Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Just doing an audio check for Brandon King. Brandon, are you able to hear us?

Yes, I can. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Perfect.

Just doing an audio check for Brandon King. Brandon, are you able to hear us?

Yes, I can. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Just doing an audio check for Brandon King.

Cable services, we're just doing an audio test here in the room because we are hearing some reverb. Brandon, do you mind just stating something again? We'll see if it continues. Yep.

Is this a test? Testing, testing.

Thank you. Seems okay. Maybe it's been resolved. Okay.

okay i think we're going to get going uh good evening and welcome everybody to the wednesday april 22nd 2026 meeting of the city of worcester planning board my name is conor mccormick and i will chair tonight's meeting before we begin i have a few brief announcements concerning how our meeting will proceed tonight tonight's meeting is a hybrid format which means you can participate in person here at city hall or remotely You may log in via computer by going to worcesterma.zoomgov.com slash j slash 1617314979 or by calling in at 16692545252 and entering access code 1617314979 pound. To manage remote participation during our hybrid meeting and to 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 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. If you are joined by phone, you will then be able to unmute yourself by pressing star six. This is a public meeting, which means both that it is being recorded and that minutes will be taken and published at a later date. To help with this process, we ask all speakers participating in person to use a microphone, to please clearly identify yourselves each time you speak and that 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 rather than directly to any other speakers or applicants. There are a number of items on our agenda being continued or postponed tonight, which I will read through shortly. If you are 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 to call the planning division the day prior to our next meeting to confirm if that item will be heard or postponed that night, as it is not uncommon for items to be postponed multiple times before they are heard by this board. Once an item is called, there will be a brief presentation by the item followed by any additional comments and clarification from members of the city staff, then an opportunity for anyone from the public to speak on that item before we proceed to board discussion and action. All applicants should be aware that approvals are generally conditional, decisions are generally signed by the board at the next meeting and where appropriate filed with the city clerk the following day, which begins any appeals period. 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. Please also note that all approval votes will be by roll call vote tonight, which I'm going to administer when the time comes. Moving on to continuances and postponements. We have a request for continuance for Zero Chester Street, a definitive site plan, request to continue the public meeting to May 13th, 2026, and extend the constructive grant deadline to June 4th, 2026. We have a request for 28 Harrington Way, a special permit, a request to postpone the public meeting to May 13th, 2026 and extend the constructive grant deadline to June 4th, 2026. 17 Pearl Street, a definitive site plan and special permit extension of time, request to postpone the public meeting to May 13th, 2026 and extend the constructive grant deadline to June 4th, 2026. and 25 West Chester Street zoning map amendment request to postpone the public hearing to June 3rd and extend the constructive grant deadline, I'm assuming to June 24th, 25th. Is there a motion on the continuances and postponements? Sure.

Sure. I kind of heard that online, but couldn't fully.

So someone in the audience was just requesting that we speak into the microphone a little closer.

Gotcha. All right. I move the continuance item one and postponements two, five, and seven.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you. And before I do the roll call vote, do we have Anthony on the line here?

Through the chair, we do not. I believe he was, given we didn't have any special permits. So these are ministerial acts to move them along. So you can go ahead and motion with the three. Just want to be clear. So that was a continuance for item one and then a postponement for items two, five, and seven, correct?

Yes. Yes. Okay, on the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey?

Yes.

Myself, yes. Motion approved. Moving on to item number three, 111, 1103 Milbury Street, a definitive site plan application.

Number three, the chair just wanted to clarify, I apologize. Out of order on the agenda, we actually listed a continued item, item number 10 under new business, which is actually should be listed as item number two, but it's not. I didn't know if you wanted to take that out of order. I'm not sure if there's anyone here for the item.

Yes, thank you, Ms. Smith. You told me that right before the meeting and I forgot. We had item number 10 is a zoning map amendment that was continued from the last meeting and we would look to take that up as that is actually old business. We'd look to take that up first if the applicant is here to present on that at this time.

And through the chair, Mr. Dunn was unable to attend this evening because he's actually attending a community meeting, as was requested at the previous meeting. Unfortunately, it just happens to conflict with tonight's planning board meeting. So he's in attendance at that, but did want to move the petition forward so I can update the board in terms of the changes that were made subsequent to the last meeting. So I don't know if we have a slide for this that we might be able to pull up but basically at the previous hearing there was a discussion among board members in response to comment received from council for an abutter along the Belmont Street and Reactory Drive section of the the area that was proposed to be affected for the two parcels that you see that were kind of highlighting with the cursor there. So a property that is owned by Greater Worcester Land Trust and a property that actually the city owns. Our office holds on custodianship of the Conservation Commission. So those two properties were previously included in the proposed change to bring a series of properties into a residential zoning district and a series of properties into a business zoning district. eliminating some relic manufacturing in this area around the UMass campus and then aligning that residential zoning with our open space and so there was a concern about that open space alignment with the residential zoning district and that implications for future development of the property and so the board discussed and chose that you would prefer to see those two that property excluded when we reviewed the revised boundaries it essentially created this one little bubble of new rs7 zoning on the conservation commission property and we felt it wasn't appropriate to do that so we removed that as well so basically you're seeing the removal of two parcels subsequent to the previous meeting. I'm happy to re-review any portions of the petition, but for sake of brevity and the other items on the agenda, don't need to do that unless you all would like me to. So those two properties that have been removed are known as 0 and 257 Belmont Street. I'll also note that the typos that were included in the memo have been updated, and essentially this revises that to include about 160 acres that's proposed to be changed, to the BG3 zone, and then about 36 acres that's proposed to be changed to the RS7 zone. So again, the RS7 being kind of a restricted open space that you generally see in green, and then the orange area being the area that's shown on the screen proposed for the BG3. So this now affects 23 different properties within that area. And again, happy to answer any questions, but really that's what's been changed. And as you heard me mention, Mr. Dunn's currently meeting with some of the neighbors at their regularly scheduled association meeting So there'll be opportunity for additional public comment where the board to move this forward at the Economic Development Subcommittee where there's a subsequent public hearing where parties have the opportunity to be heard as well.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. I'm guessing we don't have any other comments from staff on this item. Unless there is any, I would move on to public comment. If there's anyone online or in the room that would like to make a comment on this item.

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. I am not seeing anyone from the public with their hand raised.

Okay, looks like no one online and no one in the room. So we move on to board discussion. Mr. King or Mr. Toomey, any thoughts? I know we had already discussed this and reviewed it at the last meeting, but.

No comments for me, thank you.

Again, I thought there was concern from the Strewsbury Street Business District that they had concerns or those discussed and addressed or what happened to that

Yeah, through the chair, again, that meeting is happening concurrently tonight, this evening, right now. So unfortunately, there just wasn't another neighborhood meeting before this planning board meeting. So Peter Dunn is in attendance at that meeting to discuss those. And anyone with continued concerns or questions, I think for the most part, folks were just curious about what it is and what it means. So ultimately, the comments that were provided from the public were included in the packet. I think in this case, the only one that I believe we had received in opposition was from the Council for Wuji, which this change that we've adjusted is in response to. So those residents, business owners, folks with questions, Peter's currently meeting with them right now. So again, they'll have the opportunity to provide any additional comments at the Economic Development Subcommittee.

Okay. So we just let it go to economic development and then they can, anything that may come up tonight, they can address that.

Yeah. So the planning board ultimately is just making a recommendation. Um, whatever you choose, ultimately the, uh, city council subcommittee could, uh, support completely ignore a table or otherwise. And often, uh, these processes are an evolution. Um, and it's an opportunity for folks to provide comment at various different junctures. Um, this is the sort of first stop, if you will, in the process. so folks will have the opportunity to come and speak again, or perhaps their concerns will have been addressed, and if not, that platform will be there at Economic Development Committee. Certainly, it's the Planning Board's prerogative to do what you wish relative to the item.

No other questions?

Okay.

Um, yeah, for myself, um, I, I think these changes reflect what we had discussed last week and, uh, to miss miss point, um, there, if there is any additional public comment, there will be another opportunity at the economic development subcommittee meeting of the city council at a future date. So, um, with that, I would take a motion for a sounds like probably a favorable recommendation.

All right, I make a motion to favorably recommend to city council the portions of the Belmont Street, Plantation Street corridor and Green Hill area.

And through the chair, that's as amended with the changes that we have proposed. Yes. Perfect.

Okay, and do we have a second? Second. All right, on the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. Myself, yes. That motion passes. Okay, now we're going to jump back to item number 3, 1103 Milbury Street, a definitive site plan application.

Good evening, Mr. Chair. For the record, Joshua Lee Smith. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Bowditch and Dewey. We've got various representatives of the project team who are on the call. And to my immediate left is Jesse Hildenberg, who is the architect of record. I apologize, but I missed the outset of this meeting. How many actual voting members do we have tonight, Michelle? Through the chair?

Three.

Three. Okay. And again, I apologize. I don't know if this was conveyed to you, Mr. Chair, but tonight we... We do not anticipate a vote tonight. However, we did want to briefly go over the project scope. And we got some feedback from staff through the DPRS memo, which we received today. And largely, as I'll report in a moment, largely in agreement with most of the comments, but we did want to keep the ball moving forward by providing this initial presentation to the board. So, Steve, welcome back, thank you. So as you can see here, a very brief slide deck, two depictions of an aerial site. This is 1103 Millbury Street. This is actually a split zoned lot. Currently this is a wooded lot, multiple acres in size, and it is split between the business zone as well as the RL7 zone. The vast majority of the improvements as part of this project are going to be located within the BL1 zoning district. Generally speaking, the project proposes the development of approximately 84,000 square foot three-story low-rise multi-family building. Total number of units that are proposed are 40 units atop a parking garage, so there's a podium style Total number of parking spaces would be exactly in compliance, so we're proposing 80 parking spaces in total. The upper portion of that depiction there, you'll see in a moment. Steve, I'm sorry, if you could just go back to the layout really quickly. So the upper portion here is the building itself. You can see the building footprint. Again, about a total of 84,000 square feet. In size, the portion, the majority of the parking will be within this garage area, a total of 46 within the garage, 46 spaces. There will be on a tiered lower level will be 34 parking spaces, which provides a total of 80 parking spaces total. Just a little bit of history. We were before the ZBA. We obtained a special permit as well as variance with respect to the height. We've had several meetings with neighbors, some one-on-one, some in a group setting. Also had meetings with the ward counselor with respect to this project. Steve, if you could advance to the next slide. So we've got a series of renderings. There are a few comments that were provided by the ZBA, some design-related elements and components, which Jesse will get into a little bit more detail in a moment. But we did make some facade improvements, as you can see here. This is the viewpoint from, if you're standing on Millbury Street looking towards the building. For those who are familiar with the site, it does have a pretty steep grade going from a lower elevation along Millbury Street to a higher elevation as you move towards the rear portion of the site. If you could advance to the next slide, Steve. Here's another depiction of the building, obviously. Again, showing some of the surface parking lot. This is, again, the front portion of the front side. And the next slide. So this is a depiction from the rear. And one more. We wanted to show this, but also give an update. This was the 3D rendering. I guess I'll call it a photo sim. Again, from the perspective of if you're looking at the rear wall of the building, looking towards the rear lot line, again, it's upgrading uphill. We depicted a fence line along the rear. There are residential properties beyond that. You can see that tree line that is at the top of the screen there. There are residential properties that are on the other side of that tree woodland line. We had proposed some fencing as well as some arborvitae plantings. However, subsequent to the meeting with the ZBA, we did meet with the CONCOM, obtain an order of conditions, and as part of one of the conditions that the CONCOM had required is in fact that the hill that you see there, the slope leading up to the row of arborvitaes, we actually agreed, and as a condition of the CONCOM's approval, that there be about a 50-foot buffer from the rear lot line moving more towards that hill slope. So this depiction here is not exactly the most up-to-date. However, you can envision that there will be a woodland buffer, again, about 50 feet in width, running from the rear lot line. So I wanted to give you that update. We've also made a series of updates as well with respect to comments that were provided by Michelle and her team pertaining to the drainage, the slope, There's some additional information pertaining to the geotechnical analysis. So we submitted a letter from a geotechnical engineer with respect to that. And with that, as I mentioned, we are in agreement with the vast majority of the comments that Michelle and her team provided with respect to the DPRS memo. And we can get into that a little bit more detail in a moment, but now I'd like to pass it off to Jesse.

Hi, my name's Jesse Hildenberg with Dixon Salo Architects in Worcester.

I'm the architect of record.

I'll just give you a one-minute design spiel, I guess, about the project. Each unit is primarily the same, so we're working with two bedrooms, primarily one bedroom. Lower level is parking, so it'll probably be a concrete podium style with three-story wood construction above. Each unit has either an exterior patio or an exterior balcony. with the access to a sliding door. So some of the changes we made just from neighbor and zoning comments is we dropped the overall height of the building significantly and we stopped the crenellations, the up and downs. We gave more just, uniform feel across the entire building. Neighbors were concerned about the overall height, which is understandable. So if you look at, say, this view, instead of going up and down between the gray and the white boxes that are different apartments, we just kept the top level and pushed and pulled a foot. So each one is a foot in and out. So the white sticks out a foot, the gray goes back a foot. And each one represents an apartment. And then we have three, we'll call them towers. The tower on the right, on the far right, is adjacent to the gym and a stairwell. The tower on the far left is a stairwell, and then the tower in the middle is where you access the parking garage, which not shown on there is an overhead door. I think in the next view, Stephen, the next view, yeah, shows. So we do have a 16-by-9-foot parking garage, sorry, overhead door going there. Otherwise, the renderings on this view are pretty current. I think the next one shows... Yeah, the next one shows there's... There's some small modifications to the site plan and the architectural plan on this view, primarily where you see there's a little, on the far left, a little overhang, and then there's a recessed patio above as well. So those are the public spaces, all the public spaces. Third floor are two exterior spaces. First floor is a gym and a common office space, we're calling it, but I expect it to be used for kind of community space. That's the 500 mile an hour run through. Good.

Yeah. So, Mr. Chair, as I mentioned, we did get a chance to take a quick look at some of the conditions, recommended conditions of approval with respect to better set forth in the DPRS memo. I'm not going to go through all of them, but I just did want to, again, reemphasize that We are in agreement with the vast majority of them. A lot of these comments actually have been incorporated in our latest plan set, which simply has not yet been sent to Michelle and her team. So I think we've made good progress with respect to updating the plans. A few more items which, again, we're comfortable updating. I did want to point out Going back to the trees, the arborvitaes in the rear, again, because the – and this was not a condition of approval by the ZBA with respect to the variance or the special permit that were granted. The fencing and the arborvitaes that are along the rear lot line, as currently shown on our plan set, we – like to have a discussion or get your thoughts initial thoughts with respect to removing that given now that as a condition of approval by the concom we are going to have a 50-foot buffer, again, from the rear lot line extending into the lot, which if you go out there, if you know this site, it is in fact a pretty robust wooded area. So to have, in addition to that, fencing and a row of arborvitaes seems really unnecessary. So I did want to point that out. There is a condition that Michelle and her team provided with respect to If the fencing and those arborvitaes are going to remain as part of this project to be approved by the planning board, then there would be a tree replacement condition, a one-to-one tree replacement. So that would be stricken if the board were to agree that the arborvitaes and the fencing in the rear would no longer be necessary given the 50-foot buffer. So I do want to point that one out. There were also some other items pertaining to some of the during construction and pre-construction conditions with respect to some of the monitoring that I think we can, we'll probably have a more further discussion with Michelle and her team as to some of those requirements. That will certainly require more input from our civil team. But other than that, again, most of the comments that were provided in this DPRS memo are amenable to my client.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Pass it over to staff for any comments.

Sure, through the chair. I'll try to be brief because it seems like this item will likely be continued. But in front of you is a construction of a three-story multi-family low-rise structure. It does appear, depending on what angle you look at it from, to be taller in height. But the kind of lowest level is a full garage. And then the sort of sub-level is really just a wall to support the structure and access to the stair. It's 40 units, 80 parking spaces, large retaining walls sort of perch the parking lot up at grade with the garage entry level. The hill slopes down from, down basically towards Melbury Street, and so where kind of this building is being set into the hillside itself. So there's a sort of cut in and then some corresponding fill work that's being done in order to enable the site work. And so most of our comments really revolve around stormwater management, drainage, groundwater, understanding slope stability and stabilization. And I think we had recommended postponement in order to have a cut fill analysis be provided, to have information related to the sort of footing drain for the retaining wall, getting information about that what elevation it's at how that's not going to be shedding groundwater out into whether the municipal system or the surrounding landscape buffers and then potentially creating an icing condition so we would like some more information around that mainly and then the zoning board had conditioned and required because our preference is generally if we go to the civil plan not to see steep slopes constructed and when they are we certainly prefer not to see riprap particularly in a residential context and so you can see that they've shown the rear wall as being sorry the rear slope as being vegetated which is great but we would like to just see what specific treatment is proposed for that because it is a two-to-one slope and that's getting into the territory of needing a form of permanent stabilization measures it can be constructed carefully without that but wanting to get some more information and so we'd ask for additional information from a geotechnical engineer related to that slope as well because this is about a 14 foot cut and groundwater is about five or six feet below grade depending on where you are so concerns about groundwater breakout based on our experience with construction, other lots along this stretch of Millbury Street and kind of similar things that we've encountered. So we appreciate the letter, but are just looking for some additional information, mostly in that regard. There are certainly other comments that we have. I don't need to highlight all of those, but sort of the bulk of our comments, I'll say, and where kind of our lack of comfort for a conditional approval comes from are around those topics and themes. With respect to the comment about the 50 foot buffer in the rear, we would just recommend that were the board to consider doing that, you may want to entertain asking for actual confirmation of what mature trees are in that buffer and would be retained to just make sure that that wooded area isn't consisting mostly of canopy from other trees that are proposed to be removed. Make sure that you feel like that 50-foot buffer will actually retain enough vegetation to... to not need the redundancy of fencing and arborvitae. Otherwise, from staff's perspective, it's certainly upgrading. Really, all that's doing is creating privacy for neighbors. It's not functionally providing really screening for headlights or anything like that. The building is kind of providing that fiscal buffer and separation. So we don't take issue with that, but that would be something I might recommend is that you look at survey for trees that are greater than nine inches. You could pick a specific caliber size. Happy to answer questions. Thanks.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. Do we have any other comments from city staff? It doesn't sound like it. So we'll move on to public comment. Is there anyone in the room or online looking to speak on this item, 1103 Millbury Street?

This is Steve Carey in the planning division. I'm not seeing any members of the public with their hand raised on Zoom. If you are a member of the public who'd like to comment, please use the hand raise action.

Okay, we'll keep an eye on hand raised. But otherwise, let's move on to board discussion. Mr. King and Mr. Toomey, do you have any thoughts on this one?

It seems to have been heavily reviewed by staff and they're working with the neighborhood as well. So I think I'm okay in terms of comments. Thank you.

Yeah, same for me. There's more to be learned, but I think it's, you know, the process is going along in the right direction.

Okay. Thank you both. Um, yeah, for myself, um, I agree. It sounds like some additional information, uh, is needed for staff to fully review this, particularly in relation to the drainage, um, and storm water and some concerns around groundwater that we know exist in this area. For myself, in regards to the question on the vegetated buffer and the proposed Aberdeen fence, I would be okay with the removal of the Aberdeen fence. I think that's reasonable. I do think Ms. Smith has a good suggestion that we would like to make sure that the vegetated buffer that would remain is substantial enough to do what it is intended to do. So if it's possible to provide that information to staff to show mature trees in that area so that we can get a sense of what that vegetated buffer looks like. I'd be happy to support that. But otherwise I think we're probably looking for a request to continue this or a motion to continue this rather to the next meeting to the applicant.

That works for us, although just for clarification, with respect to the additional information pertaining to the buffer, would it be acceptable to the board and staff that, in order to illustrate or demonstrate that, that we provide street view photographs? Meaning not just going on Google and doing street view, but someone could physically go out there the next week or so take actual photographs of of the area there's a street that runs perpendicular to millbury street called saint anthony street we could take photographs from that vantage point what i'd like to avoid is having some type of a tree plan where trees would need to be inventoried and actually measured um i i think that would be unnecessary that would take a long amount of time we're hoping someone could we could just go out there and take some photographs and of course the members could also go look themselves but other than that i'm not exactly sure we we do have aerial photographs uh that are rel i think current um that show the canopies most of these are shade trees i believe the vast majority of them so that is some evidence

uh but again in addition to that we're happy to go out there and do some sort of visual reconnaissance street view photos if that would be acceptable um for myself i i would feel comfortable with that i don't know if staff or my board members have any other uh thoughts on that i think some documentation just to show what is uh what would remain in the vegetative buffer would be helpful um and obviously you kind of have a window here before all the trees come out and maybe block your your view from some of those pictures so

um i don't know does my board members or staff have any other thoughts on that i would be okay with with that no concerns for me thank you yeah i would yield the staff as to what they think would be correct on that uh through the chair 50 feet is is a decent width so there probably will be some trees that do remain in that i you know when you start to get into like 20 something feet it can very easily end up being nothing um so applicant wants to provide something I think we'll probably still end up with a condition that says you know if no tree is greater than X diameter remain in that buffer that we'll be looking for plantings so aerial imagery and photographs that show the the area that they're referring to as the the vegetated buffer to just demonstrate that there are some mature trees I'm looking at the canopy I think the majority of the large trees that I see in that area the trunk is probably outside of the 50-foot buffer. So a lot of that shade is actually going to be eliminated by the regrading of that slope. So that's just where our comment comes from. Is that absolutely necessary to do an inventory? It sounds like the board members don't feel that it is. So ultimately, it just becomes a challenge for us to enforce if we don't know exactly what's there and what's required to stay or we don't have some amount or defined saturation of what that needs to look like. So that's just, I think we would want to have a good understanding of what that expectation is to make sure that we can hold the applicant accountable to that.

Sounds good to me. Okay. All right, so it sounds like we'll get some more information on the vegetative buffer among a few other items, unless the applicant has any other questions.

comments i think we're ready for a motion to continue to are you good with the next meeting we are thank you mr one comment if i could from just thinking in my perspective someone could stop from one side of the lot and walk to the other along that buffer to just basically video what is actually there i think that gives a pretty good feel of being able to look and understand what is what the trees are and what the vegetation is that's there as opposed to just some still photographs

Yes, through the chair, we're happy to do that.

Sure. Okay, thank you. I think we are ready for a motion to continue.

All right, I make motion to continue item number 3, 1103 Milbury Street to the May 13th, 2026 meeting.

Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Mr. King. Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. And myself is a yes. Motion approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The applicant for 12 Malden has requested that we take up the item that's after that, which I believe is Brant Lane and Grafton Street, aka Grafton Woods first before Malden Street, if that's okay with the chair?

Sure. Yeah, so I think it sounds like we're going to skip over item four momentarily and jump to item number six, which is for Brant Lane and zero Grafton Street, a definitive site plan amendment.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Board. Steven Middows of the law firm Myrick here in Worcester on behalf of Brant Lane Development LLC. With me this evening is Mr. Patrick Healy of Thompson Liston Associates, the site engineer. for this project. We're here this evening seeking an amendment to the definitive site plan approval that this board issued for the project. You may recall in April of last year, we obtained definitive site plan approval for the proposed redevelopment of approximately 16.9 acres located at 4 Brandt Lane, which is off of Grafton Street. We also obtained in 2024 approval of a definitive subdivision plan to subdivide the property into 5 lots as shown on the plan before you and the proposed development is to have multifamily a multifamily building on each of those 5 lots of 4 stories each. One of the lots a lot for which is Um, I don't know, Steve, if you could indicate lot four for us. Yes. Thank you. Steve is circling it, um, has some environmental constraints. It has a manmade channel, uh, running through it along with associated wetlands. Um, Thompson and Liston and Goddard associates are environmental, uh, consultants work diligently with the conservation commission and obtained an order of conditions. for the proposed development of Lot 4 as part of the project. However, Mass DEP expressed some reservation. In fact, I think they appealed the local order of our conservation commission. So we then worked with the folks at DEP to reconfigure the proposed development of Lot 4. And the result is that the building for Lot 4 has been significantly reduced from the original proposal of approximately 147,000 square feet to a new footprint of 92,000 square feet. So the number of dwelling units will be reduced from the original proposal of 112 to 69 dwelling units. And the number of parking spaces proposed for lot four has been reduced from the original proposal of 160 to 104. So the overall impact to the development proposal for all five lots is to reduce the total number of dwelling units from 491 to 448 and the number of parking spaces from 793 to 737. So we're back before this board to seek approval of an amendment to adjust the proposed development of Lot 4 as shown to accommodate those concerns raised by Mass DEP. And Mr. Healy can walk you through the particulars of those changes to the extent you have questions about them. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, Patrick Healy from Thompson Liston. If I get into too much detail, just let me know. I'm happy to cut it short. But on the screen you can see the red outline of the previous building location and then colored in with the brown hatching is the proposed location. Originally we had parking all around the building. Since we moved the building further away from the wetland to avoid stream impacts, the parking's been now sort of centered on the building on the south end. and it will still have parking in the garage on the lowest level with entrance from the south end of the building. Some of the changes to the stormwater are where we had originally the subsurface stormwater under the parking lot on the west side of the building. We're now putting a building there, so we had to slide that stormwater management system down to the south. and we had to rearrange some of our amenity spaces that were around the building to kind of focus them all at the south end of the building as well. So there's a dog park associated with this building and all of the buildings on the site that are accessible from the buildings. There's a loading space, there's a dedicated indoor bicycle storage room at the garage level. There are common spaces on the upper first floor, so on the right side of the building, as you're looking at this plan, is the main floor, and at the south end and the west end, this is all down at the basement level. So there are some retaining walls between the upper level and the wetland there to try to separate the grading that's proposed and to leave us some room so we can restore the buffer zone along that channel. And then at the south end of the building, similar to what we had proposed before, we're taking up all of the existing pavement that is... in the wetland and the stream and restoring the near buffer zone in that area. So where you see on this particular slide, the blue area is the relocated stream that now becomes set in the ground in natural soil rather than across pavement. And that aligns with the culvert that's proposed under Brant Lane. Overall, I think we have a better landscaping plan than we had before. There's more buffer plantings You know, although the amenity space is a little bit reduced, we do have a nice patio associated with the first floor there on the right side of the building as you're looking at it at the main level that aligns with the indoor common space. So there's some relationship between that indoor and outdoor, you know, common amenity space, something that we really didn't have on the previous plan. So in that respect, it's an improvement. I don't know what else I can say. I'm happy to take any questions you might have.

Could I also mention, we did meet with IRT and we did receive the memo just prior to the meeting, or this afternoon rather, mostly okay with all of the proposed conditions to approving an amendment. However, there were a couple conditions relative to the recommended tree species, and we would ask that that be revised in both instances to provide something along the lines of unless otherwise specified in an order of conditions issued by the Conservation Commission.

Sorry, can you just give us the condition number?

sure on page two it is m all proposed trees trees should be from the recommended tree species list and we would like to add unless otherwise specified in an order of conditions issued by the conservation commission i think that's that's acceptable and then similarly on page 10 uh under number seven The last line there, trees that do not appear on the recommended tree species list and should be replaced include, we would add there as well, unless otherwise specified by an order of conditions issued by the Conservation Commission. Learning about stability to resource areas this afternoon relative to planting of trees.

Yes, fun stuff. Yeah. Okay, unless the applicant has any additional comment, I will turn it over to planning staff. Sure.

This is Steve Carey in the planning division. That was a pretty comprehensive overview of the changes. I don't have too much more to add, but yeah, as the applicant noted, building footprints are being reduced about 40%. There's a subsequent reduction in units and parking is being reduced. There's a change in the layout to the parking, that access way into lot four has now sort of been reduced in size. There's only one sidewalk on that access way now, all to reduce the impact on that stream. Our conditions of approval are largely focused on sort of pedestrian circulation around the site. Particularly the sort of pedestrian connection between this building now and building three that's off to the right of the screen. Where I'm indicating with my cursor here is sort of an intersection where we feel there may be more pavement as is necessary. I understand that there is an updated tractor trailer turning analysis coming. So if you look at conditions, E, F, and G, E and G in particular, that basically asked to eliminate those truck aprons in favor of landscaping islands, unless there was a, you know, that amount of space is demonstrated to be necessary by a tractor trailer turning analysis. And then similarly, G, just seeing, you know, basically asking the applicant to explore if the driver widths and curb radii there can be reduced. Again, just to try to eliminate some of that impervious surface and basically create a sort of more hospitable walking environment if you're someone crossing the site. To that end, we also have a condition with regards to the adding a crosswalk sort of at that where I'm indicating with my cursor here for someone trying to make that crossing. And then I'd also draw the board's attention to condition, let's see here, with regards to the walking loop 1N. The applicant had indicated on the plan, sort of denoted a walking loop there. It's not really clarified if it would be demarcated, if at all, and I'd leave it up to the board if they do want to see some sort of demarcation of that walking loop. perhaps with stamped asphalt. It's really at the board's discretion. And I leave to the board. And then with regards to condition 1M, we're fine with that language change as proposed by the applicant. Yeah, like I said, there's a few other conditions just with regards to pedestrian circulation. Happy to address those if the board has questions.

Thank you. Any other comments from city staff? Okay, not hearing any, I'm gonna move on to public comment. Any comments from anyone in the room or online? I see someone here in the room, if you wanna come up and give us your name and city or town of residence.

Good evening, members of the Planning Board. My name is David Dixon. I'm speaking as a resident of 4B Ockway Street and Pine Road, which is a private dead-end road accessed from Grafton Street and currently serves approximately 90 residents. It is our neighbourhood's only point of access and exit. Because Pine Hill Road is privately maintained and the sole route for residents, we are particularly concerned about construction phase impacts associated with the development of this scale. We respectfully request that the Board include a condition of approval ensuring that construction vehicles, contractor parking and staging activity are not routed through Pine Hill Road and that emergency access for residents is maintained at all times during construction. We also understand that the developer has indicated in principle a willingness to improve Pine Hill Road to public road standards. Given the importance of this commitment to our neighbourhood, we respectfully ask that this improvement be included as a formal condition of approval, with clarity regarding timing and coordination with the City. As Pine Hill Road is our only access route, these protections are essential. for maintaining safe and reliable access for residents throughout the construction period. We appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening and respectfully request that these protections be incorporated as part of the approval process. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you.

Any other public comments in the room or online? I'm not seeing anyone in the room. Doesn't sound like there's anyone online. Maybe we can just address the member of the public's comment there. I believe that was already somewhat addressed in the initial approval. Maybe staff or the applicant can refresh us. However, this application for an amendment is particularly looking at this one building on this particular lot. But I think maybe someone can give us some insight on it.

I'd like to comment that none of the work proceeded, of course, once MassDEP appealed the order conditions, so then we had to address that as a permitting matter. But the original approval and these conditions will carry forward. It's on page 5D, rehabilitation of Pine Hill Road from Grafton Street for 225 feet is required. as a condition. And then there's also, I haven't found it yet, and I don't know if staff could find it, there's a limitation for construction access, I think, to utilize Brant Lane.

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. I can jump in. It's a condition of approval 12, It reads that except for access necessary to construct improvements to Pine Hill Road, utility improvements, and for a limited purpose for the construction of Building 5, construction vehicles shall only access the site via Brant Lane and shall not use Pine Hill Road. And that is prior to and continuing during all construction activities.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, thank you both. So it does sound like the conditions that were provided for in the original approval are being carried forward. This is just looking at a change to this one building within the overall site. So the conditions related to construction of Pine Hill remain as well as the construction management provisions to make sure that construction trucks are not going in and out of Pine Hill except for the work specific to that area. So hopefully that alleviates some concerns. Sorry, if you're gonna speak again, we do need you to come up to the microphone.

Thank you, Chair. I think we would like and appreciate some clarification as far as the improvement of Pine Hill Road. That was, I believe, indicated at the last meeting. I wasn't present at that meeting, but I think it would be comforting and reassuring to our residents to have some understanding of that and confirmation of that, please.

One response to that, this was raised during the original permitting process, and the constraints for the applicant developer relative to Pine Hill Road is our ability, it's a private way, and our ability to expand it on the other side is we don't own the other side, so the extent of the improvements are what would be available to us as improvements to the private way.

Mr. Chair, if I could also add, we did provide plans of those improvements to the planning board under the previous approval, which do show full width construction, addition of a sidewalk on the near side of the road, and addition of street lights along there to improve safety.

Okay, thank you. So just to reiterate what the applicant said, they did provide plans showing a full reconstruction with a sidewalk that were part of the original approval, and that is conditioned in the original approval, and it's something I believe that's required before occupancy of the site. So that's something that the applicant will need to complete prior to getting any occupancy to the buildings to that project. So hopefully that helps alleviate the concern there. Okay, so I think we can move on to board comment. Mr. King or Mr. Toomey, do you have any comments on this site plan amendment?

No comments from my side.

Yeah, no comments on the proposed changes. I'd be okay with the modification of line M. And actually a question to the chair, to the applicant on the demarcation of the walking loop. Is there any plans to mark that somehow?

Mr. Chair, I'm showing that to show that there's a continuous walking path around the site because that was part of the features that we originally presented as amenities. In this particular location, this is a fire lane, so it's really showing that pedestrians can walk in that fire lane. It will not be used regularly by residents, so for the most part, that's a vacant paved path that the people can walk through. to complete their loop. That's the reason why I labeled it as I did on the plan. We didn't have any specific plans to demarcate it on the ground.

Okay, thank you. For myself, overall, I'm also, no big concerns with this amendment. It's a reduction in size due to a requirement from the MassDEP for the wetlands in proximity to the building. So it's a reduction size of the building and the impervious space. So no concerns for me on that. I would agree with no issue with the adjustment to 1M. And I do appreciate staff's conditions and review in relation to the pedestrian circulation and the turning movements. So I think unless the applicant has any outstanding comments or questions on conditions, I think we could move to a motion.

We're fine, thank you.

I make a motion to approve item number six for Brant Lane and Zero Grafton Street with modifications as stated by the applicant for condition M and on page 10, number seven.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion that's been seconded. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey?

Yes.

Myself, yes. Motion approved.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, is the applicant for item number 412 Malden Street ready? Looks like they are, so we will move forward with item number 412 Malden Street, a definitive site plan, and a public hearing for more than one building on the lot.

Good evening again. And again, for the record, Joshua Lee Smith, attorney with Bowditch and Dewey, here representing my client, Wolf Farms, LLC, in connection with this townhouse-style development off of Malden Street. This is a pretty straightforward project, Mr. Chair. This involves the development of this multi-acre site to accommodate 12 units, again, townhouse-style in nature, The townhouses are separated through a common driveway, as shown on the slide deck that we provided, which Steve is pulling up right now. And as you can see, they are in groups of three, again, for a total of 12. Technically, there are a total of 48 parking spaces. However... Every unit here includes a two-space parking garage, so that accounts for two of the spaces, and then there are service lot driveway spaces to account for two additional parking spaces. So it certainly complies with minimum parking requirements. In terms of a little bit of procedural history on this, we sought and obtained... we petitioned with respect to a zone change, changing this district to an RL7 to allow for, by grant of a special permit, this townhouse style use, single family attached. The zoning district previously did not allow for this. So we did seek that approval. So this plan may look familiar to some of the members of the board. We did as well seek and obtain unanimous approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the special permit for the use as well as there were certain variances that were also sought and obtained. One of the special permits that we sought pertained to overall reduction of impervious including reduction of the width of that common driveway that runs through the site. I'm going to be pretty brief here. I'm going to hand this over to the architect of record who will speak a little bit more in terms of the design related components and architectural features.

David Dominguez from Acropolis Design Consultants. We are in charge of the architectural design of the project. As he said, we have four different buildings. Each building has three units. The units are townhouse style, and they are separated by a parry wall or a de-moisting wall that brings INDEPENDENCE STRUCTURALLY TO EACH OF THE UNITS. THIS IS A CONSTRUCTION TO BE A SLAVON GRADE, MEANING THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE BASEMENT. IN THE GROUND LEVEL, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A TWO-BAY GARAGE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A STORAGE PLUS LAUNDRY AND THE ENTRY TO THE MAIN HOUSE. ON THE FIRST FLOOR, We have living and dining area, a kitchen, a coat closet, and we have a laboratory and access to a small rear deck that will allow us to have a second mean of egress, which is a core requirement as well. And on the third floor, we're going to have three bedrooms, each one with its closet, a shared bathroom, and that's it. Approximately, each of the units is 1,360 square feet. We have egress windows on each bedroom, and we intend to comply with all the requirements for the building department or the building code, including the energy conservation code. So that is what we have for conceptual layout. These are the elevations, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer.

Okay, thank you. I'll turn it over to staff for any comments.

Sure, through the chair, Michelle Smith again in the city's planning division. So in front of you is a site plan and a more than one building on a lot application in this RL7 zone for 12 units. And you heard it right, there are 48 essentially parking spaces, so more than usual. So the number of units is what's triggering the review by the board here. You can see the elevations of the proposed structure here. Jumping kind of ahead into our comments, since this particular elevation's up, we did have one comment on the sort of internal facing elevation of the building, so the bottom right corner that you see where we had asked the applicant to consider incorporating additional windows just to encourage light for the units. We know that applicant maybe prefers not to do that, so I'll just make note that that is one of the conditions in the staff memo. in terms of our comments if we go to the civil plans the majority of these are relatively minor i would characterize them as we don't have a photometric plan so we've requested one of those the applicant might want to talk a little bit about what their plans are relative to lighting but we'll be looking for some form of lighting plan given that this this is really functioning kind of like a an internal driveway so we want to make sure that there's adequate lighting there's a sidewalk broken up quite a bit by the various driveway openings off of that core driveway or that central driveway as well as landscaping and other enhancements that they're proposing to the development But really, we are looking for some additional trees. We've included information about trees to the rear, trees in a few different locations along the driveway. Typically, these types of driveways, when projects are configured in this style, they have to comply with the subdivision regulations. So it means essentially that the road, it's treated like a road. So practically speaking, it's not a road. It's not going to be used like a road for the general public. However, it is an access way. And so all of the standards, they're seeking a waiver from all of those that apply, except essentially what's required for an A&R plan. So I will just call out that we are asking that they provide trees every 50 feet along that driveway. And we do have that conditioned as part of the site plan conditions. And while that is a request for that waiver, we are asking for a couple more trees to be provided in order to align with that standard that would be in there. We do try to get the trees where we can get them. So that would help provide shade on the driveway And in terms of other comments, I know the applicant had some comments related to the trees, so I'll let them raise the specific items of concern. We had asked that the driveways be narrowed a bit to help reduce further impervious surface. As you can kind of see from the overall plan, it is a lot of impervious surface, mostly driveways. And then obviously there's roofs and porches associated with that. As compared to today, it's kind of a wooded lot. And so looking to see where there are opportunities to reduce that. So we appreciate the applicant making some adjustments to the design to help bring things in that direction, but are hoping for some additional enhancements beyond that. The application did go in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. It did obtain relief. for frontage and lot area for density. Essentially the density that's proposed would be the density that's allowed for a multifamily style building. So the number of units were relieved. The attached style dwellings typically require a bit more frontage and lot area. And so the board did relieve that. So basically you're seeing a slightly higher number of units than you would otherwise. I will note too that by virtue of that, the project does also trigger inclusionary zoning. If they had dropped a unit, they would not. So went to the zoning board. The board also may recall that the property was relatively recently rezoned to RL7. Prior to that, it was a lower density residential district. So you may have recollection of this from the time where the planning board went in on that. The applicant will need to provide an application to the Conservation Commission under our local ordinance for the wetlands protection regulations that we have in the city. So that is something that they will still need to do. Other departments have provided comments. We do have recommended conditions. There are a number of them. Most of the comments kind of related to, again, stormwater erosion control, that type of thing. We did have at least one resident provide comments. Again, in the packet, you'll find those mostly with concerns around density and kind of stormwater management. So I'll just clarify that the applicants provided a stormwater report, which indicates that the peak rates not increase. The applicant's team could talk to the specifics of what are being proposed if the board wishes at a greater level of detail. But we do have a number of conditions from DPW related to updates to the stormwater report to kind of meet the standards that the city has for that, essentially to document that. But the requirements that the applicant has held to Makes it such that they can't worsen any existing condition so I'll just clarify that for the record that that is something that's being proposed is Stormwater management infiltration, even though you don't see it on the plan. It's happening subsurface under the parking areas and there'll be a construction management plan and other typical documents that would be required and standard conditions as part of the progression of the site as it moves into actual construction sage So just responsive to the the comments that were provided by that resident happy to answer any questions I don't need to go over all the different conditions But I know the applicant has a few that they wanted to highlight and discuss with the board Okay, thank you any other comments from city staff I

Okay, hearing none, we'll move on to public comments. Anyone in the room or online looking to speak on item number 412, Malden Street? not seeing anyone in person or online. So why don't we move to board, actually, why don't we, if the applicant has any concerns with conditions or wanted to discuss any of the conditions, do you wanna raise those now?

Sure, Mr. Chair. I'm gonna go a little bit out of order. I'll start with the, I think, more straightforward items. So items, what is it? One, One O and one P, these pertain to the common driveway and the naming convention with respect to the designation of addresses. So all we would ask on this one, Mr. Chair, is that these items O and P be moved to, as opposed to prior to issuance of decision, prior to issuance of building permit. Just because I think we've had some experiences where I've had some other clients seeking address designations where I think typically it's a pretty simple process. Sometimes, however, they've been hung up for quite some time. So on that one, we would just request that that be prior to building permit issuance.

Through the chair, staff has no problem with that. They won't be able to get a building permit without the address. The intent of having it earlier is to help avoid it being a stop later, but they can have it be a stop wherever they want it to be in the process.

Fair enough. And item 1H, Mr. Chair, reflect additional windows on the left elevation. My understanding with respect to that left elevation side, there are bedrooms on the other side of that wall that bedrooms of which have adequate windows on other walls. So there's more than adequate sunlight with respect to those bedrooms. However, my client is looking for some areas of some of these bedrooms where there are solid walls just for configuration of various types of furniture. So he'd prefer to not have to have any more additional windows that are already shown on that side. Steve, do you want to show the elevation? So, Mr. Chair, on the bottom right there. Is that correct? Yes. On the bottom right is what we're talking about with respect to the left side elevation. So there are windows. It's just on that upper level. My client is looking to keep that as a solid wall. I don't know if you want to discuss that now or I can move on to the other ones.

Why don't we hear all the?

Okay, so the remaining other items are, I grouped them together because they all are related to trees. So it's items one, C, D, E, and F. So C through F. At the outset, I guess I'll just say that this is a relatively small project. It is just 12 units, so it is just enough units to fall into the inclusionary zoning ordinance. My client did sort of waver as to whether or not he wanted to go just below that threshold to avoid what would be a payment in lieu in this case. but opted to provide for the 12 units, relatively small project. That being said, and Steve, if you could advance to the, go to the landscape plan, not the conceptual color drawing, but the actual, exactly. So Mr. Chair, as you can see, this is the landscape plan that was submitted. this is the latest landscape plan and in in total for with respect to this relatively small project we are proposing 19 shade trees that doesn't that doesn't include other types of trees plus there's also shrubs bushes there's ornamental grasses it is quite robust in terms of the amount of plantings and landscape effort that went into this design. I think it's pretty fair to say. So I guess I want to say that at the outset. And so with respect to item 1C, more specifically, which requests for additional trees, and Michelle had mentioned the 50-foot intermittent internal driveway standard with respect to subdivisions, which this technically is not, we would request that that be stricken. Item D, this pertains to individual driveway widths, not the common driveway. That's already been reduced by virtue of the ZBA. We got a special permit for that. This pertains to the individual driveways for the individual units. And so I think the request here is to reduce those individual driveway widths in order to accommodate areas for more trees. So the second half of that, again, we think there's sufficient trees already with respect to the site and other types of plantings. In terms of the driveway width site, we feel it's unnecessary. We've already shrunk down the common driveway. And again, we want to be able to have enough room to accommodate two cars easily with some buffer. We don't want it to be too tight. for the cars to be able to come in and out of the garage. Currently, right now, I believe the width is 18 feet. So that's just enough to be able to accommodate the width of the door. Actually, is it 18 feet is the door?

The door is only 16 feet.

I'm sorry, you can speak to that.

The garage door is 16 feet for two car garage.

Okay, so the garage door width is 16 feet. The driveway width is 18 feet. Okay, thank you. So I just want to put that into context. Item 1E, add additional trees above the proposed retaining wall to improve privacy from the abutting lots. So, and Steve, if you could go back to the other landscaping drawing. So the retaining wall, as a reminder, is in the rear portion of the lot. You can see that sort of long line segment there. That's the retaining wall. The trees, the shade trees that are proposed are in front of that. You can't see it here from this layout, however, there's a grade sloping upwards, so there's a higher elevation of those residential properties in the rear. So there's really not much in the way of privacy concerns. In addition, again, we already have shade trees in front of the retaining wall. To add more shade trees behind the retaining wall, a little bit of concern with respect to not only impeding on the structural integrity of the wall over time, but also just access to the wall. If you've got shade trees on both sides, we felt that it would inhibit access to the retaining wall when you need to maintain it, repair it, et cetera. Item F, reflect use of at least four different varieties of tree species. no less than three inch caliper inches. So on this one, I wanted to point out we are, in terms of variety of shade trees specifically, we are proposing pin oak, flowering crabapple, and white pine. There are also, again, a pretty wide diverse variety of other types of plantings, bushes, shrubs, etc. But there are already three different varieties of shade trees on this relatively small site. So we feel that it's adequate enough as proposed. And I think that was it. Yes, that's it.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Maybe we can, we didn't have any public comments. Maybe we can move to board comments and discuss some of the concerns the applicant had with the conditions. Mr. Toomey or Mr. King, do you have any initial thoughts?

I guess specifically regarding one E, that one I'm okay with removing just for the structural integrity of the wall. One O and one P, so shifting that language to move prior to the issuance of the building permit, no issues there. I think overall I'm okay on those proposed changes. Thank you.

Yeah, same for me. No real comments relative to this.

Okay, thank you. Both, for myself, yeah, no concerns moving conditions one O and P to prior additions of a building permit. Staff noted that it'll be required ahead of that point either way. In regards to the conditions with the trees, I'm more, personally I would like to, this is a very car, asphalt dominated site. I do like the idea of a townhouse style development However, the 48 parking spaces for 12 units seems to me fairly over parked and a lot of asphalt for not a whole lot of land. So I would prefer to see these conditions stay as they stay in there. I think staff is doing this to help mitigate some of the asphalt that is shown on the plan and some of the percentage of the impervious area on the site. So I would prefer to see those stay in there. And I think just to clarify maybe to staff on the waiver, I think we do need a request from the applicant for the waiver from the subdivision regulations, because I believe this does trigger the requirement of subdivision regulations. I just want to confirm that you are requesting that waiver.

Yeah, through the chair, that's correct, relative to more than one building on a lot.

Can I just comment, Mr. Chair, on the impervious and the number of parking spaces? So unlike, say, like a fast food restaurant establishment where there's been arguments in the city and other places that certain types of uses have excessive parking, and then the restaurateur will argue, well, there's a need for it. Here, the result of the 48 technically parking spaces is it's only because there needs to be a driveway connecting the two space garage. So the cars have to be able to come in and out. It's not as if you can have a narrow surface drive and then go into two spaces. a two-space garage if Mr. Chair and to the board if you'd be willing my client I think can can be agreeable to to narrowing again these with respect to the individual driveways we can narrow it but but again only to keep in mind that it has to still be wide enough to accommodate the 16 foot wide garage door so as i think i said i believe the driveway is about 18 feet right now we can reduce that further so that would satisfy at least one prong of what you just suggested in terms of reducing impervious which i know michelle and her team strives for and technically i think it might it might eliminate one of those parking spaces. It would no longer actually be a nine by 18 space. But it's sort of semantics. But we can reduce the impervious by reducing the individual driveway widths, again, enough, obviously, for cars to be able to get in and out of the garage. And I think that would satisfy reduction in impervious, and technically, you may not be calling there being two surface driveway spaces there. But then again, with respect to the trees, I do think it's, you know, sometimes people say developments are over-parked. I think this is, it's not over-treated, but there is plenty of vegetation here. Along the front, along the back, And intermittently along the common driveway, which we've narrowed already, we agreed to narrow through the ZBA per request of the staff, we've really tried to make this a little more compact and tight in order to meet that goal that the city always has with respect to reduction and impervious, We think there's plenty of, and the issue pertaining to heat island effect, again, relatively small project. There's plenty of shade trees that will cast shade throughout the site at different parts of the day. I think it's sufficient. from an aesthetic viewpoint, I think it's certainly more than sufficient. I think there's quite a variety, eclectic mix of different types of species, and I don't think that we skimped on the number of actual shade trees, so.

My last attempt. Thank you for those points, and I appreciate your willingness to consider the driveway width. I think narrowing the two feet would make a difference when you multiply that over 12 driveways, so I If we want to maybe specify that in the condition, I think that would maybe be, I'd be happy with that. I'd be happy. I think the condition related to the trees and the retaining wall in terms of maintenance of those, I understand that concern. But if you could give some consideration to just the two additional trees in condition 1C, I think that would add a lot to the site and I would be happy, satisfied with that. I also would not have a concern with the windows, condition 1H.

So on 1C, if we're going to get specific on the units, 8 and 7 and 5 and 6. So those are, again, towards the rear of the site.

Yeah, I think it would be replacing like what is proposed there is now maybe some shrubs and putting trees in instead. So just the two trees. Okay. So shrubs or ornamental grasses or you strongly prefer shade trees? I think in that location to provide some shade over the paved area.

Can we, I'm sorry, I just need to confer. Can we accommodate a shade tree in those islands? We can? Okay, okay, okay.

Okay, thank you for your willingness to work with us on that.

Through the chair, I'm hearing you say striking H, striking E, I'm not clear on F, O and P are going to prior to issuance of a building permit and it sounds like keeping C and D but specifying that D is specific to align with the garage doors.

Yes, and I think we'd be okay with striking F, they're proposing three different species. If you happen to pick out four when you're planting them, that'd be great, but. Okay, so with that, if the applicant doesn't have any further concerns, I think we could be ready for a motion.

Okay. I make a motion to approve for number four, 12 Malden Street, striking.

Can we close the public hearing first?

I make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second. Motion's been seconded. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. Myself, yes. The public hearing has been closed.

I make a motion to approve item number 412 Malden Street striking letters E, F, and H. Conditions O and P shall transition to going prior to the building permit and condition D is to align the driveway with the garage doors to the extent possible to allow two vehicles to enter and exit. Is there a second?

Second. All right. On the motion, Mr. King. And I'm sorry.

Just to clarify, so that's the site plan and the more than one building and a lot, and it would include the waivers outlined in the staff memo. Is that correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

And I apologize, Mr. Chair. So on item D, there's actually two parts to this. It's It's the reduction of the driveway, which I think the board has now agreed is qualified to align it with the garage door. The second part of it talks about, again, adding more trees.

So that- I think we can strike that because we're adding more trees in condition 1C. Okay, all right. I just want to make that clear. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any conditions as discussed? Do we have a second? Second.

Okay, on the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey?

Yes.

And myself, yes. Motion approved. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, moving on to item eight, 1517 and 19 Milton Street. This is a public hearing for a zoning map amendment.

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 the city of Worcester. I'm here tonight on behalf of Seven Brookfield Realty LLC. I'm here on both items eight and nine, which I know you have listed separately on your agenda. They're really part of the same zoning map amendment request. My comments regarding 15, 17, and 19 Milton Street, which are the first item on your agenda, are really going to be the same as for the second presentation. I'm here asking for a planning board recommendation for zone changes. In the case of the Milton Street properties, as with the other properties flagged at item 9, they're all zoned MG2 manufacturing, and manufacturing has long since left this area of the city. And really it's the change in the nature of the uses and request for added flexibility in future uses for these properties that's motivating this request for a zone change. So the purpose really is to bring the properties into compliance with prevailing uses and to provide increased flexibility. I've met with the city planning staff, I've met with Councillor Bellotta, the local district councillor. I've sent notices to all affected property owners. The one response that I got to the notices, you're going to hear from Gail LaGoy, who lives at 19 Milton Street. But other than that, I didn't receive any comments or other notices. I'm not sure if the city has received any feedback. This request is also consistent with the city's now next long range plan. It's a transformative growth area. And again, consistent with the changed uses in these areas. That's the motivating force behind this request for a map amendment.

Okay, thank you. I will turn it over to staff for any comments.

Sure, through the chair. So just commenting on this particular item. So there are two separate petitions that are essentially contiguous to one another. So kind of taking those separately, this particular one is focused on the area that you see here on the screen. You just quickly saw the other area that my colleague Steve will talk about in a few minutes. But in terms of what's proposed here, so this general area is a sort of relic manufacturing area. It's a MG2 zone. There are three different properties here that this is proposed to affect, properties at 15, 17, and 19 Milton Street, just over half an acre, 26,000 square feet of land. So three parcels and the planning board's role in this matter, as well as any other zone changes are always advisory and guiding the city council and making an ultimate decision. So just to be clear too, for everyone's benefit and understanding the planning board's advising council, there's not a decision that's being made tonight. This is an opportunity for public comment and participation and feedback. for the board and the city council to understand and make the best decision for our community as far as zoning goes. So the staff's role in this process in terms of explaining the differences of what is there today versus what is being proposed. So in the staff memo on page two, there's a summary table that outlines all the different uses that sort of differ between one district and another. So residential districts and manufacturing districts are often starkly different in the sense that manufacturing districts specifically don't contemplate residential uses. In fact, they prohibit them, trying to not have potential sensitive receptors in areas where there are higher pollutant generating type uses, where there's often kind of incompatibility in the two. In the residential district, this is our most dense residential district, strictly residential district, the RG5 district, which is essentially located off to the screen on the right. This section of the Milton Street neighborhood is wholly located in the RG5 zone, and so this particular petition is to extend that RG5 zone across Milton Street to encompass these three properties here. The property furthest to the south, 15 Milton Street, is presently vacant. There was formerly a single family home there that was removed back in, I believe, 2009. And then there are two other existing single family homes as far as the assessor's land use classification goes from city records. In terms of the RG5 zone itself, that district allows up to high rise use by right. Those are all uses that are by right. Those are controlled dimensionally speaking, generally based on frontage and lot area. They are, again, dimensionally more permissive, generally speaking, actually, in the residential district. The front setbacks for both districts are the same, 15 feet. The rear setback for RG5 varies at eight to 15 feet as compared to MG2, which requires 15 feet, so a little bit less in some instances. Those are generally less dense residential uses. The MG2 actually has no side setback, whereas the RG5 has a 8 or 10 foot side setback, again, dependent on the use. When it comes to height, RG5 has a height as opposed to no height, which exists in the MG2. MG2 is really regulating density and form by floor area ratio build out, whereas in the residential district, we're regulating by height and stories. So a high rise in this district could be up to 90 feet tall. In terms of frontage and lot area, again, I mentioned that the manufacturing district doesn't contemplate a residential use, so it doesn't have anything, so we don't have requirements for lot area. Standard requirements for frontage and access pursuant to the subdivision control apply for 20 feet of frontage. RG5 generally is requiring 50 feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet of lot area for just a single family home. So kind of having some standards of dimensional requirements. requirements for those uses. So again, variety of different uses you can see in the table, but really the RG-5 is allowing single, two, three multi-family uses by right, certain other residential uses by special permit as compared to none of those being allowed in the manufacturing zone. Various other uses in the general and business categories be prohibited which are currently allowed in the residential excuse me in the manufacturing district so those would no longer be allowed in the residential zone things like parking facilities so having a lot just for parking cars having food service uses or motor vehicle service and sales retail sales a package store those are all things that would be allowed under the current zoning and the manufacturing district which would not be allowed in the residential zone Additionally, as we change manufacturing uses that are allowed in the manufacturing zone are no longer allowed in the residential zone. So again, things like auto and truck paint shops, motor freight terminals, truck storage and servicing, rail freight, although it's not adjacent to a rail line, dry cleaners, and things like research and development or manufacturing facilities, as well as storage of materials and equipment that is not enclosed in buildings. And I highlight that because through this process, as Attorney Rodman stated, he did hear from one party, and I know the residents here to speak, and they are also a business owner, and they operate out of their residential property in the manufacturing zone and have some concerns about that, which I very briefly had the opportunity to chat with them about, and I'm sure they will elaborate more on that. So I highlight that use specifically because for that property, that is the use that they would be categorized as. So there's essentially two uses occurring at that property for this to the north, which is 19 Melton Street. So that is a single-family home, which is currently an illegal use, for lack of a better way to describe, in the manufacturing zone, and a lawful use, which is the storage of materials and equipment not enclosed in buildings. So this is like landscape supply and ladder-type storage that's happening outside of a building. And that would be allowed today, but it will not be allowed in the RG5. And so I say that specifically because I know the resident has concerns jumping back in time in terms of history and the zoning for this area. Unfortunately, our zoning maps only go back to the 70s in terms of what we have access to digitally. But this property historically was zoned lower density manufacturing, so it was an MG.5 zone. Going back to the early 70s, that changed by the early 90s where it became the MG2 that it currently is zoned, the RG5 district. stayed basically to the east of Milton Street, kind of following the center line of Milton Street. And again, there's a sort of history of this area that I think we detail a bit more in the staff comments related to the other petition in terms of the evolution of this sort of neighborhood as a whole and its manufacturing history and changes with the automobile and alterations to some natural features that are on those sites that kind of drove development in this area. But at this point, there's, I would say, a fringe few manufacturing uses. And generally speaking, along the corridor that is Grove Street, mostly business-oriented uses there. And then again, along Milton Street, generally speaking, mostly residential uses that we're seeing there. To the west and to the north in particular as you got towards Millbrook Street The story is a little bit different as a lot of these properties on Glenny Street, which have more manufacturing tendencies About Milton Street and then again while our Assessor has this classified and staff was not aware of any non-residential uses occurring on any of these properties and that does seem to be that they have a secondary use that's occurring at that particular property. As Attorney Rodman stated, in terms of our long-range vision for this area, for our community, it is part of a transformative growth area, which means that we are looking to see physical investment, reinvestment in this area, particularly because it's been targeted as an area that has the potential for high walkability and potential walkability. to serve job growth as well as higher density housing. Specifically, this area includes Grove Street and Gold Star Boulevard. Obviously, if you've been on Gold Star Boulevard, you've seen the auto-oriented nature, so things like physical transformation, that's an area where basically we're saying in the plan the city needs to spend resources in order to facilitate that transformation. Grove Street has had some enhancements recently with striping to try to encourage and facilitate bus, bike, and other access in a bit better form. If you've been down recently, you've seen the striping work that DTM has done. So some of that's underway, some of that's much more long-term in terms of investment that would be necessary to kind of help transform that area. But the specific vision for this area is mixed use, so thinking about commercial uses but also having residential uses. And so this particular change would transition this former manufacturing area into something that is proposed to be residential, which aligns with, again, the assessor's land use classification for the properties generally speaking the neighborhood located to the east and i think you know the end of the day the the goal of zoning is to promote continuity in land use and land uses that are appropriate for these areas and so being zoned manufacturing you heard me read through and you have access to the table of the variety of manufacturing and business uses that would be allowed in that location today by right. So you're weighing whether it's more appropriate for those to stay in the manufacturing zone that they have been historically, or if it is more appropriate for them to be changed over into a residential district consistent with the eastern part of the neighborhood. And I talked about the prior uses there, I think, That is all I want to cover. But I'm happy to answer any questions that the board members who have. Actually, I should note that regardless of what happens, I mentioned sort of that the residential use that is at this property today is sort of not lawful. It's what we call privilege not conforming. So presumably it was established at a time where that use was allowed in that zone. prior to zoning. We did not do a deep dive. We don't do that for every property, for every proposal, or we wouldn't be able to accomplish anything. But likely this residential structure was constructed at a time where that use was allowed here. Were the zone to change, that use that's ongoing today, that manufacturing use from our category, but essentially using the lot partially as sort of a contractor yard, if you will, that use would stay privileged, meaning it would be allowed to continue, but were in the future that use to change or evolve away from how it has been operating, expand, or the current owner sells it to someone else and someone wants to come in and run a different use, there would then be a requirement for that to obtain a special permit to allow for that to continue. evolve so it means basically can continue to happen the way that it's been happening but were there to be changes then special permission would come into play doesn't mean that it wouldn't be allowed there would just be a process to evaluate that because essentially what by virtue of changing the zoning what what we as a community would be saying is that stretch of milton street is maybe not really appropriate for manufacturing uses in fact most of that is a private street it's not even maintained by the city um you know so you would be evaluating whether that's appropriate and then with the special permit there's an additional level of review that would happen in through the zoning board of appeals to evaluate the appropriateness of of that change if it stays manufacturing today any of those uses could go into that property provided they meet the requirements for parking depending on exactly what it is that that's operating there So just to clarify, you could also choose not just like any petition to recommend favorably. You could modify your petition. I'm happy to talk through those options, but I know that there are folks that want to speak on the item. So I will wrap my comments up there. Thanks.

Thank you very much. That was very helpful and informative. With that, unless the applicant has any further comments, I will turn it over to public comments. We have someone in the room, and if there's anyone online, you can put your hand up and Steve will get you called on after.

Good evening. My name is Gail Agoy. My husband is Michael Agoy. We own 19 Milton Street, which Michelle has discussed. We also own the abutting property on the other side, which is 66 Edgeworth Street and 66 1⁄2, which are in the RG5 zone. We specifically purchased this property for its zoning, and the fact that there was a residence on it, it allowed my husband, who is a tradesman, to live on the property and also work from the property. We've continuously had MG2 use for more than 30 years. We bought the property, I think he started his business in 1995. And really what it is is storage of equipment, storage of materials, and actually being able to park vehicles at a weight that is not allowed in an RG5 zone. So it's been ideal as a small businessman for us to be able to do that. I would say that historically the entire side of the street was MG2, but there was a large undeveloped piece in the middle. About four or five years ago, the zoning was changed to RG5. Nice houses there, don't have a problem with that. Milton Street is still, from our house to North Street, still MG2 on that end, and a large portion of it is MG2 on the other end. So it's just that one section that's RG5 in the middle. This zoning change would directly impact our livelihood, and also Kind of restrict what we could do with it for the future We wouldn't be able to sell it really to another tradesmen without them having to jump through a lot of hoops and who knows if they'd be approved Maybe in the future we might want to rezone it to an RG 5 But I would feel that that would be something we would bring to the board not somebody who has nothing to do with our property and This proposal doesn't, so number nine on your agenda really deals with I think the larger portion of this. My understanding from attorney Rodman is that the city asked him to add this. It's the second time we've been through this in five years because the last time when they rezoned the middle, they wanted us to do it. We had a problem with it. Unfortunately, I was not able to, because we have a illness in the family, very serious. I wasn't able to attend the city council meeting. I probably should have been more on top of this. My apologies for that. I should have reached out sooner. But it's the second time that the city's basically asked somebody to cobble this on to their effort that has nothing to do with the property. The city did not approach us and talk to us directly, us owners, about it, any of the three owners. And I kind of feel that that's a little frustrating, a little unfair, and a bit heavy-handed, especially since we bought it for that use. We've been using it for that use continuously for 30 years. Also, I don't have any problems with number nine on the agenda. We think it's wonderful that it's getting reused and the old factories are gone. The neighborhood's really down on Grove Street. You guys have done a tremendous job there. So, I mean, we don't have a problem with that. So I would like to say, though, number 15's empty. It's bracketed. both sides by mg2 which if number nine goes through it would be mg2 and bg3 there's been a lot of redevelopment in that mg2 area on that end of Milton Street there were some empty lots now there's businesses there we actually use one of the landscaping businesses so you know it's very good Luco on the bottom. They've redone Gervais, where Gervais Auto was. There's a bakery and businesses there. We think that's wonderful. Number 17, which is not currently being used for a business, my late neighbor, Ed Foley, actually was also a tradesman and ran his business out of number 17 for a number of years. Similar situation. There was a house. He was able to do both. And, of course, then the what we said we're doing for 19. As far as the density and the reuse and everything, we had a neighborhood, I used to run a neighborhood association and a crime watch, and I did a lot of things in the neighborhood there. We used to have 400 units, housing units, if you counted houses, apartments in that neighborhood. 300 were brought online at the top of the hill this year, an additional three, so there's seven. We don't need more RG5 there. I think what we really do need is more parcels for small businesses and where tradesmen can both live and work. I would ask that you do not change my zoning. Thank you.

OK. Thank you for your comments. Steve, anyone online?

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

OK. Then I guess we will move on to board comments unless the applicant has... Okay, yeah, so we'll move on to board comments. Mr. King, any initial thoughts?

Just a clarifying question to confirm, I guess this will be to Michelle. If the zoning is changed, it wouldn't require any change to the existing uses, correct? It would just be existing non-conforming?

That's correct. So the existing use, and again, if the resident and their business that are specifically in concern of being affected, if they want to provide information that helps document exactly how they're operating that so there doesn't become a question about that they're welcome to do that too certainly understand the the concern and again from our perspective when we look at at sort of zoning we're looking at it you know at the broader neighborhood scale and trying to identify based on the information we have available the assessor is assessing this not for business purposes but for single family purposes it did not come up so this was not like an attempt for the city to target an individual certainly not it's just one of those things anytime someone proposes zoning changes we're always encouraging folks to think about what makes sense for that area and to try to include neighboring properties so that we are not piecemeal parcel by parcel you know just changing things for one particular person so appreciate that the applicant was willing to do their best to reach out in that regard and certainly again for the board's recommendation. But essentially, the use that is there today would remain privileged through the zone change process. And again, if they were to expand that or extend that, which I think at this point, it's essentially encompassing the entirety of the outdoors of the parcel. So I don't think that it's really necessarily possible to do that. But were they to change that and start to use it for a completely different use or want to change it and say, you know what, we want to run an office and a chiropractor out of here. It's not to say that they couldn't do that. There would just be a special permit pathway to enable that, and it would be discretionary up to the Zoning Board of Appeals as to whether that is appropriate to take that path. And there's a sort of test or a nexus of what uses are of a similar nature to that existing use. as to whether we would decide that is appropriate. So anything that would be allowed in the RG5 would be allowed. If there was something that wasn't allowed in the RG5, we would look at is that similar to the privileged use being the outdoor storage, essentially, activity that's happening.

And can I... Sorry, Mr. Ian. Can I add just a clarifying question? If the property were to sell to a new owner and they continued a similar type use that's there now, that... privileged use would continue?

If that use is the same category and is being operated in the same manner, my understanding is that it would be able to continue. Were that used to change in some form, then there could be a question about that. But if it's going from like one landscape contractor to another landscape contractor, that's the same use category.

Okay, thank you. Sorry, Mr. King.

No, great. So yeah, no further concerns. Thank you.

All right, Mr. Toomey.

I think any questions I have already been answered.

Okay, thank you. For myself, I appreciate staff's thorough explanation on the zoning amendment that we're looking at here and the comment from the property owner. For myself, I understand where this zoning amendment request is coming from. Clearly this area is transforming away from its historical manufacturing uses to a more commercial oriented area along Grove Street. And obviously we're seeing some reinvestment into the residential section of the abutting neighborhood to the east. For me, I think it's, I understand the property owner's situation where they have an existing privileged use and they would be concerned that that use could potentially go away. To me, it sounds like that is not a concern as long as the use continues as it is. It could even be sold and that use could continue. So I think for me this change makes sense. We're looking at both this item on the agenda and the next one are looking to move the zoning away from that historical manufacturing use to commercial and residential here. I think this reflects what's on the ground in terms of the two single family homes that are already there. For myself, I think this zoning change makes sense, especially when looking at the larger neighborhood context and the even bigger long range plan of where we want this part of the city to go and where we want our zoning to go to reflect the area that we wanna see there. Again, this is not obviously the end of the road. This will go before the economic development subcommittee at city council, and we'll need a vote from council before anything changes. So I guess we'll just want to highlight that to the property owner and make sure that you're aware of that process. Can I ask one more question? Sure. I just need you to come up to the microphone.

If the zoning change does go through, could I get something in writing from the city that one, I can continue my use and I'm not a landscaper. My husband's a general contractor. Um, and that we could convey that use upon sale. If we decided to do that, I'm not sure that we would do that, but I would like something in writing. It's very well and good for us to sit here and say, oh yeah, that'd be allowed. But I've had instances. where at least once or twice a year, somebody, oh, why is that truck parked there? Oh, you're MG2. Like the Board of Health will come and say, you can't have stuff there stacked. Oh, you're MG2, and it goes away. How am I going to explain that to another entity in the city? I could just see it being a hassle because I know basically once they find out it's MG2, they leave us alone. So I would like some assurance that, that if this moves forward, that it's well documented, that I have that privileged use, and I can convey it if it's the same privileged use. That's all. Thank you.

Interesting question.

Yeah, through the chair, and we're happy to talk to the property owner, business owner, and resident about their general contracting business, whatever specific activities are conducted related to that, and apologies did not mean to slight in any way that it was our understanding that I think someone had referred to it as landscaping, so apologies for misspeaking. In terms of my recommendation, what I would say, what would be helpful for us is for them to provide a description of basically what's going on on the property and some photographs. But basically by outlining that, that will create a record associated with this that we can go back to and say, no, no, no, look, this is what was happening at the property. And we can work with our colleagues in inspectional services and see if there's a way to provide a sort of zoning opinion, if you will. That's a typical process. Usually there's a $50 fee associated with that, so we can see if you can provide us with the information, work with them to get you that determination. Any conveyance would be, again, specific to whatever that future user would be, too, making sure that that parallels. But yeah, if there's not a change from one use category to another and it's being operated in the same manner, um generally that wouldn't be something that's triggering if all of a sudden now there's like 20 more trucks um you know that would be different right because there's an intensification of that and it's not to say it wouldn't be allowed it would just need a special permit to allow that to intensify hopefully that makes sense i know a lot of this is jargon too so um but we're happy to if the property owner wants to leave their contact information we're happy to reach out to them and Also, our contact information's on the agenda, too. Happy to set up a time to chat with them when it's convenient. Understand tonight is probably not the most convenient time, so hopefully that helps.

Okay, thank you. So it sounds like the property owner can maybe touch base with the planning division to help document this and get essentially sounds like a zoning determination to document the current use. And if this zoning change does happen, that it would be a, you would continue to have that privileged use. So thank you for talking through all that. Unless there are any other comments from the applicant or from my fellow board members, I think we might be ready for a motion. And reminder, this is just a recommendation to city council. And we would also need to close the public hearing.

I make a motion to close public hearing. Second.

Motion to close public hearing. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. Myself, yes. The public hearing is closed.

I make a motion to favorably recommend item number eight, which is 15, 17, and 19 Milton Street, the zoning amendment to the city council.

Second. We have a motion that's been seconded. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey?

Yes.

Myself, yes. Motion is approved. Thank you and good luck. Now we will move on to item number nine, which is 4, 7, and 8 Brookfield Street, 19 Glenny Street, 270, 278, 278 through, 82 through 284, 288, 300 Grove Street, 15 North Street, 2, 4R, and 4A Powers Court, zoning map amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, for the record, my name is Todd Rodman, a lawyer with the law firm of Cedar and Chandler here in the city of Worcester. Again, here on behalf of Seven Brookfield Realty, LLC, and again, for a zoning map amendment and requesting a recommendation. And the entire discussion that we just went through regarding the Milton Street properties, it's the same rationale to conform the existing zoning to the on the ground changes that have occurred in this neighborhood. In many ways, this is an easier petition in the sense that it's really just business properties. There is no residential in the area that we're asking to be rezoned on petition number nine on the agenda tonight. So much less nuanced in that respect. i think it just reflects what's been happening in the neighborhood as a general matter ms smith you know gave a great summary of kind of the history of that and i know that i think stephen carey had provided a memorandum regarding these properties and again it repeats those same those same points and i'm happy to go through them again but if not I'll leave it there.

Sure. Sounds good. Thank you. Any additional comments from planning staff?

Yes. Steve Carey in the planning division. I'll try not to be too repetitive of the information that Michelle provided with regards to the history of the zoning of the area. But anyway, this particular petition would be for 13 properties that are between Grove Street to the west, North Street to the south, and then Glenny Street to the north. These 13 properties historically have been zoned, at least going back to 1971, in the manufacturing district. There were some manufacturing uses that were established in the early 20th century. A nuts and bolts manufacturer. There's an ice cream factory. These are along Grove Street. Those manufacturing uses have largely gone by the wayside. In fact, in these 13 parcels, there's only one that I think has a relic manufacturing use that's still ongoing, 7 Brookfield Street. They're a sheet metal fabricator. My understanding is actually it's the owner of that property that was sort of the initiator of this petition. So with regards to the differences between MG2 and BG3, this, I'm not sure if I said at the beginning, this would pull the, whereas the prior petition pulled the, is proposing to pull the RG5 district that is to the east over these three parcels, this would pull the BG3 business general zoning district that is to the west over these 13 parcels. To the west in BG3 is the trolley yard, which is a relatively recent commercial development. So this would sort of extend the zoning that is on the trolley yard over these 13 parcels. So the change from MG2 to BG3, it's obviously more permissive in terms of residential uses. You could have anything up to a high-rise building in BG3 with, of course, dimensional controls. whereas the manufacturing district, as Michelle Smith noted, doesn't contemplate any residential uses. And then in terms of general and business uses, again, BG3 is more permissive and would allow the zoning to essentially align with what is currently existing. For example, 288 and 300 Grove Street, there's a couple of different clinics there, a surgical center and a dermatological center. that have been constructed in the last 10 years, I believe, those required a special permit in manufacturing. They would now be a buy right allowed use. There's also a bank there. There is the Bean Counter Bakery Cafe that's also right now zoned manufacturing, but really is a business use. So again, would align what is actually existing with the zoning. And then of course, manufacturing uses, that were either allowed by right or by special permit would no longer be allowed. And as I noted, there really isn't any legacy manufacturing or industrial uses left in this area, except for that one at 7 Brookfield Street that I noted. In terms of dimensional controls, BG3 is generally more permissive, does not have a front or a side setback, and has a shorter rear setback than MG2. It has a greater FAR, three to one as opposed to two to one. So again, would allow for a denser development here. And then I guess finally, I'd note that as both the petitioner and Michelle Smith noted, this is within the area designated transfer atrial growth area in the now next plan. So the zoning change would allow development to be aligned with that vision. I think that's all I've got. Yeah, glad to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you again to staff for the thorough comments and analysis on this. Any comments from the public? Seeing anyone in the room here, anyone online? Steve Carey in the Planning Division again. No one online. Okay, no one online. We will move to board comments. Mr. King.

No comment, thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Toomey.

No comments.

All right, moving along. For myself, yeah, I think a lot of my comments are the same from the last item on the agenda. I think this change makes sense, reflects the changing uses that are already taking place on these parcels and in this corridor. So no concerns here, happy to support it. And I think we might be ready for a motion to first close the public hearing.

I make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second.

Close the public hearing has been motion seconded mr. King Yes, mr. Toomey yes myself yes the public hearing has been closed Do we have a motion on the recommend recommend I make a motion to favorably recommend item number nine to City Council I second we've got a second uh motion that's been seconded um mr king yes mr toomey yes myself yes so that motion has been approved thank you and good luck thank you very much okay moving on to other business um item 11 approval not required plans

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. Item 11A is not properly before the board, so not up for endorsement tonight. Item 11B, this is an A&R plan for 242 Greenwood Street with one of these two proposed lots having frontage on Strasburg, or both actually having frontage on Strasburg Street, which is a private street. This is a lot in the RS7 zone. They're proposing to divide into two lots. Both will have 65 feet of frontage. I was actually able to go out and check out the condition of this private street. It does provide adequate legal frontage to both lots. And then lot two with this lot line may have a non-conformance issue with regards to regarding that deck. I did inform the applicant that it's not relevant to endorsement of this ANR plan, but the applicant has been informed about that. Item 11C and D are both not properly before the board. We didn't get a signed application form from the applicant in time to have this before you. Item 11E, 497 Granite Street. This is actually a merger of two lots. As you can see, the lot line that's being removed also follows a zoning line, so we wanted to make sure that was reflected within the RS7. The minimum frontage would be 65 feet, which they have, I guess, for the portion of the lot that is within that zoning district. And then for the portion that I think it's a manufacturing zoning district, I believe, would not have a minimum frontage. And then finally 11F is in our plan for lots at the corner of Harding Street and Pond Street. What you can see in red is the lot lines they're proposing. It would essentially take, the purpose of this is, well, it creates parcel C, and then parcel A is basically proposed to be merged with parcel B, which is sort of taking a pizza-sliced shape out of the parcel to the south. This is within the, I think it says MG zoning district. I apologize, I believe it's actually, I think to the north it's a separate zoning district. I did confirm that it does have adequate frontage for endorsement. And that's all of them.

Okay, thank you. Do we have a motion to endorse the NRS?

It is MG2.

Apologies, my colleague just confirmed it is MG2 for this ANR plan. Apologies. MG2 in the Canal District.

Crazy. I make a motion to endorse the ANRs as presented.

Second. All right, motion has been seconded. Mr. King?

Yes.

Mr. Toomey?

Yes.

Myself, yes. ANRs have been endorsed. No communications or board policies and procedures. Approval of minutes, I believe we have the April 1st minutes in our packet. So unless anyone has any comments on them, I would entertain a motion to approve those.

Motion to approve the April 1st minutes.

Second. On the motion, Mr. King. Yes. Mr. Toomey.

Yes.

Myself, yes. Minutes are approved. And a motion to adjourn.

Make a motion to adjourn. Second.

Second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.

Thanks all.