Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay everybody, we're gonna get started. So good evening and welcome to the Wednesday, April 1st, 2026 meeting of the City of Worcester Planning Board. Can you guys all hear me? Great. My name is Albert Lavalley. I will chair tonight's meeting before we begin a couple brief announcements about that meeting. First, 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 6692545252 and entering access code 1617314979 followed by the pound sign. To manage remote participation during our hybrid meetings and prevent disruptions, all participants are automatically blocked from unmuting themselves, turning on their video or sending chat messages. For remote participants who would like to comment on an item on our agenda, we ask that you use the raise your hand feature in Zoom during the discussion on that item. If you are joined by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star nine. Staff will then call on members of the public one at a time and give them permission to unmute themselves. Once we get to the public comment section, 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 being broadcast and recorded. Minutes will also be published at a later date. To help with this 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 quite a few items on our agenda being continued to postpone tonight. I'm going to read through those shortly. If you're here on one of those items, please note no additional notice will be sent to you prior to the next meeting. The best thing to do is call the planning department either the day prior or the day of the next meeting to confirm if that item will be heard or postponed that night. It is not uncommon for items to be postponed multiple times before they're heard by this board. Once an item is called, there'll be a brief presentation of the item followed by any additional comments and clarifications from members of the city staff, then an opportunity for anyone from the public to speak on that item before we proceed to board discussion and action. 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 enforcement. Applicants are asked to please call the Planning Division if they have any questions on that. Moving into our agenda, these are the continuances for tonight. Item number one, Zero Chester Street, a definitive site plan. The request is to continue the public meeting to April 22nd, 26th, and extend the constructive grant deadline to May 14th, 26th. And then the following are postponements. Item 2, 28, Harrington Way, a special permit. Request to postpone the public meeting to April 22, 26, and extend the constructive grant deadline to May 14, 26. Item 3, 1103, Millbury Street, a definitive site plan. Request to postpone the public meeting to April 22, 26, and extend the constructive grant deadline to May 14, 26. Item 5, 12.

This is Connor. Sorry to interrupt, but I don't know if Brendan or Anthony can but I'm not hearing. It looks like Albert is speaking, but I'm not getting any audio. Yeah, it looks like you're muted in the room.

Same here. Thanks, Connor. Well, you can't hear me.

Cable services, if you're able, it sounds like we have a disconnect between the virtual space and the actual physical room with folks' ability to hear us, which seems to be new because folks heard us initially when we did an attendance check. yeah we can hear you now michelle oh you can hear us okay so let me just can you hear me now we can yes yes oh okay all right never mind we'll start that over again sorry albert uh do what do i need to start over again do we need the whole thing or just maybe the uh for our board members online when did what was the last thing you heard before we dropped out

I think I missed most of Albert's intro, but I think you just got into continuances and postponements.

I didn't hear anything from the desk, from the chair. Okay. His voice came on for like one second, but I didn't hear anything before that.

Albert, I think we should just redo the spiel.

All right. Apologies for folks in the room. We're going to read the whole thing again. So...

is there anyone else online that we can just check to make sure they can hear as well yeah i mean we have our three board members who've been able to confirm that so i think we should be all set okay so they're the same as any guest would be yeah it should be the same for everyone and we have a probably another dozen or so folks

Okay, welcome everyone. This is Wednesday, April 1st, 2026. I'm Albert LaValley. I'm chairing the meeting. Here are our announcements. First, all our meetings are in a hybrid format. You can participate either in person at City Hall or online by going to worcestermath.zoomgov.com slash j slash 1617314979. or by calling in at 669-254-5252 and entering access code 1617314979 followed by the pound sign. To manage remote participation during our hybrid meetings and prevent disruptions, all participants are automatically blocked from unmuting themselves, turning on their video, or sending chat messages. For folks who are participating remotely who would like to comment on an item on our agenda, we ask that you use the raise your hand feature in Zoom during discussion on that item. If you're joined by phone, you can do that 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, that will be done by pressing star six. Next, I note this is a public meeting that is both being broadcast and recorded. Minutes will also be published at a later date. To help with this 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 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, which is me, rather than directly to any of the other speakers or applicants. There are a number of items on our agenda being continued or postponed tonight. I'll read through them shortly. If you're here on one of those items, please note no additional notice will be sent to you prior to the next meeting. Best thing to do is call the planning department either the day of or the day prior to the next meeting to confirm if the item will be heard or postponed that night. It is not uncommon for things to be postponed multiple times before they are heard by this board. Once an item is called, a brief presentation of that item will occur, followed by any additional comments or clarifications from members of the city staff. then an opportunity for anyone from the public to speak on that item before we move to board discussion and action. Finally, all applicants should be aware 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 the conditions of approval have been satisfactorily addressed. It is the applicant's responsibility to address conditions of approval, and a lack of doing so may result in delays or enforcement. Applicants with questions on that are asked to call the planning division. Moving into our agenda. These are the requests for continuances and postponements. Item number one, Zero Chester Street, a definitive site plan. The request is to continue the public meeting to April 22, 26, and extend the constructive grant deadline to May 14, 26. Item number two, 28 Harrington Way, a special permit, request to postpone the public meeting to April 22, 26 and extend the constructive grant deadline to May 14, 26. Item three, 1103 Millberry Street, a definitive site plan, request to postpone the public meeting to April 22, 26 and extend the constructive grant deadline to May 14, 26. Item five, 12 Malden Street, a definitive site plan and more than one building on a lot plan, Request to postpone the public meeting to April 22, 26 and extend the constructive grant deadline to May 14, 26. Item six, 17 Pearl Street, a definitive site plan and special permit extension of time. Request to postpone the public hearing to April 22, 26 and extend the constructive grant deadline to May 14, 26. And item number nine, 25 Westchester Street, a zoning map amendment. The request to postpone the public hearing to April 22, 2026.

I would make a motion to continue item 1 and postpone items 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9.

Second.

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

Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes.

Mr. Toomey?

Yes.

I vote yes as well. That motion passes 5 to 0. And into new business. First item of new business we'll hear tonight is item number 4, 3 Dundee Court. This will be a public hearing for a special permit related to an accessory dwelling unit to modify the dimensional requirements. Is there someone here from the applicant? OK. Are you making a presentation or are you going to leave that to staff? Okay, that's fine.

Sure, through the chair, this is Michelle Smith in the city's planning division. I'll give you a summary of what's going on here. has applied for this property at 3 Dundee Court, which is located in the RS7 zoning district. It's an existing single family. They're looking to convert part of that structure into an accessory dwelling unit or an ADU. We have recommended conditions of approval on page three of the staff memo, relatively minor comments, including comments from our colleagues at DPW related to utilities showing parking and curb cuts on the plan, as well as dimensioning the driveway so we can verify it complies with zoning requirements. There is a waiver essentially of a lot of the plan requirements that are being requested in terms of topography and other items That you'll note on that same page page three Terms of the actual project basically what they are looking to do is if we can go hopefully we have in the slide deck a graphic of the front of the structure so you can see here the existing and then the proposed conditions if we kind of go back to the Previous slide I think we had that kind of comparison So you can see there's an existing garage bay in the front, and they're essentially looking to enclose that and then interconnect that with the room above it. So you can see on the bottom that essentially they're adding a little bit of a front entry where the garage door is, and then essentially interconnections within that space We allow accessory dwelling units to be 900 square feet by right. Anything larger than that needs a dimensional relief through a special permit from this board to evaluate the size. So in this case, the applicant is proposing to make the ADU about 1,100 square feet. So it's 1,152 square feet. So you'd be relieving about 250 or so, 252 square feet from that. So it's about a 20% increase. Over what the kind of buy right option is obviously it's an existing structure that they're just looking to convert So while it's attached essentially it's an internal conversion of that part of the structure I'm happy to clarify if you have any specific questions, but otherwise that's that's really what they're looking to do It's in a managed growth area in terms of our long-range plan. So it's an area where we are trying to encourage additional density Which is basically within walk shed to transit Again, happy to answer questions. Thanks

Thank you, Ms. Smith. Any other comments from members of the city staff? Hearing none, is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item? Anyone with their hand raised online? I'm not seeing anyone with their hand raised online. OK. Board members?

This is Connor. For myself, I don't have an issue with the requested special permit. Considering this is all within the existing footprint, it looks like, I think it's a reasonable request and I'd be happy to support.

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Other board members? This is Board Member King. Happy to support this overall. It seems to be the existing footprint, so no concerns. Thank you.

Thanks. Mr. DeLera, anything from you? No, no other comment. I agree with my fellow board members.

Mr. Toomey?

I agree as well. Thank you.

I would second all my fellow board members' comments. I think it seems pretty straightforward.

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. I do see one member of the public with their hand raised. I'm not sure if their share is willing to entertain a public comment.

Yeah.

Sure. I'm seeing member of the public, their username is Zee. I'm going to unmute you. You'll just need to unmute on your end.

Just a reminder for the person who might be struggling with technology, it's star six if you're on the phone and it's within the Zoom app, there's a little red microphone if you're on the computer.

I have asked this participant to unmute. I'm not sure if they're able to do that on their end.

And the microphone should be down towards the bottom left of the screen, typically. If you accidentally raise your hand, you can also do the same prompt to unraise, which is star nine.

They may not be aware that their hand is raised.

Apologies to the member of the public if they're trying to comment. If you do are able to figure it out, we'd love to hear it, but I think right now we'll probably move to a motion.

We'll make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick.

yes mr king yes mr delera yes mr toomey yes i vote yes motion five to zero hearing is closed and i would make a motion to approve the special permit to modify the dimensional requirements for an edu for three dundee courts subject to staff recommended conditions of approval on page three of the staff memo second through the chair before we take a vote on that motion the applicant is a question

You need to, there's a button. If you hit the button, then it turns.

I just have a quick question about DPW commented on this. It says include all existing and proposed utility on the plan. So it's an existing structure, and I'm just connecting everything to an existing structure. So there is nothing being proposed. And also another comment was, so the location of the off-street parking and driveway cuts. It's a private street and dead-end street, so there's no curb cut. So if you could clarify this, that would be great.

So just, I guess, a couple questions. So where's the existing parking for the existing unit? The existing parking? for the remaining unit. So you need two parking spaces for the existing dwelling unit. So as you're converting that, you're saying, are you saying that there's no parking?

No, there is like three parking already there. So I'm not adding any parking or like modifying anything. So it's just everything would remain existing. So I'm not proposing anything for the driveway, in other words.

Yeah, so the Department of Public Works has requested that information on the plan. I unfortunately don't think we have um let me just make sure but i don't think we have anybody it doesn't look like oh we have leslie um steve could you make leslie rodriguez a co-host she's rodriguez l and maybe leslie could comment specifically on on their comments and if those still stand um leslie i don't know if you're able to unmute related to the the engineering comments on three dundee court hi this is leslie rodriguez for dpw

When we comment about the existing utility, we first about the water line in front of your house, the sewer. That's what we were talking about. For the cut, we mean like, for example, for driveway, the maximum is 22 feet wide. None of that is

was showing in the plan that you submit and that's why we asked the question thank you so it's a non-confirming driveway the house was built in 1996 and it is a little bit over 22 square feet i mean 22 feet wide at the opening so it's i don't know if it is a non-confirming and i'm not uh proposing a new driveway

Just a question for my colleagues in DPW or planning staff. It seems like this is an issue between DPW and the applicant that's going to come up during permitting. Does our approval for dimensional relief have any impact on this?

Yeah, so through the chair, ultimately, no. They'll have to provide whatever plans CPW and the city require as part of the building permit application. So that includes the utilities. In terms of what you can do, there are requirements in your regulations that force someone to provide that information on the plan. You're essentially honoring a waiver request. In this case, CPW has just asked for the information to be shown on the plan. You can strike that, and then DPW would need to solicit that through the building permit process. Ms. Rodriguez could probably comment on it better, but typically they want to look at the existing water line, where it's going and what size it is, and make sure that it's adequate. Because while you're converting the garage, you are potentially making other changes for like a kitchen where there might need to be a sink, and that additional capacity, depending on the size of the water line, could need to be upgraded. So they're looking for information about that as it relates to their role in permitting the use of the city's water system to serve your new unit. and the same thing with respect to wastewater. So I don't have the exact plan in front of me and have to pull it up in terms of the layout, but I don't know if Ms. Rodriguez could comment on that, if that's a requirement as part of the engineering permitting process, as part of the ADU review within the building permit, and if that's going to be required, because we may just be kicking the can down the line, if they are, based on the circumstances here, if they're willing to remove that requirement, it's the board's prerogative what conditions you want to stipulate on this, but ultimately that would be something if DPW has that requirement that they would need to provide later. So I don't know what your thoughts are, Ms. Rodriguez.

DPW would be OK if he provide information at the time of permitting. There would be no problem with that. Thank you.

So that's how it's conditioned right now, is that the utility information would be shown at that time.

OK, so just for the applicant, DBW is probably going to insist on this information unless you go there and meet with them and maybe you can come to some arrangement. This board, whether we leave the condition in or not, doesn't matter. The approval you're getting tonight is not, you still have to apply for a building permit, right? We're just giving you relief from zoning. Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Okay.

And through the chair, just to clarify, we, I think do have the member of the public who is interested in speaking on this item. I know you closed the public hearing, but it looks like they've rejoined up to you. If you want to reopen for that comment, they have been able to unmute.

Can we, can we hear you?

Let's test it. Can you hear me?

We can hear you. Go ahead.

Hi, I'm a local neighbor. I'm just wondering specifically, I have no issue with the actual application itself, but my concern is if this street is already sort of has narrow parking and it was mentioned in the hearing already and I was just wondering in terms of if additional occupants are going to be moving into this household. Again, this is a dead end street. Two cars will fit next to each other on the street, but that's as far as that goes. And then the actual parking as it is, is kind of tight. So I didn't know if um that's my concern is the parking on the street because i live on the street and um my driveway does get blocked every once in a while if there is too many people um coming over um to my house or even to um across the street which would be their house so i'm just trying to figure out um if something could be potentially um i don't know um looked at regarding that

Okay, and sorry, sir, could you just tell us your name? Oh, sorry, yes.

This came up as a default name. My name is Carl Zalowskis. I'm actually, I'm Chandra's next-door neighbor. So, hi, Chandra. How are you doing?

Great, thank you. Appreciate your comments. What I would tell you is, regarding the parking... we're this board's purview is fairly narrow in regards to uh this isn't a site plan review per se it's just a special permit for relief from a specific requirement we have that adus in order to be permitted be 900 square feet or less Oftentimes, when someone is putting one in an existing structure, as your neighbor is here, it exceeds that just because the building's already there. The space that they're taking over to put the ADU in is already there. And so our role is to give them a special permit saying that's OK. Regarding parking on your street, like I said, this isn't really a site plan approval, so we don't have a lot of say over that. The only thing I can tell you is that our advice is always to talk about that with your neighbor when something needs to be done to have a conversation and hopefully work through the problem that way. Okay, so no one else online, Mr. Carey? I do not see any other hand raised. All right, we have a motion on the floor. The hearing is closed. Mr. McCormick, would you like to restate the motion?

Sure. I would make a motion to approve the special permit to modify the dimensional requirements for an accessory dwelling unit for three Dundee Court subject to staff recommended conditions of approval on page three of the staff memo. Second.

Okay. On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Dallara? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Motion passes five to zero. Good luck to the applicant. Next item of new business we'll hear tonight, item number seven, 540 West Boylston Street. This will be a public meeting for a parking plan. Go ahead when you're ready. Good evening to the chair.

Good evening to the chair. to the members of the planning board. For the record, Adam Baldarelli from Fletcher Tilton, appearing on behalf of the applicant Town Fair Tire. Joined with me this evening, Mr. Bruce Ringwall from GPR Engineering, as well as Mr. John Wapchowski from Town Fair Tire. We are appearing before this board this evening seeking parking plan approval for a proposed Town Fair Tire location at 540 West Boylston Street. Just by way of brief background, Town Fair Tire has been in business for almost 60 years. They currently operate over 120 stores. their main business is the sale and installation of passenger and light truck tires and custom wheels and provide services that include wheel balancing as well as wheel alignment. The existing lot is approximately 1.54 acres, contains a one story building with two commercial tenant spaces and 92 existing parking spaces. The existing one story building is also approximately 20,000 square feet. town fair tire is proposing to renovate a portion of that existing building which would be the larger of the two tenant spaces undertake site improvements and then operate a new tire retail and installation facility. The town fair tire space will be approximately 12,000 square feet made up of 9,000 square feet dedicated to the retail component of the operation for the display and tire sales and the remaining 3,000 square feet dedicated to the installation of those tires. The retail space will allow customers to view and purchase those tire products and then have those tires installed on their vehicles. The store will also have a comfortable waiting area with a television and magazines for customers as they wait for their tires to be installed on their vehicles. As part of this project, Town Fair Tire is committing significant resources to renovating the existing structure and as well as the existing site. In doing so, measures will be taken to enhance the safety, and efficiency of that site as well as parking and circulation. We are proposing reducing parking from the 92 existing spaces to approximately 58 spaces to reduce the impervious area and allow for additional green space and better defined parking spaces as well as driving aisles. The project already reduces impervious area and increases open space by approximately 9% or 5600 square feet. numerous other site improvements are being completed such as accessibility improvements and new landscaping and trees which will bring the property closer to compliance relating to landscape buffers which will serve to beautify the site and enhance the pedestrian and neighborhood experience. We have received the staff memorandum with regards to this project. We have no issues with the recommended conditions of approval that were provided to us. With that, I would like to turn it over to Mr. Bruce Wingwall from GPR to provide some additional details on the site as well as the parking plan. Thank you.

Thank you, Adam. Good evening. Bruce Ringwall from Goldsmith Preston Ringwall, GPR. 32 Main Street and Air Mass. As mentioned, we've reduced the large aisle widths that are currently on the site. We're maintaining the access curb cuts that exist on the site today. We'll be enhancing the site with additional landscaping that we have reviewed with your staff. through the process of going before the ZBA and preparing for this meeting this evening. We will be changing the grade in the parking lot against the front of the building, which is the west side of the building, just slightly to make the existing ramps, I'm sorry, to make it so ADA ramps will work to the proposed ADA parking spaces. Currently, they have ramps that go out into the aisle a fair distance and interfere with the flow of traffic. the south side of the building will be raising up the parking lot with a ramp to enter into six bays where they'll be able to install the tires that were recently purchased by the retail folks coming into the store and we will be modifying that parking lot also to reduce our aisle widths and remove parking. We have a permitted for circulation for the truck to come and make deliveries to the loading dock that exists. We have also made certain that the fire department has the ability for maneuverability in and out and around the site. Those turning movements have been reviewed by both your staff and the fire department. There's a catch basin that exists right now just outside of the loading dock, and if we could go to maybe the next screen. Maybe back one screen. Sorry about that. One more. No, I was looking for the grading plan, grading and drainage plan. Okay, that's fine. I can explain where it is. In that plan right there you're looking at, there is a loading dock to the rear right corner, or the front right corner as we're looking from the sheet up. And we're moving a catch basin over because it would get buried by the proposed ramp. That catch basin we are retrofitting with a proprietary stormwater treatment facility. And there's another existing catch basin down in the lower left corner along Francis Street that we're going to maintain a paved apron to to continue to pick up the drainage over there. That catch basin as well will be retrofitted with the same proprietary stormwater treatment facility. This will be taking out total suspended solids and reducing runoff issues of impurities, keeping them from going into the city system. That and the reduction of the current impervious areas pretty much sums it up and we turn it over to the board for any questions they might have.

Great, thank you very much. Additional comments on this from members of the city staff?

Through the chair Michelle Smith again in the city's planning division so in front of you this evening just a parking plan so we're just talking about the parking lot not the structure and The applicant was in front of the zoning board and obtained three different special permits related to the use of the property for motor vehicle service purposes. It's a split zone district, so you can see the diagonal line bisecting the building and the parking lot to the south portion of that's residential. Because of the non-conforming nature of the use, they needed some additional relief from CBA. So that was granted. Now the applicant's in front of you for the alterations that are occurring to reconfigure the parking lot. So really you're seeing a reduction in the overall size of the parking lot, which is great because it's resulting in additional green space and opportunity for landscaping, which the applicant has added a number of trees as well as shrubs. And the zoning board had some specific conditions related to that, and they've revised the plans to reflect that mostly. We do have a few remaining conditions more pertinent to the board's consideration related to just retaining walls and reconciliation of stormwater management facilities in terms of the checklist and the requirements with the law, as well as preference for a compost sock rather than a straw wattle and looking for some updates and details. Also looking for a note related to lighting while at the time Our understanding is that there's not changes to lighting proposed. If there is in the future, we want to make sure that those lights come into compliance with the current standards. So we just have an item there related to that. Otherwise, most of these are standard conditions. I'm happy to answer any questions. I don't think I need to go over really any of the items. The access is staying essentially the same. There's some conditions that the zoning board imposed, again, that they've revised the plans to reflect, including a right turn out on to Francis Street to the south on the curb cut that you see there based on feedback that was received at the meeting and the board members sentiments there but overall I think an enhancement to the existing site condition in terms of the added landscaping that's proposed we did have one question the applicant responded to which was really around this storm drain inlet that's located on the southwestern plan southwest at that same driveway that I was referring to on Francis Street and there's just a note on the plan that it would be evaluated and replaced if needed and our question was what's that evaluation comprised and how is that determination going to be made the applicants just indicated they need to do it sounds like a visual inspection to make sure that the frame and grade are still in good working order but I don't know if any of the board members have that any other questions that was the one kind of question that we'd had so it's not in the memo so just wanted to clarify that was the discussion that the applicant had with our office. But otherwise, happy to answer questions you all might have. Thanks.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. Does the applicant want to address that?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, if I may address that question. The note on the plan says that we will revise and reset the rim of the structure if necessary because we want to make certain that the stormwater continues to flow to that structure. So that would be the only thing we'd be doing. The catch basin itself will remain. The note on the plan also says that we will be putting in the same Fabco proprietary stormwater structure. So I reviewed that with Amy Beth, and she understood that the note is on the plan correctly. It must have been misread when they were going through it. But we're fine with the conditions that are proposed. We will not be taking out that base in that base and will be there and we will be putting a storm water structure within it.

Any additional comments from members of the city staff on this. Anyone from the public wish to speak on this item. Anyone with their hand raised? Steve?

This is Steve Carey in planning. Not seeing anyone with their hand raised.

OK. Board members?

This is Connor for myself. No concerns with the plan as proposed. I think the reduction in the number of parking spaces, the increase in pervious area and open space and the landscaping is all good stuff. So I have to support it.

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Other board members?

No concerns. I'm happy to support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. DeLera? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no concerns either. Thanks. Thanks. Mr. Toomey?

I just had one question. The stormwater drain, you say, basically separates out particles and dirt and keeps it from going into the system. Is that something that needs to be maintained on a regular basis? That's something that the owner will be responsible for?

Yes and yes. And your staff has put a condition forward that it is inspected at least three times a year and the filter be changed out annually.

Okay. Thank you. No other concerns. Thank you.

All right. No concerns for me. I think we're ready for a motion.

I would make a motion to approve the parking plan for 540 West Boylston Street subject to staff recommended conditions of approval on pages two and three of the staff memo. Second.

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

On behalf of the applicant, thank you for your time.

Next item we'll hear in new business, item number 802 Tyson Road and 0 Burncoat Street. This will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Donald O'Neill. I'm a lawyer here in Worcester. I'm here this evening on behalf of M. McDermott Company, Inc. Actually, it's an LLC, not a company and I did note that on the, I think the staff memo it says Inc. but it's actually an LLC. So in terms of the decision I guess should reference the LLC instead of the corporation. I'm here this evening to request site plan approval for this property. The reason why we're here is because there are greats and a lot greater than fifteen percent uh... we have uh... engaged in mccarty engineering uh... to develop the site plan and they are uh... proposing uh... infiltration chambers at the rear of the property and have submitted the usual stormwater management report, you know, to the planning staff in connection with this application. I have looked at staff's memo. There are recommendations on page two and three and a waiver on page three of for existing trees greater than nine inches in diameter. So I would request that waiver. With respect to the staff conditions, there's only one which I would like to request that the board modify, and that is the condition relative to the installation of additional architectural details on the exterior side yard elevation. if you look at the The original request was for two additional windows We have added those windows another actually four windows on the side And if I'm not sure if they could call up the architectural plan it might be helpful for For the board to see So we're showing four windows on the side elevations the Architecture of the building basically is a farmhouse-style appearance with vertical cladboards on the front, board and batten-type arrangement, and the side is horizontal siding. So the request was to add the additional windows, which is fine. I think you have to agree, looking at the plan, that we have quite a few windows that are shown. I think much more than a typical plan that you might see. So there's no way to add additional windows on these side elevations other than what we've already done. And in terms of architectural detail, It really doesn't go with the look of the house, and I'm not sure what that might be. And we feel comfortable with the way that it is. So that would be my only request, is that on item 1D, that it just end with the The windows have actually already been, are already shown on the plan. So I think that condition, I would request that we drop that condition altogether because I think what happened is that was written before the two additional windows were added. So there's no way to add two more. We've already added what we could and don't feel that any additional architectural elements would be appropriate.

Just for my own edification, is your client also responsible for the building that's slightly further, I guess, north on Burncoat Street? It looks similar, that's why I'm asking.

Yeah, on the site plan, it does, it is, that's his property as well. Understood.

Okay, that might be helpful to refer to for my colleagues on Google Street View. Staff comments on this item?

Sure, through the chair. So again, this is an application in front of you for a site plan approval. This is a single family attached style dwelling. The applicant actually had previously obtained approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, which since lapsed their pending to go back in front of the Zoning Board to reestablish the authorization related to the use of the property. The board had seen an ANR to configure the lots as they are in the plan, which is three different lots, one for each of these units. We had, yes, some comments related to architecture. We noted that they had added the two windows, and ultimately the board should decide if you feel that's appropriate. It is a street-facing elevation in terms of a corner lot, Burncoat Street, obviously a prominent main street. Ultimately, this goes back to the ZBA. If there's a remaining concern on the architecture, it could be addressed there. Certainly windows are one way to do that. Other design elements could be added, you know, related to what those could be. Maybe a change in siding material for a portion, you know, the kind of gable end portion of the structure or portion of that. So there's a lot of different ways that visual interest could be incorporated. But ultimately, we've just simply said here it's site plan review. the board should evaluate if those changes are adequate for the purpose, which is three units of additional housing. In terms of our conditions beyond that, we just had requirements for labeling of impervious surface to demonstrate compliance with the requirements that we have for zoning, reflecting the walkway material, and then addressing trees that comply with the city's requirements in terms of non-Asian long-horned beetle and recommended species. The remainder of the conditions are pretty standard conditions. Happy to answer any questions that the board members might have about the project, but I think it's really up to you related to the architectural design if you care to comment.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. Any other comments from members of the city staff? No, sir. Thank you. Just before we go to members of the public, Mr. O'Neill, I do see a note on the site plan that on the Burncoat Street side, the existing trees are to remain. When I look at Google Street View, they look like they're very mature pine trees, quite tall. They don't necessarily look like that on your site plan? Are we talking about the same trees?

Yes. On Burncoat Street, there are trees that... And I think that actually was... That may have been mentioned in the zoning board filing that is lapsed, but I'm going to be back there on next Monday night. And I believe there was a stipulation in there that the trees would be maintained. There's actually no reason not to maintain them.

Understood. In reference to staff's comments about the architecture on the Burncoat Street side, which I am sensitive to, I get that the frontage is on Tyson Road, but I do think that those trees are actually quite substantial and block much of the view from the road, so it would alleviate my concern in any event. So I'll leave it to other board members to comment on that.

Okay.

Before we get to board discussion, is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item? Come on up, ma'am. And you can use any of the microphones, just there's a button to make it turn green.

Hello. Hi. My name is Jania Dougal-Hutchins, and I own the property, number seven, Tyson Road, and the dwelling on that, as well as co-owner with number four, which abuts this property that's being discussed tonight. I apologize for a lack of knowledge base as to when this first became a plan, and so I'm not sure what I'm really talking about relative to, if we can go back to the slide The three additional units that are going to go up, are they going to be in the front? Because there's two units up there already having people in them.

Are you talking about the units that front on Burncoat Street, the two units? Yes. Okay, that look very similar? Yeah. So these will front, if it's approved, these will front on Tyson Road. very similar looking building except instead of two units there'll be three it's the lot backs up against the the ones that you're referencing that people are already living in that that's going to remain if that makes sense so they're not going to be attached to the two on burncoat street the three meaning correct

Yeah, there is a duplex, which is kind of the same plan that has already gone up.

Right, but it's not attached to this new tribe.

They're not attached, and they're on separate lots, and there's no plan to attach the three new, are not going to be attached to the existing two. I mean, it's a separate lot.

Correct. Yeah. So they're each going to have, the two that exist now, already built, people living in them. They've got their yard. That's all going to stay. This is three new units. They'll look very similar to the two that are already there, obviously just a little wider. They'll front on Tyson Road, so they'll face Tyson Road. Otherwise, they're not connected to the existing building.

That's helpful. Thank you. What about egress onto Tyson Road? I understood that the city... stated in the past, and I could be corrected, that there was no driveway allowed to go on Tyson Road. So how will they egress if there are three units there? How are they going to come out?

The way this plan is designed, I don't know what the city might have said previously, but those are all exiting onto Tyson Road, three separate driveways, one for each home.

So will they have driveways coming onto Tyson Road?

If you look, the driveways are shown in the dark gray that go down to the street.

So you're going to have three or more vehicles coming out onto that road? Yes. Which currently now, that has just been finished, has been made a one-way street with a lane that goes left to help with the traffic and then a lane. So how... I just...

confused and i don't see how that's going to work um well i'm i'm familiar with the area uh i live on the other side of west mountain street from uh but near burncoat street uh and i think that which way does the one way on tyson go does it go it goes from west boston street to burn coat okay going up Yeah, so they'll only be allowed to take a left out of their driveway, essentially, to join Tyson Road and then go whichever way they're going to go on Burncoat Street.

It's going to be tight.

It looks like they have room, and there are regulations in terms of how far they have to be from the intersection. And typically what we say for single-family homes as it relates to traffic, is the amount of times a one car, one house, the trips they generate per day doesn't really have a big impact on the surrounding traffic. It's much more impacted by the broader things going on in the city. So I don't think it's going to make any change to how the neighborhood feels to, you know, use the road. As far as them having access, you know, if there's traffic backed up, say, waiting to get onto Burncoat Street, they'll have to do the thing where you make eye contact and kind of worm your way in there.

It's already pretty congested. And I'm on number seven, Tyson Road, which is an odd number on an even side of the street. So... that was the initial dwelling it's over 100 years old and so it's it's difficult to see what's going on with the change in the neighborhood because i've had and my brother and i have both had multiple daily calls to purchase the property it's just so annoying because i keep saying i'm not going anywhere and my family i hope is not because i have five grandchildren in that house right now. And it's been very difficult when it was two ways, people flying. And I know this is another issue, sir, than what you're doing. People flying up, even when there's emergency vehicles, because I have a handicapped grandchild there, zipping right by the EMS. So, you know, they've been trained very, very well to stay well from that. And, you know, other than putting the 25 mile an hour signs up, We can't control, we can only control ourselves. And the police, you know, are doing their best. But people are going to be people and break the law. And I know you have a citywide 25 mile. And so I'm just, you know, more cars, more people, more congestion, more issues for things to go wrong and accidents to occur. People, there's a four-way, you know, four-way stop sign. People blow through those stop signs. I'm so careful because I don't want to have an accident. So I crawl up. And the trees that you spoke of, sir, they are elderly trees or mature trees, is that the correct word? And it was very difficult this winter being able to see, to turn onto Burncoat Street coming up out of Tyson Road. And the snow removal, I know, was another issue. There is a parking ban, but cars are supposed to park without the ban within the lines of what's allotted for parking on that one-way street now. And they honor on the parking ban not to park there. But the snow is never removed from those parking spots over the winter, which made it very difficult. As I said, there are seven people now, myself included, eight in that house. That's a lot of vehicles. And we have a driveway. But people visit. EMS people come. Fire trucks come, police. I just have a concern. That was a single family. And now we're going to put five on there if you approve that. So I guess you've already approved that, right?

We haven't. I would tell you it's probably pretty likely that we're going to. Yeah.

And I'm not surprised. But, you know, it's more tax revenue for the city of Worcester. It's more lucrative for the person that's building and selling those units. I get that. But I also get that our tax dollars pay for services. And we also pay for nice neighborhoods. And I've seen what's happened on Hartwell Street with a single family home on the corner there. And all the big, oh, I'm sorry. Can you hear me all right? And I don't know, there's like six units there. It's just going into Hartwell Street is just unbelievable. You know, so that was, I just wanted to, first of all, find out kind of what was happening and then to just view my comments about safety, you know.

Well, thank you for coming and sharing your thoughts with us. What I would tell you is... The city has a really tough balance that it tries to strike in situations like this. And the people on this board, there's three of us online and two of us here. We're all just citizens. We're not employees of the city. We volunteer our time to do this. And when we think about these things, we're trying to help the city balance a little bit. Public safety, growing population, the rights of individual landowners to do what they want within the law. And so zoning does allow this type of use. As far as development proposals are concerned, in my experience, it's relatively benign. I think the more disruptive thing for you, frankly, is going to be the construction process, which, you know, takes eight months, a year. And then when it's over, hopefully it's a beautiful property and you get some, I hope for you. And it's aesthetic to look at.

Yeah. Because it's been years. Right.

I see that there's an existing building there that looks like it hasn't been taken care of.

Yeah. That's one other thing I wanted to ask. So the approval will go forward. So they're not asking to change any zoning laws from what has been previously approved for. So the purpose of tonight's agenda on this was to, was it the windows that you were bringing up or?

It's a site plan approval tonight. So the purview of site plan, there are 14 categories that we review that have to do with the appropriateness of how the site is designed related to stormwater. Traffic is one of them. various other things. So we have a narrow focus. There is also a zoning board of appeals approval. That's where you get into like waivers of zoning law, whether or not they're appropriate for the individual situation. I don't know what the extent of the relief was that they sought with the zoning board.

Yeah. It's just a special permit for a single family attached in an RL7 zone. It meets the error requirement, meets the frontage requirement. I think one of the driveways is... two feet from the property line. It's as opposed to 3 for the interior unit which is always tough to to get that to work but other than that that's that's the only relief that's required so it's it's not a situation where there's an undersized lot with additional houses. You know based on getting relief being constructed on it it meets all of the standard dimensional requirements.

And through the chair, if I could just add. So to clarify, so this project was previously approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. They let that approval expire. And so on Monday, April 6th, there is a meeting for the Zoning Board back in this room, same time, where the board will decide once again, is it appropriate to have three units? So the zoning, the underlying zoning allows for what we call buy right, or you just go get a building permit. two units, so they want a third unit. So that use type, this attached townhouse-style structure, requires special permission. So they're in front of the zoning board on Monday to regain the special permission they were previously granted and did not act upon. So that's basically where this is at. So in terms of the history, it was approved once before. The approval lapsed. They're now seeking to extend, essentially reestablish that. I shouldn't say extend it because it lapsed. They're seeking to reestablish that this process that the planning board is hearing tonight like the chairman said really the board is looking at how is the site being graded are there proper erosion controls during construction where are those what are the surface treatments of all the different things it's really like construction plan but your concerns you know you can certainly there was a lengthy discussion at the original hearing that the board held related to the use concerns like the ones you've raised you may have been at that meeting i'm not sure i can't recall but There were a lot of concerns about traffic. Ultimately, the board chose to approve it given the density and that it was just one additional unit beyond what was there. And the lot was sized and had adequate frontage to provide for the required zoning thresholds for that density.

So, Ms. Smith, that is helpful. And I wasn't a part of the beginning part of it, but I thought that The additional two units, and now maybe three, were going on the Burncoat side. Because there's a huge plot of land that's part of that whole plot.

Yeah, through the chair. This is at the intersection of Tyson and Burncoat. So it's right at the intersection is the lot that we're referring to. So it's south of where that existing duplex is on Burncoat Street. So it's that section of land. And so they're seeking, because it's essentially oversized from a zoning perspective for two units, they're seeking to have a third unit. And again, that is just by special permit. But it's not this board that's considering that. They're considering that on Monday, the 6th. So please feel free to join and discuss. If the board were not to approve that on the 6th, then the applicant may be back in front of this board to discuss the specifics of the site plan related to two units because if they modify the design, the grading, that might be something that has to come back. That's a risk the applicant takes by coming here first.

Thank you so much for that and for your time. Thank you. Thank you for coming.

Additional members of the public wishing to comment on this item? Mr. Carey, is there anyone raising their hand online?

I do see a Julian Hutchins. Julian, I'm going to ask you to unmute, and hopefully you'll be able to unmute on your end. If you can't, I can adjust. Oh, looks like you are unmuted.

Yes, I got that. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Go ahead.

Excellent. Hello. I just want to kind of state my concerns regarding the proposal from a safety standpoint. The plan to introduce these three separate driveways creates more of a multiple curb cuts on Tyson Road that I understand now. And each curb cut introduces an additional conflict point for vehicles entering and exiting the property. Like the safety there is heightened in my, like the lack of safety, I mean, is heightened. Tyson Road and Burncoat Street corridor has already experienced ongoing traffic issues and documented crashes, which has, you know, caused quite an upset in our community. And adding these three driveways with the proximity of this to me is a disservice to our community and the safety of, the families in and around it. So I'm just kind of reiterating what the other lady was talking about. But I'm just concerned about kids and families and dog owners. Three dogs have already been killed on Tyson at one of the houses on Upper Tyson right by the stop sign now because of... just drivers not even paying attention and just like an increased flow of traffic so again adding three more houses in a very small lot i know it's not a zoning committee here but that's just going to add further destruction to a neighborhood that was once like a safe family-oriented community and i just respectfully just urge the board to deny this proposal

Okay, thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else from the public wishing to speak on this item?

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. I'm not seeing anyone else with their hand raised.

Okay, board members.

Hi, this is Connor. For myself, no concerns with the site plan. I do appreciate the abutter's comments. I do think that staff and the chair explained a lot of the concerns that were brought up. I do understand this is adding a couple additional or three additional driveway curb cuts and some very overall pretty minimal additional traffic to the road. I think it's a reasonable amount of growth given the size of the road, its proximity to Burnt Goat Street, which is a larger arterial road. This is a by-right project, so our purview is really to be looking at the layout of the site itself, not to be approving or denying this use. Um, so from that perspective, I will be willing to support this project, uh, in terms of the condition that was brought up by the applicant, uh, in relation to the architectural, uh. Features for the elevation facing barcode street. I would. be inclined to leave that condition in i think it's pretty vague it's not necessarily requiring additional windows but just some additional architectural elements to make that facade a little more interesting for the um the side that fronts on burko street which is a you know a a more prominent um facing elevation so i would be inclined to do that in but i'd be interested to hear what the rest of the board members think thank you

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Other board members?

Mr. King, if you're talking, we can't hear you. I was still thinking about that condition. I do think I'm inclined to agree with Board Member McCormick on keeping that one in. But just to reiterate, I do hear the comments of the abutters and their concerns on the parking and exiting onto the street there. But it is a similar design and structure to other areas without Worcester. And assuming the right controls are in place, I think we should be okay. But happy to support the project in general. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. DeLera?

Thank you. I agree with my fellow board members on this, so I have no further comments. Thank you. Mr. Toomey?

Again, ditto on that. I agree with what they've said and will support the plan.

Can we just look at that condition that Attorney O'Neill is referencing?

If I could, Mr. Chairman, there was a previous iteration that had two windows on the side. We now have four. And that was in the response to requests for additional windows. But there's no way to add two more because it just wouldn't work in the rooms. in terms of and we met the it was we responded to that condition by adding to windows so I don't want to just that that would need to be amended to drop the reference to additional windows and if you want to leave it that they'll add some additional architectural detail you know we don't think it's necessary or that's going to look good but if the board feels otherwise we will.

I understand about the window count issue of this.

If staff could just confirm in fact that there are two additional windows were already added and they're not looking for two more that would be helpful.

Through the chair the memo strikes that language and has a red line for that so I think maybe attorney O'Neill doesn't have the I will read the condition as it is written in the memo that was provided to all the board members. It says revise the architectural plans to include additional architectural elements such as material variation along the burn coat elevation. So again, at the board's discretion related to this, again, staff don't necessarily feel strongly either way. Just typically that's the type of comment we have on a corner lot. So for continuity, that's the feedback. But the window piece has been removed, just to be clear. I think we're on the same page there. Again, if the board wants to strike it at the discussion.

I'm sorry.

I didn't have the latest and greatest. For myself, I actually... We have this discussion a lot about architectural detailing and we have no real ability to put any teeth behind it. So what usually happens is we put this condition in and presumably when it goes to a building permit and a building inspector is now trying to enforce a condition that has no specificity, nothing really happens or something really dumb happens. Like you get a stripe in vinyl siding that's a different color that just in my opinion, this is an opinion, looks stupid.

The only thing that I, and looking at that condition, the only thing that I would think you might be able to do is in the peak, you know, to put some architectural shingles as opposed to the clapboard, you know, towards the peak. Not sure how far down you would go, but in that section. But other than that, I'm at a loss to see what the architectural detail might be.

Maybe we just don't have the imagination. I don't know. But I'm at a similar loss. I would defer to my colleagues if folks really want to leave this in, because I also think it It encourages people to think about it, though it probably results in very little action. Anyone have any comments?

Sure, this is Connor. I would probably agree with you that this usually ends up not resulting in a whole lot when we leave it a little open-ended. But to Attorney O'Neill's point, I think architectural shingles would be an improvement, even if relatively small. don't feel strongly about it i think it just pushes them to be a little more creative to make that a little more architecturally interesting i don't think it's going to have a huge impact on the site or the the neighborhood or whatever but um if if the rest of the board wants to take it out i don't feel super strongly about it but i i don't think it hurts to to have that uh to push them to do something

All right, so I'm against it. Connor says he'll go either way. What other people think?

This is Board Member King. I would, in general, it'd be nice if we can do something with that side, but knowing that the verbiage may not lead to anything, I'd be inclined to remove it just with a note to the developer to try and add some additional character to that facade.

Okay, Mr. DeLera.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would support anything that can potentially improve the facade.

Okay. Mr. Toomey.

One thing that the chair noted earlier that obviously this picture doesn't contain that there are trees that are going to be along that side. So how much of this is really going to be visible to, we're going to add some shingles to be able to top to give it some distinction that are never going to be seen because they're blocked by trees. Anyhow, it, it, know we don't have the ability here to just get an understanding of where those trees are they kind of blocking the first third are they blocking two-thirds and they're substantial yeah and again so i think we're asking for some sort of variation that's going to be hidden behind trees and maybe in the fall in the winter it might be seen but otherwise it's well they're pine trees aren't they so they're evergreens yeah so they're you know we're asking to kind of make a change that's never going to be seen

OK, by my count, I think we've got three no and two basically yes. So I think the consensus of the board generally is to strike it.

In that motion.

Yeah, I think we're ready for a motion.

OK. I would make a motion to approve the definitive site plan for 02 Tyson Road and 0 Bruncote Street, subject to staff recommended conditions of approval with the amendment to strike condition 1D. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey. Yes. I vote yes as well. Five to zero. Motion passes. Thank you. Good luck. Okay. Next item we're going to hear in new business tonight is item number 10. This is a zoning map amendment for portions of Belmont Street, Plantation Street corridor in the Green Hill area. This will be a public hearing.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, board members. Peter Dunn, chief development officer for the city of Worcester. I'll introduce this item. We submitted this report to the city council that then came and was referred to the planning board. As you know, just for context of this area, I'm sure you're all very familiar, but this is a a section towards the Belmont corridor, as well as the Plantation Streets corridor. A lot of history in this area that really contribute both significantly to economic development, but also open space and recreation. And so as we looked at this recommendation, we wanted to really reflect those two critical attributes of this area. As you also probably know, this area has seen significant transformation going back to the 70s and 80s, starting with the UMass Chan Medical School, being cited across the street. That is not the subject of this zone change recommendation, but that is certainly relevant context. And then through the early 80s, the public-private partnership was formed to create what was known then as the biotech park and is now known as the UMass Medicine Life Science Park. And at that time, I believe, in looking at the staff memo with some of the history, that's when the manufacturing zoning district was applied to this area along that Plantation Street corridor. And at the time, it also had a mixed-use overlay. But then over the years, and particularly I think it was when the commercial corridor overlay district was established, that portion of the mixed-use overlay district that had been established here sort of went away with that because it was not carried forward into the commercial corridors overlay district. And then through that process, particular growth with the medical school and the biotech park. It led to other amenities being created in the area, particularly with the Beachwood Hotel as well as the residence inn. And then sort of more recent history, when the Worcester State Hospital was declared surplus by the state, At the time, it was the Baker-Polito administration that designated that property for redevelopment through their Open for Business initiative, and this board has seen various proposals, if you were on the board at the time, with the reactory biomanufacturing park that exists today with the first project under construction. It's now weather tight there with the Wuji Biologic site, as well as infrastructure improvements with Reactory Drive. Again, that is not part of the specific subject of this petition, but very relevant context. And so when we, you know, had the Worcester Now Next plan created, there were certain areas that were identified as transformative growth areas in that plan. This was one of those, a portion of this area was identified as transformative growth as well as some managed growth towards the, I guess it would be planned north of this petition and zoning map recommendation. And while we are planning for and hope to get kind of going soon on one of the key recommendations of the now next plan, which is really a comprehensive plan. zoning rewrite, some of the idea was to take a look at some of these transfer formative development areas identified to see if there were any kind of early action items that could be done to really reflect what the plan was talking about and sort of set the foundation of the stage for what will come in the future with the comprehensive zoning rewrite. And so we have been evaluating this because of some of the changes, some of the kind of movements that have been happening in this area over the last several years. And in particular, the legacy manufacturing limited district. So that area identified on our report is about 150 acres in this area. And that is, again, sort of a relic. It was established at the time, I believe, of the biotech park being created, but it also had that mixed-use overlay that doesn't exist today. And so within this district, this Relic Manufacturing Limited District, there is a wide range of different land uses that exist today, including office, lab, hotel, restaurant, funeral home, portion of the Worcester Technical High School's property as well as existing protected open space and so our recommended zoning map amendment for this is to change that legacy manufacturing zoning district largely to the BG 3 the business general 3.0 zoning district and which would be consistent with the adjacent zoning of the reactory. It would also be more reflective of some of the existing land uses that are there today, as well as some of the density that exists there today. But also wanting to really think about the ways that this area has contributed not just to development and land use, but also open space And so we're also recommending through this request for zone change to down zone the protected open space to the residential single family zoning district. So as you look off to plan west with Green Hill Park, that area is RS7. TODAY THERE ARE SOME AREAS THAT ARE ALREADY RESTRICTED THROUGH A CONSERVATION RESTRICTION BUT ARE CURRENTLY IN THAT MANUFACTURING ZONING DISTRICT WHICH WE WOULD PROPOSE TO HAVE BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GREENHILL PARK ZONING WHICH IS RS7 SO TRYING TO REALLY STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE OF COMPLEMENTING THE DOWN ZONING THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREAS THAT WE WANT TO SEE PRESERVED THE OPEN SPACE connection as part of the reactor initiative. As you might know, there's a new trailhead that's being connected to allow for that walkability and connection among our different users in this area. And then the piece that is not as much of a significant change because it's not manufacturing, it's the existing BG2 zoning district, which is where the State Department of Mental Health is located. So it would be largely just to create that consistency where we don't have two different BG zoning districts in that area, really kind of looking at this all in totality and having that cohesion where that would just get adjusted from the BG2 to the BG3. One of the things that the City Council took action on already that was introduced complementary to this on the March 10th agenda of the City Council was a surplus property that we had control over in the City Manager's Office at 257 Belmont Street, which is just to the left, if you're looking at the map of the green space that kind of comes down towards Belmont Street. And again, trying to strike that right balance, we had recommended that that parcel be transferred to the care, custody, and control of the Conservation Commission, which the City Council supported. So that's an overview of our report and recommendation. Just a few minutes ago, I did receive a request to meet with the Shrewsbury Street Neighborhood Association before action is taken on this item, which I'm happy to accommodate. but wanted to still take the opportunity to introduce the item and hear from members of the public as well as the board, but would be fine with having this continued and having that meeting with the Shrewsbury Street Neighborhood Association as well before action is taken.

Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Just a quick question on that last point. Given that the zoning map process comes to us first, we make a recommendation to city council who refers it, I think, believe to the Economic Development Subcommittee, who then makes a recommendation back to council at large. Does Shrewsbury Street Neighborhood Association want us to wait before making a recommendation? Would they be happy to talk to you in between our recommendation that eventually is going to go to ED in another public meeting?

To your point, I think either option works and provides for that public engagement before any real, you know, official action is taking effectuating any change, but I don't want to obviously speak for them. But I do think to your point, either option would have the same effect, but I'll leave it to the board to make a decision on that as well as hearing from folks from the public as well.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Additional comments from anyone else in city staff?

Yeah, through the chair, Michelle Smith in the planning division. I want to note that we have some typos on our memo. Before I get into that, what we are here to talk about is the zone change. So you've got on the screen the area that Peter was just discussing that we're proposing, the city's proposing to rezone in alignment with NowNext. So the areas in yellow being the areas that are currently zoned business or manufacturing that we're proposing to be changed over to the residential. And then the areas that are in orange are areas that we're proposing to align with the zoning that exists in the reactory biopark area, which is BG3. So extending that across the sort of entirety of this section. So this is really, we're talking north of Belmont. We're talking west of Plantation, south of Plantation Parkway, and really east of Green Hill Park. And that's kind of the section of the area that we're talking about. So I won't go over everything. I'm not going to list out all the properties because I'll be here for a while talking about all the different addresses. But essentially, as Peter stated, this is about a relic manufacturing district that was established. and really isn't actually compatible with a lot of the uses that are there. There's a lot of existing non-conforming uses that result from that zoning. And while we have errors in our summary table, one, you can just completely ignore it because it's inaccurate. I think there was a copy-paste error there. Really, this proposed zoning for a lot of those uses, including even the property that is, there's one parcel, you can see this little node on the east side of Plantation Street, That's a funeral home technically that's not allowed in a manufacturing zone, but it would be in the business zone that we're proposing that it would be in. So it would create conformity in zoning in addition to uniformity in zoning as it relates to this kind of patchwork of historic relic zoning that's been modified and changed over time while this area has continued to develop and is targeted in NowNext. As was mentioned, it is a transformative growth area, specifically kind of closer to the intersection between Plantation and Belmont. You know, it wasn't a parcel-by-parcel analysis. This area was targeted specifically for the vision of life sciences. That vision includes uses like hotels and retail and personal services and residential. And while those might be limited in sort of the complementary or accessory use for the most part, right now a lot of those uses aren't actually allowed in that zone. So things like personal services and retail, those would require special permission to exist within that, and we don't allow any form of residential within that. So There's no way for housing to be provided for students and otherwise. So this opens up the opportunity for potential redevelopments that may have a complementary component of that. The other big thing in terms of the actual changes dimensionally and the dimensional pieces that we have in our memo are all correct. But dimensionally speaking, the big ticket here if we go from the majority of this area is ML 0.5. That 0.5 denotes half a floor area ratio. So that basically means if you take your lot and you divide it in half, you could build out half your lot. The BG3 allows for three times your lot in density in building. So take, for example, AbbVie. quite a bit of this property. Right now, their building and a building that they're in the process of constructing will bring them to a 0.4 floor area ratio, leaving them very little room. So basically, ABV is more or less the density that's allowed right now. What that means is lots of surface parking, lots of areas that aren't being utilized. So by increasing the density that's allowed here, allows for more compact development. This area's also got some unique history and vistas from open space, preservation of that, better management of stormwater, and really allows for the area to continue to gain density but not be subject to some of these relic requirements. Part of that too is height. There's a limitation right now for structures in the manufacturing portions of the site it's a 50 foot height limitation this would double that so it'd bring it to 100 so again you'd be looking at more of the form that you see already in this area today so really what we're doing is bringing kind of the the zoning that probably should dictate the form that's already there Over to those Lots versus this relic zoning that we've had since since the 80s I can get into all the nuances, but I think I'll skip through most of that the high-level Overview, you know for the properties that are going to the residential district is they're sort of the complete inverse of what would be allowed and business or manufacturing zone and those zones we allow, you know dirty polluting uses like auto bodies and rail freight transfer stations, those kinds of things, outdoor storage of like contractor equipment. That's not what would be allowed in an RS-7 zone. Only thing that would be allowed is essentially single family. There are some limited slew of uses with special permission. While most of this property is protected with the conservation restriction, there are a few properties that aren't. So the thought on that was that by introducing the residential zoning, it sort of downplays the potential for future development. We did receive a comment from an abouter through council related to a request to not change one of those properties, which is the Greater Worcester Land Trust property. So it's the property that is closest and longest from Belmont Street that you kind of see branching up was previously part of the reactory of biolife sciences. So I'll just point for the board members on the screen here. I know folks online can't see, but two better than zero. So they're concerned about that. As we pull the residential districts closer to business or manufacturing districts, there are some buffer requirements that we have within our code. that could influence the way that future development patterns occur. So they're sort of raising that concern. The property owner, Greater West Maryland Trust, doesn't have a preference as to being kept within the business zoning, the BG3, that they are now or moving. So the board's prerogative to make modification that both Basically, I think we're OK leaving it BG3. The Greater Worcester Land Trust does have a plan to put a conservation restriction on it in conjunction with our Parks Department. At this point in time, that's not finalized. The joy of conservation restrictions is they take a long time. So that is in the works, but not in place yet. So that should serve for sufficient purposes to protect that. I will note, because I'm talking about conservation restrictions, that there are some that kind of span properties. And so while we're generally proposing realignment so that properties are losing or becoming less split zoned, there are a couple of properties that will remain split zoned. And that is in part intentionally because of the way that we have basically aligned the residential district with those conservation boundaries, those conservation restriction boundaries. So that's the two properties, one by the state, one by Galaxy Life Sciences, which are sort of the gray area in the middle of the cutout there. In terms of BG2 to BG3, because there is a portion of that that's being proposed, which is the state property, that little node that we're circling there in the middle, that that piece is currently a lower density business district than what we're proposing so really the main thing there is the floor area ratio so that density that goes up so we're getting about 50 percent more density in that that area Otherwise, essentially, most things are the same in terms of uses. But there are slight nuances in particular, like I said, with respect to the height. And with the floor area ratio, there's also minor changes from like 15 to 10 feet as far as the rear step back goes. So that's a reduction. So generally introducing flexibility for redevelopment. in terms of the zoning history, you heard Mr. John outline all of the changes that we've kind of seen, but essentially it was originally low-density residential, and then over time we introduced this manufacturing district and a business district, and then that kind of spread and changed as the park developed. We adopted a mixed-use overlay. That mixed-use overlay was pulled back back in 2015, and then we saw the BG3 kind of creep across the street for the Reactor a park and then now we're seeking to kind of extend that and just kind of gobble up this relic again manufacturing zoning so Otherwise, I think that is It for comments I did just want to note there was an error in the map that was uploaded as part of the petition So we've replaced that and the petition map is cracked online But just want to caveat that there was an earlier iteration of a map that was originally included, which inadvertently excluded part of the high school property, which is part of the area that we are proposing to remove the manufacturing zoning on and put back residential zoning. So that's the property off to the left that is hatched in yellow. So that particular area. area got just left out of that iteration. It was an outdated map that got appended. So apologies on that, but just want to be clear that what you're seeing on the screen here is what the proposal is. Happy to answer questions.

Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I might.

Yeah, go ahead. If I may, Mr. Chairman. Just Michelle was reminding me as she was speaking because there were a couple of revisions that she said are required. I think it probably actually makes more sense to have it continued here so that just when the planning board recommendation does go to ED committee that those things have been addressed because this isn't in connection with any particular development project. We're just kind of proactively looking at this area. there's no urgency to it. So I think just to kind of tighten up some of those things and have a good package from the planning board back to ED committee, I think it would be fine to make those revisions and then have the planning board vote on the final package that's in front of you next time.

Okay. Understood. Thank you guys. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item tonight? Come on up.

Hi, I'm Gloria Caprioli, and I'm a resident of, and I'm a butter of the area, but I'm also a member of the Shrewsbury Street Neighborhood Association, and I'm asking that you respectfully hold the matter until we can become part of the conversation.

It sounds like we're going to be, so.

I know, I just wanted to reiterate that. Yeah, understood. Just to make sure. I've been here before.

Yeah. Thank you. Well, welcome back, but thank you. You're welcome. Anyone else from the public wishing to speak on this item? Do you guys want to speak? OK, just checking. Anyone online on this item?

This is Steve Caring, the Planning Division. I'm not seeing anyone with their hand raised. If you'd like to speak, please use the hand raise function. Mr. Chair, I'm not seeing anyone.

OK, thank you. Board members.

This is Connor. I guess I can start, although it sounds like we're probably going to continue. Overall, I'd be happy to support this. I think it makes sense to have the zoning reflect what's on the ground and what the city is looking to see in this area, which is more life sciences, medical related. development. I think the manufacturing district is obviously updated as staff noted. So it'd be good to see that kind of corrected in terms of the split zoning or the adding adding the res or extending the residential district uh no concerns with that i i think staff was saying uh they would be open to um removing the rl7 rs7 um extension for the property that abuts the uh the luji property um it sounds like greater wishland trust will uh eventually somewhat soon have a conservation restriction on that property so be protected regardless so um i would be okay with uh changing removing that change from this proposal um it sounds like staff was too um otherwise yeah happy to support it

OK, thank you, Mr. McCormick. And I agree. It sounds like Mr. Dunn's request is that we continue it. It's also the resident's request. So unless anyone objects, we'll be doing that. But any other comments from board members on this?

One curious question I have, this is Board Member Toomey. A lot of this land seems to currently be developed. Is that we're looking at to be able to replace a lot of those buildings with larger buildings, or is there still a lot of land that is undeveloped?

Through the chair, there's nothing imminently contemplated right now. Again, we're kind of just looking at this in connection with its identification and now next and also because some of the existing land uses are actually not quite as compatible in that manufacturing relic that it would be in the BG. zoning district. And so we do see obviously with AbbVie is doing 50, I think it's 55,000 square foot building right now. And to Ms. Smith's point from earlier, the density that exists there compared to the lot areas that exist there, it's actually fairly low density. So you could see some further, you know, development on those existing parcels, even if the existing buildings don't get removed. but a lot of that would just be you know hypothetical at this time but i do think one important point and michelle was kind of referencing this too some people hear density and they think oh there's just going to be more buildings put there more of that land covered i think it's important to remember that when you do have that higher density it actually allows for more of that parcel to be conserved with open space because otherwise you'll see some more sprawl if they're trying to get to a certain amount of you know building um area on the parcel so we might actually by doing this not just see potential development but also potential open space preserved by doing that too because they can go taller rather than having that sprawl out on on a lower um lower height building and again a lot of the buildings that are there are approaching 40 years old 30 years old so some of them may be approaching life and the change is going to help that redevelop Yeah, through the chair. I think that's, you know, certainly a possibility. I think the core and shell of those buildings are pretty solid. They're like most of those what we call the biotech buildings along Plantation Street were built in the 80s. So they are approaching 40 years old, but I think they're built fairly well. It's more interior kind of stuff and building system stuff, but I think the core or the shell of the buildings are pretty good. But again, there's nothing imminently contemplated with that, but they'd have options to consider. But yeah, they're 40 years old. And then the Beachwood Hotel was built in the early 90s, I think it was. So more like 30 years to a point.

That's all I had. Thank you.

All right. Hearing no other discussion, when are we continuing this to? Sounds like April 22nd. Is there a motion to continue?

Make a motion to continue this item to April 22nd. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick? Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Motion passes five to zero. See you next time. Okay, moving on to other business now, A&Rs.

This is Steve Carey with the Planning Division. I'm going to be presenting the ANRs. The first up is 14 Beverly Cove. This is an ANR plan to create those parcels A and B that you see sort of at the plan, I guess, plan southwest. They're going to be combined and combined with lot 2R, which is sort of that middle lot there where house 15 is on. The combined area is going to be kind of a strangely shaped lot, but it does have an, it'll have a, they didn't do it, the regularity factor, and it does pass that. Together, those, these are in the RS7 zone, and together they will have the minimum frontage requirement of 65 feet. The next one is 429 and 438 Main Street, and then 48, 42, and 54 Bower Street. This is to create that lot on the corner of Main and Bower. These are in the BL1 zoning district. If there were residential use there, it would require 40 feet for a dwelling unit. Next up is 507 to 515 South. 507 to 515 and 523 to 525 Southbridge Street and 0 and 3 Southgate Street and then 1 and 3 Congdon Street and 8 Gladstone Street. This one's a little tricky, but you can see that a parcel one, it's a land swap. Parcel one is becoming part of lot 2, which is on the plan right, and then parcel 2, which is that triangle, is becoming part of lot 1. These are all within the MG2 zoning district, where there would be a French requirement for residential use, obviously. Tacoma Street. This is 340 Tacoma Street. This is in the BG2 zoning district. This is to create that parcel at the back, which is going to be a not buildable lot, and it is labeled as such. We have Wakefield Street. Wakefield Street is in the, 27 Wakefield Street is within the RS7 zoning district, where the minimum frontage is 65 feet. Each of the lots being created. It's really a lot line adjustment. It's not creating a new lot. It's kind of adjusting a lot. You can see that old lot line there was an L shape. It's now going straight across. Both lots have the required frontage along Wakefield Street, which is the public street. 29 Dominion Road. This is creating a lot one at the back, which both the roads are private streets. And Sonia Road, though, does have adequate frontage for this for the RL7 zoning district. And then finally, Norfolk Street, this is to put down zero lot lines for a triplex that is within or a attached house with three units in the RL7 zone district. Each unit's required to have 25 feet of frontage, which it does, which they do have. That's it.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Carey. Is there a motion to endorse the NRs?

Motion to endorse ANRs D through H. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick.

Yes.

Mr. King. Yes. Mr. DeLera. Yes. Mr. Toomey.

Yes.

I vote yes as well. Motion passes five to zero. Does anyone have any additions or corrections to the minutes from January 28th, February 18th, or March 11th? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve?

Motion to approve the minutes.

Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick? Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Dallara? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. That motion passes five to zero. Is there a motion to adjourn?

to adjourn and through the chair just one quick note um before uh we wrap up uh we have a departure happening um so we have an onboarding and a departure unfortunately so um folks heard steve carey who you may have worked with previously if you've been on the board for a bit of time uh steve is a boomerang for us uh he left a couple years ago went and worked for the city of somerville and is now back as our chief planner replacing Victor. So welcome to Steve, first and foremost, especially since he's here, but wanted to also extend our gratitude to Rose Russell. Unfortunately, she is departing the city for the town of Auburn, where she'll be their new town planner. So lucky if you live in Auburn, or if you see something in Auburn you take issue with, you now have a contact. But we really appreciate all of her dedication. She's been an exceptionally hard worker, really great positive attitude. wonderful planner, and we found the opportunity to collaborate with her for just over four years now. So we really wish her well on her next endeavor, but really want to thank her for all of her patience and willingness to train many colleagues and her thoughtfulness in all of her work here. So thanks to Rose, and just an update for all of the board members about our transition.

All right. Thank you, Ms. Smith. I believe there's a motion on the floor to adjourn in a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes. We're adjourned. Thanks, everybody. Have a good night.