planned residential neighborhoods. We respectfully ask that until there is at least enough information to demonstrate the safety of change, YOU UPHOLD THE PAST WORK OF THE PLANNING BOARD ON ZONING CODE AND REJECT THIS PETITION FOR UPZONING THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL THAT TIME YOU LIKE TO GO NEXT TOUGH ACT TO FOLLOW

Yeah, that is a tough act to follow. My name is Riley Markey. I live on Haviland Street. I'm a direct abutter on the property.

You can pick it up if that's easier.

Yeah, we'll see. Okay. Most of the things that I was going to say were just covered. But I do have some particulars of what she said, basically, that I can give you. And I have a copy of that geotechnical report, if you guys want it. If you guys, if the city doesn't have it, I don't know.

It wasn't in our materials, so I think we'd take it. Okay, great. Yeah.

So the geotechnical report was done on behalf of Botany Bay by Yankee Engineering. After it was done, Botany Bay Construction, they own a large property on June Street near Mill. After they read the report, they decided not to buy the property. And I think the reasons that she laid out are pretty clear why they didn't buy the property. But there are a couple of particular things in the conclusions to it. Just a couple quotes just to follow her and then I'll be done. Additional borings using standard penetration testing is strongly advised for more detailed subsurface analysis and comprehensive understanding of the subsurface composition. and also that the site is advised to be classified as SPC Site Class F, underlain by undisturbed unknown density, sands, gravels, with silt at the time of this report's publication. So they found the same things that Katie described and the reasons why this has been undeveloped for all the years that Worcester's been a city. That's about all I have. Okay. Thank you.

And thank you for the report. If you could speak to Ms. Russell maybe and get an email address on where to send that to, that would be great. Come on up.

My name is Paula Rosenblum and I'm a resident on Haviland Street in the City of Worcester. I'm here this evening as a homeowner and an abutter to the property at numbers 1 and 3 Suburban Road, which is under consideration before the Worcester Planning Board for a zoning map amendment from RS-7 Single Family Residential to RG-5 General Use. Before I address my concerns about Pete Meadow, allow me to briefly tell you a little bit about myself and to provide the context of our concerns. This spring, I will have lived in my home for 44 years, having purchased it in 1982 with my husband the year before we married. We raised three daughters while my husband ran his business on Park Avenue and I worked at the College of the Holy Cross for many years managing the campus art gallery. We are both currently retired. From our earliest days of living on Haviland Street, we would occasionally observe pickers heading down into the woods on the hunt for old bottles. From this we learned that the wooded area called Peat Meadow behind our house had been used as a dump for many years, most likely before or during the development of homes from what had been the farmland belonging to John Hammond. As you know, this area, known as Hammond Heights, including Westland, Germain, and Haviland Streets, and the upper portion of Institute Road, is a historic neighborhood developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with homes listed on the National Register of Historic Homes. As I mentioned earlier, we have three daughters. Two of them are living their lives outside of Massachusetts. Our youngest daughter, who has a disability, works a full-time job at Fairlawn Rehabilitation Hospital and has lived in her own apartment in a carriage house at the top of Haviland Street for the past nine years. We learned a couple of years ago when the property changed hands that the new owner wanted to expand her apartment into a much larger unit. So we began searching for another suitable living arrangement to meet her specific needs and allow her to maintain her independence and yet be close to her work and to us, her support system. When the state and then the city approved the ability of homeowners to build accessory dwelling units, We began the process of figuring out if it would be a viable solution for our family. After consulting with an architect and hiring him to come up with a plan, we interviewed several contractors, eventually finding someone we felt was a good fit for our needs and confident he would be able to turn our plan into a reality. That original plan was to attach the unit to the backside of our detached garage. After a process of many months of planning, which included going before the Worcester Historical Commission, we finally had our building permit in hand, and in early July of last year, the excavator arrived to start digging the foundation. Not long after Jeff Zukas of Zukas Excavation began digging behind our garage, he called us to say that he had something he needed us to look at. We went outside and Jeff showed us the hole he had just dug that was 10 to 12 feet deep. that clearly showed the area was filled solid with coal ash just below a layer of soil. Needless to say, we were dumbfounded and heartbroken to discover that we wouldn't be able to proceed with construction in this location. What we surmise from this discovery, although we can't know for sure, is that coal ash had been dumped in the area, possibly as a fill when the houses on the western side of Haviland Street were built, or perhaps as a general dumping ground for the coal ash waste used to fuel the factories of Worcester. The full extent of this fill is unknown. However, we learned from a neighbor around the corner from us on Highland Street that they also discovered coal ash while doing construction on their property. Since this happened to us, I've looked at my next-door neighbor's sinking garage and sunroom attached to the back of their house and wondered whether coal ash has been a contributing factor there. While we had the excavator on our property, we had Jeff dig a series of test holes to see if we would be able to change our plan and attach the ADU to our house, which is what we ended up doing. The test holes showed that there was enough buildable soil available to support a structure directly behind our house, but that the closer we dug to the garage, there was clearly a mixture of coal ash in the soil. Fast forward to seven months later, the unit is now complete, and we hope to have our daughter moved in by the end of the month. Which brings me to the concerns I have regarding the proposed zoning change for Pete Meadow. As others have noted this evening, Pete Meadow got its name for a reason. It is a peat bog, wetland, and has a history of being used as a dumping ground, which doesn't sound like solid land to build housing on. We know that when peat land is disturbed, it can lead to environmental issues such as underground fires, and as it dries out, to the sinking of structures built on and around it. My home, with our newly constructed in completed ADU addition is directly adjacent to the property under consideration for a zoning change that would allow greater development on this unstable land, and I have very real concerns for the safety of my property. What happens to us and our investment in our home if the land shifts and our foundations are undermined? Is the City of Worcester prepared to compensate us for our losses if this occurs? A number of years ago, the Planning Board rejected a proposal to change the zoning on this property, the RG5. and I don't believe there is any evidence today to warrant a change now. A change to RG-5 would in fact allow any number of uses that would not be consistent within a residential neighborhood. As a point of information and for the record, the previous owner sued all Haviland Street abutters to this property individually following the decision to retain the RS-7 zone, claiming we had dumped toxic waste and had trespassed on his property. We were all forced to hire an attorney to defend ourselves against these baseless claims, which were eventually dismissed. I believe that the current planning board has an obligation to protect the residents and homeowners surrounding this property from potential harms to our homes and to fully investigate and understand the environmental, traffic, and other infrastructure impacts that a change in zoning would allow. I therefore request that you consider the wisdom of your predecessors and deny the current request for a zoning change to RG5 from RS7 at numbers one and three, Suburban Road. And I thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. All right, I see somebody's hand in the back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Noel Choquette. I live on Suburban Road, and I've been there for five years. The purpose of my speaking here tonight is traffic on Suburban Road right now is just unbelievable, especially during the school hour times, and I strongly mentioned Tony mentioning the traffic study. I don't think this should be approved in any further steps until a complete traffic study is done because traffic is unbearable now, and adding another 250 or whatever cars would make it considerably worse. Thank you for listening to me, sir. Thank you.

In the back there.

Can you hear me? We can. Great. So through the chair, earlier in the meeting, the developer showed a plan that's buy right. It looked pretty viable and large. So now they're asking for a zoning change that's inviting all this controversy. I'd like to know why that is, and does it mean they'll continue with the buy right plan if this fails? And is it not economically viable to do the buy right plan? I'm just wondering why they're going through all this right now with this public hearing and so forth. I'd let them answer.

I think you asked a couple of different questions. To answer your question of if we will pursue the project by right, the answer is yes, we will. Our preference is to pursue the zoning change. I think a lot of the comments that we've heard tonight are a little contrary to what we're trying to accomplish. We're trying to develop less of the site. There's been comments about getting closer to the wetlands, about taking down more trees. the zoning change would actually allow the opposite. So that's what we're trying to accomplish here.

Right. Just want to follow up. But you could just go ahead and do that and get a site plan and go ahead with the by-right plan. You wouldn't have to do all this. I mean, is it not? Which plan is more economically beneficial for you, I guess?

I'd rather not comment on that. Thanks. Oh, sure.

I'm Chris Canaracos. I live on 4 Vesper Street.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. You, sir, and then you, ma'am, can go next, if that's okay.

Good evening. My name is Al Trakemis. I live at 18 Germain Street. Michelle had mentioned about housing production in the future and the RS7 zoning district. That is, under existing conditions, an extremely aggressive single-family housing production zoning. We're talking about six units per acre. I mean an acre being about 210 feet by 210. Six times 7,000 is 42,000 and we got 43,560 feet in an acre. So we already have aggressive housing and it's single-family and now that the ADUs have been included in the zoning that is really the potential for 12 dwelling units per acre. So under existing condition there is a high housing production value to the RS-7. The other item Katie had mentioned too was this was spot zoned. back in, I believe, 1962. So even if you want to add the RS-7, you'd be increasing spot zoning. And I don't know if that's even allowed, especially where it's not serving a public interest. So that's something to consider. The other item that I have a question on is this, I could direct this to Michelle. You had mentioned some zoning setbacks and for multifamily, low-rise and high-rise, and the zoning, I saw them as not applicable. Are there really zoning setbacks or are there?

Sure, probably what you may have seen is the way that we do things for multifamily is there's sort of a base unit and then each additional unit layers on top of that. So in the table, usually the base unit refers to those. So again, the setbacks for those are, I believe it's eight foot, to 10 feet for the side setback. If it's on a corner lot, then it's the exterior side setback is 10 feet. That's for any use in that zone. The rear setback is 15. The front setback is 15. And again, the height was mentioned before.

Thank you, and I'd just like to mention to the board that an RG 5 rezoning is here forever until someone brings another zoning change. There's nothing to say that the developer doesn't walk away tomorrow once they look at all the numbers and the next developer could come in and aggressively pursue RG 5 zoning which allows up to 90 foot tall buildings which are you know eight stories the look at the doherty school the doherty school is four stories look at something like that going right up against the property line it's not adding to the housing production in a positive manner so i would just like i mean you would mention that you're looking at this from a zoning perspective this does not fit the zoning we have a spot zone for the existing building and now we're looking to they're looking to increase spot zoning and as I said without a definite public interest It's not allowed and that's and I would I would just ask you that you redirect or give a recommendation of non-approval for this Proposal, thank you. Thank you

Hi, thank you. My name is Alexandra, and I live on Haviland Street in Worcester. And my comment is sort of encompassed of everything that has been said. And given the overwhelming information and evidence that this would be a detriment to change from an RS-7 to an RG-5, I would ask that the planning board recognized that according to its own bylaws, there is a responsibility to its current residents to make sure to protect those residents. And I understand the need for economic movement and economic forwardness, and I appreciate that. But right now, there is a responsibility by the city to protect us as homeowners and our economic well-being. Because given the information provided, there is a significant risk to damage of our properties. And so based on that information alone, I would ask that the planning board respectfully reject this proposal from a change from RS7 to RG5. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? I see you back there, sir.

Through the chair, Joe Haddad, City of Worcester. I think I come at this with a little bit of a different perspective. I can pretty confidently say everyone in this room probably has a house they call their own. Those older folks in the room that have probably owned the home for many years have probably received the benefit of the appreciation value towards these homes. It's a quite nice neighborhood. I guess the reason I say that is it seems as though, by right, these guys can come in and build the amount of units they want. I think for us as a neighborhood, the smartest thing to do is say, instead of just fighting this incessantly and they go by their by right plan and do what they want, if they want to build this, then we should have a time to work with them and say, hey, instead of just saying you're going to designate this land to no more use, let's push it forward to we want walking trails or we want this improved. I think it's time for The city needs development. It's in a great walkable neighborhood. You can walk to grocery stores, elementary, middle, and high schools, banks. I think it's a good spot for it in ways, and by right, they have a lot of right here. I think for us as a neighborhood, like I said, it's more important that we fine-tune what they want to do versus fight them in their totality. They redact their plan and just go with their by right plan. I think there needs to be neighborhood oversight towards what they build, but You know, as a younger generation that finds it harder and harder to buy a house in Worcester, buy a condo in Worcester, if they can commit, hey, we're going to build X amount of condos and X amount of apartments, X amount will be affordable or low income. I think that's more beneficial to us to say, hey, we don't want you here. They come in by right. Big, expensive homes in a big, expensive neighborhood. and you know the like i said you know maybe it's a fresh set of eyes maybe it's a bad set of eyes but you know this was a farmland at one point we put in victorian houses at one point we put in duplexes we put in triplexes we put in a massive high school twice i don't think it's crazy to say that there's time for more apartments or more development it's just i think the community needs to have oversight on how that's built what the developer does for the community what they do for you know like i said it's harder and harder to find a condo everything's a apartment that's a great starter location for a young person if they can designate a certain amount that'll be condos or if it'll be a certain amount that's over 55 housing you know I think there's solutions to this outside of just letting them come in by right and build luxury townhouses or luxury I don't know exactly what the plan depicts if those are single-family homes or but I guess that's my my take is instead of fighting what they can do by right let's control what they can't do or control how they do it so okay thank you

Anyone else in the room? I see somebody's hand. Come on up, sir.

Hi. Greg Dorschler, and I'm a Worcester resident who has spent decades working on, as a volunteer, working on hiking trails in Worcester, building trails, working with the Greater Worcester Land Trust, Friends of Weatherill Park, Park Spirit of Worcester, Newton Hill, among other organizations. And I mention this because a previous speaker spoke of the value of the trees on the site that we're speaking of. And I want to piggyback on that and speak of the value of the open space with regards to its proximity to other open spaces in Worcester where we have built these hiking trails, namely Wetherill Park and Salisbury Park up by Bancroft Tower and, of course, Newton Hill. this land is currently configured, it is not difficult to imagine a hiking path linking the Bancroft Tower area Salisbury Park with Weatherill Park through this green corridor, thereby linking two neighborhoods that are now currently sort of separated by a divide of Beechmont Street and Haviland Street, that there's no real access between the two sides of those streets. And having that access would create all kinds of recreational opportunities and environmental benefit, I would say, maintaining some of the space green. I'll mention that the Greater Worcester Land Trust already is an abutter to this property as it owns some open space at the end of Howitzen Way, which is off of Beechmont Street. So as I view the proposal being presented to us tonight, I'm encouraged that it leaves open much of the green space that were it fully occupied with new construction, it would be much more difficult to imagine that green space connection that I was just describing. However, I'm very hesitant to think about approving a zoning change on the basis of a future conservation restriction that would limit the construction on sort of the back half of that property where we're talking about all of the trees and the green spaces and the area that's I think, personally, would be borderline undevelopable anyways based upon all the comments that we've heard tonight about what's in the ground and the topography and what have you. So I think my point here being is that it almost feels like we're putting the cart before the horse. Were there a conservation restriction in place already that would limit the development on the majority of the parcel in question? And a developer came in and said, I only am interested in that little sliver outside of that restriction. a zoning change would have much less potential consequence. So I think that's something that I'd be much more comfortable if there were a zoning change if those restrictions were in place already. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, may I make a quick comment?

Go ahead.

Timely, based on the gentleman's comments, the conversation that we did have that my attorney mentioned earlier with Colin Novick at the Greater Worcester Land Trust was exactly the conversation that was just stated about connecting trails that exist today. There's a gap there, and that if this land was restricted and donated or what have you, they could make that connection that does not exist today. So exactly what the gentleman was saying.

Understood, thank you. Anyone else in the room wishing to speak on this item tonight? All right, seeing none, is there someone online, anyone online? And a reminder, there's a raise your hand icon in Zoom, and there's also star six will raise your hand if you're on the phone.

So we have Keith Linares, just give me one second to unmute you. Ms. Russell, if you could help us, we're going through public comment. Keith Lenhar is this first. I'm sorry, my computer is not letting me.

Sure, Keith, you should be able to unmute now. If anyone else has called in, it's star 9 to raise your hand if you're called in, star 6 to unmute if you're on your phone, or use the raise hand feature over Zoom. But, Keith, you should be able to go ahead.

Hey, can you hear me now?

We can hear you. Yep.

All right, excellent. Good evening. My name is Keith Linares, here to speak on item 14 and urge the planning board to recommend against the variance for 1 and 3 Suburban Road, particularly from the angles of urban planning and conservation. Page 10 of the Now Next plan calls for growth that reinforces the need for vitality in our city through creation of mixed-use neighborhood centers. As someone who bought a home at Wondermaine Street specifically for its potential for walkability, its proximity to shops, to Elm Park, I'm certainly pro-density, but I want to see the neighborhood grow in a way that benefits families like mine, along with longtime residents. But Worcester's approach puts adding density in order to hit an arbitrary housing target, a number of units, seemingly above all else. We keep adding houses without supportive infrastructure with projects like this, and good urban planning is not part of the equation, it seems, and what we're doing doesn't really seem to produce a high quality of life for residents. What it seems to be doing is effectively turning our city into an overgrown patchwork of houses rather than creating those vibrant neighborhood centers that are described in Now Next. Allowing more development into sensitive areas like a wetland, a peat meadow, and a heavily wooded area is not creating a vibrant, walkable, ecologically resilient city. I like the suggestion that Joe Haddad offered of maybe integrating this more into the neighborhoods, integrating this into the landscape so that residents could see some benefit if there was a project like this to move forward. But because those things are not taken into account, what's happening is that residents in these areas are seemingly turning against the idea of what urban living should be about. And it's happening block by block. Developers snatch up parcels, they divide them up and force residents to come out one at a time, neighborhood by neighborhood, to debate and fight projects like this instead of dealing with the real elephant in the room, which is comprehensive zoning reform. But our politicians in City Hall seem like they're too nervous or too afraid to touch that. But it needs to be taken up with an ecologically-minded, conservation-minded lens. We could be building a beautiful, walkable city where neighborhoods feel strong and connected. We could be adding affordable housing, satisfying the actual, real need that we have in this city instead of chasing this perpetual, never-ending goal. It's all about growing the tax base, and that seems like it's more driven by Timmy Murray and the Chamber of Commerce than it is by our residents. Um, seems like the planning board just keeps approving this incremental density without adhering to any kind of a broader vision. For what balance growth could look like that actually benefits the residents benefits the people who are here. The project also ignores some of the environmental mandates that we have now next talks about. the highest standards for resilience to flooding being implemented. How does building on a peat meadow accomplish that? Somebody mentioned the tree canopy earlier. The Urban Forestry Master Plan talks about adding 30,000 new trees in the next 20 years to fight heat islands. My electric bill is already skyrocketing for four months out of the year, and we can't afford to lose more tree canopy in the city. Every variance that gets granted on parcels like this, it's a step away from the sustainability that the city claims to value. And by making this area an RG5 zone, it really kind of creates a situation where for generations, we're going to have this big, almost like suburban style development sitting in what should be one of our best, most walkable neighborhoods, most vibrant, thriving neighborhoods in the city. It's just getting torn up for this suburban style design. So I just want to make sure that three questions I have get answered. Step one, or question one, can you talk about how developing on a peat meadow like this actually meets those high standards that we talk about for flood resilience? Because it seems like it does the opposite. What's the impact that this is going to have in aligning to our urban forestry master plan and our goals of planting more trees? How does this project tie into that? And is the project like this, can somebody on the planning board answer, is this really consistent with what NowNext is talking about? Because it just seems like it flies in the face of kind of the city we were promised. So I'll leave my comments there and urge you to recommend against this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Linares. I'd ask the developer, do you want to comment on question one and two? I think I can answer question three. No, thank you. Okay.

Through the chair, I think the applicant's attorney also had wanted to comment, so I just wanted to make sure we can give him an opportunity to unmute if my colleague could assist with that.

Yeah, can folks hear me?

We can hear you.

Michelle, I'm going to defer until the rest of the online folks finish. Although, if you could, or one of your staff members could indicate how many more online have their hands raised for comment.

Right now, it looks like we have three more folks with their hands raised. Three more?

Okay. All right. I'll hold off then. Thank you.

Okay, just to address the kind of consistency with the now next plan, because it's a good question. The city invested a lot of time in community outreach about a year and a half ago, over the period of about a year to develop a comprehensive plan for how they wanted to shape development going forward. And that plan had a number of recommendations based on community member input. So we sort of got together as a community, we made a plan, and now the idea is that we're implementing the recommendations of that plan. What that plan was is a framework for how to proceed forward. Cities are complicated bureaucracies, and Worcester is no exception. One of the key recommendations of that plan was a comprehensive review of our zoning and likely implementing some changes to make it more aligned with the growth that we want to see. That takes a long time to actually accomplish. I don't even know if I would say that's fully in progress yet, but that was a key recommendation of the plan. ANOTHER ELEMENT OF THE PLAN WAS LOOKING AT IDENTIFYING CORRIDORS WITHIN THE CITY THAT MAYBE WOULD BE WELL SUITED TO ADDITIONAL HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT OR MIGHT BE SUITED TO MORE LONG-TERM GROWTH. AND I THINK MS. SMITH COULD TELL YOU THE ACTUAL WORDS THE PLANS USED, THE WAY I WOULD DESCRIBE IT IS THIS AREA. It's adjacent to transit. That's important. Highland is an important transit corridor. So that is on the list of places that we're interested in development. But we called it something like, can you tell me the?

Yeah, through the chair, we called them managed growth areas in those corridors.

Yeah, so managed growth areas with the intent being it would fill in when developable parcels were identified and targeted by developers. So to directly answer your question on whether or not this is consistent, I would say it's neither consistent nor inconsistent. because the plan doesn't exist to say whether or not we should put a large multifamily development in this particular site. It exists to highlight areas where we might want to change our zoning or other policies to support additional growth. Maybe a bit of a wonky answer. Can we go to the next caller online, please?

Next up we have Alex. If you want to go ahead and unmute, you should be able to speak.

Can you hear me OK? Yep. OK. Hi. My name is Alex Amara. I live in Worcester on Highland Street. So I'm right across from the high school. As we consider the rezoning, I just wanted to highlight a couple engineering considerations given the nature of constructing high density residential buildings on the Pete. And this is in order for us to stay compliant with the purpose of the Worcester zoning ordinance So the first bit is getting past the peat to solid ground is going to require digging much deeper than a traditional building and this level of disturbance can disrupt the groundwater regime and then in turn contribute to ground instability and peat drainage. Adding on to that, introducing impermeable surfaces to this area like the asphalt for the parking lots and the building materials. This is going to result in pretty significant water displacement. The peat is currently playing a major role in absorbing rainwater along with maintaining that groundwater structure. And then the trees are also acting as reinforcement for this structure. So, essentially, I think we need to have a plan for handling this displacement to avoid flooding of the surrounding areas. I think I saw that the proposed site plan includes a reservoir for water runoff. I might be mistaken. But I'm not confident that the placement and size of this reservoir will account for the amount of water. and the direction it will flow when it's displaced. Essentially, this can all wrap up to me thinking that we need more research and geotechnical monitoring on this land to make a more informed decision on this zoning change. there are building strategies that can be implemented to mitigate a lot of the risks posed by developing on peat. You know, this isn't impossible to do, but there needs to be a plan. And without one, I worry this proposal is putting the surrounding community at risk. So something that I think is worth considering with this rezoning. That's it.

Thank you. Who's next?

Next up, we have done this. If you want to go ahead and unmute.

Hello.

Hi.

I'm Dennis Shea. I live on Suburban Road. I looked at this plan and I'm looking at six buildings, regardless of where they're built in the back of the existing building or front or side. There's 48 apartments in that building, those buildings, so that you have to build a parking lot large enough to accompany them. And with the zoning code on the parking, they require X number of spaces according to the number of beds or pillows. And I in no way would... an apartment building already existing with 90 apartments in it and an attached garage, you're talking 600 cars possibly on Suburban Road and Highland Street. And there's no way, no way they can redesign Highland Street or Suburban Road to handle that kind of traffic. That's impossible. The other thing I did, I observed other builders looking at this land and digging pits to see what the land was, both in front and in rear. Now, in the front of the building, I watched, and this first developer, the Foley family, I knew them, and I was standing there as they dug And they dug down deep, and let me tell you, that was nothing but an open dump. There was cans, bottles, you name it, they came out of there. Metal chairs, beds, pots of beds. They dug everything up out of there. That is strictly, was an open-faced dump. Now, the high rise that sits there is eight stories, and it's subject to frost quakes every winter. Some are not too bad, but some of them are real, real bad. So whatever they build back there or anywhere on this land, because the land in front is wet as the land is in the back. You can walk in that land in the summertime and you get close to the trees and it's mushy, mushy. You can feel yourself sinking into the ground. You can see where the water sits on the surface. Now they have installed monitoring wells back and around the building. I've walked the building after they left. And their heavy equipment has made nothing but mud in the ground. They've had to take trees down in order to get the equipment in to do what they were doing. So it's unsuitable normally for building any kind of a house on it. Never mind a four-story building. This land is not suitable for that. And unless they... drive piles into the ground so they can get back to bedrock and then build off of that. That's the only way they can build on that peat. Because you dry it out and you've had a multi-multi You've got problems for years. And the developer won't be dealing with them. The taxpayers of Worcester will be dealing with them. Because that's what falls back on. The developer is long gone once he builds. He gets out of here. And then he might sell it to another guy. And that guy's, I had nothing to do with it. So it's... So reject it. It needs to be rejected. Just plain and simple, reject it. The streets are not capable of handling... That kind of load. And they're going to have to make it so fire equipment can get around the back of these buildings. Because right now, every piece of fire equipment, I guarantee you, running across that lawn will sink in. It's the way it is now. The high-rise itself that's sitting there, there's no way for the fire department to get in the back of it. Because it's so mushy. And the other thing I'll tell you, there's wildlife back there. We've had deer. There's multiple rabbits all over the place. And last year and this year, I have observed the American bald eagle back there. They've been up in the trees. They're evidently coming for wildlife. Two of them were at WPI last year where they had built a nest. And there's two there this year. I've seen them twice. So there's a whole bunch of stuff you've got to take into consideration. So that's all I have to say.

Okay, thank you for your comments.

Just a reminder, before we get to our last person with their hand raised, if you're called in, it's going to be star nine to raise your hand, and then we'll do star six to unmute. So if anyone does want to speak, now's the time to raise your hand. But last person we have online is Kim. If you want to go ahead, you should be able to unmute now.

It's Kim Sabrowski. I have lived on Beach Pond Street. at the crest of Baker tower road and my family purchased on my late parents bought their property there in a 1965 and I've been in that neighborhood for literally since I he's 5 I mean decades and I have approved everybody was spoken out with these comments. the woman talking about the trees and, and everything else. But I just want to say, bottom line is that I'm totally against this rezoning. And frankly, I would prefer that if it's possible, if the, um, the, the closed, the, um, disclosed purchase property, uh, cost from this developer to purchase the property, if it's possible, But I just want to say that bottom line is I'm against this rezoning totally. And the fact that it's going to be a possible access road on Haviland Road with all the traffic issues and everything else is an abomination. And a young girl with my siblings went down there and that is a massive wildlife refuge and habitat for not only deer and rabbits, but fox and coyotes and everything else. And it's the last green space close to the center of the city that looking at the map, seeing that extensive area that is a green space that is vital to wildlife habitat as well as green space for people. And I applaud that. there might be possible walkways and trail paths through there, because there are extensive trail paths going through up Beachmont Street into Brancorf Tower Road. It's the east-west walking trails, and rather than this being developed, I really hope that the developers would reconsider after all of these considerations and preliminary discussions that they realize that this is not a viable parcel to develop extensively because of the peat issues. And since 1965, my parents have lived up there, and I now live up there as well. And it is just a ridiculous proposition to develop this for the benefit of the owner of the property and a totally unequivocal development for that area of the city. I will say that Doherty High School was a death knell to my heart because of them cutting down trees old growth elm trees on Weatherall Park, which used to be part of Doherty High School. But anyway, this is kind of like a continuation of the area of the just destruction of the habitat and trees, which is so vital for the environment and filtering air in the area, as well as we really need to consider the wildlife. They were here before us and we really need to protect their habitat and this is a total abomination to destroy that habitat to cut down extensive trees and not preserve any of all of that area for habitat because we're drastically losing that and unfortunately People that own the property, woodland areas in the center of the city are basically being, kowtowing to developers that want to develop areas. And I understand affordable housing. I totally get that. But for not having home ownership in the area and considering condos and everything else, I am totally, totally against the rezoning of this area. And I know this is preliminary, but we really, the neighborhood and the people in this area need to rise up and not allow this development to go through. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Ms. Russell, anyone else online?

Yep, next we have Kirsten. If you want to go ahead, you should be able to unmute.

Hey, thanks. My name is Kirsten. I live next to Duffy Park across the street from Suburban Road. I just wanted to mention, because I hadn't heard anyone else mention this yet, I am concerned what this would do for pedestrian safety as well. That curve on Suburban Road doesn't, it's not even a complete sidewalk. So you'll see kids from both the high school and the elementary school, you know, walking through the street. In the picture, I'm not able to read it well, but it seemed like there was only one exit. that would lead out into that area. So I'm just not really sure what the plan would be in terms of having heavy foot traffic multiple times a day around that curve, along with the increase in automobile traffic.

Okay, thank you. Ms. Russell?

No one else has their hand raised?

All right.

Rose, if I could, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, I was just going to say, Attorney Smith, go ahead.

Sure. So first of all, we appreciate all of the comments, questions, concerns, issues raised by the various neighbors. Certainly, and this has already been said, but we do want to underscore that this is an ongoing dialogue. This is absolutely... the first step among many, and the neighbors, the board, the staff, other interest groups have multiple bites at the apple here. A lot of the discussion tonight has been focused on due diligence-related items. Things like geotech, traffic, environmental concerns, those types of considerations are items that Absolutely will be. My client has already commenced review, research, due diligence with respect to a lot of aspects of potential projects that have been presented tonight. And that's an ongoing effort as well. However, again, we underscore the fact that it's already been said that this board and Michelle Smith and her team, DPW, DTM, all of the city agencies are going to be reviewing this with a fine tooth comb, I'm sure. And so when and if we do get to the point where we can apply for things like site plan review, if there are special permits that may be required, whether it's planning board, ZBA, the city, the staff, the neighbors will all be able to look at this again more closely with a lot more detail. Again, tonight was the purpose of even showing potential development layouts. is really just for informational purposes only. These are conceptual. It's still being vetted by my client. And again, we're going to be reviewing this in an ongoing dialogue with neighbors and the ward counselor, et cetera. Someone had mentioned previously, I think they use the term putting the cart before the horse. I agree with that in concept in that we've got a what we're looking at here tonight is the process of a zone change. And the planning board's purview here is to recommend favorably or or not with respect to the zone change that we are experiencing. seeking um there was mentioned before about the the restriction the potential restriction uh and having more a path now um that that can obviously not happen uh we need to be able to No developer is going to agree to a restriction in advance of having approvals in hand. That needs to be sequentially. That needs to happen only if the project gets approved. My client doesn't even own the property. They wouldn't even have the right to impose any kind of a restriction. However, that being said, as we mentioned, one potential path, again, we've been in communication with Colin Novak and the Greater Worcester Land Trust. And we see a lot of opportunities as that being a potential path. There was mention of trails that could be enhanced and, of course, land that would be preserved. Someone had mentioned before the zoning change, if approved, that would be forever. That's not exactly the case. A zoning change could happen and then it could be modified as we're seeking tonight. What is forever, however, is if the zoning change does get approved and the project ultimately down the road gets approved, what would be in perpetuity and would be forever would be a potential easement restriction or conservation restriction. That's an opportunity that this neighborhood, I think, has been hoping for and can become a reality. Otherwise, again, and someone had mentioned that we're threatening by providing that illustration that shows the subdivision option. That's not a threat. It's just a fact. It is an RS7 zone. Any developer could go in there and seek a definitive subdivision approval with respect to a single-family density-based project. we prefer to have something in perpetuity that would protect that land. I think it's been described as the missing link here. If this could be preserved by virtue of either deed restriction or conservation restriction, then that would enable for a lot of, I think, what a lot of the neighbors here have been striving for and organizations like Greater Worcester Land Trust to make a reality some of these trails and preservation of wildlife that one of the last neighbors had just mentioned with respect to habitat. Just generally with respect to due diligence, it was mentioned at the beginning, Wood Partners is a proven developer. They're a sophisticated developer. They know what they're doing and they do what they say. They do what they promise. They're proven in Worcester. The Mark Hamill site is a enormous success. And through that success, that went through a long vetting process and there were a lot of benefits that the city got with respect to that development. Here we see more opportunity with respect to wood partners coming in and making this development a success, while at the same time, hopefully, if the zone change is approved the preservation of land not the destruction of land so with that again we're happy to continue this dialogue and answer any other questions that the board that the board may have thank you thank you uh okay so at this time let's uh consider public comment closed and ask for any deliberation from board members who'd like to go first

Through the chair, this is Connor. I suppose I can kick it off. Yeah, I guess I'd like to start by thanking all of the members of the public who came out and spoke on this application tonight. Obviously, this is an important topic for a lot of folks in the neighborhood. I'm actually pretty close to this site. I'm very familiar with the site and the surrounding area. I'd also like to thank staff and Ms. Smith for her thorough review of the zoning and the history of the zoning for this area. That was very helpful. I'd like to try to keep my comments focused within the board's purview of the application tonight, which is a zoning map amendment. So looking at it from that frame and point of view, I think typically the board has supported applications where we're looking to correct split zone lots. So that was the first thing that jumped out at me when we were looking at this. We have a zoning map across the city that has a lot of split zone parcels and we generally like to fix those where we can. I think in the context of this site, you know, there's this request is to make the entire parcel an RG5 district, which obviously allows for higher density across the entire parcel, which the developer is saying enables him to build a little more densely on a certain portion of the parcel and then provide some potential open space on the remainder. To me, I think that the developers also expressed that Even given the existing zoning in the area, they would be able to develop the entire parcel, the entire lot, with the approximate same number of units. So to me, I do see the sense in potentially making the entire parcel the same consistent zoning. I do think the abutters brought up a lot of important points regarding environmental concerns, due diligence, traffic, etc. That certainly would be something that would have to be looked at very closely down the road should this project move forward. And I think that's important to note that that's a big should at this point. This is a very preliminary first step for a recommendation from our board. So, you know, to be getting too deep in the weeds of um some of the some of the site concerns i i think that's a valid concern but something that you know for the board we would be looking at at a future application um i i do hope that the uh applicant takes a lot of these comments back it sounds like uh mr smith that was saying that they would. I think for myself, the design of this really does not meet the intent of the now next plan, which just falls under the transformative corridor or whatever the term was. This was much more of a suburban-style development with a very large surface parking area that I think there's a huge opportunity to make. If this area is going to be developed, there's a lot of improvements that could be done to the design to make it fit with the neighborhood better while still keeping the density that probably is required to make this project pencil out. so i guess with all that um i would be inclined to to support the zoning change i would be interested to hear what the rest of the board board members think but i think just again just to note from my perspective that uh we're looking at this purely from a zoning perspective not from the uh proposal that or the concept plan that the developer has put forward um so i'm looking at it from that angle so uh thank you and i'll leave it there

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Mr. Dallara, would you like to go next?

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, I'm inclined not to support the zone change for this particular area. I don't think that having greater density of the scale being considered here is appropriate for this area. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. DeLera. Mr. King.

I'd echo the sentiment of Board Member McCormick on this one, just solely based on what we've done in the past as a board. But with that, we would be reviewing any plans as they come forth, and we can ensure they're aligned with the neighborhood at that point. So I'd be inclined to support the recommendation for the zoning alignment here.

Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. Toomey.

One question I have is you're looking to rezone that entire 7.74 acre piece, but you only need a portion of that to be able to do the development. Did you look at, I know spot zoning is a bad thing, not necessarily looked upon, looking at just saying we only need to take 1.4 acres to be able to do this and then leave the rest as it is now in that kind of a compromised position?

Yes, sir, we did. And Attorney Smith, if you'd like to jump in on what the benefit is of, I know you mentioned this earlier in the conversation, but if you want to jump back in and talk about the benefit of rezoning the entire parcel versus a portion, if you're there still. If not, I'll answer that.

Josh, you should be able to unmute.

Okay. I think I'm back. Can folks hear me?

Yes.

Okay. So this was addressed to some extent in the beginning of our presentation, and Connor had just touched upon this as well. some of the purpose of the zone changes is clean up, as simple as cleaning up some of this, what are currently disjointed districts. As Michelle had described it, there's quite a bit of history with respect to how these districts have been created over the years. And as what we're looking at today is, as I'd mentioned before, you've got the RS7, the RG5, you've got the RS10, all sort of coming together in a non-uniform way. And so in part of what we're looking to do here is to clean that up. The RS7 portion right now of the land that we're looking to convert acts as somewhat of a bridge between the west and the east sides of the site and the neighborhood. So by doing this, this would really clean that up. There are also some sort of straggling parcels of land that are owned by the current property owner as well that happen to be in the RS7 but really are out of place. So that's being cleaned up too. This is not a spot zoning situation. The land is already RG5. We are looking to extend that. And again, for the purpose of being able to clean up a lot of what is really disjointed land layout of the existing districts as they are today. I will say as well, And this, again, goes to this idea of this being a zoning amendment process with, if this gets approved ultimately, a more thorough due diligence and vetting process before ZBA planning board and whatever other agencies would be looking at this. Again, the layouts that we showed today are for informational purposes. However, when and if we are before the planning board, ZBA, with respect to an ultimate layout, We do need to have some flexibility with respect to comments that we receive from the board in terms of if a building is perhaps, as an example, located in an area where maybe the board finds that it should be shifted somehow, or as Connor had just mentioned, the parking, If the board determines that the parking is either over-parked or there's too much parking or the parking layout needs to be realigned, then possibly we may need to be able to utilize perhaps less of what's in the currently the RG5 and shift to other parts of what's in the currently the RS7. We just don't know that. until we are before the board with engineered drawings and a lot more by way of due diligence and vetting. And really, we don't have those plans at this point. And it's not fair for the board at this point as well to be vetting the project in that level of detail. But some of this is flexibility.

No, I thank you for that. I'm, I'm the new guy on the planning board. So all of this stuff is new to me. I'm still learning as we go along on, on that sort of stuff. Again, as I said, now I would probably vote to go ahead and make the change. And again, just to bring everything into the same as Connor had mentioned before.

Thank you, Mr. Toomey. Speaking for myself, I've been on this board now for eight years. And for folks in the audience who have never come before a planning board before, we are citizen volunteers. We're not employees of the city. We typically have some sort of knowledge or expertise that lends itself to the development process. In my case, my expertise is in affordable housing. Usually zoning map amendments are the most boring things we talk about. I have in eight years not seen this many people in total come to zoning map amendments in spite of the many, many we've seen. So, I mean, I guess congratulations and thank you for being here. Welcome. I'm really glad to hear how much you all care about your neighborhood and are invested in seeing what you hope is the right decision made. Another reason that zoning map amendments are often quite boring is that we're not the authority here. We're one of three public meetings that occur and our role is to make a recommendation to a body that then seeks other recommendations. Very seldom does what we say matter, which I tell you, only because we're going to vote yes or no and either way the same thing is going to happen. This is going to go to city council. It sounds to me like there's one no vote on the board. I am on the fence because while in general I am an advocate for housing and think that the city is under housed, This is in a very suburban area and it is just spot zoning. This board, the entire time I've been on the board, has sought to eliminate split zoning, which this parcel is. And to the gentleman in the back earlier who made the point that maybe you're better working with the developer if they can build 289 units as of right than fighting them on every piece of this, I think that's generally what I believe to be true. So I think I'm going to vote for it. What I would say to the folks with the geotechnical concerns, because you've raised a level of detail that we don't often see, especially for a zoning map amendment, is that those sound like very legitimate concerns. It seems like the developer may be aware that there are some issues and are attempting to work through them. That will be, thank you for bringing that up, because that will be looked at extensively, not just by this board, but by members of city staff as this project goes forward. I don't think anybody wants to see a development here that ultimately fails. So with that said, any other comments from board members on this item? Hearing none, I think we're ready for a motion.

I would make a motion to favorably recommend to City Council a zoning map amendment for 1 and 3 Suburban Road. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King?

Yes.

Mr. DeLera?

No.

Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. Motion passes 4 to 1.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Appreciate your time.

Thank you.

All right. We still have 10 items to get through.

Just want to make a pitch. If anyone's looking for an opportunity to get engaged, we're always looking for volunteer board and commission members. There are lots of vacancies, including on the planning board, as well as the zoning board. So I would encourage you to look online, and if you have spare time or are willing and feel it's important, great opportunity to participate in one of these processes, as the chair mentioned. Thanks.

Yeah, and folks, I know that you probably all want to discuss, maybe you could do that in the hallway. There's plenty of room out there. We also have several more hours of meeting to get through. um next item we're going to hear item number three 149 and zero 149 malden street zero morgan street this will be a public hearing for a definitive subdivision plan a public meeting for a definitive site plan and a rescission of certificate of approval for morgan estate subdivision circa 2005 as amended in 10.

Mr. Chairman, Kevin Quinn with Quinn Engineering here on behalf of Loring Enterprises, owner and applicant. Can I request the board take the site plan and subdivision business up at the same time? Yeah. Probably more efficient use of the time. We'll have that. Okay. We'll go with that. My office has submitted applications for definitive site plan and definitive subdivision from Morgan Estates. It's a 14-lot subdivision with 13 residential lots plus remaining land. The proposed extension of Morgan Street is 413 feet in length, and it terminates in a cul-de-sac. There's a little bit of confusion. We've had some feedback about the dead end length limit. The dead end length limit is 600 feet, but that's measured from the nearest point of dual access, which in this case is the intersection of Medfield and Morgan Street. The actual roadway that will be extended is 413 feet in length. The lots on-site are designed in accordance with the zoning ordinance. Stormwater is managed in accordance with the stormwater management policy. There are detention basins, infiltration basins on the north and south side of the property. We met and have had very helpful communications with DPW Sewer and Water, who had very helpful requests and we felt it was a very productive process. We have had what I would say is a robust process with staff. We've had a number of interactions with staff. I know it went actually Victor Panac was here and Victor concluded his work with comments to us. We've since resumed it with Rose and we feel it's been a very helpful process from our standpoint. For the subdivision application, three waivers are requested. Requested a waiver from Section 9C8A to permit a road with dead-end length of 600 feet. 500 feet is the standard. This regulation, if it's interpreted literally, will result in the loss of four lots, one of which would be an inclusionary zoning lot. I would submit to the board that this waiver is a modest waiver. It's a reasonable waiver. And it is in the interest of the community in that it grants housing at a time when housing is at a premium. You know, I used to stand in front of this board and talk about housing being urgent or important or critical. We are in a housing crisis at this point, and I think it's reasonable that the board consider opportunities to generate housing under reasonable requests for relief. We have shown the board, we've submitted information to the board to document that This relief does not compromise public safety and does not compromise public safety response times. It's a 100-foot length extension of the road. I would suggest respectfully to the board this waiver doesn't derogate from the subdivision rules and regulations, goals and intentions of the subdivision rules and regulations. It's what I would characterize as a minor adjustment. We've requested a waiver of Section 9C56 to permit a radius of curvature of 120 feet versus the required 275-foot radius of curvature. This request is made to allow, if you can see the roadway, it follows the general geography of the property, and that's kind of what's critical to us on this. A 275-foot radius is designed to allow vehicles to travel at a rate of about 45 miles an hour. A 150-foot radius is appropriate for vehicles doing nearer to 25 miles an hour, which this road is certainly designed to accommodate. We have shown that site distances are sufficient. The safety issues are non-existent. We have submitted apparatus travel diagrams to show that that change doesn't impede fire apparatus from gaining access to every part of that property. It really doesn't change public safety in any way. It doesn't affect public safety negatively. We have requested a waiver of the plant submission requirement for surveys showing large trees and outcroppings. It's a fairly standard thing. In view of tree cuttings, we are proposing 59 trees to be planted with this, 20 are street trees, and 39 are trees on the lots to enhance the site visibility. There was a waiver request when we started out for one sidewalk, and we, since working with staff, have withdrawn that. The plan calls for two sidewalks extending over the full length of the property. Worcester Conservation Commission on February 9th approved the notice of intent filed for this project. We have submitted a detailed construction sequencing plan in work with conservation and with your staff. to manage earthwork and other things, particularly in regards to erosion. The property development, because it is earthwork intensive, so the development of the subdivision as well as the lots needs to be done in an integrated fashion. And that's our sequencing plan, is to show that this is part of the plan, is that the lot developments will take place at the same, concurrently with the development of the subdivision. Can I answer questions?

Okay, before we get to that, additional comments from members of the city staff?

Sure, through the chair, Michelle Smith, and the city's planning division. My mic has gone quiet. So the application that is in front of you for this evening is an application for both the subdivision, which is the construction of the road that you see here on the plan, as well as the construction of the 13 single-family homes that are proposed along it, and that is being reviewed and regulated through the site plan, so. Subdivision for the road, site plan for the lots. So just to clarify in the event there's anyone who's particularly interested. So they are proposing to construct essentially an extension of Morgan Street, which is currently a dead end, just over 100 feet. They're seeking to extend that to this new roadway, which is itself 415 feet. So as was stated, there's a dead-end waiver requirement that's needed, along with the two others that Mr. Quinn stated. There was noted previously a request for a sidewalk waiver, which they are requesting withdrawal of, given the design changes to the plan. that they've made. So for the most part, the conditions that we have remaining at this point on the subdivision plan as well as the site plan are not particularly notable. I would point out one particular piece related to the site plan, which is about this interceptor swale that's proposed on the rear of the lot, sort of on the bottom right-hand side of the screen that you see. which kind of directs discharge from some of the roof drains around and back to the detention basin you see kind of top right corner. And so there is a steep slope that goes down to the wetland that you see depicted in blue on the bottom right of the screen. And given the sort of feature of the swale, we wanted some additional information related to sort of how that actually integrates into the grading of the site. making sure that those details are correct and that will function long term because it's as you can imagine kind of a pieces of a Swale that go along the back of all these properties if it stops working somewhere midway through the swale then all of a sudden You know any property up gradient of that has an issue So I don't know if they might be able to talk a little bit just about that in particular When I've wrapped up my comments, but I think that might just be helpful to understand We have a condition to have all of that revised as conditions of approval, but just something that That is somewhat unusual and just want to make sure that we understand. Otherwise, you know, the conditions that we have really result from some of the changes that happened in correspondence with DPW. So, for example, in earlier iterations of the plan, there was a utility connection through kind of the green space that you see connecting out over to Malden Street. That's no longer proposed, so that area will stay wooded instead. And those utilities instead are just proposed to be extended from the existing terminus at Morgan Street. So that for the sewer means that there's a force main, although it's a low pressure, it doesn't require a pump station based on our conversations with DPW. In terms of other pieces, in terms of the project and its history, this property actually had a subdivision that was approved back in the early 2000s that subsequently expired after a series of extensions in 2015, sort of that actually automatically rescinded itself, but there's still paperwork on the record for it. So we have somewhat of an unusual ask, and you'll notice on page two of 11, where you move to a vote, that we have some recommended language to include, which would basically help us just clean up the fact that this plan will supersede prior plans that are on the official record for this property, so that there aren't sort of redundancies and recorded plans that create confusion in the future. So we have that. So I just wanted to call attention to that in particular. There is a 14th lot off of that area where I was describing the utilities previously being proposed from Malden Street. The applicants indicated at this time they don't have plans for that lot. It does have the ability to be built upon. So we were just noting that it's part of the subdivision at this point. And then another thing that I just want to touch on is while the existing portion of Morgan Street is in fact public, there's actually a tiny little strip of street that actually got left out of the legal description when the city accepted it as public back in the 60s. So we've asked the applicant through this process to upgrade that small section and lay it out as part of this subdivision plan with their ultimate intent to convert that to public. So just I want to clarify, since, again, that's a somewhat unusual piece. Otherwise, I think if we could get some clarification on the sort of interceptors. Well, the main comment that we've had, and we understand the applicant is not interested in making these modifications, but as you can see, it's a large area today. This area is forested. We heard a lot about trees before. That is one of the early action items of NowNext that our office is actually working on right now. around tree protection ordinances, but approximately five or so acres end up being cleared as part of this. And so our kind of comments related to the site plan were if there's any way to bring the structures closer to the street itself, to limit the grading, to potentially limit the clear cutting that's necessary to facilitate the development, and the applicants indicated their preference is not to do that, but just wanted to kind of reiterate those concerns in terms of canopy loss, the amount of earth disturbance and earth moving that would be occurring to facilitate that, and the viability of pulling those up. The applicant has made efforts to add additional trees since their initial proposal, more than doubling what was proposed on each lot, and it does comply with the requirements of the subdivision regulations, which are essentially trees every 50 feet along the street, but on the lots. So there are more trees than are required, proposed, but again, just wanted to call that out from a general perspective. If you look kind of at the existing houses along Morgan Street, you can see they're situated closer up to the street, more in line with kind of our traditional zoning. Obviously, in some instances, these driveways are like 170 feet, so they're much longer than you would typically see in our traditional urban environment, although this is certainly a context that's more peripheral than some of the urban core and what we were just looking at, for example, over off of Highland Street. Anyhow, that is the one thing that I think I wanted to mention beyond, as was noted, they did get approval for the project from the Conservation Commission. So I think maybe just a little bit more of information about the interceptors, well, that would be great. And the comment, maybe if they could just address the rationale for the inability to kind of shift the structures forward. Thank you.

You want to address those before we get other comments from city staff?

Yeah, the swale that Michelle's talking about is basically it captures surface water runoff and directs it back into the stormwater systems. Our experience with them is they're pretty reliable as long as they get occasionally what we call a gully washer, which keeps them functional. They would need some maintenance at some point, but our experience with them is that they remain functional. The way we've designed it, it generates enough velocity, flow velocity within the swale to maintain cleanliness in the swale. That's the key for how we design it, if that's helpful.

Understood, Ms. Smith. Is that satisfactory to you or?

Through the chair, I would also say I don't know if DPW has any concerns about that. I think that's likely satisfactory. I can't recall. I'm trying to identify if we have it in here as to a cross-seasment. I think we did, but let me just double-check. Yeah, we do. We have prior to occupancy that we're looking for cross-seasments for this well. So that's the way we've kind of handled that.

Okay, understood. Second question regarding the rationale, why not push those units forward further away from the highway?

That's my client's preference in terms of what they plan to develop as a property. The intention is that this is going to be a private, I would say a nicer property. The intention is to do that.

I mean, I'm not a builder of single-family homes, but I would have to say I would rather live further away from the highway than closer to it, even if that meant a slightly smaller front yard.

Well, if you're talking about 190, those homes are the wooded areas, 140 feet of woods between 190 and their right-of-way line. So we have ample separation. OF THESE PROPERTIES.

WOULDN'T YOU RATHER HAVE 240 FEET, THOUGH?

WELL, MY CLIENT ARE SMART PEOPLE. THEY KNOW WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO, AND WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM. THEY APPRECIATE THE INPUT, BUT THEY DO WANT TO HAVE HOUSES THAT ARE SET BACK OFF THE STREET SOMEWHERE.

UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS, DPW OR DPW?

Hi, Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. I have no comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item tonight? Counselor, come on up.

And I'll just remind board members too, there were some comments that we did previously get that are in the packet.

Good evening, thank you. I think I've been on record all along with this project here as it's come along. I don't know if it's been before you and zoning board already, but in regards to, there's a lot of concern in the neighborhood in regards to traffic, quite frankly, and how it pertains to um brook street which is very narrow as it is already already a cut through and how the amount of homes and families there would impact the school up the street so i just want to go on record asking the planning board to please take that into consideration as you make your decisions okay thank you thank you uh anyone else from the public on this item in the room tonight

Seeing none, Ms. Russell, is there anyone online?

We do have a couple folks online. If anyone's called in, it's star 9 to raise your hand, and then it'll be star 6 to unmute, or you can use the raise your hand feature on Zoom. First up, we have a phone number ending in 5889 if you want to. I'm sorry. For folks who had raised their hands, I... Okay. There you go. You should be able to go ahead now.

Yes, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay. My name is Mary from Worcester. Through the chair, one resident, Dina Tedeschi, emailed the planning board her concerns within the 48-hour deadline, and we just wanted to be sure that the board has read her concerns. According to a letter to City Hall, the applicant requested a waiver to disregard the city ordinance of 275-seat minimum centerline curves radii allows to allow for only 150 feet. This is 125 foot decrease of what is required by the city. The applicant's reasoning for decreasing the required length was because if they follow the ordinance correctly and accurately, the applicant would not be able to develop as many lots. Why is the city considering disregarding their own ordinances in favor of private development? Why are less lots the city's problem? This sounds like the developer should propose work that falls in the city's rules instead of asking for rule changes. Is this the precedent the city is going to set? If allowed, future developers will use this waiver case to develop noncompliant lots, which at that point, what is even the purpose of the planning board if developers can blatantly not abide by the city's own rules? The city requires a 12 foot minimum driveway width. The developers are proposing a 10 foot minimum driveway width. It does not meet the city standard. The developer is claiming a 100 foot setback for the proposed housing. The city audience is 35 feet. This increase of a 65 foot setback for each house will not fit the contour of the neighborhood. And it's being done in order to fit more houses in the development. In addition to the applicant attempting to decrease the central line curve radius, this waiver directly impacts fire truck and emergency vehicle turnaround capabilities. The applicant's turnaround analysis plan has many flaws. If possible, if the chair has the truck plan to put on the screen, if you have it, If not, no worries. But if you have it?

I think Ms. Russell is looking now. We're not sure.

Okay, I'll go on. Okay. Their plan shows the red outline having to hop the curve in sidewalk area to make a turn. Due to the minimized centerline radius, they are requesting an emergency vehicle fire truck a force to drive up onto it over the curb and sidewalk in order to attempt a safe turn in the cul-de-sac. The point of contact between the truck and sidewalk happens to be very close to a wheelchair ramp and crosswalk, which proposes disastrous safety concerns for pedestrians nearby. If this project gets approved, the same curb and sidewalk will eventually be city-owned and taxpayer-funded for repairs. In essence, the applicant is asking for a smaller radius curve which prevents fire truck turn around and the residents are left to petition and pay for the damages of curb and sidewalks. Also, the applicant's scale of the truck turning plant is not accurate. The scale claims that one inch is equal to 20 feet. Upon measuring, the one inch is actually only 0.95 inches. The red line fire truck boxes also vary in size from 1.86 inches to 1.89 inches. The applicant failed to specify any truck sizes on the plan. They simply inserted a red box and expect people to assume it's the correct standard truck size. With so many inconsistencies on just one plan, the city should not grant a waiver for the shortened center line curve radius. The standard fire truck and emergency vehicle requirements for roads, according to the NFPA, is that a roadway should not exceed a 3% elevation change within a 20-foot stretch. The majority of this new development is on a steep downward slope that appears to exceed a 3% change within 20 feet. Specifically, between stations 350 and 450, the plans call to a consistent 8% change. Any 20-foot section within that 100-foot stretch will exceed the 3% maximum required by the NFPA. It is unlikely that a multi-ton fire truck can safely and securely park on the incline in icy conditions without slipping and causing harm. The applicant should prove this before any planning board approval. A member of the fire department should also speak on this item before any approval takes place. According to a letter to City Hall, the applicant requested a waiver to disregard the city ordinance of permitting a dead end road at 500 feet maximum length. The applicant is proposing to disobey this ordinance by proposing a longer length road than what is allowed. The longer length of a dead end road creates very dangerous and unsafe conditions as this creates only one way in and one way out to reach emergencies at the far end of the street. City ordinances are created based on logic, engineering, experience, and safety to serve the public. Why should developers be able to subvert these precious requirements in the name of larger profitability? The applicant has requested an abnormal and unreasonable amount of waivers for this project. The city has its ordinances in place for good reason, and the idea of applying for multiple waivers is essentially asking the city to turn its cheek on its own rules in favor for a private developer. Waivers and conditions should only be allowed in minimum numbers and on a case-by-case basis with approval only given due to physical, immovable impossibilities, not because the developer wants to sell a few extra houses, Additionally, the conservation committee required the developer to follow an alarming number of 20 conditions for the project. At what point did the city step in and realize that this project has hit an unreasonable limit of too many waivers and conditions? It is obvious it has hit a point where there are too many items and requests that bend the city's rules. This development will set a standard for future developers that rules do not need to be followed, that developers don't need to meet the city standards or ordinances, and that developers simply need to request as many waivers and conditions as they want to construct anything they please. According to the applicant's plan, both basin access driveways are proposed to be 10 feet wide. However, according to the city's ordinances, Access easements shall be a minimum of 25 feet in width. This falls short 15 feet of the required width. The plans propose berm asphalt curbing throughout the development. After multiple city council meetings and public works commission meetings over the last few years, the city has stated that they have moved to an all-granite vertical curb standard for existing and new roads. This is evident if you watch previous public meetings and with many new roads that have been developed and resurfaced since 2024. Morgan Street does indeed have sections of granite curbs with berm as well, so it is not a matter of, quote, matching the existing road, unquote. Any sidewalk through Morgan Street will show that there is granite curb on the existing portion of Morgan Street. The developer should not change the landscape of Morgan street by adding over 1000 feet berm. Berm is easily cracked and broken by vehicles and especially snowplows. Granite vertical curb is what the city has been implementing for both arterial and residential roads, not just arterial roads. And this plan proposes the opposite. If the project is approved, a granite curb shall be required. With the recent disasters of 20 water main breaks in two months, the project's proposed water main extension risks damaging Morgan Street's aging water main. Extending the old water main on Morgan Street for the development will increase the likelihood of more catastrophic water main breaks, causing both public property and private property damage. If the water main on Morgan Street were to break from the development's extension, It will not only damage the roads, but create violent flow of water down in two directions. Flowing down both Medfield Street Hill and Morgan Street Hill until it hits the low points on Malden Street and Brook Street. This would be an absolute disaster, especially during the winter months. According to the December public meeting, the applicant stated numerous times that a homeowners association, or HOA, would take on some of the responsibilities and assistance for this project. There are no homeowner audit associations on Morgan Street or any surrounding streets. HLAs are quite aware in the city of Worcester and any applicant who wishes to conduct a proper project in the city should know this kind of information before they propose unsafe and non-compliant designs. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Ms. Russell, anyone else online?

Yeah, absolutely. And just to confirm from the prior speaker's comments right at the beginning, I do want to confirm we did receive that letter late this afternoon. It was shared with the applicant and the board members, so you should have it in your materials. That was the letter from Dina. It looks like next up we do have a couple other folks with their hands raised. Jim, if you want to go ahead next, you should be able to unmute. Jim, it looks like you're unmuted if you want to go ahead. If you are speaking, we can't hear you if you want to just. We do have some other folks called in. Maybe we can circle back. There is someone called in with the phone number 7703 if you want to go ahead and provide comments.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yep, go ahead. I'm Lauren of Whisper, and through the chair, there have been previous attempts to develop this exact location in the past by the same applicant. However, the applicant has failed to ever move forward with any work. As these failed attempts indicate, there are obvious major factors and concerns with this development. The applicant has owned the land for decades and has not attempted to do anything with it until now. The applicant says in a Conservation Commission meeting in early February 2026 that it wasn't the right time. How can the city and residents be sure that the developer will properly conduct a large development such as this one on time and abiding by the city standards? Not one, but two city councils have already written letters to City Hall and the boards who are reviewing this project, expressing concerns and hesitancy about the development. Additionally, many taxpaying residents are also against the project moving forward. Even the Conservation Commission has already raised concerns about the wetlands runoff and outflow of drainage at a December public meeting. Some of the major factors and concerns include, but are not limited to, emergency vehicle capabilities, unreasonable amount of waiver requests and conditions, pedestrian safety, the contour of the neighborhood, lack of specified infrastructure, residence disturbance, environmental concerns, and poor traffic management. The plans do not show proposed sidewalks following any ADA compliance with respect to pedestrian accessibility to existing section of Morgan Street or any of the other surrounding neighborhood streets. The sidewalks do not tie into anything that is allowed by ADA or PRO-WAG. There is no continuous flow of travel on Morgan Street and surrounding streets without being put in harm's way or breaking the law. Proposed sidewalks will not connect to any existing sidewalks as there are no existing sidewalks anywhere in the neighborhood. The city does not allow new sidewalks to be constructed without a safe and compliant path to a destination. If they do, this would violate ADA guidelines. The applicant's plans would propose that handicapped residents to exit the sidewalk into the roadway meant only for vehicle traffic without any other compliant or legal path back to safety. Even with an ADA compliant wheelchair ramp, exiting wheelchairs are being directed into the busy street. There are no sidewalks on Morgan Street or any surrounding streets for pedestrians to get back to safety. If pedestrians wish to travel to other parts of the neighborhood, they're forced to exit onto the road and use the roadway for pedestrian traffic. The applicant wrote in their December 12th letter, admitting that this street will not connect into a network of existing walks. A literal interpretation of this requirement would increase the cost of development and provide no demonstrable utility of development and provide no demonstrable utility to the residents. Why is cost of development by a private developer more important than putting residents onto the roadway to walk Morgan Street? If a developer and city wishes to guarantee safety for pedestrians like they claim in Vision Zero, then sidewalks should be built on all of Morgan Street, Medfield Street, Door Street, Brook Street, and Honeywell Road. It is disrespectful that developers speak on behalf of the residents by saying there is no demonstrable utility to the residents. Having sidewalks that connect throughout our neighborhood would absolutely be a demonstrable utility for residents. The proposed wheelchair ramps by station 4500 do not and will not exceed ADA compliance standards. Installing a wheelchair ramp on a hill prevents the required 1.5 maximum pitch for a wheelchair opening. ADA and PRO-RAG require a maximum 1.5 pitch opening for a level landing to the roadway. The two wheelchair ramps by the cul-de-sac will have openings that exceed ADA and PRO-RAG regulations. This would make the two wheelchair ramps non-compliant. The city uses third party inspectors to measure and verify compliance at all wheelchairs. What is going to happen when these third-party inspectors find two non-compliant wheelchair ramps by the cul-de-sac? Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Ms. Russell, anyone else online?

Yes, we do. Dina, if you want to go ahead, you should be able to unmute.

Hi, good evening. My name is Dena Tedeschi. I'm a Worcester resident and I just wanted to comment. I did submit detailed comments that I appreciate that that's been passed over to the planning board members as well as comments that were submitted by Jason Campbell, also another resident of Morgan Street. I just want to indicate the image on the screen here that shows that 140 feet this is clearly at a time of year that's not winter for six months out of the year these deciduous trees are pretty barren there's a lot of underbrush and shrubbery and low growth but this is an Perfect example of what it looks like during that time of year for where it's in full bloom, but it is not for half of the year what it looks like. And so the extent of sound and light pollution that would be experienced for not only the residents that currently exist, but what would be these newer residents would be pretty extreme. Also, it was mentioned that they want this to feel private, which gives a tone of high end, which is in direct contrast to the idea of helping out the housing market, especially if this is gonna be built in one or two homes at a time, that is not a solution. And I know that they've mentioned that in a number of the different documents that have been submitted. And this privacy statement is not evident based on the proximity of these homes from the road, clearly, but from side to side, these homes are right next to each other. And if you look into the home immediately on the right, once you enter the new development that abuts 50 Morgan Street, literally the back of the home will be looking into the side of the home. So if they're worried about proximity and privacy, I don't feel like that that statement holds any water. I'd also like to reiterate the lack of experience by this developer of this kind. This is a developer who, from my research, does home renovation and restaurant renovation, and not home development and not housing development. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Ms. Russell, anyone else?

Through the chair, I just want to make sure someone with the phone number 5889, you may have spoken earlier. Your hand is still raised. I just want to make sure you didn't have any additional comments. Yeah, go ahead. If you have any additional comments to provide, you're welcome to do so at this time. You look unmuted, so you should be able to speak.

I did already speak. Thank you very much.

Yeah, go ahead.

I already spoke. Thank you.

Oh, I'm so sorry. It looks like the only other person with their hand raised is Jim, and it looks like his audio is still loading. So unfortunately, we don't have him connected at this time to provide comments. The board's certainly welcome to circle back later if you'd like to, but nobody else has their hand raised to speak.

Okay. Let's move on to board discussion then. Who'd like to go first?

uh well this is connor i guess i can uh go first again um just wanted to again thank the uh city staff for their thorough review of this as well as the commentator uh the commenters from public um i understand this has been in front of city staff for quite some time uh and really appreciate all the all the the time they've uh put in working with the applicant and their team on reviewing this um In terms of the requested waivers, I am glad to see the waiver for the sidewalk come off. I understand there were some concerns or comments about it connecting to a larger sidewalk network, but I think my position, and I think as we've discussed on the board previously, it's better to include sidewalks where we can. And then with the idea that the sidewalk network gets filled in over time, obviously this board can't really control what is existing on Morgan Street and elsewhere in the neighborhood, but we can control what is happening in the subdivision. So I'm glad to see that we were able to get those included. The other waivers, I think I'm okay with... with them as requested. I think it was Ms. Smith's point about the moving the tree or the locations of the houses closer to the street to potentially provide some, to save some additional tree coverage from being lost was a good idea. I heard the applicant not be as interested in that idea, but Hope they can reconsider it, hearing some of the comments from the board staff and their butters. But otherwise, I think this has been pretty thoroughly reviewed. There's quite a number of conditions for both the Defender's Subdivision Insight Plan, so I'd be willing to support it.

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Let's go, Mr. King.

Overall, happy to support it. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. DeLera.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So through you, the chair, I have a question for our staff, if they could reflect on what one of the residents had comment on regarding the turn radius and emergency vehicles. If you just provide some analysis of what their testimony was, and how does that correspond to what's actually in the plans?

Sure, through the chair. What I can tell you is, and we can pull that plan back up, the Department of Transportation and Mobility and the Fire Department both reviewed this plan and had no comments, so they were both satisfied by what was shown here. It does look like on the very south end of the bulb that it's possible that the way that the apparatus is shown that it could jump the curb. It doesn't appear that it's on the sidewalk. I'll defer to Mr. Quinn to clarify it, but I think I can see that that point there. I will just clarify too that it's not a mandate of the subdivision regulations for granite curbing and cement concrete sidewalks. It's a recent standard that the city has adopted. And so the applicant is committing to providing those through the conditions that staff have provided here. Obviously the granite is more durable than something like a bituminous asphalt, basically berm, which would be the other permissible standard in terms of the subdivision regulations. So just wanted to clarify that as well for board members, but I'm not sure that fully answers your question, but our colleagues in fire, the fire protection engineer reviewed it Didn't have any feedback, and our Department of Transportation and Mobility reviewed it and also didn't have any further feedback. Thanks.

Thank you for that. Mr. DeLera, I think I kind of might have understood this differently, and I want to make sure we are correct on this. So the change in radius, it's not related to the bulb. It's related to the curve of the road.

The cul-de-sac is in conformance with the rules and regulations.

Right, so it's the curve. Are rules and regulations which were adopted when most recently amended?

1991.

In 1991, related to subdivisions, call for a wider radius on the curve. It's not about vehicle safety or apparatus ability to get there. The fire truck, that's not where the public commenter was highlighting some areas they felt that the turning analysis showed the truck might jump the curb. That's not where the radius is affecting. It's the very entrance to the site. And to my mind, the difference between now and 1991 is we're a lot more conscious as a city about what some people call traffic calming. So naturally, through design, reducing speed of vehicles rather than through police enforcement and ticketing. which is obviously very difficult to do. So in this case, the tighter the radius, the studies have shown that cars drive slower because they can't see as far because the road feels tighter. I think that's a net positive. I mean, it does require a waiver in this case, but I think it's an improvement to the neighborhood. Hopefully that helps, Mr. Dallara.

It does. Thank you. I wanted to make sure that the comment from the resident was addressed and that she'll feel as though it were considered as part of this discussion. Overall, I don't have any major issues. I feel as though if there were fewer houses proposed for this area, it just might make for an overall more satisfactory experience for everybody involved. But if this is the direction that they're going in, I'd be inclined to support it with with the conditions that the city has suggested. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dallara. Mr. Toomey.

A couple of things. You mentioned on the curve difference of 150 versus 275. What were the speed numbers you threw out for that?

275, that's the radius of curvature that accommodates a 45-mile-an-hour speed limit. Generally, communities adopt one radius of curvature, and it's generally applied community-wide, so it'll apply to a major road or a little subdivision. In this case, a 150-foot radius of curvature, that accommodates a design speed of about 25 miles an hour. It's appropriate, in my opinion, that that's an appropriate design for a subdivision road of this type.

And again, the city ordinance just changed that 25 miles an hour is the speed limit anyhow, so that ties in with that. And as you had mentioned, relative to the road design, that's probably more of a positive than it is a negative. A question for staff, and this came up last time, and Michelle, you weren't here, and maybe you can answer. The 500-foot dead-end number, we had that last time as well. To me, it just seems, is that arbitrary, or where does that number come from?

I can't tell you exactly how it got adopted or established in our code because I wasn't here at the time it was written. I think it's not atypical to see 500 feet as a dead end length. Fire trucks not wanting to back up if there's not some form of turnaround. I'm not sure if that's specifically where it came from. I would have to do more research to tell you definitively. Ultimately, I think at some point all of the measurements in zoning have some form of arbitrary nature. But I think likely there was a determination that that was a reasonable length to expect given limitations may be available on the site and that anything longer we should be seeing interconnection. Because the purpose of the limitation is to facilitate interconnection. With other roadways and in this instance there is the opportunity to connect through to Malden Street I know this was in the the applicants written narrative But maybe it's worth them just explaining a little bit tonight at the hearing about the the rationale for why they can't connect through or the the downsides of connecting the What you see as the cul-de-sac through? To Malden Street.

It's a good question. We looked carefully at connecting through to Malden Street The topography, when you go from the end of that cul-de-sac out to Malden Street, is severe. It's virtually unbuildable if you're designing in accordance with subdivision rules and regs. We can't comply because the topography is so severe in that area. I mean, it's in our interest to connect it through to get more locks, but we could not make it work. And this had been previously engineered by another office in 2005 that came to the same conclusion.

Okay. And again, the ability at the end of the cul-de-sac to have an ability to turn around and not force something to back up should ease that concept or that worry relative to over 500 feet.

Yeah, through the chair, the requirement regardless would be for there to be the cul-de-sac. What I would say is today the road terminates without a cul-de-sac right it terminates just in a dead end there is not a turnaround there so as it relates to emergency response it does I would say provide an improved condition in the sense that there is now a turnaround for all apparatus for any call that might happen on the street there ultimately the the dead end length is exceeding that 500 feet certainly there are other examples of times where the board has has chosen that waiver given site circumstances you know, I would just say as it relates to interconnecting to Malden Street, to do that, that would facilitate additional clearing, additional impervious and disturbance closer to the wetlands and natural resources that are over in that area. So those are all kind of downsides of seeing that interconnection as well. But we did ask the applicant to explore that.

One other question. If you could go back to the picture that was up earlier there with the curve radius, it almost seems like there was another driveway going off. Is that actually drainage and not a...

There is an access way for both infiltration basins. We have to provide means of accessing basins for maintenance.

Okay, so that's just a maintenance road for that. Yes, sir. You also had mentioned that there was a system that was going to need to be flushed out on occasion?

Well, Michelle had asked about the interceptor swale. And basically, the swale is at the bottom of an incline, and it captures surface water runoff and delivers it into the basin. We try to design these to be long-lived, that they will be stable for a long time. We don't do them at minimal. We do them in a kind of defined fashion. Our experience is that they stand up well and they do their job because the type of flow that these will see would be surface water flow, not from a paved surface, but overland flow, which is less intensive, if you will, in the nature of the water flow.

Who becomes responsible for cleaning that if that's got to be cleaned? That would be the city.

The ownership of the basins and all infrastructure would go to the city.

just to clarify this wales would not those are on private property and not something that the city is going to be responsible for those i'm sorry that's she's right those are on private properties the homeowner the property owner individual homeowners would have to do that again i don't see an issue with the waivers that are there and i think it's again something i'll be able to support thank you mr toomey for myself um i'm not particularly thrilled with this sub type of subdivision mostly because

of the setback of the houses from the road. I don't think this is consistent with the type of development we're envisioning for the city with NowNext. I do, with that said, think we need a diversity of housing types. It's not one only, it's all of the above. So having seen this reviewed, options from my perspective are either we approve it as reviewed by city staff and contemplate it here, the review's been extensive, or we continue the hearing and request the applicant recite some of those buildings. I don't know that, I think that's ultimately going to be productive.

the planning board to do so i'm inclined to support this unless there's any further discussion from members of the board and through the chair i would just note if the board members felt strongly about that it does look like there's some play on the lots that are located to the north If that was a concern, I don't know if the applicant would be open to committing to making adjustments on certain lots where there is some flexibility. Don't want to speak for them, but just if that's something that would otherwise result in a continuance and folks would be amenable to conditioning. The one other thing I wanted to mention is there was a resident concern raised related to the curb ramps and their compliance with PROAG and ADA. So we do have standard conditions that address that. It says in DTM's condition PI, it says all sidewalks shall be ADA and PROAG compliant. You could add and curb ramps there just to clarify, but those are ultimately part of the sidewalk. So DTM would be looking for that. It's a requirement for it to be on the plans and then for construction purposes. If it's not to city standard, then the city wouldn't accept the road.

Understood. Any additional discussion from members of the board?

hearing none mr mccormick with that i would make a motion to uh i think i can do all all three of these at once and i know there's that extra language uh in the gtm where um Planning memo and but to do all three of these at once motion to approve the definitive subdivision plan definitive site plan and rescission. A certificate of approval from we're going to state subdivisions from 2005 as amended in 2010 for 149 malden street and zero Morgan street. With the finding that the prior definitive subdivision plan approval for Morgan Estates granted by the Planning Board on June 22, 2005, and amended on July 21, 2010, had expired as of July 21, 2015, and is therefore void, and that the Board approves the proposed definitive subdivision plan, which shall supersede the previously recorded plan book uh 845 plan 83 and certificate of approval dated august 20 2010 as amended and is granted subject to the staff recommended conditions of approval and waivers requested by the applicant is there a second second uh on the motion mr mccormick

yes mr king yes mr delera yes mr toomey yes i vote yes motion passes five to zero good luck to the applicant through the chair i just want to clarify did you close the hearing as part of that motion if not i think we did okay perfect Okay, moving on. Thank you. We have a couple definitive subdivision definitive frontage subdivision plans. So next we'll hear is item number 537 Summerhill Ave. This will be a public hearing for a definitive frontage subdivision.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Board. Donald O'Neill. I'm a lawyer here in Worcester. I'm here to see you on behalf of Sherry Klein, who's the owner of the property at 37 Summerhill Ave. In December, I had secured approval from the zoning board to allow for the division of this property into two lots, actually very close to meeting the required frontage and area, so the relief was minimal. But we are looking for the board's approval. I have looked at staff's memo, conditions of approval. I have no objection to those. And I would request waivers of the subdivision rules and regulations except those pertaining to ANR plans. And would seek your approval. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Thank you. Appreciate the brevity of that presentation. Members of city staff, comments from you.

Through the chair, this is Rose Russell in the planning division. I will be very brief before I use the definitive frontage subdivision plan for a property at 37 Summerhill Avenue. It's one lot today. The applicant's seeking to split the lot into two separate lots. There's 112.82 feet of frontage along Summerhill Avenue. Lot one, which is to the plan right, is the existing house that will have six... 55 feet of frontage, where 65 minimum is required in the zoning district. We're in the RL7 zoning district. And then on lot two, on plan left, the applicant's proposing 57.82 feet of frontage. Both lots were granted variances for relief from the frontage requirements at CBA on December 8th. We do have a couple standard boilerplate conditions of approval for this project. I just want to make note that as part of the definitive frontage subdivision process moving forward, we're just asking that applicants inscribe the new address of the lots and that we are assigning addresses at this time rather than through a process later down the line. At this time, we are still operating with our current addressing process. so folks will be required to submit an application but we hope to eliminate that and consolidate the process so we have a listed condition 1c to inscribe the new address on the proposed lot at the time of the memo we didn't have confirmation on the exact address but at this time we would just ask that lot 2 is reflected as 35 summer hill avenue I don't think the condition needs any amendments as written. I think it's fine. We just ask that that address be reflected on that new lot. So happy to answer any questions the board might have. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Russell. Additional comments from other city departments? Hearing none. Members of the public? Anyone in the room? Seeing none. Is there anyone online, Ms. Russell? Do you have someone in the room? Come on up.

Hi. We have very good neighbors in our neighborhood.

Could you just tell us your name? Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm Margo. I'm from Worcester, and I live across the street from Sherry. Okay. And I see no problem with having an additional small house in this area. We have plenty of driveway, streetway, great neighbors. Adding more neighbors, I'm all for it.

All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else from the public? And no one online? Board members?

Mr. McCormick? For myself, I have no concerns. Happy to support.

Okay. Thank you. Mr. King?

Happy to support it. Thank you.

Mr. DeLera? Agreed. Mr. Toomey? Agree. Mr. McCormick, ready for a vote?

All right. I think I see in the DPRS memo, there's three waivers that I just wanted to confirm the applicant was requesting.

Yes, I would request the waivers referenced in the staff memo.

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

On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King?

Yes.

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

Make a motion to approve the definitive frontage subdivision plan for 37 Summerhill Avenue, subject to staff recommended conditions of approval.

Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Thank you. Yeah, good luck. All right, next up 171 design number six 171 Providence Street and another public hearing for a definitive definitive frontage subdivision plan Donald O'Neill again, I'm here to see me on behalf of the applicant Kyle vu I

This is a similar definitive frontage subdivision approval that had secured relief from the zoning board in August. Minimal relief again for the existing three-family structure, which allowed for the creation of a two-family lot that actually meets all the requirements in terms of frontage and area. So I did, once again, review staff memo. I have no objections to the conditions of approval. I would request the waivers that are identified and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

All right, thank you. Ms. Russell?

Yep, through the chair. Very similar project you're looking at here. It's a definitive frontage subdivision plan for a property at 171 Providence Street. It's an existing three-family. The applicant is seeking to divide the existing lot into three. The three-family has 54 or is proposed to have 54 feet of frontage. 60 feet is required in the RG5 zone, so this lot's deficient about six feet. And then lots 2L and 2R planned south are proposed for a duplex. They both have the requisite amount of frontage, which is 30 feet for each side of the duplex in the RG5 zone. So those two are compliant. It's just this lot to the north, which did receive a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, as Attorney O'Neill stated in August. In relation to addressing, like I mentioned on the last one, this... This project's actually been through that process already, so they've already been assigned addresses. But just for the record, lot 2L we asked to be labeled 173 Providence Street and lot 2R to be labeled as 175 Providence Street. But same situation, the condition should be fine as written. Happy to answer any questions. Thanks.

Thank you, Ms. Russell. Other city departments? Hearing none, members of the public? No one in the room. Is there anyone online? Nope. Board members?

For myself, this is Connor. I am all set and happy to support.

Thank you. Mr. King?

Happy to support it. Thank you.

Mr. DeLera?

Agreed.

Mr. Toomey? No comments. Looks good. Same for me. I think we're ready for a motion.

Motion to close public hearing. Second.

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

Yes.

Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey?

Yes.

I vote yes. Five to zero. Hearings closed.

I would make a motion to approve the definitive frontage subdivision plan for 171 Providence Street subject to staff recommended conditions of approval.

Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick. Yes. Mr. King. Yes. Mr. DeLera. Yes. Mr. Toomey. Yes. I vote yes, five to zero. Motion passes. Thank you. All right, moving on. We have three definitive site plan extension of times. Is there any chance we can do this all at once?

Through the chair, if you think you're going to vote the same way, as long as the applicants are comfortable with that, that's fine with us.

Great. So just for my colleagues on the board, these are three previously approved definitive site plans that are coming back before us tonight. They need a little additional time to get constructed. They're all approved in the same vintage, I would say. And that vintage does not get them the automatic two-year extension that was part of the economic development bond bill. So we would just be looking to grant that. Does anybody have any objections to taking them all at once? Hearing none, why don't you kick us off and we'll do it.

All right. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the board. My name is Rich Mizaki with Boston Capital Development, representing the owner of the property. Anthony Rossi, Rossi Development, is also participating on Zoom. So the two projects that we are working on are 120 Washington Lot 3C and 120 Washington Lot 3D, both mixed-use projects of about 40 plus or minus units and two multifamily units and two commercial spaces, approved January 15, 2025, by the Planning Board. It's no surprise we've run into issues with construction cost escalation, interest rates, high interest rate environment, tariffs, all creating uncertainty with financing sources for the project and making it very difficult to finance. So that's really the reason we're here to request the extension.

Understood. Thank you. Additional comments from members of the city staff?

uh three mr chair so as was stated you've got three different requests two we're sort of for the two buildings that face uh green street from the overall table talk site redevelopment the two um that we were just spoken about um the third is related to a multi-family project off of gardner street they actually all have the same meeting date so basically it's a two-year extension of time that each of them are seeking from that date which was back in january of 2025 So that would bring it through January of 2027. Happy to answer anything. You've got a copy of the prior decision. We would recommend that you just approve the extension, upholding all the conditions from the original approval.

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Smith. Additional City Department comments? Hearing none. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on these items? No one in the room. Is there anyone online? Board members, any objections?

This is Connor, no objection.

Okay, hearing no other objections, I think, Connor, if you can structure a motion, that'd be great.

All right. I would make a motion to approve an extension of time for definitive site plans for Item 7, 120 Washington Street, Lot 3C, Item 8, 120 Washington Street, Lot 3D, and Item 9, 15 Gardner Street to approve a two-year extension of time to January 2027. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick. yes mr king yes mr delera yes mr toomey yes i vote yes uh five to zero all all three motions pass all three projects are extended thank you mr chair thank you all right next on the agenda item number 10 378 plantation street will be a public meeting for an amendment to a definitive site plan

Good evening, everyone. For the record, Derek Macionis with VHB, representing the applicant, UMass Memorial Healthcare, here tonight for an amendment to a definitive site plan at 378 Plantation Street, which is now known as the North Pavilion facility that is owned and operated by UMass Memorial Healthcare. I'll try and keep my presentation brief, but we have been in front of the planning board several times to date, and I would just like to highlight some of the prior approvals for the site. So originally, we were back in front of you in November of 2022. This was the former Beaumont facility, a former nursing home that UMass Memorial purchased and renovated the existing building with an additional 15,000 square foot three-story expansion. And they converted that into 72 inpatient hospital beds that is kind of overflow from the Memorial Hospital campus. So like I said, that was back in November of 2022, and that encompassed improvements to the parking areas, loading, ambulance loading, various improvements, stormwater management, And then kind of going another year ahead in October of 2023, we came in front of the board for an amendment, which included, as you can see on the screen, a proposed healing garden that crossed the wetland resource area on the site. We also added an additional accessible space gearing up for this project that's in front of you tonight. And that is now completed. The Healing Garden opened in November. We had a nice ceremony with the hospital and some of the donors for that. It's a nice space for patients and visitors and staff of the facility. And then sort of right after we got the approval for the Healing Garden and the additional parking expansion for the accessible space, UMass Memorial got approval for an overbuild. which was three additional stories on that original 15,000 square foot expansion. So they got approval for that, another amendment through the planning board in January of 2024. And now, Going up to 2026, as of last month, they received the determination of need from the Department of Public Health to build 24 additional beds and four additional treatment rooms in that additional shell space that we were in front of the board back in January of 2024. So that's a little bit of history on the prior approvals on site. What's shown on the screen here is the proposed site plan. It's an additional 32 spaces in the upper portion of the parking lot that's adjacent to Plantation Street. I might have mentioned this prior, but as part of the healing garden approval, we also cleared a portion of that upper site area. There's some excess fill material, and the slope really falls off as you kind of head towards the healing garden. So we burned that area up, stabilized that area in anticipation of getting the approval for the overbuild and the additional beds, and thus providing additional parking on site. I will note that the parking on site is strictly for visitors, so there's no staff parking here. Parking is in pretty high demand, especially during the first and third shift turnover. A lot of the spaces on site are filled, so I know we are proposing a total of 119 spaces now, 32 additional spaces, but those spaces definitely are needed on site for the visitor parking. So as you can see here, here's the proposed parking expansion. As I mentioned, the grade does fall off significantly to the Healing Garden, so we are proposing two six-foot retaining walls with about 10 feet of space in between those, where you can see the line of trees and plantings, which will kind of give a nice terrace feel for folks that are in the Healing Garden enjoying that space. It's not just going to be a a large 12-foot retaining wall that you're staring up against. It'll give a little bit of a setback and some additional planting and screening from the parking lot. And then you can see highlighted in orange on the site plan, that's a proposed walkway connection that brings you to the main walkway that was installed as part of the original construction of the facility, and that brings you right to the front door. There is a small pad just adjacent to that, which UMass is planning to set a, Facility shed pad for just some equipment that they plan to store on site You can go to the next slide This I'll just give a brief overview of the the stormwater management plan for the parking lot expansion the grades kind of gonna Continue to slope down. It's a roughly a three percent slope in that parking lot There'll be a set of two catch basins kind of in that corner where the the curve is on the parking lot expansion That'll get picked up by deep sun-putted catch basins. It'll flow in a closed drainage system to a water quality unit, which will then be piped to a subsurface infiltration system. Most of the runoff will be infiltrated. We do have an outlet control structure that you can see with a flared end section and some riprap that's within the 15- and 30-foot area. BUFFER ZONES, WE HAVE RECEIVED CONCOM APPROVAL FOR THIS EXPANSION. ONE REQUEST THEY HAD WAS JUST TO SHIFT THE FLARE DENT SECTION IN THE PIPE OUTSIDE OF THE 30-FOOT BUFFER ZONE, SO WE WILL BE MAKING THAT ADJUSTMENT, WHICH IS NOT REFLECTED ON THIS PLAN. BUT ANY RUNOFF THAT FLOWS THROUGH THAT SYSTEM WILL DISCHARGE THROUGH THE WETLAND AND THAT EVENTUALLY GETS PICKED UP IN A LARGE 54-INCH CULVERT THAT HEADS DOWN NORTH ROAD TOWARDS I BELIEVE THE NEXT SLIDE IS JUST A COUPLE EXISTING SITE PHOTOS FOR THE BOARD TO TAKE A LOOK AT. THE HOSPITAL HAS BEEN OPEN FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR NOW, ACCEPTING PATIENTS, AND THINGS ARE GOING WELL, SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO GET THESE ADDITIONAL BEDS ONLINE AND EXPAND THIS PARKING AREA.

THANK YOU. COMMENTS FROM CITY STAFF ON THIS?

This is Rose Russell in the Planning Division. So before you tonight is a definitive site plan amendment for the property at 378 Plantation Street. The board may recall this project was before you about a year ago this time. At that time they were seeking to construct a healing garden and some shell space. They have since constructed that and they're looking to fit out the shell space with 24 additional beds and three treatment rooms. Sorry, I have any of those numbers. a little bit off but as part of this fit out they are seeking to construct a 32 parking space expansion to their existing north westernmost parking lot along plantation street I can go back to a safe photo. So as part of this additional parking layout, they're proposing to construct a walkway from this main internal driveway south, leading to this parking lot expansion. So onsite, with the additional spaces, they'll have 119 parking spaces. This is in excess of eight spaces of what's required under the zoning ordinance. As the applicants described, they're proposing This facility is serving wholly as patient and visitor parking. All the employees are parking off-site in other locations on the UMass Chan campus. So from their description, parking is in high utilization on the site. And from what's required, they're only proposing eight additional spaces. So a reasonable increase. As part of our original comments on this project when we first saw it, we were hoping they could provide a bit of a more direct pedestrian connection from this parking lot to the building. But through discussions with the applicant, there's about a 19-foot grade change from the parking lot down to this healing garden. And the intention, they wanted it to remain as a peaceful, amenity space rather than a path for folks to walk from the parking lot to the building. So I think the pedestrian infrastructure they're providing in lieu of that is a good alternative while still maintaining that connection. So we do have a couple of recommended conditions of approval. We're looking for some additional details. And just to make note too, that Conservation Commission did issue an order of conditions. I want to say it was their meeting earlier in February, so it was just recently they approved the same project scope you're looking at tonight. Some of our recommended conditions of approval, we are looking for some additional details, some additional erosion control blankets. The site is a little bit steep, right around that concrete pad. We had additionally requested that be landscaped, but they are intending to use it for a shed in the future, so we don't have any issue with that staying there for now, rather than it just be an expansion of the parking lot if they're using it for a shed. I think that addresses our concern there. We're looking for some additional trees, and the applicant did confirm they're amenable to it. There's a funeral home to the south of this. They're amenable to adding some additional trees along that property line to further buffer the separation between the two. In our comments, we had recommended they consider making that southern row of parking spaces compact. This would provide additional... Compact spaces are 16 feet in depth versus 18 feet of your standard spaces. If they converted this entire row to compact, this would expand the landscape buffer and they may be able to gain an additional parking space. We don't have any conditions. We're just throwing it out there as something the applicant could consider to get an extra space in there and to provide some additional buffer to the neighboring funeral home to the south. But we are happy to hear that they're amenable to those plantings either way. I think it's about five feet now. And with that expansion or the compact spaces, it would be seven feet instead of five feet. We did receive some DTM comments on this project. I just want to highlight those for discussion. DTM has requested the applicant reconstruct the sidewalk along Plantation Street, abutting the property to city specifications. They've asked that all walkways, parking lots be ADA and MAAB compliant. I want to give the applicant an opportunity if he wants to discuss any of these conditions of approval. In prior iterations, it looks like the applicant may have done some staging close to Pleasant Street or partially in the right of way, and we had flagged the condition of the sidewalk, the need for future repairs, and that the connection of the site to off-site campuses for UMass Chan and having their employees and be parking off-site and walking to this location, that we'd really like to encourage them to upgrade the sidewalk along their frontage. So that's our condition. And the other condition I just wanted to make note of was DTM requested 10% of all EV spaces to be EV ready and 10% to be EV online. Today they have eight online spaces. Sorry, I might have this backwards. I think they have eight EV ready spaces. 8 EV ready spaces and 10 EV online. So they'd be looking at an additional 4 EV ready and 2 EV online to meet that 10%. From what I understand, they're compliant with the stretch code or whatever code applies to the building today because the building obviously predates our current stretch code. So I just wanted to highlight those two DTM comments. I'll leave it there for now, but I'm happy to answer any questions the board might have. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Russell. Comments from other city departments? Hearing none. Anyone from the public on this item? No one in the room. Ms. Russell, is anyone online? Board discussion.

This is Connor. I think I'm all set. No questions. Thank you.

Okay, Mr. King. no questions on this one thank you mr delera no questions either thank you mr toomey no questions thank you uh so miss russell question for you uh the sidewalk repair that you mentioned is that conditioned

The way the condition reads today is that the applicant would be required to reconstruct the sidewalk the full length along Plantation Street along their frontage. So any repairs or any existing damage to the right-of-way would be required to be repaired regardless. So that would need to be done through a separate process, but the way the condition reads is that they're required to upgrade that full stretch of sidewalk.

UNDERSTOOD. IS THE APPLICANT AWARE OF THAT?

YES, I'VE SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT. SO ONE THING I DIDN'T MENTION ABOUT THE PARKING LOTS IS THAT THEY'RE CONTROLLED VIA, IT'S A RAISED ISLAND. WE HAVE OUR MAIN DRIVEWAY THAT KIND OF COMES DOWN TO THE DROP OFF AREA. And there's two gated access islands. So for construction vehicles to get in and out while also keeping some of these spots available during the construction of this parking expansion, there will be a fence line that kind of ropes off or fences off a portion of this upper parking lot and then You can kind of see along the property line, along Plantation Street there, they previously used that as a temporary curb cut for some equipment getting in and out, and I think they would be proposing a similar plan for the construction of this expansion. So the applicant would request if we could work with DTM to determine those actual limits of sidewalk when we file for that temporary curb cut permit, if that could be conditioned in that manner. I guess I'm confused.

What does that do for you? Determine the limit of the... So you're going to apply for the temporary curb cut, but determine the limit of sidewalk that you're going to be bound to repair?

Correct. And then maybe some additional length, depending on what DTM would like to see.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE WAY IT'S CONDITIONED NOW, YOU'D BE REQUIRED TO REPAIR THE ENTIRETY OF THE SIDEWALK. SO YOU'RE ASKING TO REDUCE THAT AMOUNT?

I think the applicant is amenable to replacing, because there's a bituminous section, I think, from Mercadante Funeral to the south to the new curb ramps that we installed across our curb cut. So the applicant would be amenable, I guess, to replacing that bituminous section between Mercadante and our curb cut, if that's how the condition reads. I don't think it specified a lineal footage along Plantation Street, but I'm assuming that's

That was an intent from our conversation with DTM, but if it's helpful, we can codify that in the decision, just clarifying we're also not looking for them to reconstruct what they've recently constructed. Yeah, just basically to the southern end of where that concrete, cement concrete terminates back down to the cement concrete that's on the adjacent property, the funeral home.

Okay. Okay. So do we require an amendment to the conditions or no?

Through the chair, we can clarify that language in the decision So you can add that as a modification or a clarifier.

Okay, great. Then for myself, I'm happy to support this and I think we're ready for a motion.

Could I just comment on the EV parking spaces as well? Yes. I think DTM is requesting 10% to be equipped with EV level 2 or level 3 EV chargers and then an additional 10% to be EV ready. As Rose mentioned, there's eight EV spaces today that are equipped with chargers. And then there's an additional 10 spaces that are EV ready because parking is at such a premium on this site. The applicant has stated that a lot of the EV spaces are currently sitting empty. So we would like to remove that condition just because those spaces are typically up at the front door. And as they are on site today, they're not really being utilized.

I mean, could we have additional EV ready spaces in lieu of the EV online?

So the additional 10%, I'd have to do the math on what the requirement would be, but...

I mean, I'm sympathetic to your argument that, hey, nobody's using these things. That may change over time. I think DTM's general thought is that we need to be building more of this type of infrastructure to support long-term trends. I'd be fine if it was just available at some future date.

which I think is what we're meeting right now from a percentage of EV-ready spaces. They're just not online yet. Right, right. So you're saying there's how many that exist now that are EV-ready? There's eight, well, there's 18 in total, 16 standard to accessible that are EV-ready. So that's over 20%. Okay.

Ms. Russell, you want to weigh in?

No, I think I'm all set.

So I guess if we could just maybe adjust this condition to say 20% EV ready.

I'm okay with that. Board members, any concerns?

Good with me.

Okay. Mr. McCormick, over to you.

Just to make sure there wasn't any other adjustments to the conditions.

Through the chair, could I suggest alternative language for that EV space?

Please.

For 1L, I would just modify it to say request a condition that 20% of all spaces to be used by employees or customers are either EV ready or EV online.

just strike the remainder of it that works okay i would make a motion to approve the definitive site plan amend amendment for 378 plantation street subject to staff recommended conditions of approval with the amendment to condition 1l as outlined by the staff

Is there a second?

Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King? Brendan, you might be muted.

Yes.

There you are. We can hear you now. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. Motion passes 5-0. Good luck. Thank you. Next up is item 11, 1256 West Boylston Street, a public meeting for a definitive site plan.

Good evening, Mr. Chair. I'm Patrick Healy. I'm a civil engineer with Thompson Liston Associates representing Sharon Bukeri. On this particular lot, this lot was originally granted site plan approval by the board in 2007. Since that time, it has been through several revisions and modifications through the Conservation Commission and has also been reviewed by the DCR because in this part of Worcester, we're actually in the Wachusett Watershed. So through this protracted permitting process, It came to our client's attention after the foundation permit was granted that a small portion of the site exceeds 15% slope and is subject to the site plan approval requirement. So if you could go back to that previous screen, you can see one area of the slope on the north side abutting the neighbor's home where there's a slope coming down. So our proposed driveway goes through a portion of that steep slope. In fact, the driveway and the culvert crossing and the grading of the replication area on this lot have been already completed. However, we need to go through the process to properly clear the project to get a building permit. So we are before you to request a site plan approval for a single family home on this existing lot. IT'S BEEN VETTED BY THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION. WE HAVE A STANDING ORDER OF CONDITIONS AND A WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION FROM DEP. THE WORK IS BEING CONDUCTED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A WETLAND SCIENTIST. AND AT THIS POINT, WE ARE I think the only question that remained from our staff review was whether the bulkhead on the rear of the building that's proposed would violate the zoning setback to the rear yard. So we've requested a clarification of that under exemption F3, was it, of the exceptions section of the ordinance to determine whether that is subject to the setback. If it is, we will eliminate the bulkhead from the rear of the lot and just go with the footprint as with the foundation that's currently in place.

Understood.

I'd be happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Ms. Russell, did we get an answer on that from ISD? I thought we had.

I did send an email to ISC this morning. The building commissioner and land use and zoning coordinator both got back to me. Their first indication, we had flagged this because on a recent case an applicant did receive a variance for a rear yard setback for a bulkhead. Every application is different. The first indication inspectional services gave was that they thought it may be covered under the exemption. We're hoping to discuss in more depth with them next week and get confirmation for this moving forward. We don't often see bulkheads. It's not on the plan here, so it's just kind of one of those funky site features that's hard to catch. So not something that comes up a lot, but on first thought, they both didn't think it would require any relief or be subject to that setback, but we will confirm next week.

Understood.

Thank you. In any event, Mr. Chair, I think that can be handled through the building permit process. It's really not an issue here. If it's a violation, we'll remove it from the plan.

Appreciate that. Sounds like you guys have it well in hand.

So, Mr. Chair, we have had a chance to review the staff memo. We're generally in agreement with the requested conditions of approval, with one exception. The last item was relative to an existing shed. where we have an abutter shed that's encroaching on the lot from the north side. That shed has been moved at this point, but it's still not in compliance with the zoning setbacks. So it's really not our shed. It's not our issue to conform with zoning. I suggest that that particular condition be deleted.

Okay. Ms. Russell, are you okay with that?

Yeah, absolutely. We can notify Inspectional Services of the zoning violation, but ultimately it's the neighbor's shed. We don't expect this applicant to remedy the situation if it's not their shed. So I think striking 1F is totally acceptable for staff.

Understood. Okay. Additional staff comments on this?

Through the chair, not to get into too much specifics here, I will just make note. This application was approved by the Conservation Commission. I believe it's called an intermittent stream crossing that runs parallel to West Boylston Street going up. The applicant has received approval. They've constructed a culvert stream crossing. And then earlier in the fall, they were issued a foundation permit. At that time, it wasn't identified that 15% slopes were being modified on site. The applicant has since come in, applied to the planning board, so the site plan approval is partially retroactive, but that is at our discretion for not catching that when they came for the foundation permit. So I just want to acknowledge that and thank the applicant for their work to get this application through. But other than that, I don't have any comments to add. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Russell. Other city departments? Hearing none, members of the public? No one in the room, anyone online? Any board discussion?

I'm all set.

All right, hearing no board discussion and having no further comments myself, I think we're ready for a motion.

I would make a motion to approve the definitive site plan for 1256 West Boylston Street, subject to staff recommended conditions of approval, striking condition 1F. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick? Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes, 5-0. Motion passes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Next up, item number 12, 31 and 33, Bridgeport Street, a public hearing for a definitive frontage subdivision plan and a public meeting for a definitive site plan.

Good evening. Again, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Donald O'Neill. I'm a lawyer here in Worcester. I'm here this evening with Patrick Healy from Thompson & Liston Associates. Connection with this property at 3133 Bridgeport Street. The applicant in this case is MPI Home LLC and Rentfest LLC. Lots were actually owned by two separate LLCs. However, there was a history of common ownership under prior owners so that we did secure relief from the zoning board to allow for basically the reseparation of the lots into two separate lots that required frontage relief and area relief. And so we're here this evening for definitive frontage subdivision approval for both lots and definitive site plan approval for the new structure which is proposed for 33 Bridgeport. um we did receive a memo from staff there were a number of conditions that were listed and we have addressed those with updated plans a couple of them that were called out and the conditions um listed on our recommendations on page two, one of which was to relocate the rear door to the center facade on the back of the property. We were not able to put it in the center due to a grade change situation, but we did find an acceptable spot for it in the corner. on the rear of the building. And we did submit that to staff earlier today. I'm not sure they had time to update the material that you have, but that has been addressed. We also provided sketches for improvements to the front facade this has an elevated stairway which would result normally would result in a lot of concrete being exposed and we did submit materials today that show that as being a decorative finish which is similar basically an extension of the clad boards down lower on the cement front and I think i don't know if those made it into the deck either but we did submit those there was also a request that we eliminate the two garage doors and replace with one large door that was done and we did submit that to staff as well the other conditions which are listed by the board on the definitive site plan are acceptable. There is some discussion in the memo about the street tree in front of the building that we're been urged and intend to try and preserve that tree. However, it does complicate things a little bit in terms of it's lifted the sidewalk. And so that what the recommendations call for is basically a meeting to see if it's possible to retain the tree and if the tree is retained, we will have to provide a new sidewalk, I believe a minimum of four feet width that will go around the tree. or portions of the tree where the roots are exposed that would allow for handicapped access on the sidewalk. And that is something which we understand is the condition and did not object to that. In the definitive frontage subdivision provision of the staff memo, there are three waivers that are requested. that are needed, and I would request that those be granted as well. And if I have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them, and Patrick can address any specific questions of an engineering nature related to the site plan.

Okay. Additional comments from city staff?

Through the chair tonight, before you is 31 and 33 Bridgeport Street. These are existing two lots. The lot to the left is 31 Bridgeport Street, which has a three-family, and the proposed lot is 33 Bridgeport. To the plan right is another proposed three-family. So while these lots are shown in our city's GIS system, the applicant has sought a definitive frontage subdivision to divide the parcels officially, formally, They do not meet the minimum required frontage. In this zoning district, their zone line is split, so I believe it's the parcel. Sorry, but they have two different requirements for frontage. So on the left, 31 Bridgeport isn't fully in the RG5 zoning district. There's 50 feet of frontage. 60 feet is required. On 33 Bridgeport, this is the proposed three-family on the right. They're in the RL7 zoning district, or that's the district that applies because the building is partially within that district. 75 feet of frontage is required for a three-family, and 50 feet is proposed. So while these lots are shown in our city system, they're seeking to formally subdivide them, and they were considered merged for zoning purposes. So that's why relief was granted with the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the separation, even though they are technically they may be separate today. So it's just kind of a good way to formally ensure the lots are divided. So in addition to that front end subdivision plan, you're also looking at a site plan review. It's triggered by 15% slopes, and these slopes are in the front yard. It might be good if we look at this photo of the tree, but it slopes up pretty steeply at the right of way at the street level, and then it levels off closer to the back of the property. In response to the question around the tree, As you can see here, the sidewalk's in pretty poor condition. DTM has requested that the sidewalk be upgraded along their frontage, either by removing the tree if it's not viable. Obviously, our preference is to see the tree maintained, so if it's in good health, we'd like to see it stay. We just ask that the applicant construct a four-foot-wide path of travel an accessible path of travel. And if they need to do so on their property, that they grant the city an easement for sidewalk purposes. So either take the tree down, reconstruct the sidewalk in the right of way, or leave the tree as is and reconstruct the sidewalk partially on their property, if need be. So I'm happy to talk about any of our conditions of approval. I think one of the most pressing items, and I apologize, I don't know that all the updates that we received today made it into the slides. I do just want to highlight one concern we had about an accessible entrance to this building. I know they were able to shift the rear door so it's not being blocked by those parking spaces right in the back of the lot. You can see in the location of the infiltration system. There's some parking spaces and we were just hoping to ensure that In an emergency situation that folks wouldn't be blocked by those vehicles but just in terms of an accessible route into the building since the front door is stairs up to it that if They are required to provide an accessible entrance even though they wouldn't be required to provide accessible units and that that is still accounted for so Just throwing that out there, no conditions related to updating that. We're happy to see that they moved the door so at least folks wouldn't be blocked by those cars and they could exit the building, which is something to make note of for the applicant. And then to finish up here, I think our last comment was related to the maneuverability of the site. So I'm certainly happy to hear that they were able to consolidate the garage doors into one before they were showing footings right in the center. And as you can see, this auto turn analysis requires folks for tenants to enter the parking, enter the driveway and then back in to the bottom most space. And then they would have to pull into the driveway and then back out onto the right of way. which is allowed for three families. Once you get above a three family, you're not allowed to back out into the right of way. But as it stands today, that wouldn't be an issue. And then the more northern space in that garage has a little bit more room to maneuver. So they are able to pull in and back out of that space without pulling into the driveway and backing in. So it's very tight. They're constrained by the building and a retaining wall on the left side. Adjacent to the garage, they have a little bit more room to maneuver. There's a building overhang. So they have about 18 feet, but it's still tight. So they have shown they're able to make the maneuvers. They're able to consolidate that garage door. So I think it definitely helps address some of the concerns, but something for the board to consider. So I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have about any of our recommended conditions or on the project otherwise, but I think I will leave it there for now. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Russell. Other city departments on this item?

Hi, this is Leslie Rodriguez from DPW. I would like to comment only that the street is new, so therefore the applicant will be required to pave from curb to curb. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. The applicant indicates they're aware of that. Anyone from the public on this item? Seeing none in line and no one in the room. Board members.

So if I'm all set, happy to support it and appreciate staff's review of this one.

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Mr. King.

Good use of the space and happy to support it. Thank you. Agreed.

Go ahead, Mr. Lauer. Yeah, I agree. No further comment. Mr. Toomey. No comments. Thank you.

comment from me either i think we're ready for a motion okay i would make a motion uh i would make a motion to close the public hearing seconds on the motion mr mccormick yes mr king yes mr delera yes mr toomey yes i vote yes five to zero hearings closed i would make a motion to approve the definitive frontage subdivision plan and the definitive site plan for 31 and 33 Bridgeport Street, subject to staff recommended conditions of approval. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick.

Yes.

Mr. King. Yes. Mr. DeLera. Yes. Mr. Toomey. Yes. I vote yes. Five to zero. Motion passes. Good luck. Thank you.

If I could just make a request before we move on to the next item. If we could go out of order. We have a petitioner who's been waiting here for a little bit. If we could hop to item 15 and then go back to 13, if that's all right with folks.

I think item number 13 is also waiting here.

At the board's discretion, I think 13.

Okay, let's do, this is just a street petition, so this will be fast. So let's do item number 15, the Veal Avenue street petition. Is that okay? Are you Veal Avenue? Oh, I'm sorry, come on up.

Thank you. Can I just make a personal observation? You're all volunteering. You're staying this late.

We're not thrilled about it. Well, I appreciate it, let me tell you.

That's my bedtime.

Me too.

So I really do appreciate it.

My name is Janice Santamonde, and I live on Villiav here in Worcester. Villiav is a private road. When my husband and I moved there in 92, it was a dirt road. As some point around number between 30 and 40, the road ends. But that's because the gentleman who used to live at number 40 planted a tree in the middle of the road, put up a wall so that he could pave his little section of his road because he didn't want anybody driving on it. So we always thought that that's how it was supposed to look. Ben, we didn't realize that really have actually continued beyond. So I used to approach the city for quite a few years, have them, you know, gravel the road. And then at some point I got the all the neighbors involved on our section of the street and we would all pay a portion to have a privately paved. But now it's got to the point where some neighbors refuse to pay. So my husband and I would pick up the tab to have it done. But I think when a couple situations happened with emergency vehicles, because depending on GPS that vehicles may have, we've seen emergency vehicles not come to our end from Darling onto Vealy, but from Lorenz, which this is the Burnt Coat neighborhood, Beverly Road neighborhood. from Lorenz trying to get to our portion, and they couldn't. They'd have to come back around or vice versa, depending on which direction they came from. A full-size fire truck, one of my neighbors across the street, her little boy, he had some breathing issues. He was a little guy. Full-size fire truck. I had stepped outside because I know all of our neighbors, and he asked, can he continue down the street? And I said, no, it stops. So he had to maneuver with the ambulance to, they both had a backup down the street to bring the little guy to the hospital. So of course, after seeing that, you realize, I mean, this is not a good idea to have the street you know, cut off by a tree and a wall for the, you know, safety of the neighborhood emergencies. So I did petition the city originally. I'm not familiar with petitioning. So Olivia Bull, who is amazing, let me just say, if you know who she is, she communicated with me. And she said that she got recommendation from the DPW modify the petition to incorporate a portion of Darling and bring to convert the road to a public. I'm sorry, I don't even know if I mentioned that. To convert it from private to public and have it start at where Darling connects with Ville. That part of Darling Street is private as well to make that public to Lorenz. ELIMINATING THE TREE, OPENING UP THE ROAD. BECAUSE THERE'S POOR DRAINAGE THERE. THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THAT ROAD, POTHOLES. I THINK, I'M NOT SURE, BUT THE WATER SHUTOFF, WATER MAIN, I THINK THAT'S WHAT I SEE IS NOW EXPOSED ON THAT STREET. I KNOW IT'S NOT GAS BECAUSE NOBODY ON THE STREET HAS GAS. but I think it's the water main shut off. So, I mean, the road is just, and we just can't keep on paying to have it done. I would rather just pay the city and have it made public and open it up the way it's supposed to be.

So my understanding is the petition you submitted would have resulted, DPW classifies things one to five. I believe it would have resulted in a priority four, which takes a long time. They've suggested the change, which I think you just described, that will move it to a priority one. You're okay with that change?

I am. They told me it was going to be probably a three, including Darling. and going to Lorenz, then that would make it a one. And I'm good with that. Yes, absolutely.

Okay. Comments from city staff on this item?

I didn't hear you. I'm sorry.

I said city staff. Hearing none from Ms. Russell. DPW, anything from DPW?

Hi, Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. I have no comment for this one. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, board members, so we would be recommending, what is our motion here?

Through the chair, you typically would make a motion to recommend favorably with the amendment that DPW has recommended in this instance, albeit unusual.

Understood. Mr. McCormick?

No comments, but I'm happy to make a motion if everyone else is ready.

I think we're ready.

Okay. I make a motion to favorably recommend to council a reconversion of Bailey Ave to public with a priority one recommendation incorporating the comments from DPW to include the portion of Darling Street.

Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick.

Yes.

Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Five to zero. Motion passes. Thank you for being so patient.

Thank you so much.

All right. I had convinced myself that they were your applicants.

We got a four-minute video, Mr. Chair.

Great. Four minutes sounds like the right amount of time. This will be Adenauer 13, 343 West Boylston Street. Special permit to allow multifamily dwelling high-rise in the CCOD. Public hearing for a special permit related to some relief from front yard setback. additional public hearing for minimum required parking and loading spaces additional public hearing for modifying dimensional requirements and finally a definitive site plan

Good evening, Mr. Chair. For the record, Mark Borenstein. I'm an attorney at the law firm of Prince Labelle here in Worcester representing the applicant. We've got a four-minute video presentation. Then we'll turn it over to staff comments. We have a few conditions of approval that we'd like to discuss with the board that we've conferred with staff with. So I think we're pretty close on this, and we would also respectfully request the waivers.

Cool. Careful. I might fall asleep.

Sorry? Oh, yeah.

How far in advance do you make the videos?

Depends.

I'm just wondering, they could give them, I suppose this wouldn't solve all the problems, but they could give them to us ahead of time.

Yeah, usually not, it's usually like a day or two in advance.

Because we could review them in our meeting materials, but I guess that doesn't help the public.

I mean, I'm happy to do that if they're available in advance. I mean, they're usually like last, today we submitted at what, like two o'clock? Yeah, so it was a little bit last minute today. But still, if that's what the board would like, happy to do it.

It's not so much our preference, it just seems to be, we have some tech challenges.

Yeah. Yeah, well, there's not, unfortunately, there's just no seamless way for us to integrate it into the,

format that we have so other municipalities allow for hdmi connections directly for whatever reason the city of worcester does not allow for direct hdmi connections the challenge there are a variety of reasons which i'd rather not get into if we have the video going but basically beautiful there we go

342 West Boylston LLC is proposing to redevelop an approximately 20,000 square foot lot located at 342 West Boylston Street. The property is currently a blighted site occupied by a partially constructed fast food restaurant building, a surface parking area, a retaining wall, and various other site improvements. The property is a corner lot bound by West Boylston Street and Andover Street. located in a mixed-use neighborhood consisting of commercial, industrial, and residential buildings. The property is located entirely within the business-limited BL-1 zoning district and the commercial corridor's overlay district elsewhere sub-area, known as the CCOD-E. The Worcester City Council unanimously ordained a zoning amendment on July 16, 2024, to establish the CCOD at the property to facilitate this residential redevelopment project. The applicant seeks to demolish the existing structure and construct a new four-story multi-family building, which will consist of 24 residential units, including 10 Group 2 accessible units and 14 studios. The residential units will be condominium units, which will provide home ownership opportunities affordable to households earning 70% or less of the area median income. The development has been designed to fit within the context of its surroundings. The building's four-story height will not significantly differ from the adjacent structures, such as the three-family building to the east or the mixed-use building to the north, which are located on higher elevations than the subject property. Additionally, the building will be sufficiently set back from the neighboring properties, ensuring that it fits cohesively within the surrounding area. The property currently consists primarily of impervious surfaces. The development will improve the natural condition of the property through the installation of new grass areas and the planting of new trees and shrubs. The building will have interior amenity space for residents in addition to outdoor recreational space, which will include grilling stations and seating areas. New accessible walkways will be installed in the front and along the rear and side of the building to provide safe and convenient pedestrian connectivity to the outdoor recreational space and West Boylston Street. The development will also include new driveways and 16 parking spaces along the side and rear of the building. The parking spaces will include nine compact spaces, one van accessible space, and six standard spaces, of which four will be EV spaces. The applicant's traffic engineer has confirmed that the 16 parking spaces will adequately serve peak demand based on applicable ITE standards, and peak hour and daily trips will not result in a substantial increase to traffic to and from the property. The development will also result in the construction of a reconfigured curb cut.

It's possible we have unstable internet. Bear with us.

separation from the adjacent intersection and provide sufficient sight lines and sight distances for full and safe movement. The development will also result in the elimination of the southerly curb cut along West Boylston Street and the existing curb cut along and.

Do you care if you want? I can go into my staff comments and we can pick up on the video when it's working again.

I love it.

all right um as you heard partially and as you read through the agenda we are here for a site plan and then four special permits one of those special permits we are recommending withdrawal of you'll see that in red in the memo that you have which is the fourth special permit relative to dimensional requirements for parking and loading it has been determined by inspectional services that they can administratively and have satisfactorily addressed the safety of the requirements that are there which are essentially COMPACT SPACES AND MILE WIDTH. SO REALLY THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SPECIAL PERMITS, A SITE PLAN. WHAT'S PROPOSED AS YOU HEARD WAS ABOUT A 16,000 SQUARE FOOT FOUR STORY MULTI FAMILY STRUCTURE WITH 24 UNITS. THESE ARE STUDIO UNITS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE AFFORDABLE. and home ownership, 16 service parking spaces. We have recommendations for conditions of approval on pages two, three, and four and five. We have talked to the applicant about a few things that they would like to change. And I'm going to get into our comments, but just quickly to go through those conditions so I don't forget. They're looking to move under site plan condition 1E to prior to building permit. We take no issue with that. They're looking to strike condition M and condition O. So I'll let them comment on the reason for why and the board can make a decision based on that information. And then they would like to add to condition 1N clarification to the extent feasible due to the slope RETAINING WALL. AND I WILL NOTE THAT IN THE PACKET THERE'S ACTUALLY AN OUTDATED VERSION OF THE DPW WATER COMMENTS. THE WATER COMMENTS HAVE BEEN FULLY RESOLVED. SO JUST TO CLARIFY THERE. IN TERMS OF THE OTHER SPECIAL PERMITS THAT WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA, SO THEY ARE SEEKING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE USE. THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE BL1 AND THE CCOD. IN THE BL1 WE DON'T ALLOW HIGH RISE MULTIFAMILY DRAWINGS WHICH IS WHAT FOUR STORIES IS. We only allow low rise three stories. So they are seeking through the CCOD the ability to have any form of multifamily. So they're seeking a special permit for the use first and foremost. And then within the CCOD, we have maximum front setbacks. So in addition to the minimum setbacks, we have maximum setbacks. In this case, they are seeking one foot of relief through the special permit. So we require 15 feet as a maximum. So the idea is to have the building close to the street to increase the connectivity to the pedestrian realm and create better urban form. In this case, they're looking to deviate from that by one foot.

I believe it's actually four feet.

It's four feet? Apologies. Then I think we must have been looking at a different plan. So it's four feet. So the actual setback then is 19 feet?

That's my understanding for the chair.

Okay. My apologies. Misspoke. So ignore the percentages because those are going to be incorrect as well. Either way, they're seeking to shift the building back four feet, so they're not going to comply with the 15-foot setback. They'll be closer to what would be more typical of a standard residential setback at 19 feet. In terms of the last special permit, there's two prongs of this. It's a special permit to modify the number of required parking and loading spaces. They're seeking to reduce the one required loading space, essentially eliminate that, not providing any loading provisions on the site. So I'll ask the applicant to talk a little bit about how they would handle that. And then with respect to parking, they were able to obtain A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AS WELL AS A VARIANCE FOR PARKING FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. ZBA GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR NINE SPACES. THEY CAN ADMINISTRATIVELY REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY ONE ADDITIONAL SPACE DUE TO THE AMOUNT OF BIKE PARKING THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. AND THEN THEY'RE SEEKING THE FINAL SPACE OF RELIEF THAT THEY NEED TO MEET THE 27 SPACE REQUIREMENT FOR THE 24 UNITS HERE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. SO THEY'RE SEEKING THAT ONE SPACE FROM THIS BOARD UNDER THE And then again, the fourth special permit, we've advised that the applicant can withdraw. So that's the suite of relief they're seeking. I'm going to skip by development options and just highlight that we wanted the applicant to confirm the number of bike parking spaces, We were also hoping the applicant could talk about, again, the way to manage the intentions for managing parking and loading, and wanted to call out that there are some discrepancies between the architectural rendering and the actual elevations, so just clarifying which is correct We have some conditions related to architectural enhancements along the eastern elevation, including an awning around the entry and some additional material changes along that kind of elevation to break up the massing of the facade. or not the facade, that elevation. Other question that we had was if the applicant could talk a little bit more about what they envisioned for this area that's labeled a naturalized slope. We have that conditioned to be a conservation wildlife seed mix with additional plantings. We're also hoping that they can either maintain the mature vegetation that's there, some trees, or install plantings in that location. Otherwise, we have kind of typical notes on changes, rooftop equipment, photometric plan, et cetera. The one final thing I just want to call attention to would be the retaining wall and the groundwater elevations. Groundwater appears to be about two feet below the existing parking lot in the kind of back corner where the retaining wall is proposed. So as they cut into the slope, they're going to be exposing and approaching groundwater. in that cut. And so we had some concerns, just we don't have information yet on the retaining wall design. So we had some concerns about the potential for basically the footing drain for the wall to be wicking groundwater and not wanting to put groundwater into our drainage system and instead make sure that that stays on the property. So we understand that the applicant doesn't have the structural engineer on board for the wall yet, and they would like to move that condition to prior to building permit. We just want to fully disclose that there may be a need to change that design if that's not acceptable to DPW when that comes back, which in speaking with the applicant, I think they are amenable to, but just wanted to clarify that for the board. And then I'm going to skip the rest of my comments for brevity. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you very much, Ms. Smith. Do we have the video that we want to watch the rest of yet? Mr.

Chair, I think we're having technical difficulties still, so we're just going to... Ms. Smith basically covered most of what the video was going to provide anyway, so

Great.

We'll reserve our time. I would note, just as a follow-up to Ms. Smith's comments, with respect to the modifications to the conditions of approval, with respect to our request to strike 1M and 1O, those requests specifically relate to the fact that the site was designed to achieve safe sight lines along the northerly curb cut. So you can actually see on the layout plan, grab the mic, I asked Rose to pull up the layout plan, there's a line, I can't really see it here, but effectively there's a line that's drawn across the front of the site, and it's not on this particular plan, but effectively we can't have anything within this particular area to ensure that vehicles entering and exiting the site are able to see oncoming traffic. So that was recommended. You'll notice that the plantings in the front of the building, this is the landscaping plant, are short. And therefore, that will help maintain those sight lines. Oh, so you can see here, this little hatch line. So based on the recommended conditions of approval with respect to additional shade trees, that would either be directly abutting the building or be within that line of sight. So we don't think that would be creating a safe condition. So we'd ask that that be struck. In addition, the outdoor bike rack, I think that would also be in that sight line, given that it's south of the entrance, and that's all very squarely within that sight line. So we do have exterior bike parking. You'll see it to the north of the building, near the driveway. I'll just point here on the screen. AND WE ALSO HAVE THIS INTERIOR BIKE ROOM. WITH RESPECT TO MS. SMITH'S QUESTION RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF BIKES, IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT 11 BE LOCATED INSIDE THE BUILDING. I THINK WE HAVE 10 CURRENTLY BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY ACCOMMODATE THE 11 AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY SIX OR SEVEN EXTERIOR BIKE PARKING SPACES AND WE CAN CONFIRM THAT ON THE FINAL REVISED PLAN SET. So I would also like just to add, I forgot to mention this to Ms. Smith when we spoke earlier, but I did put in an email to staff that we would respectfully request that condition BB be struck. DTM had requested that we or the development team, rather, reconstruct the curb ramps across Andover Street, and also include a new stop bar for Andover Street. This project is being funded through a multitude of sources, but primarily through funds from the state, and therefore there's limited funding for just the construction of the project, let alone off-site improvements. So we recognize that THE MOTIVATION BEHIND THE REQUEST FROM DTM BUT WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT IT BE STRUCK. SO YES, AGAIN, THAT'S BB, I AND 1 AND 2. AND MS. SMITH COVERED THE OTHER CONDITIONS THAT WE WOULD ASK THAT BE STRUCK.

And through the chair, my suggestion, if the applicant's amenable, would be maybe to modify O. Ultimately, the board should discuss on all of these, but if we could just add language that says unless it's determined by DTM to interfere with sight lines, which then gives the applicant the opportunity to explore if there's any way that that can be accommodated without interfering, and that may be ultimately the determination, but then it just gives us one additional opportunity to do that.

That would be acceptable to the applicant.

Okay. Anyone online wishing to comment on this item?

Yes, we do have someone called in. Paul, I will unmute you if you want to go ahead and speak. All right, you should be good to go ahead.

Can you hear me? We can. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Board members. My name is Attorney Paul Novak. We have offices and we represent the owner of the building along 388 to 394 West Boylston Street. We have serious concerns about one, only one item. We clearly need housing, but the issue is parking. And it's from personal experiences being at this address and seeing what's happening now, even without this particular development. All along King Phillip Road and along Gosnell Street and Andover Street, there's multiple three-family dwellings. They don't have adequate parking at the present. What they're doing, the current occupants are parking their vehicles along West Boylston Street. And I'm looking carefully at the winter parking ban. From December 1st through April 30th, both sides of West Boylston Street, there is a snow emergency. You cannot park there. We've witnessed this year that actually the city's coming out, they're tagging the vehicles, and they're towing the vehicles in the last 30 to 60 days. And I'm sure the records were available. And not only that, if you look at the other streets here, if you look at the actual parking restrictions, if we start with basically King Phillip Road, there's a complete ban on Evenside. There's a complete ban on Andover Street on the Evenside and Gosnell Street. Also, complete ban on the Evenside. So these are the streets that surround this property right now. And if you have, from personal experience, we manage many units in this area, in the Bernco-Greendale area. Typically, a studio or a one-bedroom is going to have at least one vehicle. Sometimes you'll have two when they request tandem parking. But in this particular instance, you're going from 27 spots down to 16. There's no way in Worcester that with this season, with this winter conditions, that you're going to have people bicycling. You're going to have people in there. They may not have a car when they initially come in, but when they get employment, they're going to be seeking a vehicle. And if you just go up the street one block up to the end of a street condominiums, there are one bedrooms there. In fact, if you drive through that area, you're going to see most vehicles that have at least one, if not two vehicles. Granted, there are some one bedrooms and there are some two bedrooms there also. But the point here is all the surrounding streets, and this is from the city's own records, you can refer to this, have specific restricted parking during the winter months. In fact, the two photos that we submitted today show that actual residents are parking seven vehicles on this subject property. There's seven vehicles being parked there as you're sitting here right now that don't belong here. There's neighbors in the area that are parking there because they don't have any off-street parking. Most of these buildings that are existing are grandfathered due to the fact that they don't have parking. They were built in the 20s or 30s and they didn't require it. We're putting a new building up. with approximately 24 units that's going to be here for the next 100 years. If you don't have adequate parking, it's going to be a nightmare for the current residents that live here. If you look at Andover Street now, there's the three families there. There are people literally parking only on the odd side on Andover Street. You cannot park on the even side under the winter parking restrictions. So you can just imagine where this is going. but i think what was cited in the specifics might be great for the carolinas or whatever those statistics as far as reducing parking from personal experience here we have a management company we've got the building since 1950 that we're managing currently that all have off-street parking okay for one for a minimum of one vehicle i want to say 99 98 to 99 of the people all have at least one vehicle uh there's very few that come in with a studio with just No vehicles, bicycles are not going to cut it in New England, not in the middle of winter. It's and it's a life threatening situation. The streets are very narrow here. The city just came by today for the first time and literally dug out with a front end load of the whole West Boylston Street along the corridor. to permit additional parking. We don't have any complaint against the development. We need this development. My suggestion to the board is that they request that the developer go back and see what it would take to elevate this structure one more story to provide additional spots underneath the building for these residents. Long term, that is going to be the answer. There is no other parking in the area. There's just side streets. There's multifamily dwellings, mostly three-deckers, but there's just not available parking. And if you get 24, you're looking at 27, you're going down to 16. I just don't see how that's going to work in this particular instance. I understand. I reviewed the whole proposal. Real life is different from a proposal. These are engineers coming in. We're living it right now. We're seeing the vehicles that are getting towed from the actual residents that reside in the area that cannot park on their streets because there's driveways leading in. They just don't have the space. So they're parking on here. I've viewed it personally where they're coming by, tagging and towing the vehicle. So the residents come home or get up in the morning and they have to go to a tow yard to pick up their vehicle. So in reality, it's going to create everything else. I don't have one other issue with anything in this proposal. I think everything looks great. Everyone's done a great job. But I just think going and relaxing it to that 11 spots is going to create both a private nuisance and a public nuisance long term, once these units are constructed. They are going to be sold as condos. And quite frankly, people need a spot. This is Worcester, Massachusetts. It's not downtown Boston. It's not downtown Worcester. It's in the Green Deal, Burncoat area. People that I've seen over the last 50 years in leasing always have at least one vehicle the exception is maybe someone will not have a vehicle but intends on getting a vehicle i'm just pointing that out i don't think that bicycle proposal it's great to have it if they have an additional resource but it's not going to satisfy it's going to create a nightmare for the neighborhood we just don't have those spots again i want to emphasize i'm not objecting to the development i think the density is fine everything works but the board should carefully consider this that we are shot parking spots that are required by the ordinance. We're going from 27 spots down to 16. And when I review the plan, when my paralegal come with the spots, there literally is only 15, unless we're missing something. The labeled spots on the actual development plan from the back and along the right side basically show 15 spots.

Thank you for your comments. Thank you. Anyone else from the public on this item?

Anyone joined online is going to be star nine to raise your hand if you're called in, and then star six to unmute. If you're joined over Zoom, you can use the raise your hand feature, and I will unmute you. I do not see anyone who wishes to speak at this time.

Okay. Board members.

Hi, this is Connor. Myself, I'm pretty excited to see this project come forward. I think this is a great redevelopment of an obviously underutilized site. The affordable home ownership units that this will create serves a very specific and unmet need in the city. So that's a really exciting project part of this project for me. In terms of the special permit requests, I am happy to support all of those. I understand the butter's concerns about the parking. I do think the ratio of, I think it's about 0.6 or 0.7 spaces per unit, while as low as that is reasonable given the location and the size of the project. IN TERMS OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE DISCUSSED, AND MOSTLY FOR WHEN I MAKE A MOTION, I THINK IT WAS MOVING 1E PRIOR TO A BUILDING PERMIT. I WOULD BE OKAY WITH STRIKING 1M AND AMENDING 1N AND O, AND STRIKING 1BB AS DISCUSSED. OTHERWISE, LOOKING FORWARD TO SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. MCCORMICK. MR. KING?

No further comments. Thank you. Happy to support it.

Thank you, Mr. DeLero. Thank you. I agree. No other comment. Thank you, Mr. Toomey.

If I remember right, that's the old DeAngelo's property? That's correct. Yeah, I mean, that's been a blade on that neighborhood for a long time. Everything looks great, and it's a lot of great concept, but parking is going to be an issue. I mean, there's no way around it. I don't know that we stop it because of that, but it's definitely going to be something that is going to become an issue because just that neighborhood of going to the Greendale Pub a couple times and trying to park there, all the neighborhood streets, all of that are all difficult for that. But again, I think the value of the property outweighs what becomes the parking issue. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Toomey. For myself, I initially was concerned about the landscaping in the front. I understand the necessity of the sight lines in that area. I'm familiar with that road. I agree with Mr. McCormick. Is this Commonwealth Builder? Is that the – Yes.

So just a little bit of background. This is the – it's my understanding that it – IT'S BEING APPLIED FOR UNDER THAT PARTICULAR PROGRAM. I DON'T KNOW IF THE PROGRAMS ARE CHANGING OR WHATNOT, BUT WE HAD INITIALLY OBTAINED THE ZBA APPROVALS, THE VARIANCES, BACK IN 2024, 2025? THE TIME JUST BLENDS TOGETHER. BUT UNFORTUNATELY THAT PROGRAM WASN'T WELL FUNDED. and the funds weren't available. It now seems that there might be funds for this particular project. We're hopeful that this will get funded, and therefore we're moving forward with the project in earnest. So it's my understanding it's the Commonwealth Village Program, but there might be some variation of it.

Understood. That's terrific, and I agree completely. These are important units that we don't have nearly enough of, so I'll be happy to support.

Thank you.

Okay. With that, I would make a motion to close the public hearings for the three special permits. Second.

A motion. Mr. McCormick? Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Five to zero. Hearings closed.

and i would make a motion to approve the um definitive site plan and the special permits for allowing multi-family dwelling high-rise obtaining relief from the maximum front yard setback dimensional requirement and the reduction of the minimum minimum number of required parking and loading spaces uh for 342 west boston street subject to staff recommended conditions with the amendments to move condition 1E to prior to a building permit, strike condition 1M and 1BB and amend 1N and 1O. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick.

To clarify, Mr. Chair, I just want to confirm. So that includes the special permits, the site plan, including the waivers, and does that include the request for withdrawal of the fourth special permit?

Yeah, we would respectfully request the withdrawal of that other special permit. I want to make sure that's clear in the record. And I missed Mr. McCormick's petition, but in terms of the conditions, are they as requested and discussed? Okay, thank you. And the waiver is obviously that we would request.

I would amend my motion to include all of that. Second.

Okay. On the amended motion, Mr. McCormick? Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. Five to zero. Motion passes.

Thank you.

Good luck. All right. Moving on. We already did the street petition A&Rs. Ms. Russell, how fast can we do A&Rs? Mark, no distracting. Ms. Russell? No. Sorry.

All right. So we only have a couple A&Rs tonight. A&R 16A, B, and E are not properly before the board. We're still waiting on some materials for those. So the two before you tonight is A&R 16C, 132 Moreland Street, which is a public street, and Orison Street, also public. This is a corner lot. The applicant seeks to divide an existing lot into two. We're in the RS-10 zoning district here, which has an 80-foot frontage requirement. Both lots have in excess of 80 feet along Moreland Street. Lot 2 has some additional frontage on Orison Street, but they're not counting that. So along Moreland, both lots have in excess, and it's a public street up to standard street improvements. Then the other ANR we have before you tonight is for 30, 42, and 50 LaGrange Street. These are some old mill complexes in the LaGrange Street area. The applicant seeks to draw the lot line, as you can see here in red. They're creating lots A, B, and C. Lot C. Excuse me. Lot A is going to be known as 59 Oread Street. This property has frontage to the south on Oread Street, with two lots to the north having frontage on LaGrange Street. We're in the BG6 and CCOD zoning districts here. There is no minimum frontage requirement for multifamily dwellings, and there is no minimum frontage requirements for business or commercial uses in that BG06. So there is no minimum requirements, but all lots do have a significant amount of frontage along the various streets, which are both public and up to typical city standards that you would expect. So both A&Rs are properly before the board tonight.

Is there a motion to endorse the A&Rs?

Motion to endorse A&Rs C and D. Second.

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

Yes.

Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. That motion passes 5-0. Moving into communications, there are none. Board policies and procedures, can we skip this? Yep, great. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes from January 28th?

Through the Chair, I don't believe those were in drive, so let's plan to hold those as well.

We'll hold the minutes. Is there a motion to adjourn?

Second.

Third.

On the motion, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. We're adjourned. Thanks, everybody.

Thank you.