Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I am, yes.

Okay, everybody, we're going to get started. So, good evening and welcome to the Wednesday, March 11th, 2026 meeting of the City of Worcester Planning Board. My name's Albert Lavalley and I'll chair tonight's meeting. Before we begin, a couple of brief announcements concerning how our meeting will proceed. First, I note all our meetings are in a hybrid format, which means 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-POUND. To manage 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're joined by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star nine. Staff will then call on members of the public one at a time and give them permission to unmute themselves. If you're joined by phone, you'll be able to unmute yourself by pressing star six. Next, I note this is a public meeting which is both being broadcast and recorded. Minutes will also be published at a later date. To help with that process, we ask all speakers participating in person to use a microphone, to please clearly identify yourself each time you speak, and the first time you speak, please also state your city or town of residence for the record. To help maintain an orderly meeting, please address all comments and questions through the chair rather than directly to any of the other speakers or applicants. There are a couple items on our agenda tonight that are going to be continued or postponed. I'll read through those shortly. If you're here on one of those items, please note that no additional notice will be sent to you before the next meeting. The best thing to do is call the planning department either the day of or the day prior to the next meeting to confirm if that item is going to 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 discussion of the item followed by any additional comments or clarifications from members of the city staff, and then an opportunity for members of the public to speak on that item before we proceed to board discussion and action. Finally, 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 on that. Okay. Moving into tonight's agenda, the following items are requests for continuances. So item number two, zero Farrington Street, a definitive site plan in 81G, private street improvement. The request is to leave to withdraw without prejudice. Item number one, zero Chester, a definitive site plan. The request is to continue the public meeting to April 1st, 2026 and extend the constructive grant deadline to April 23rd, 2026. And item number six, 12 Malden Street, a definitive site plan and more than one building on a lot application. The request is to continue the public meeting to April 1st, 26 and extend the constructive grant deadline to April 23rd, 26. Does somebody want to move the continuances, leave and postponements?

yeah i would make a motion to leave to withdraw without prejudice item number two uh continue out of number one and postpone item six a second on motion mr mccormick yes mr delera yes mr toomey

yes i vote yes as well that motion passes four to zero moving into new business first item we're going to hear tonight is item number three 172 through 174 shrewsbury street this will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan and a public hearing for a special permit related to inclusionary zoning for relief from minimum off-street parking and or loading requirements parking dimensional requirements and landscaping requirements

Good evening, Mr. Chair. For the record, Mark Borenstein, attorney at the law firm of Prince Labelle here in Worcester, representing the applicant, Parkside Holings, Inc. Before you use our applications for a definitive site plan approval and IZ special permit, we've got a very short video for you and the public, and then we will turn it over to the board and staff comment. Thank you.

New tech this week.

Can board members online see or hear this?

This is Connor. It's coming up on the cable services screen, but not on the main slide that's showing 172 Shrewsbury Street.

And the sound is very faint.

We're going to proceed with playing that. So if folks want to maximize cable services, that'll extend the view of the video that's going to be played. And hopefully the audio should pick up.

Parkside Holdings, Inc. is proposing to renovate and expand the existing historic Jewett Gamage Auto and Wagon Works building located at 172-174 Shrewsbury Street. The property consists of an approximately 22,000 square foot L-shaped lot occupied by an existing 21,329 square foot building that has three stories along Shrewsbury Street. one-story addition toward the rear of the property. The building was most recently used for office and personal service uses. The site also includes an unstriped surface parking area in the rear. The property is located in the Business General BG3 Zoning District, the Commercial Corridors Overlay District, Shrewsbury Street Subarea, and the Union Station View Corridor Sign Overlay District. The property is bounded to the north and east by Joe DiMaggio Little League Field and East Park, to the south by Shrewsbury Street, and to the west by a mix of residential, commercial, and mixed-use buildings. The applicant is proposing to add two new stories above the existing one-story rear section of the building and renovate the remainder of the building to create 44 new residential units consisting of 40 studios and four one bedrooms, in addition to amenities space along Shrewsbury Street and an interior bike room. Of the 44 units, seven of the units will be affordable to households earning 60 to 80% AMI. The project will also provide 17 on-site parking spaces including EV ready spaces, a van accessible space, and 10 compact spaces. Improvements also include resurfacing of the parking areas, new walkways, fencing, landscaping, new outdoor recreational areas, and essential utility upgrades. The applicant will be implementing a transportation management plan and provide exterior and interior bike storage to further reduce auto dependency at the site. The property also benefits from close proximity to Union Station and a WRTA bus stop at East Park. Moreover, Shrewsbury Street is rich with commercial and retail establishments, which are easily accessible by foot. The project is consistent with the Worcester Down Next plan, given that the property is located in a transformative growth area, which is an area identified by the plan for high walkability and transit access that can support higher density housing. Overall, this redevelopment will provide 44 new residential units, including affordable units, within a transit-rich, walkable neighborhood, revitalize an underutilized building, and will align with the City's vision for sustainable growth.

Attorney Bornstein, does that conclude your presentation?

Thanks.

Are you all set? Are you all set with your presentation?

I'm all set with my presentation. Please turn it over to staff. Thank you.

Through the chair, this is Michelle Smith in the planning division. So as you heard in the presentation, or hopefully folks heard in the presentation, what's in front of you this evening is a site plan application as well as a special permit through inclusionary zoning incentives for a variety of different relief, which I'll summarize for you. But we're in the BG3 zoning district on Shrewsbury Street in the CCOD or Shrewsbury Street. section of the CCOD, the Commercial Corridors Overlay District. Today you have three and one story building, the rear portion being a single story building that the applicant's proposing to construct a two story addition on in order to complete basically a full build out at three stories. So that addition will end up making the overall building just over 28,000 square feet and they're proposing to convert what is currently essentially office space and commercial space into 44 residential dwelling units and then reconfigure the parking area that you see in the rear making some enhancements to that in terms of resurfacing to provide for 17 surface parking spaces along with other improvements. We have recommendations for conditions of approval outlined on pages two, three, four, and five of the staff memo. I know there are a couple items that the applicant wants to discuss with the board, so I'll highlight those at the end, but jumping into the relief specifically around the special permit. So the special permit has four different prongs that the applicant's seeking. The first is to allow an excess of the standard amount of compact spaces. In this case, they'd like to provide for more than half, 59% to be precise, compact spaces within the parking lot itself. So this is an excess of the standard and needs to be relieved through the special permit Then 9% over 50 has already been relieved to the Zoning Board of Appeals So they're seeking the reduction to of the remainder through this board additionally for the drive aisles and the driveway a we have a requirement that 90-degree parking be provided with a 24-foot drive aisle. The applicant is proposing here on the plan. At the narrowest point, we've got about 19 feet, I believe, in terms of where we have 90-degree parking configured The drive aisle itself has to, for two-way traffic, which is what's proposed here, provide for 20 feet minimum, and the applicant is proposing 17.4 feet at the narrowest point where you see closest to Rizzo Court, which is the private paved street that the site is accessed off of today and is proposed to remain accessed off of as this plan shows here. Additionally, they are looking to deviate from the landscaping standards. So if I progress to the landscaping plan, you can see where my cursor hopefully is on your screen here, kind of on the southern side of that parking configuration. There's an area where there is a three-foot landscape buffer. Well, this is required technically to be five feet and have trees given it is a side lot line and it abuts a residential use. And so they are required to provide four trees, but only two trees are located in this area. So they're deficient two trees here. seeking to modify that requirement in that location to not have the two trees that are required in the five foot width where those trees would otherwise be required. And finally, they're looking for relief from the off-street parking requirements. So there's a layering effect of all of the Incentives through inclusionary zoning that build here automatically and then through a transportation demand management plan, which the applicant has provided. And then additionally, they're seeking through this special permit, essentially a reduction to 50%. Above and beyond that, the zoning board has already granted additional relief. for 10 parking spaces. So they're seeking through that special permit for you all to have that reduced to 50% of what would otherwise be required. So they're looking for relief of five spaces through that while proposing 17 spaces. In terms of comments and site enhancements, we had a few, we have everything conditioned, but I'll highlight a few of the different aspects to this. So just related to parking, the ratio in terms of spaces per unit or per bedroom breaks down to .38 parking spaces. There's 1.1 bike parking spaces per unit. So there are a total of 48 bike parking spaces, 24 interior and 24 exterior. The applicant should talk a bit about how they plan to manage parking, so I'm hoping their attorney can review that for you after I finish my comments. We have some conditions that relate to the historic nature of the building. I don't know that we actually have a photo of the existing facade. We don't. But along Shrewsbury Street, there's an existing wooden door on the sort of right side of the building if you're facing the street. That's actually a historic door. and we have historic imagery supporting that, and so we are looking for that door to essentially be kept in place, secured so that it maybe isn't functional for egress, but retained from a historic preservation perspective, along with a few other comments related to the design of the facade as they continue to replace windows and choose different colors to make things look uniform and consistent with the historic information we have for the property. Overall, there's a reduction in impervious surface. We had a question to the applicant about if they had considered pervious pavers for the walkways to further reduce runoff, hoping their team can answer that. Otherwise, they're proposing to enhance water quality, but any opportunity we have in this combined sewer area to offline, infrastructure we're always looking for that so just would hope that the applicant could comment on that within the parking lot itself if i go back a few slides here you can see there is one parking space located right behind the rear of the building and so our office was just wanting to make sure that we understand how a user for that particular parking space would gain access to that and be able to turn around on the site. So we have, again, a condition to address that. And the applicant should just comment their confidence of the ability to maneuver in and out of that space because we don't allow for backing out onto the street. And obviously that's quite a bit of stretch to back out. And then finally, with respect to other zoning requirements, the applicant is seeking a waiver from the interior tree requirements. There are two interior trees that are required for the proposal. The applicant is not providing any interior trees but is providing two trees in locations that are otherwise not required. So there's trees within the kind of courtyard area, if you will, along the walkway, but they're required by the ordinance to actually be maximizing kind of cooling in the parking area and aren't configured in that fashion. The conditions that I believe the applicant has taken issue with, and I'll let them elaborate as to why, relate to the requirements around EV charging specifically for both cars and then also related to any electrification within the bike room interior to the space, which are currently conditions one and condition eight of the special permit. And additionally, we have an understanding that we had asked the applicant to explore elimination of a patched or striped area for potential snow storage that's right next to the dumpster and adjacent to a parking stall. We had asked the applicant to consider conversion of that to a pervious surface, a landscaped area, and they are looking to retain that. So that, again, is 1F under the site plan conditions. And I think that is it in terms of points of discussion. I might have missed something, so I'll have council correct me if I got that wrong. I will note that there are DPW engineering comments that are not included in the planning staff memo, so we'd recommend that you include that memo, which dates back to, I believe, November. So if you can be sure to include that. In your vote, should you choose to make one, that would be appreciated. We do have conditions related to parking around parking during construction in a construction management plan as well as a requirement that there not be unloading and loading occurring within Rizzo Court itself due to concerns that residents have expressed about the need to continue to use that street and the construction impacts that the project could have on folks in the general vicinity. So I just want to call that those have been incorporated. And there are a couple waivers, like I said, that are outlined on the fifth page of the staff memo. Happy to answer questions, thanks.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. Mark, do you want to address any of that?

Yes, certainly. So we would obviously respectfully just formally request the waivers recommended by staff. In terms of the conditions of approval, Ms. Smith highlighted, just to reiterate, condition number one, we'd ask that the board strike. We are providing ED-ready spaces. proponent is certainly amenable to adding EV chargers dual head in the future, but at this time they're seeking to only provide the EV ready spaces. So we'd ask that one be struck, With respect to item seven in the special permit, there are seven affordable units, and so the applicant certainly understands staff's recommendation to bundle the parking spaces, but given that there are 17 spaces for 44 units, We would respectfully request that Condition 7 be amended to provide that at least seven parking spaces shall be let to the affordable units bundled with rent, as opposed to all of the particular parking spaces for each of the affordable units. So that's another modification that we would request, and we certainly solicit the Board's thoughts on that. WITH RESPECT TO CONDITION 8 IN THE SPECIAL PERMIT, THE APPLICANT HAS SOME CONCERNS REGARDING THE CHARGING OF E-BIKES IN THE BUILDING ITSELF. SO WE'D ASK THAT THAT CONDITION, NOT THE WHOLE CONDITION, BUT THE LAST SENTENCE IN THAT CONDITION BE STRUCK. CERTAINLY PROVIDING THE 48-BIKE SPACE IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE APPLICANT, BUT WE JUST ASK THAT THE SECOND PORTION OF THAT RELATED TO THE CHARGING BE STRUCK. I'm going to, and then to extent that the board sees fit to strike that we'd ask that, uh, I believe it's one K and the site plan approval be amended to reflect, uh, the removal of the language that says updates to eat bike changing by these charging. Um, and then we also would ask that condition one F and the site plan approval decision be struck. And I'm going to let Mike Andrade from graves engineering, explain the rationale behind that.

Okay.

Thank you. Good evening. Again, Mike Andrews, Graves Engineering. So I'll speak to a couple of the conditions. In regards to 1F, which is relative to the snow storage area being converted to pervious, the reason we propose snow storage on the pavement on this site is in consideration of the low-lying nature of the parking area. That whole parking lot in the back is sort of the lowest point surrounding it. And there's an existing crawl space in the building and a relatively low ground floor elevation. So we were concerned about allowing stockpiled snow to melt and run off and flood either the site property or the crawl space or abutting the city-owned property, the ball fields in particular. So we preferred to leave the snow storage on pavement where when it melts, it can get collected by the drainage system and be carried off site and treated as such to carry it off site. um in regard to the parking spaces so we've situated the compact spaces in the areas where the parking is more difficult to navigate we have done turning movements on every parking space in a lot and we do acknowledge that some are difficult to do will require multiple movements in particular the first space on the left compact spaces you come in on the left and the last space on the right near the dumpster, but those can be negotiated with multiple movements back and forth and pulling up. And the parallel space against the building, it was left as a standard space, again, because we needed a standard space versus compact. And that space can also negotiate in and out of the site by using the, in part, the handicap parking space aisle to navigate. So again, we've done turning movements in all those parking spaces and cars can move in and out of that parking lot without having to back onto Rizzo Court.

Thanks, Mike. I think the last piece that staff wanted us to speak to is the management of parking on site. As referenced in the video presentation, this is a project that's gonna be geared towards folks that primarily don't have vehicles, given that there are 17 parking spaces for 44 units. The applicant intends to lease the parking spaces on a first-come, first-served basis, so as they seek to lease up the building. IF THE 17 PARK SPACES ARE LEASED, THEN THERE WON'T BE ADDITIONAL PARK SPACES FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO LEASE. AND CERTAINLY THAT WILL BE COMMUNICATED TO RESIDENTS WHEN THEY ARE SEEKING AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEASE UP THE PROPERTY. SO WITH THAT, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD OR STAFF MAY HAVE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER STAFF COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE, IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT? I don't see anybody in the room. Is there anyone online with their hand raised? Just a reminder for folks, it's either the red microphone or it's actually not a microphone. It's a raise your hand icon if you're on the computer or it's star nine if you're on your phone. None?

okay uh board members uh sure i can start this is connor um Yeah, I think overall, very excited to see this project come forward. Kind of an adaptive reuse of existing historic building on an important commercial corridor in the city is a good thing to see. In terms of the special permit requests, I don't have an issue with any of the four that are requested. I think a lot of them are uh reflecting that this is an infill development that is difficult to strictly meet all the dimensional requirements related to the parking and landscaping buffers and everything and certainly i don't have an issue with the requested parking space waiver um or special permit rather um similarly don't have a concern with the uh waiver requests um trying to see what else we was covered um i i none of the uh applicants comments on the conditions that they wanted to adjust seemed um unreasonable to me so i think overall i'd be happy to support it but interested to hear what the rest of the the board thinks thank you mr mccormick mr uh delera would you like to go next

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, yeah, I'm generally in agreement with Mr. McCormick. What's being proposed here is consistent with what we've seen approved by city boards over the last few years, certainly. And the one A small concern that I have is related to navigating the cramped parking areas and when it suggested that a vehicle needs to utilize part of the handicap buffer area in order to navigate the parking If that's by design, I have a little bit of a concern about that. I'm not sure what the alternative would be, but if we are looking at a development that will be moving some... Not moving, but in terms of designing... the surface in an amended way. I'm just wondering if there's any way to avoid that were to approve what's being proposed. Again, it's not a deal breaker by any means, but it is a concern and it's something that if it can't be improved at this stage, I welcome the opportunity. So that's it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. DeLera. The gentleman from Graves Engineering wants to talk about that.

Yeah. So I think the scenario that we looked at when we put the turning software on that is that a car would not utilize the parking space that it was just in to navigate, which could be done as well. So I think there is a scenario where we would not have to utilize the handicap aisle at all to get a car out of that space to be able to turn around, if you will, in a reverse direction and drive out. I'm fairly confident we can get that. That could work as well. So I hear your concern and understand it. I think my comment was just the one scenario that we did look at there, but there are other options that would not have to use that handicap aisle.

All right. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. DeLera. Mr. Toomey, anything from you?

Again, my biggest concerns are around the parking, the multiple turns and being able to do that. It sounds wonderful in July, but my worry is December, January, February, when you get some snow in there and those dimensions are reduced even more. And again, the winter we just had, you know, there's some snow mitigation area, but is it really enough to be able to do that? And does 17 become 15? And some of the spaces are going to have issues relative to that. Looking at one of the pictures, there seems to be a large parking lot off to the side. I'm assuming that's parking for Joe DiMaggio Little League.

Did the chair correct?

And I assume they have some sort of a no parking tow issue or that, again, I just see that as being a conflict that potentially arises where, oh, these spaces are open and they start to use them and then the Little League folks come in and, you know, those spaces are supposed to be there for them and how some of those things get tied together and, you know, just being an issue between those two things in such a small, tight area.

Understood, Mr. Toomey, are you asking the applicant to address something?

Yeah, just is there any, has anyone looked at this as their plans? Is there already signage in place basically saying, you know, parking for Little League only, cows will be towed, or is this something that's going to, you know, develop into something and then, you know, have to be resolved after the fact?

Sure, so through the Chair, my understanding is, and obviously this would have to get confirmed by DPW or Parks now, because they're their own department. It's my understanding that there's currently some type of barrier for the large majority of the parking facility. The only portion that's currently open is along Rizzo Court. Technically, the parking spaces for that entire parking facility are supposed to be for the park globally, not just Joe DiMaggio. Each time I've gone by there, there have been people parked in those parking spaces because parking is in such a demand in the Shrewsbury Street area. But certainly we're going to communicate to residents that that's not acceptable. and certainly the city has the right to enforce their parking regulations. My understanding is there is some signage. It's been quite a few months since I've been out there, given the video was when everything was lush and green, but certainly it's a city parking facility, and we're certainly not going to allow residents to the extent that it's within the property owner's capacity to park in those spaces.

Again, overall, my leaning is to be able to support the stuff, but I'm just concerned about eventually the parking is going to be a problem.

Yeah, certainly. So through the chair, I just know that that the exit the parking facility that you're seeing on the plans is an existing parking facility. There are notations of the plan and in the decision that prohibits the use of parking spaces for snow storage, and that any excess snow if it starts accumulating on the site will be trucked off site.

Through the chair, if you wanted to formally address Mr. Toomey's concerns, I would say you could also add a requirement to the transportation demand management program that is required to be implemented. And so the applicant could be required to notify tenants that they're not to park in that area as part of the welcome packet and kind of the onboarding. So if the applicant's amenable to that, you could add that as a E to item six under the special permit, which would be a perpetual condition. So make that E. Yeah, so essentially that there shall be no parking in the municipal lot off of Rizzo Court. Tenants shall be advised that parking in that location is not permitted.

Certainly acceptable to the applicant. Thank you for the recommendation.

Mr. Toomey, does that sound good?

Yep, that's good. Thank you, Michelle. That's great.

Okay. Um, for myself, I think this is, uh, um, in alignment with the Worcester now next plan. This is a area of Shrewsbury street that, uh, we've seen a lot of attempts to develop housing recently and none have been able to move forward. So, uh, like that this has a strong affordability component to it. I'll, I'll be happy to support, um, as conditioned by staff. Uh, with that said, I think we're ready for a motion.

hey i would make a motion to close public hearing second on the motion mr mccormick yes mr delera yes mr toomey yes i vote yes motion passes four to zero hearings closed and before i make the motion for the um permits i i think that the list i have for uh changes to the conditions were for special permit conditions one 6E, which is an addition, 7 and 8, and then for the site plan is 1K and 1F. Does that sound correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Then I would make a motion to approve the definitive site plan and special permit for 172 through 174, Shoes Race Street, subject to staff recommended conditions on pages 2 through... 5 of the staff memo with the modifications to conditions 1, 6E, 7, and 8 of the special permit and 1F and 1K of the definitive site plan as articulated. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick.

Yes.

Mr. DeLera. Yes. Mr. Toomey. Yes. I vote yes as well. Motion passes 4-0. Thank you. Good luck. All right, next item we're going to hear tonight is item number four. This will be 112 and 116 Rodney Street, a public meeting for an amendment to a definitive site plan.

I just want to clarify one question, sorry. I heard 1K, which is demonstrating, that is part of the site plan, which is demonstrate the easternmost parking space is able to maneuver without backing up Rosa Court. Let me just take a look. I think this is an outdated version, yeah. So let me just see. So K was related to TDM plan. Sorry, I know that was an important one that we discussed. Yeah, so it's J. So we're modifying one J of the definitive site plan to eliminate the reference to e-bike charging. Thank you. Sorry about that, just wanted to make sure I had it right.

No problem. Go ahead, sir.

Hi, good evening. My name is Oluseola Eson, and I'm the general contractor and the owner of 112 and 116 Rodney Street. Previously, we already got an approval for planning for the said property, but during construction, we find out that we need to amend the site plan. First thing, the retaining wall was six feet before, We readjusted the retaining wall just because of the topography of the soil back to like less than four feet. And when we call national grid as well to so that we could join their grade, and they let us know that the grade is already full, that we need to do on the grant. So with that, and previously, the previous plan that was approved, that was not showing on the site plan. And we, rearrange the parking lot as well so that we have more parking space. And the last thing is just because of the slope of the soil, we need to have a storm scepter on both slots. And by DPW and some other engineer, they recommend we should just use one pipe for both storm scepter. And the last thing is the driveway. Previously, individual property, they have different driveway, but right now we talked to the zoning and they recommend we should join the driveway to be one common space, which we're working to get an easement in case in the future that we need to sell one of the property off. So my Anthony is working on that. And that give us more green space at the side of 112. That's the summary of the project. Currently we already finished boxing the 116. And right now that the weather is getting good, if it's approved, we can now move to start doing the outdoor work.

Okay. Thank you. Additional comments from city staff on this item?

Sure. Through the chair, this is Michelle Smith again in the planning division. So in front of you is a site plan amendment. You can see, if I go back to the aerial image, you can see basically the existing three-decker highlighted here in orange. And then to the north, another three-family that is under construction. So basically existing three-family, proposed three-family. The board had approved this back in 2023 and then you amended it in 2024. The applicant got a building permit in 2025 and here we are in 2026 with a request for additional changes. So the applicant basically proceeded with construction and changed the design as part of that. On the original approval here, you'll see there's basically two kind of distinct separate properties with two separate distinct parking areas with a series of walls around each At the time we had suggested a common driveway, the applicant didn't want to proceed with that option, but then as they proceeded with construction realized that in fact a common driveway would work well. So the applicant is here for an amendment to proceed with a common driveway, so the parking configuration is proposed as you see it here on the plan. We have some comments on this, most of which have been conditioned under the definitive site plan conditions that you see. on page two and three, many of which are conditions that were in the earlier approval, but there are some nuances in terms of the plan changes, obviously. Basically, as you can see, they consolidated the walls and eliminated a number of walls. In making these changes, they've actually reduced the impervious area, which is great, something we're always looking to do. However, there are now a variety of different changes that they had to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for. So the applicant recently did that and is now in front of the board to sort of reconcile that. So they obtained relief for parking quantity, lot area, frontage, side yard setback, and then the ability to reduce the drive aisle widths, landscape buffers, and have excess compact spaces. So quite a bit of relief that's been obtained to allow for this configuration to span the property lines and whatnot. There are three, it's a little hard to see just given the scale, but there are three compact spaces that are right in here kind of straddling the property line, if you will, and we are looking for them to update that. One of the stalls actually measures 12 feet wide, and so we want to adjust that so that those Compact spaces are standard width, but shorter depth, or eliminate the excess width and provide a larger landscape buffer on one side, so giving the applicant kind of the option to do one or both or some combination thereof. So that is a condition. We also have some requests for a guardrail along the rear here. DPW, I believe, had some comments related to Wall construction, although I'm not sure that I'm seeing, maybe Olivia, if you don't mind double checking if there's a comment letter that I'm missing. Just wanna make sure I'm not skipping out on that and I'll ask Ms. Rodriguez to comment on that too. But essentially, There's a narrow drive aisle, 19 feet into one location here to the south of the existing three-family. We're asking the applicant to extend the pavement to make sure that there's a little bit more room to maneuver a turnaround. So that's one of the conditions that we have. And then we had a couple questions related to the slopes and stabilization of the slopes. And so we're hoping the applicant can talk a little bit about that, but we're looking for them to label on the plan where erosion control blankets are going to be used. There's a relatively steep slope below the retaining wall, and then also along the side of the house over here, where the grading you don't see on this plan, and it's not shown over here, but based on The actual photographs of what the site looks like, there's been quite a bit of earth disturbance in that area. So we want to understand the final grading, what those grades are going to be, and if they're in excess of two to one, we want to either see a retaining wall in that location or other regrading to stabilize that because we're concerned about potential for that to erode over time. So we have a comment on that as well, but I don't know if the applicant might be able to talk a bit to kind of the plans for stabilization in that particular area and along the rear of the slope. I think those are at this point really the only comments that we have, you know, materially that aren't resolved. Thank you.

Okay, do you want to address some of those?

Yes, can you go to item four? That's where the picture is showing. Oh, I think we're going down more. I could see that. That's the only picture you have?

Okay, I could work with that.

We have part of the, I think, one of the representatives for Zoni, they visited the site. And what we recommend, what we propose to do right there is just to complete the retaining wall and just have some green space, which is the slope. to reduce the erosion control over there, it's been existing, and it's been like that. Under, what's it called, beneath the retaining wall, we still have some French drain, which everything will be connected to the storm sector, which will be at the rear part of the retaining wall at the back. So with that, we're completing the retaining wall to flush to the foundation so that we'll be able to just have some more grass right there. So that's what we propose on site when we have one of the rep that came to the site to visit us for that. And for the parking space, on the other side, which is 112, how that place will be a green space anyways. So if, which I don't really see, even if the, what's it called, the dimension is like eight by 16, somebody could be able to stay back up right there because we don't have any obstruction over there to, apart from the, what's it called, the building which we're protecting with the guardrails. And that's an excess parking lot, we could take it off. We already complete the requirements, required parking lots over there. So that's what we will propose over there. And at the corner lot, what is showing right there, when we have one of the rep that visited the site, they could see that that is, level to the property. So it's not like steep or something like that going on at the end of the property right there. So they were able to come to site and physically see it and that has been completed.

Okay, Ms. Smith, do you have other questions you want to ask or drill in on any of that?

I guess one clarification. So I think I understood that the retaining wall is going to have drainage, which isn't shown on the plan, and it's going to be interconnected to the city's stormwater system. So I would just request that the board add that as an additional condition of approval if I understood that correctly. So that would be an additional 1G, which would be reflect retaining wall drainage. to be interconnected with the municipal storm drain system. And I'll ask Ms. Rodriguez to just comment and confirm that that is something that was discussed and that DPW is amenable to.

This is Rodriguez for DPW. The drainage is not supposed to be connected to the city drainage, like the French drainage is not supposed to be connected directly to the city drainage.

Can you come again, please, if you can speak slowly so that I can understand that question.

I think what she said.

You indicated there's a French drainage, right?

No, there is no. Oh, no. I just call this French drain. It's just a perimeter drain, which we have right there. It's for stormwater management. No French drain coming from the inside the house or anything going outside.

We were required for you to include those details in your plans so we can evaluate the what you're saying.

I think we have that in the plan unless maybe they didn't pass it to you guys, but we have that in the updated plan that was submitted to the zoning and the planning division. So I would recommend we could come to your office for that, but that was done many months ago over there.

Okay.

Through the chair, I guess I'm not fully understanding. Obviously, the site has been under construction. It was my understanding that there was a cease and desist order for exterior work, but that framing and interior renovations could continue. And this was supposed to be an as-built plan, so apologies, but I'm not understanding exactly what's there and what isn't. So it sounds like there's an existing perimeter drain for the retaining walls that has been installed, and I'm hoping I'm understanding that correctly. It's for the walls, not for the foundations. Is that correct?

No, we've not done anything outside and we don't need any perimeter drain outside. We're just having, what's it called? Previously when it was approved, the same design we have when Sean review it from DPW to connect both storm sector together and run it back to the city line, which is like 10 feet high. And that's what we're still doing right there.

Okay, so there's no drainage for the retaining wall?

No, no drainage. Part of the design that we have with the retaining wall, which at the end of the retaining wall is where we have the storm sector, right there, and there are two storm sector, each on each property, close to the retaining wall. And that's already showing in the design. And that's what we're connecting together that I was saying that we're connecting with eight inches pipe. And our DPWU recommendation, they want us to, even though we have some sector, they still want us to run it back to the city drainage. And that was approved before. And that's what we're still doing. There's no changes to that.

So through the chair, I might just recommend that you require a condition of approval that the applicant provide a letter from a professional engineer related to the installation of the retaining walls and that the walls have been installed in accordance with best practices in engineering and any manufacturer specifications for the particular wall.

Okay, we could provide that, but I think I discussed that with my structural engineer, too, and they were surprised because it's below four feet. So we could provide a ladder, but they were like, we don't need to provide any ladder for that. We could provide all the specification for the block. That's what they told us to do.

Understood. I think the reason we're asking for it in this case is This is a site plan approval, so the site plan is what's driving the requirement, not code, which is what the engineer is kind of referring to. So I would agree with Ms. Smith that we probably do want to condition that related to the branch.

We do that, no problem.

Okay. Ms. Smith, any other items before we go to public comment on this?

Through the chair, I think that's it. We'll be looking for the revised grading and the stabilization to be shown on that corner, kind of to the north of 116 here, where my cursor is.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item tonight? And I don't think there's anybody in the room. Is there anyone with their hand raised online? And a reminder, it's star nine or the raise your hand button. All right. Seeing none board members.

Hi, this is Connor. Um, for myself, I don't know, uh, particular issues with the site overall. It sounds like we've, uh, staff is comfortable with the conditions and what we've heard from the applicant tonight subject to adding that I think is, would it be one G for an additional condition for a letter from an engineer regarding the retaining wall?

Through the chair, I would actually recommend that you add it under prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. Just given where we're at normally, I'd say we want, because we're kind of mid-construction, so we put it as sort of a, between 9 and 10, we'll renumber everything. But that's where I'd recommend you plop that condition about the letter from the engineer.

Okay, that makes sense. Yeah, otherwise, I'm happy to support it. Thank you to staff for working with the applicant on this kind of tricky issue.

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Mr. DeLera.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I'm in support of this while endorsing staff's circumspection about this. And so I'm glad that that would be incorporated as a condition. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. DeLera. Mr. Toomey.

Again, I pretty much agree. The staff has done a good job making this work and it looks like we're in a good place and we'll support it.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Toomey. I would just, to the applicant, I would say, you know, there's going to be a decision signed that's got some documentation just to avoid problems. Later on when you go to get your final permit sign offs, I'd pay particular attention to what they're asking for and if you have any questions, I know they'll be available to address them as will the inspectional services folks who are actually gonna be signing off on the paperwork. That said, I think we're ready for a motion.

I would make a motion to approve the definitive site plan amendment for 112 and 116 Rodney Street subject to staff recommended conditions of approval on pages 2 and 3 of the staff memo with the addition of the condition regarding a letter from the engineer related to the draining wall prior to the certificate of occupancy.

Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. Motion passes 4-0. Good luck. Thank you. Next on the agenda, item number 5, 465 and 467 Lake Avenue. This will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan as well as a public hearing for a special permit related to an accessory dwelling unit to modify the dimensional requirements for that accessory dwelling unit.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. For the record, my name is Donald O'Neill. I'm a lawyer here in Worcester. I'm here this evening on behalf of Kathleen and Charles Treanor in connection with this property at 465-467 Lake Ave. As you can see from the plan, there are two existing single-family homes on this location. It's got 120 feet of frontage on Lake Ave and 15,350 square feet of land area. However, there are two single families on one lot, which is a grandfathered situation. that exists and has for pre-zoning in any case. The plan that we're before you this evening on is the intent of my clients is to demolish the existing structure at 465, which is, if you've gone out there, basically right on the street, very close to Lake Ave, and to push that building back further on the lot to a location which would conform to all of the applicable setback requirements. The issue becomes if you demolish that building and you have the other building on it, then you're losing your right to maintain two structures on the property. The second building, is a little under 1,500 square feet. It is, however, a one-bedroom setup and does not really have any independent parking from the parking, which goes along with the other structure. So in a lot of ways, it's ideal for an ADU classification because it doesn't doesn't need required parking and would be held in common ownership with the other building and they really the way that it is set up kind of function as a single property anyway we did look at the possibility of just dividing it into two lots which it's got it's got the area and it's 120 feet of frontage is 10 feet shy of what would be required for a separate standalone lot. But access to it would be less than ideal and you'd have a situation where you've got, particularly with the new structure that would be built in a lot, it'd be kind of close for comfort in terms of owners that are not connected. The structure itself, as I mentioned, so the idea came up in terms of having this classified as an ADU. And the reason that we're here before you is because this building, although there's nothing new that's gonna be constructed, is in excess of 900 square feet. So it would require a special permit from the board, but that would allow the property to continue what they currently have with two houses on the property. They also had looked at, renovating the existing property at 265 and just leaving it alone which they could do you know by right but then you still have a building which is basically right on the street and a lot of limitations associated with that so what we're here before you this evening for is to request a special permit to allow for the designation of 467 as an ADU and then site plan approval because of the slope in the lot is in excess of 15%. Mike Andre from Graves Engineering is also involved in this project and would be available if there are any questions that the board would have regarding the engineering details and also the builder who's overseeing the project is here as well, to the extent Kevin Barnes from BB&R Design Build, if there are any questions for him. I did have looked at staff memo. The other thing I should mention is this will, part of the driveway design that you're seeing there are two existing curb cuts and kind of an existing u-shaped driveway and it's really kind of the only thing that really works in that location so what we're looking to do is to maintain two curb cuts one in its current location the other will be adjusted slightly but basically in the same location to provide for driveway access to the property. That is going to require a special permit from the zoning board, and we have filed for that relief. And of course, we're seeking your approval, but that it would be contingent upon getting the relief from the zoning board. And I would just reiterate that there are two there now. It's not really going to be any different than what currently exists. other than the fact the building is going to be pushed further back from the street which will get more of the parking out of the lake ave right away the staff has identified i believe six waivers that are required we did provide um landscape plan so i think that one can be dropped but there are five other waivers that are listed on page three i would request that the board grant those waivers regarding the proposed conditions of approval uh there are ten i believe on pages two and three um i just have a most of those are agreeable other than the couple that i wanted to to have some discussion regarding uh first one being staff is recommending um a minimum of three trees be planted along the property's frontage and i want a clarification to see if that would include planting within the right-of-way because if it's on the frontage i don't think we can fit three trees uh in that location uh so if the um There's a lot of extra dimension within the road layout that would allow you to plant trees. We are putting at the request of DTM upgraded sidewalk and so forth. So if that is intended to be trees on the other side of the sidewalk, I think that's something that we can do but if they have to be on the within the property boundaries we're not sure we can fit it because if you look at the plan you know there are the two curb cuts for parking further down in front of 465 there's this already existing, I believe, vegetation in that area. So we're just looking for clarification on that. The second thing is there is an existing gravel area within the right-of-way. And the request is that that be removed, loomed and seeded. Obviously, we would prefer to leave it if we could. It's an existing situation. It would provide the owners with some kind of a backup situation, and it's set back far enough from the road that we wouldn't see that that would be... problem in it and in fact it it's the parking that has been used by the residents for who knows how long but you know probably as long as the building's been there so that one of course if the board feels otherwise and doesn't want to allow that we will comply but it would provide a little bit more flexibility for us so that would be our request in that regard And I think all of the other conditions that were included would be acceptable to the owner. And happy to answer any questions you might have.

Okay, thank you. Additional comments from city staff on this item?

Sure. Through the chair, this is Michelle Smith in the city's planning division. So in front of you is a site plan as well as a special permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit, or ADU. So the site plan trigger is this steep slope. So what we have today, if we go back to the existing conditions, you have two basically single family homes on one lot. the applicant is seeking to classify the smaller of those the one that's proposed to remain as the ADU so they're seeking a special permit to allow that sort of curing this nonconformity I'll note that the lot itself has plenty of area to be divided into two but they're just shy of the frontage requirements to have two separate Lots so they would need a frontage subdivision in order to come in and create a a situation where they have, or I should say, they would need a variance from a zoning perspective in order to allow for each lot to have its own zoning compliant lot. they could do an A&R to do that because of the age of the structures, I believe. Ultimately, they're not choosing to do that. Their intention, my understanding, is that this is truly a family situation where it's a family member that lives in one of the ADUs, or one of the structures with the one that they are proposing to make the ADU, and so the sort of construct that they would like is truly to have it be on the same lot for that reason. So just in terms of buy-write alternatives, That's something that they could do, not necessarily by right, but it is a potential alternative. So the reason that the applicant is in front of you for the special permit is because the ADU would exceed the square footage threshold that we have, which aligns with the state's threshold of 900 square feet. So that existing structure is about 1400 square feet, just over. And so they're looking for relief essentially from that requirement to allow that to remain in excess of about 500 square feet, a little larger. In terms of the site plan, you heard some of the comments from attorney O'Neill. Mostly the changes are really related to kind of circulation on the site. obviously not an ideal location to have to back out onto the street so they've proposed this kind of horseshoe-shaped driveway which would enable circulation in a manner that doesn't require backing out onto the street the configuration itself as was noted requires a variety of different discretionary authority from the zoning board of appeals to allow this configuration basically too close to the street running in a kind of parallel fashion to the street which we generally don't want to have in terms of driveways from a safety perspective and not being set back adequately from that and having more cars in that area than we generally want to have. So by virtue of that, it's possible that these plans could change and the applicant may need to come back and seek an amendment were the zoning board not to authorize that relief. that is scheduled for an upcoming meeting of the board. So to be determined on the outcome there. Our comments predominantly relate to sort of green space and stormwater. So the applicant is proposing some form of stormwater management. We're looking for evidence that the soils are adequate for infiltration. So looking for test pit data for that. We are also looking to confirm, and I'm hoping the applicant might be able to comment on this, the number of trees that are proposed to be removed, specifically mature trees, as part of the construction activities. The site itself is mostly wooded today, but there are some mature trees kind of in the vicinity of where construction activities would be occurring. So we're trying to understand if there's an impact on any of those trees during construction. So if they could comment on that, that might help us respond as it relates to the trees question that they've posed for our condition but the goal is to basically try to offset any canopy loss that's happening with the project with additional or new plantings and i think we would be amenable to allowing the applicant to coordinate with the department of public works as well as the parks department in terms of planting in the right-of-way as a a sort of alternative given the steep slopes and potential challenges of planting, but I don't know if the applicant could comment on other opportunities and the site that they think may be more viable. We have, as was noted, this area in the front is sort of shown as gravel. It's shown as being regraded. So part of our comment was we were unclear on exactly what was happening in this area. Previously it was shown as an area that was going to be paved. I think our concern is that we're by Lake Ave, we're near Lake Quincy and any gravel, unstabilized surfaces contribute to negative water quality for the lake. So any opportunity we have to stabilize fully with vegetation or otherwise is a preference. So I would say in terms of the gravel, our preference would be to see if it's amenable, if something that DPW would be amenable to, we'd rather see that stabilized permanently with vegetation or with perhaps pavement. Again, not sure, Ms. Valdivia, you guys could comment on that from DPW's perspective, but I think, you know, given the other changes, we were just recommending that that be stabilized. And again, that would be an area that potentially they could coordinate with DPW on related to planting, but understand the concern in the language of the condition. So if the board wants to modify that condition 1A, where it says reflect a minimum of three plantings along the property's frontage, we could just add in coordination with DPW and parks within the right-of-way. But I think we had specified one in particular condition which is, I believe, if I'm understanding correctly, along the eastern lot line between 465 and the neighboring property. So over in here is where we were kind of looking for a tree. So there, or they could eliminate one of these kind of arborvitae and put something at this particular corner here. So that would be on the property, I would suggest. It looks like there's enough room there for something. otherwise you know ideally there would be room between the driveway and the street i understand that's not possible given the configuration and design so again if if dpw and parks are amenable to having plantings in the right-of-way which probably parks is that's something that that we would be comfortable with otherwise the notes we have really relate to kind of showing things on the plan or clarifying treatments on the plan. So let the board discuss on that and defer to Ms. Rodriguez to comment too on any issues she sees with that. Because that entire area, you know, the right-of-way itself is quite wide. So the improved portion of the road, there's not the full width of the right-of-way as is not uncommon. However, there's almost equally as much right-of-way that is not improved that's left. And so it feels, you know, it feels maybe like someone's front yard, but in fact, it is part of the public realm of It's sort of in this configuration been improved and being used for private purposes. So again, generally we look to kind of reconcile that and eliminate that when we have the opportunity to, but would defer to DPW on those comments.

Okay, so as I understand it, there are really two issues that we're trying to discuss. It's the gravel and the trees. Understood, and seemed like planning staff was flexible on the trees, desires the gravel to go away. Have I accurately characterized that? Let's say yes. Okay, is there anyone from, does DPW want to comment on this at all?

Hi, this is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We do not agree to use that area as a parking thing is part of the right of way. I guess the planning board mentioned something about landscaping the area. I think that will be a better use of the area. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone from the public wishing to comment on this item tonight? No one in the room, is there anyone online? All right, hearing none, board members, I think we just need to discuss the feelings on whether or not three trees is the right number of trees and the gravel. Who'd like to go first?

Just Connor, I can kick it off. I guess before getting to that, just in terms of the special permit request, no issues with the increased size of the ADU. I think this is a kind of a unique situation where we have the nonconformity with the primary building being reconstructed. I think this is a better situation in the end in terms of zoning to move that farther away from the lot line and the right-of-way. David Ensign, So happy to support the special permit request for the for the trees, it sounds like dp w is amenable to having those in the right of way. David Ensign, And maybe we can hear from the applicant if they would be amenable to putting it in that plan. top left corner of the of the lot put putting one there um if that were the case i'd be uh happy with that and for the gravel i think i would defer to staff's uh recommendation that um would be better to see that removed and start to um kind of recognize that area as part of the the right-of-way and also i think the projection of the the watershed to lake kunsig is um a valid concern as well so i think that's where i stand

thanks thank you mr mccormick uh mr delera thank you um so through the chair i have a question for staff um just out of curiosity how common is it to reclassify an existing dwelling unit as an adu yeah so through the chair um i would say this is unusual i think i would look at essentially the site they're looking to say

that one of the existing structures is an ADU and then proceed essentially with the construction, reconstruction if you will, of one of the structures on the site. Not often, but we also don't have many circumstances like this in the city, and often the way that folks will kind of deal with this type of situation is that they would seek to divide the lot so that each structure is on its own lot, and then get zoning relief to cure, and then potentially both lots could also get an additional ADU in that situation. as well. So I'm not sure I'm totally answering your question, but I would say it's pretty unusual to have a configuration like this.

Thank you for that. So yeah, I support being able to cure this in the most reasonable fashion possible. I do have one question, though, because I'm not sure if I followed correctly. In the letter in our packet from Mr. Truman regarding the possibility of widening Lake Avenue, so with the trees in the right of way, does that not potentially interfere with what they're suggesting as a possibility down the road?

Through the chair, I'll attempt to answer that and certainly offer that Ms. Rodriguez could correct me. I think there are, just as there are in many other areas of the city, plans for large-scale modifications to right-of-ways. These projects often take a substantial amount of time to come to even a concept-level design and then take time to permit and fund. So even if, and I can't speak to Department of Transportation and Mobility's specific plans for this road, but even if that's the case, most likely, the trees would be planted through that coordination and locations that would make the most sense to allow those to grow, mature, and thrive even in a future development scenario. But it's quite possible and easily possible that if a project isn't underway, trees could be in place for over 10 years before even a construction project gets from paper to shovel. So that's a kind of typical, I would say 10 years is about typical timeline from like we're conceiving of a project to when we actually get in the ground and start working on it. So I think it's reasonable and consistent with the city's climate goals and other goals.

Okay. Okay. So the urgency isn't really there as I took from the letter. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. DeLera. Mr. Toomey.

Yeah, relative to the special permit, typically to have an ADU being that much bigger, I would be object to, but this is kind of a special situation the way you already have the two units there and in some ways the second unit is already an ADU. So I don't have a problem with that. One of the items Michelle raised, and I don't think it's been addressed yet, is how much of the current canopy is going away. When you look at the Google Maps, there's a lot of tree there. And again, the ability to minimize the amount of trees you're losing in the redevelopment would also affect the amount of trees that you need coming back.

Does the applicant want to address that? I think the question is really how much of the existing canopy is going to be removed as part of this project. Is that to me?

Sure. Oh, sorry. I should point out that we are the... plan has already been submitted to the conservation commission and in terms of the number of trees that are located they did impose as part of the order conditions that any trees that over a certain diameter and i think it's five inches that measured at five feet or something like that um would have to be replaced um and the little brush trees and so forth, no, but there is a stipulation in the order of conditions which they would be monitoring that already requires that. So I think that kind of addresses that issue. I mean, they flagged it themselves for the protection of the lake and I think it's already built into their approval.

Understood. Mr. Toomey, does that kind of answer your question?

Yes. And again, I just when you see something that's so well treed, and again, it looks a little bit the way the house is coming more to the middle and back, they're going into an area that's not heavily treed. So hopefully, there's not a lot of that, you know, the larger trees that are going to be lost there. But other than that, it looks good. And it would support

Okay, thank you, Mr. Toomey. For myself, on the question of the trees, I'm just, Ms. Smith, I'm not sure if we've answered the applicant's desire for specificity on this. It seems like, in general, the board wants as many trees as possible. There was a question of whether or not top left of the plan, which I guess would be northwest, if there was a possibility of putting a tree there. Do you have a suggestion? Sorry, that's to Ms. Smith. You guys are like in the exact same line.

Yeah, sorry about that. I thought you were asking Attorney O'Neill. So I mean, what we would, I guess, for 1A, we would recommend, again, assuming that the board is interested in seeing trees be planted within the right-of-way, that you would change the language to say reflect a minimum of three tree plantings. And then I think you can put I will say three tree plantings along the properties frontage in coordination with Department of Public Parks Department of Public Works and parks separate departments now within the right-of-way to the degree that the departments are willing to issue a permit for such a tree, and then we can say, and provide one additional tree located along the eastern property line, so basically as it's specified now. But I think we, by eastern, we actually meant northwest.

Okay, I'd be satisfied with that.

Being this location here that I'm circling.

Gotcha. Is the applicant okay with that?

Yeah, I, I think I, I think I caught that. And I mean, most all street trees are in the right way. Um, and if, you know, there was a move to widen Lake Ave, which I don't know why anyone would want to do that. It's already wide enough, but if they did, um, they'd be street trees owned by the city of Worcester and, um, they cut them down, I guess if they, if they needed to. But, um, if we're allowed to plant in that location, then that's agreeable. I understand that. It's just otherwise, our objection was related to the where, if not there. And it does seem to me that the closer you get to the street, the more benefit it is to the cooling of the pavement from the street. versus somewhere else back in the middle of an otherwise wooded lot. I'm not sure that you're getting the intended result from that. But the condition with the three within the right-of-way and then the additional tree on the lot, plus the other trees that are going to need to be replaced pursuant to Conservation Commission approval, you know, it's pretty significant given that.

talking about one house basically one new house okay um i'm i'm satisfied i think if no board members have additional questions we should be ready for a motion hey with that i would make a motion to close the public hearing second on the motion mr mccormick yes Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey?

Yes.

I vote yes. 4-0. Hearing's closed.

I would also make a motion to approve the definitive site plan and the special permit for 465 and 467 Lake Avenue, subject to staff recommended conditions of approval. on pages one, or sorry, pages two and three of the staff memo with the modification to site plan condition 1A as discussed.

Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick. Yes. Mr. Dallara. Yes. Mr. Toomey. Yes. I vote yes, four to zero. Motion passes. Good luck.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda tonight, item number seven, a paradox drive. This will be a public hearing for a definitive frontage subdivision.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Joshua Lee Smith. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Bowditch and Dewey. Here with me this evening is, to my immediate left, is the applicant, Jason Abdelnor. Behind Jason is Jesse Abdelnor, who is the property owner. This is a pretty straightforward project, a little bit of procedural history. We were, before the ZBA, in connection with this proposed subdivision of the lot, as you can see here from the aerial outlined in yellow, is the approximately 23,000 square foot existing lot, which currently contains one single family home. And when we were before the ZBA, we had requested one variance with respect to the noncompliance with the frontage based on the proposed subdivision. And what we're proposing to do is to divide the lot, that 23,000 square foot lot, into two lots, one being so-called lot three, which is the existing lot, which would result in about 12,000 square feet, and the so-called lot two, which is outlined in green here on the aerial, which would result in about 11,000 square feet. And the lot two that would be created as outlined in green would contain the new, what will be future single-family home, which is the project at hand here. As I had mentioned, we sought and obtained a ZBA approval for the variance with respect to the frontage. All other dimensional components for the project for the new single family dwelling will comply. We've reviewed the staff memo, DPRS memo. We're in agreement with all of them. I wanted to just ask a clarification with respect to 1C, but otherwise we're in perfect agreement and alignment with respect to the planning board memo. That's understood.

Thank you. Appreciate that staff comments on this item.

Sure. Through the chair, just to clarify the question related to, um, one C so that our addressing coordinator will assign the address for the lot so that when you go record the plan, the assessor updated updates it to reflect the correct address, which will prevent you from needing a street number slip to get your building permit for the house in the future. Um, so just basically a streamlining, um, operation that we have, so we'll give you the address if we haven't already through the revised plans that address the conditions that we have. So through the chair related to the application in front of you. So this is a frontage subdivision, meaning that the applicant's looking to divide the lot that doesn't have adequate frontage. So you can see it looks like two lots. They both have adequate lot area. One of the lots is zoning compliant on its own. The lot that you see labeled as lot two here to the south. So this is located in a zoning district where 65 feet of frontage is adequate. So what they're actually proposing is to carve that off of the existing lot, which is the combination of lots two and three, and to separate that lot on its own and the existing structure on lot three, as you see here. So the existing lot will end up shy of the actual frontage requirement for the zoning district. It is predominantly in that district being a more intensive district or the RS-10 district. And so that requirement is for 80 feet of frontage. And so while they have, I believe, 68 feet of frontage on that lot, which is in excess of the minimum requirement, if it were to be fully in the zone that it's partially split zoned in, As you can see here, this is the dash line here is the zoning district boundary that's kind of bisecting that property. So they're seeking to have 68 feet of frontage rather than the 80 feet of frontage that would otherwise be required in the zoning district. So they obtained a variance for that from the Zoning Board of Appeals, but in order to divide the lot, you need to also waive the requirement for them to not meet that minimum frontage requirement for the zoning district. So they're seeking a waiver essentially from all of the requirements for the subdivision regulations, with the exception of those that apply to A&R plans, as well as all the construction-related requirements for the road, because they're not building a road, in addition to the requirement for frontage. I'm happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, that's the purpose of that condition, as I described, and the conditions of approval are recommended on page two.

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Smith. Any comments from other city departments on this item? Hearing none, is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item?

I will note that we do have some comments in the packet.

Noted. Anyone online? Seeing none. Board members.

Hi, this is Connor for myself. No issues with the Frontage to Subdivision. Did sound like the applicant's attorney might have had a question on one of the conditions. Just want to make sure that was clear before we

move on yes uh it was related to the addressing coordinator and how that oh okay yeah that's correct uh yeah otherwise i'm all set so mr chair just as as connor mentions it uh and this makes sense in terms of i understand what it's saying uh but through the chair and to michelle uh i've not seen this condition before And I just want to make sure, because all of the conditions 1A through E are all based on having the decision released before a decision is released. So I just want to make sure that the timing with respect to this process for 1C, is that something that is done within a week or how long does that take?

I'll just recommend that. So the way that the header is, instead of prior to release of the decision, we should just say prior to endorsement of the plan.

Okay, and it's a relatively quick process, it sounds like.

If we haven't already emailed it to you, usually it takes us a couple days, yeah. Okay, all right. It's like somebody looking at a plan and figuring out what the next number in sequence is. Okay. Yeah, it's quick. Good, thank you.

Okay, other board members?

I'm good with the plans the way they are. Thank you, Mr. Toomey. Mr. DeLera?

Thank you. Likewise, no comment. I'm happy to support this.

I also have no comment. I think we're ready for motions.

I would make a motion to close public hearing.

Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey?

Yes.

I vote yes. Motion passes 4-0. Hearing's closed.

Make a motion to approve the definitive frontage subdivision plan for eight paradox drive subject to staff recommended conditions on page one of this, page two of the staff memo with the site modification and language to 1C that was discussed by staff. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick? Yes. Mr. Dallara? Yes. Mr. Toomey?

Yes.

I vote yes. 4-0. Motion passes. Good luck. Thank you very much. Next up, item number 8, 11 Hammond Street. This will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan and a public hearing for special permit for relief for minimum off-street parking and or loading requirements related to inclusionary zoning.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is Todd Rodman. I'm a lawyer with the law firm of Cedar and Chandler here in Worcester. and I'm here on behalf of Maine South Community Development Corporation, the purchaser of this property. With me tonight is Steve Teasdale, the executive director, and Ron Mendez from Graves Engineering. Between the three of us, we'll try and answer any questions you have. This project is Maine South's planned 48,700 square foot, multifamily, five-story, high-rise dwelling proposed for 41 units of affordable housing, 35 surface parking spaces and related site improvements. The project will transform a vacant funeral home parking lot into much needed affordable housing. It'll result in more than a 7,000 square foot reduction on impervious cover at the site while providing modern code compliant and architecturally appealing housing. The target population for the project is the general low-income population of Maine South and low-income seniors. Four fully accessible units are also planned. And we're here tonight for two permits, site plan approval, which is triggered by the construction of more than five dwelling units, and an inclusionary zoning special permit required to reduce the parking from the two parking spaces per dwelling unit to a total of 41 spaces, a 50% reduction. The analysis of that parking reduction is included at page seven of the planning department's memo. In addition to this planning board relief, we will be before the zoning board of appeals next Monday for a parking variance required for an additional six parking spaces of relief as there are a total of 35 spaces on site. As a general matter, the various project recommendations from the planning department memo are acceptable subject to some qualifications which I can go through now or I can wait till after Ms. Smith provides her comments.

It always seems to go better if we wait for Ms. Smith's comments and then get into the stuff that we need to discuss.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. Michelle Smith again in the City's Planning Division. So as you heard, and I haven't toggled through all the slides here, so I will do that in a second, but you are looking at what is an existing parking lot in the aerial image here, as you can see, which is about 74 parking spaces, and the applicant is looking to convert this into a much more productive land use of parking. housing so we are seeing a proposal for 41 units about 48 000 square foot five-story high-rise building in this location providing about 35 surface parking spaces along with new enhancements for stormwater facilities pedestrian amenities and otherwise i'm going to try to get to here we go architectural plan so you can see the structure that's proposed so you're looking at the on the left-hand side is the kind of parking lot facing elevation I'm sorry, on the left-hand side is the street-facing elevation. On the right-hand side is the parking lot-facing elevation. And then you can see here on the left-hand side, you have the rear elevation and then sort of the downhill Hammond Street elevation on the right-hand side. So just in terms of what structure is proposed and what it looks like. Going back, I'm gonna land on our landscape plan here. So the applicant's in front of you for a special permit related to inclusionary zoning. So this is to modify dimensional elements that wouldn't otherwise comply. There are some automatic incentives that are granted for a project like this due to the nature of the affordable units But beyond those they are still needing some additional relief And so through a special permit the Planning Board can adjust the parking requirements down to 50% of what they would otherwise be So in this case, it's two parking spaces per unit. So they have 41 units 82 spaces after they get incentives basically they can reduce down through the special permit and to 41, so they're seeking that reduction, which effectively equates to 12 spaces once we apply the automatic incentives that they're entitled to. So that doesn't get them quite where they need to be, because they only have 35 spaces, so they'll be seeking, as Attorney Rodman mentioned, a variance from the zoning board next week related to that differential between what they can get through the special permit and the variance should the board approve this this evening. So that ratio ends up being about 0.85 parking spaces per unit, which is generally in excess of what we're seeing for most market-rated production, where the market's driving parking, just as sort of a reference point for a lot of what the board might see. So there are additional bike parking spaces that are being proposed. There's 10 exterior spaces that are proposed by the applicant, and then there's an interior bicycle storage area that will accommodate up to 38 bike spaces that's located in the lower level of the building itself. They have a loading space that you can see here for kind of pick up, drop off for ride sharing, move in, move out type configurations. The applicant has indicated that they intend to manage parking by essentially providing each tenant with the option to have one vehicle and then basically parking spaces are sort of first come, first serve basis with that in mind. They do have a transportation demand management program and plan that's been provided talking about how they'll make information available to residents. In terms of other modes, this is in what we call a managed growth area in our long range plan, so indicating that it's an appropriate area for additional density of housing because it's within walk shed to transit, given the neighborhood and the siting of the site. Given the amount of impervious surface you saw in the aerial image, this does result in a net reduction of impervious surface, which is great. and then in addition to that the applicant's actually proposing to infiltrate the roof runoff nice and clean water and then improve water quality for the new parking lot with bmps that we typically see in like a new construction so it's great improvement for water quality and reduction of runoff into our municipal system So we've been glad to see that. We had just minor comments, really, mostly about vegetation and walkways and enhancing potential opportunities to sort of accommodate how folks move through the site. Had some curiosities around if the applicant had considered potentially using raised beds in this kind of plaza or court. It's not really a courtyard, but this plaza area here in the parking courtyard, if you will. And right now there's a bunch of benches that you see around the perimeter and these interior kind of picnic table areas in the center. So we weren't sure if that was something they explored. One of our comments or recommendations was to extend the walkway. You can see basically there's a walkway out the sort of side entry using the kind of accessible hatched area crossing the drive aisle and then nicely connecting into this parking island. And we were wondering if the applicant considered extending that along the loading space area here out to the street so that if someone was walking along the street and wanted to go meet up with a friend in the courtyard or the plaza area, they would be able to do that. They're waiting for their ride share, but the Uber actually stopped in the street to just more conveniently get out there. We had also asked if they might entertain putting a bench facing that loading area if folks are actually using that and waiting for a ride share pickup in that location since they might be sitting there waiting for their Uber if it's a nice day. So just a comment that we'd had on that. I think those were really the main pieces. Otherwise, we had asked for some additional trees. I can... highlight otherwise you you're seeing pretty standard conditions in terms of the special permit the TDM plan and some of the standard items I'm not sure in particular which concerns which conditions are of concern so I'm happy to to highlight any of them but I think at this point may be beneficial to turn it to the applicant to clarify which ones they were concerned about in particular but maybe if they could talk more generally about accommodations related to benches and those kind of walkways, that would be helpful.

Go ahead. Thanks very much. I'll reference my comments to the memorandum itself. And the first comment, as I said, generally the comments are fine. We're in agreement with them. So this is really just some fine tuning and responses to specific questions from the memo. So the first issue is on page two of 10 of the memo under the perpetual conditions 1d which is charging infrastructure available 38 bicycle parking spaces with charging infrastructure available inside the building there will be Electrical outlets available, but not necessarily for all 38 bicycle charging at one time The second Comment is also on page two of 10 under definitive site plan, paragraph 1C, relocate the proposed transformer to a less prominent location and add screening. Screening for sure in terms of an alternate location, we will explore that, but as the chair and maybe other board members know, National Grid is gonna ultimately dictate to us where that's gonna go. The third comment is on page 3 of 10, and it is paragraph 1E, and it is the e-bike charging again with 38 spaces, which I think I've already covered. Paragraph K on page 3 of 10, two additional shade trees along Hammond Street. That should be fine. Thank you. Paragraph and on page 3 of 10 modify the site plan to include EV parking spaces And whether they're going to be operational at the time of occupancy The there will be two spaces which will be operational the rest will be easy ready The next comment that we wanted to address were fire department conditions, page four of 10, under fire department conditions, paragraph Z, and the suggestion is EV parking spaces to be placed further away from the building, and that's fine with the exception of the handicapped space, which has to be next to the building. Let's see. terms next comment is on page 7 of 10 which are definitive site plan review criteria paragraph 2 the applicant should consider direct access from the street to the outdoor Plaza and as Miss Smith said she was recommended extending the walkway which is fine something that we're willing to do We already covered the charging infrastructure with the e-bikes, so I won't go through that again. Walkway comment, again, yes, that's fine. On page eight of 10, paragraph four, the applicant should comment on lighting along the front of the building and low light levels. So we will place additional lighting along the front to improve the low light levels. So that's also fine. There was another comment on page nine of 10 at paragraph seven. It's unclear if any existing trees are proposed to remain. As we understand it, there are almost no trees on site None will remain, but in response to comments, we will be adding two more street trees along Hammond Street, as was requested. In paragraph 8 on page 9 of 10, the applicant should discuss the anticipated programming for the basement community room spaces, and that's really their basement community room. It's common space. It'll be dependent on the applicants and what they want to use it. There is no set programming or plan programming as such for the building. And also in paragraph eight on page nine of 10, did the applicant consider a potential reduction of benches in favor of some raised garden beds? And based on the applicant's experience in other properties, they prefer not to provide raised garden beds. And I may turn it over to Ron Mendez from Graves Engineering to talk about the erosion control blankets and whether stabilization could be achieved with plantings. And I believe that is it, just that last detail.

Okay, great.

Hi, good evening. Ron Mendez with Graves Engineering. Yes, I was previously noted the project itself proposes about 35 parking spaces, an underground chamber system for roof runoff, and then two 20-foot-4, 20-foot-4, excuse me, 20... four foot wide curb cuts, replacing two existing ones. As previously noted, it is a paved area and we are reducing some impervious surfaces by about 7,000 square feet. As to the comment itself regarding the use of erosion control blankets, we do envision that those should be suitable for the slopes where it's I don't see where we have any that's steeper than that, to tell you the truth. It would be, let's say, on the plan over here, sort of southeasterly of the building. Towards the next lot is where we have, I guess, slopes of that area. But again, it would be limited to just that area itself. Everything else sort of levels itself off. And again, we envision that The blankets itself do work, which suffice for erosion control because it's not, I guess, a terribly long area or a wide area. And it's itself, as is, is actually steeper than it is right now. It's probably about two to one slopes. So we hope that we can sort of sway it back a little bit.

Okay. Thank you. Of course. Smith, do you want to comment?

Sure, through Mr. Chair, what I'd just recommend in terms of the items that the applicant wanted to adjust, depending on the board's preference, of course, staff would recommend the following modifications. So on page two, under perpetual conditions for the special permit 2D, which is related to the bicycle parking, so where we have language existing that says with charging infrastructure available, if you wanted to modify it, you could just say with some outlets available to enable charging. Or you could strike that section. Under the definitive site plan 1C, you could just change and between property and provide to or. So it would be relocate the transformer or provide screening. understand National Grid has certain requirements, but we generally find that ornamental grasses usually can check the box. And then for 1E, where it says reflect provisions for e-bike charging for all 38 bike spaces, you could strike for all 38 bike spaces and just reflect provisions for e-bike charging, and then they can show where the outlets are going to be. For N, I'll just make the recommendation to essentially strike most of that condition and we would just modify it to say, modify the site plan to include two EV operational spaces at occupancy, which I believe is what they're saying they're going to propose, which I think is fine. They'll have to still meet the specialized stretch code requirements And then under the fire department comments, you could add an exception to just say accept any spaces required to be accessible. I'm not sure of the interplay of the charging and accessibility requirements, honestly. So I think that gives them the option if there's any that are required to be accessible. I think that was the list of requested changes they had, if I'm not mistaken. So options for the board to discuss.

Okay, thank you, Ms. Smith. Additional comments from members of the city staff on this item? Hearing none, anyone from the public would like to speak? Come on up.

Hi, Daniel Hamilton, homeowner with my mother, 16 Allen Street. First and foremost, we love what everything's going on with the city. We're not trying to stop that. We are the only family owned and lived in house on that street. So we're not trying to stop the building itself, but we are asking for some maybe look at a different way of doing things. For instance, the dumpster on this is literally located right where I grill in my backyard. maybe move that down to the snow removal area, being that that would only be used for like, three months as opposed to an entire 12 months the other would be maybe like a privacy bush along that side of Allen Street the microphone it only because there are folks online that won't be able to hear you unless you yes so that this um

This, almost the entire piece of this property, I'm Tracy Snow, I own the property that abuts that, so their dumpster is literally going to be like right in our grilling area, blah blah, our backyard. Their, the dumpster, privacy, we'll have no more privacy. There's nothing, I mean, I've lived in this house my entire life, I'm 55 years old and I've been here since day one. so i value every little bit that i do have the um so we're asking for some type of private privacy the we notice that the ev charging ports are going directly in not in my property but right the back side our kitchen area all of our house all of that is going to um be right basically in our backyard I know they just acquired this property. I understand that. The previous owners, we have been after him to please remove a dead tree that's endangering two of my sheds in my swimming pool. He went off and got rid of the property and told us basically he will not handle this thing. The lighting that goes all around there that's going to be basically from dusk till dawn is going to keep our whole house lit at all times we're just asking for some type of modifications that's not going to put a dumpster basically in our backyard and it's not going to keep us in daylight constantly you know we just We have our downtime. We still, we'd like our privacy. We understand people are coming in. We just went through with Matthew 25. They put two houses there too. They never fell through with everything. They were told to put in green trees and bushes. They didn't do any of that, you know, and what this is a fair that we have, especially with it being so close to our backyard, we're just looking for some privacy and some consideration.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate you coming out and I tell you a couple things that may or may not make you feel better. This developer's been working in the city for a long time and they have a very good reputation. The mechanisms that they're using to fund these projects come with a lot more oversight than maybe the other project that you were mentioning in terms of city inspections, but also a lot of different engineering and state folks get involved in this stuff. So there's gonna be a lot of eyes looking on this. I wouldn't be concerned that they're not gonna do what they say they're gonna do on the plan. I think what they're talking about right now is looking at where your property is and what types of accommodations might be possible for what you're asking for.

And we're more than happy to talk to them in person. Oh, absolutely. And, you know, voice our concerns to them.

I always tell folks in your situation, making friends is so much better long-term for your... We're definitely not going to try to slow the process in the city.

No, of course not.

We're just asking to not have the chargers right there.

Chargers, EV chargers, they make noise. I know this. I work on electric school buses. I get all of it. It all makes noise. It's going to be a constant buzzing that we're going to hear. Maybe move those towards the street as opposed to... Then they're going to be even more accessible for fire because... As we all know, if an electric vehicle catches on fire, you can't just put it out. So maybe have it away in a corner somewhere. I'm not trying to disclude them completely, but I'm trying to look out for my stuff as well. How do I put this?

Understood.

From you to me is going to be the distance of those chargers. So that's my house. If something happens here, that's my house.

We have family cookouts. It's everything we have. We're just trying to protect what we do have.

That's all. We're not going to fight it. We know what's going to happen. We're just asking for consideration.

Well, thank you for coming. This is a great step. I'm sure they'll want to get your contact information.

And we're always reachable. We work very closely with Matthew 25. And we still do. But, you know, we are willing to work just consideration. That's all. I'm kind of surprised there's nobody else here. But thank you. I appreciate it.

All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman suggested Steve Teasdale's gonna talk to them now, just to try and address their concerns.

Okay, anyone else from the public on this item? There's no one in the room. Is there anyone online? Okay, board members.

This is Connor for myself. I'm very excited to support this project. There's quite a lot to like about it. This is a derelict parking lot being turned into 41 units of affordable housing. Really, really happy to see a development like this happen. This is great infill development, an important corridor in the city, serving, obviously, in a very important need with the affordable units. It looks like a very thoughtful design. I really like the open space or plaza amenity space that fronts the street. Yeah, very confident that Maine South CDC will be a great developer, and it sounds like they're already willing to work with their abutters on this and hopefully they can uh sort out any any concerns early on but yeah happy to support it um no issues with the changes to the uh conditions that was already discussed so uh i'm all set thanks okay thank you mr mccormick mr delera

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree this is a good project. It has potential to do a lot of good. I do look forward to the developer working out something with the abutters to allay their concerns, even if it means adjusting what they're proposing to do here.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Giler, Mr. Toomey.

Again, a great development, a great place, an improvement for the neighborhood. And again, early enough in the process that they can accommodate the neighbors and, you know, make adjustments to make them happy as well. So happy to support the project.

All right. For myself, I would just say this is much needed affordable housing. And I am also really excited to support it. So I think we're ready for motion.

Just want to clarify, did you want to introduce any additional conditions to address the concerns or no, just related to like fencing and screening? I will just clarify too, the photometric plan doesn't, it basically shows that we're within an allowable limit of spillover near the property line. It's half a foot candle and tapering with the vegetation, so that should be decreased. I think our condition already has, based on fire, the shifting of the EV spaces for the most part away, so that should allow the applicant the flexibility. We could add language to say, EV parking spaces to be placed further away from the building and residential neighbors to the north and then basically the accessible spaces would be the exception, right? Because there's not another way to accommodate those. don't know if the applicant would be amenable to shifting the dumpster to the northwest corner or not so that would be I think something we'd want them to comment on before you propose that condition it is proposed to be fully surrounded with a move it's a white vinyl fence so I don't know if there's a preference for an alternate fence type but I think you could easily request that the plan notate that dense evergreen plantings and a fence be extend along the northeastern lot line north of the structure in coordination with the neighboring property owner at whatever their address was that I've missed. But I'm not sure if that's something that the applicant's team is amenable to. I don't know if that's something that the board feels is necessary, but those are the things that I just picked up on as potential changes you might want to make.

My feeling was the best solution was to let them discuss as neighbors and hopefully if they did decide to move the dumpster that could be approved administratively without coming back before the board though I certainly think if they did have to come back we would obviously be amenable to a change that would be positive for positive for everyone rather than trying to condition it now when it hasn't been adequately studied I think that might be tricky sure we can just maybe add a condition that says the applicant may shift to the dumpster

in coordination with staff that's a great idea um so let's do that mr mccormick i i think we're ready for you okay uh i would make a uh motion to uh well close public hearing second on the motion mr mccormick Yes.

Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey?

Yes.

I vote yes, four to zero. The hearing's closed.

I would then make motion to approve the definitive site plan and the special permit for 11 Hammond Street, subject to staff recommended conditions of approval on pages two, through 5 on the staff memo with the amendments to conditions 2D of the special permit, 1C, 1E, 1N, and 1Z of the site plan. And I think we're going to add an additional condition that Ms. Smith just articulated regarding some flexibility with the dumpster.

Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. 4-0, motion passes. Good luck to the applicant.

Thank you very much.

Moving on, A&Rs.

Through the chair, this is Olivia Hull in the planning division. So first, ANR on the agenda, item 9A is not properly before the board. So item 9B for 285 Tacoma Street is an ANR for a lot on a public street within the RL7 zoning district. This district requires a minimum of 65 feet of frontage. The A&R intends to split the lot into two lots so that the existing playground that's here becomes separated from the remainder of the park. To be clear, this is where the Tacoma Street playground is situated. Then for A&R 9C, 0 Stockton Street. This is currently an undeveloped lot on a public street within the RG5 district. This district requires a minimum of 50 feet of frontage for a single family detached dwelling or 30 feet per unit for a duplex dwelling. The ANR intends to split the lot to create two separate buildable lots. Item 9D for 3 Farrington Street and 17 Warner Avenue is currently an undeveloped lot with frontage on both Warner Ave and Farrington Street. The lots are within a RG5 zoning district, which has a minimum of 50 feet for single families, 30 feet for duplex. The A&R just intends to reconfigure the existing lot lines, creating two separate buildable lots. Item 9E is not properly before the board this evening. Item, I'm sorry, I think I just said 9E, so yes, item. Sorry, for 19 and 23 Bellevue Street. So this lot is a existing lot with two buildings on it. It's on a public street within the RG5. As previously noted, 50 feet required for frontage here. However, the applicant is utilizing the MGL Chapter 41, Section 81L exemption, allowing the lot to be divided, given that the two buildings existed prior to subdivision to control law. Then 1429 and 1438 Main Street is not properly before the board, so the last A&R in front of you this evening is for 1 New Bond Street. This is... an ANR for undeveloped lot on a private street within the MG1 zoning district. This district has no minimum frontage requirement so long as it provides at least 20 feet for access. The ANR simply intends to split the lot to create two separate buildable lots. And that wraps up the ANRs for this evening. Happy to answer any questions.

Is there a motion to endorse?

Make a motion to endorse A&R's B, C, D, F, and H. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. 4-0. Motion passes. For communications, Ms. Smith, do you want to talk about the CMRPC thing?

Sure, I can talk about this really quickly. So there's actually two different CMRPC things, so the rest of this is CMRPC. So the Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission, or CMRPC, is our regional planning agency. Each year we get local planning assistance hours, which are not quite free, but essentially technical assistance hours that we have access to, and those are authorized hours. for use by the planning board chair. So we have this on here because we want to just keep you informed of what we're looking for them to do. So we are looking for them to work on developing a proposal, so essentially a scope of work for a subdivision rules and regs overhaul. I'm not sure that we will end up getting to the point of applying for a grant or anything like that, but to start working on a proposal for us and identifying potential funding sources to cover that. Because as the board members are familiar, the regulations are pretty antiquated and don't necessarily reflect the street designs that accommodate the speed limit that we have in the city, the statutory speed limit of 25. I think we are basically the 30, 35 miles is the slowest street and we go up to, I think, 55. So, you know, pretty out of date standards. Stormwater standards are out of date. Like there's just so many things about the regulations that are out of date. So we're really looking to just replace them. So we have them working on a scope or we're hoping to have them work on a scope and then identify potential funding sources so that we might apply for resources to help overhaul those, whether it's using CMRPC to support the work or just using it as a launching off point for a scope of work for us to dive into further. So that's what we're looking to do and just looking for your authorization to allocate those. It's only 24 hours, so it's basically half of a week of one of their staff's time so it's not a ton of time but it would kind of kick off a project for us so is that the board's authorization or mine it's yours but i think if you all want to support i mean we don't want to use the hours or something you don't want us to use them for so does anybody want to make a motion on this we can all

Yeah, I'm happy to make a motion. I actually use CMRPC for the same reason when I was with the town of Millbury, and they did a great job. So I would make a motion to approve the use of LPA hours for the subdivision regs.

Second. On the motion, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes four to zero. Do you want to discuss the delegate without Mr. King here?

We could maybe quickly do that. I think we've discussed it before, but we can maybe discuss it again in the future. But we're looking for someone to take Connor's place as the CMRPC delegate. CMRPC basically has a number of different seats for the city to participate in. By attending, we basically act as part of their quorum to hear and function as a body. so you're the board members attendance there's two delegates that planning board has one of the board members and then we have one of our staff authorized as a delegate as well currently our preservation planner michelle johnstone is the delegate there are quarterly meetings that they hold and basically four times a year they just ask you know for board members to attend these meetings they do things like go over their budget and other things that are very minutiae But there's also opportunities that they'll provide presentations on potentially new grant funding sources or other, you know, appropriate topical content. So they can be helpful. Also potential networking opportunities. They do tend to be focused mostly on kind of small town type of stuff just by virtue of the communities that comprise the region. But interesting perspective always to get at those meetings. So basically the delegate would attend those quarterly meetings. The attendance essentially accrues us things like these LPA hours. which we then get access to tap. So if we have enough folks attend, we accrue those hours up to a certain point. The max is, I believe, 24 hours. So we're at the max. We're going to draw that all down. Continuing attendance earns us those hours, and in exchange they have board members to vote and give them quorum for the things that they need to do as a sort of quasi-public body. So those meetings are Thursday evenings. And again, they're quarterly. There's one tomorrow, actually. Usually they have at least one meeting a year where they feed folks. They usually do offer hybrid options for most of those meetings, although they're transitioning away from that, I think. But generally speaking, it's just four times a year commitment.

I know speaking for myself, I'm not looking to take on additional commitments. So please count me out. Is there anyone on the board who'd be interested in filling the seat?

If it's necessary to someone to do that, I'd be happy to pick that up. If there's someone else that is more interested in doing it, I'd yield to that as well.

Mr. Dallara, do you have any interest?

I'm interested, but I'm already the CPC delegate, so this would be too much for me to take on in addition to that.

I think maybe somebody wants to make a motion nominating Mr. Toomey then.

I would make a motion nominating Mr. Toomey for the CMRPC delegate position.

I'll second that. On the motion, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. The motion passes. Congratulations, Mr. Toomey.

We'll send an update to CMRPC to let them know about the change. And then, Steve, you'll get an email from their executive director and should be added to their email blast about that. And if you have any questions, you're welcome to come in and chat with us too. we can introduce you to Michelle Johnson, our preservation planner, who's the other delegate. There are, I'll just clarify too, there are other delegates for the city. The planning board has two seats. The city manager appoints two delegates and one alternate. There's an alternate seat that's vacant, but the other delegates are chief commissioner of Department of Transportation and Mobility, Steve Raleigh, and commissioner, or I'm sorry, David, I'm forgetting his last name, one of the staff in the city manager's office that's essentially like government relations. So I believe those are the current makeup of that group. So anyhow, there are other city folks that should be attending, but thank you. And I don't think we have the two sets of minutes, unless I'm mistaken, because we have a strike there here.

That's my understanding as well. Is there a motion to adjourn?

We'll make a motion to adjourn.

Second, third, fourth. All in favor say aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thanks, everybody. Have a good night.

Good night. Thanks.