Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. Can you all hear me? Awesome. Welcome to the Wednesday, June 3rd, 2026 meeting of the City of Worcester Planning Board. My name is Albert Lavalley and I will chair tonight's meeting. Before we begin, I have a few brief announcements concerning how our meeting will proceed. First, this is a hybrid meeting, which means you can participate both in person here at City Hall or by going online to worcestermath.zoomgov.com slash j slash 1617314979. or by calling in at 669-254-5252, entering access code 1617314979, followed by the pound sign. To manage remote participation during our hybrid meetings and prevent disruptions, all participants are automatically blocked from unmuting themselves, turning on their video, or sending chat messages. For remote participants who would like to comment on an item on our agenda, we ask that you use the raise your hand feature in Zoom during the discussion on that item. If you're joined by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star nine. Staff will then call on members of the public one at a time and give them permission to unmute themselves. If you're joined by phone, you'll be able to unmute yourself by pressing star six. Next, I note this is a public meeting, which is both being broadcast and recorded. Minutes will also be published at a later date. To help with that process, we ask all speakers participating in person to use a microphone, to please clearly identify yourself each time you speak, and the first time you speak, please also state your city or town of residence for the record. To help maintain an orderly meeting, please address all comments and questions through the chair, that's me, rather than directly to any of the other speakers or applicants. There are a few items on our agenda tonight that are going to be continued or postponed. I'm going to read through those shortly. If you're here on one of those items, please note that no additional notice will be sent to you prior to the next meeting. Best thing to do is call the planning division either the day of or the day prior to the next meeting to confirm if that item is going to be heard or postponed that night. It is not uncommon for things to be postponed multiple times before they're heard by this board. Once an item is called, there'll be a brief presentation of the item, followed by any additional comments or clarifications from members of the city staff, then an opportunity for anyone from the public to ask questions or speak on that item before we proceed to board discussion and action. Lastly, all applicants should be aware that approvals are generally conditional. Decisions are generally signed by the board at the next meeting where appropriate, filed with the city clerk the following day, which is what begins any appeals periods. Decisions are typically not released to the applicant until all the conditions of approval have been satisfactorily addressed. It is the applicant's responsibility to address conditions of approval, and a lack of doing so can result in delays or enforcement. Applicants with questions on that are asked to call the planning division. OK, so postponements tonight. Item number 825, Westchester Street, a zoning map amendment. The request is to postpone the public hearing to August 5, 2026, and extend the constructive grant deadline to August 27, 2026. And item number 10, 500 West Boylston Street, a zoning map amendment. The request is for a leave to withdraw without prejudice. And for my colleagues on the board, Mr. McCormick is not present tonight, so somebody else is going to have to make the motions. Is there a motion?

I make a motion for item number eight to postpone public hearing to August 5th, 2026, and extend the constructive grant deadline to August 27th, 2026, and to approve the withdrawal of item number 10 without prejudice. Is there a second?

Second. Thank you. On the motion, Mr. King?

Yes.

Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? yes i vote yes as well that motion passes four to zero um moving into our agenda uh first item we're gonna hear tonight is item number one zero chester street this will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan

Mr. Chairman, my name is James Tatro. I am here representing Expedited Engineering LLC here on behalf of the applicant Modern Structures Inc. And what is proposed is construction of four single-family homes on the south side of Chester Street adjacent to, I believe, the last house, numbered house is number 31. We were before you and since have spent quite a bit of time responding to staff and engineering department comments to better address concerns about the slope behind these lots. These lots will all be cut into the slope behind them. The property drops down from the, I'll call it the south side of the property, drops down towards Chester Street steadily. And it is a significant cut on these lots. And we went through a little bit of back and forth with staff in the engineering department about how those slopes would be stabilized and having specific geotechnical review of the proposed stabilization. and also having a another engineer stamp plans proposed for retaining walls behind two of the lots we're now going to have a 2.8 to 1 slope behind those lots and we will still have it stabilized with erosion control mat this was reviewed for all i think a half dozen different possible modes of failure by the geotechnical consultant at the request of the engineering department and i believe we now have a design before you that satisfies staff and the engineering department in those respects we had i think most of the other uh aspects of the proposed construction uh satisfied previously but the the holdup was uh satisfying against staff and and engineering department as to the slope stabilization of the large slope behind these lots and i'll just leave it at that and try and take any questions

Okay, thank you. Additional comments from members of city staff?

Yeah, through the chair, just a reminder that the board had heard this item back in December. So the applicant had continued based on the concerns we had related to groundwater, the amount of regrading, and some concerns related to the slope stability. And so subsequent to that, there's been a number of iterations of revisions. I think we're finally satisfied with this last iteration based on the information that was provided by the geotechnical engineer, as well as the adjustments that they've made to the plans. So we do still have a laundry list of conditions, including conditions for during construction. I'm not going to read through all of those, and I won't regurgitate what you heard Mr. Tatro summarize, but I'm happy to answer any particular questions if the board has those. The most recent updates are shown in red on the memo that we issued back at the end of last week. Thanks.

And Mr. Chairman, I would just jump in and interrupt and say that we have seen those comments. We have no objection to the conditions set forth and proposed by staff.

Okay, thank you. Any other comments from members of city staff?

And through the chair, I know we do have Ms. Rodriguez online and just want to confirm with her. In talking with Mr. Tator prior to the meeting, there was discussion between DPW and the applicant about an adjustment to the existing location of the easement. There's city infrastructure on the rear of these lots that's located outside of the cross-country easement. And there was discussion about trying to get a new easement or shift the easement location to more appropriately reflect where the infrastructure is. And so the applicant has requested that through that coordination we add a condition, if I can suggest, a new condition that would be prior to release of the decision or a building permit, which would be that the applicant shall provide a recorded 81X plan reflecting the revised easement locations in line with existing infrastructure.

Okay, thank you, Ms. Smith. Other members of the city departments? Hearing none, is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item? Sorry, you do have to come up and use the microphone just so people can hear you online.

I apologize. I'm not even here for this. I'm here for 500 West Boylston Street, and I didn't understand what you said about 500 West Boylston Street. My deep apologies if that's delayed to another date.

It is. So what I was saying at the beginning is what often occurs with items is they'll be postponed multiple times. You won't get a new notice. Okay. This one was 500 West Boylston. Oh, actually, they requested to leave, basically withdraw their application.

Oh, they drew it out, so they're not going to do it?

Yeah, Mr. Carey looks like he might have more information than I do.

Sure, hi. Steve Carey in the Planning Division. Yeah, we spoke to the petitioner just a few hours ago, and they are withdrawing their petition to rezone. Okay, thank you so much.

Sure. Thank you very much.

Okay, so anyone from the public on 0 Chester Street? Is there anyone online?

Not seeing any hands raised online.

Okay, board members, Mr. King, if we could start with you.

No comments or concerns on this one. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Mr. Dallara?

No comments or concerns for me either. Thanks. Mr. Toomey? Your microphone's off.

No comments. Thank you. Thank you.

Rosende? Is it Rosende? Mr. Rosende? Yes, Mr. Rosende.

No comments. For myself, I would just note that staff has spent a considerable amount of time, multiple departments, working with the applicant on this and feel they've come to a good solution. So for my part, I'm happy to endorse it if someone wants to make a motion.

I make a motion to approve the definitive site plan for 0 Chester Street subject to the conditions in the memo and as mentioned by Michelle Smith during the meeting.

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

Mr. Toomey?

Yes. I vote yes as well. That motion passes 4-0. Moving on to new business. Thank you. Good luck. Moving on to new business, first item we'll hear is 28, Harrington Way. This will be a public hearing for a special permit related to an ADU to modify the dimensional requirements of that ADU.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is Donald O'Neill. I'm a lawyer here in Worcester and here this evening on behalf of Joe Palladino in connection with this request for a special permit for an ADU proposed for 28 Harrington Way. We'll get the wrong plan out, but on the screen. I think Mr. Kerry is working on that. Okay. So what we're proposing here and have gotten approval from the zoning board for an accessory detached garage on the property and the plan is to install an ADU on the second floor. In that regard, this is a special permit that is issued by your board for any ADU that is over 900 square feet, and this is 1,296 or thereabouts. One thing I would point out to the board or like to emphasize is that the Lot itself, it's in an RL7 zone. The zoning requirement in an RL7 would allow for a three-family dwelling on a lot of this size. You need 9,000 square feet and 75 feet of frontage. We have 9,000 square feet and about 90 feet of frontage. So in terms of the overall zoning, that's in effect, we are within the density requirements that would allow for an additional unit on this property by special permit, either from Zoning Board of Appeals or from the Planning Board, in this case, on the basis of this being an ADU. And so I think the The purpose of the ADUs was obviously to create additional housing for people and to utilize, better utilize existing lots that are developed lots that are in place so as to create additional housing. And I think this is exactly the situation that they were talking about and the ordinance does provide for a special permit so that you know when you exceed the 900 that there is an ability if the project merits it to allow for a larger adu and in this situation my clients did look at the possibility of adding an addition uh to the structure um but that in order to get an additional unit the complication with that is building doesn't really lend itself to an addition or at least an addition that would you know be particularly attractive the other problematic feature of it is that the IF YOU DO THAT, YOU NOW HAVE A THREE FAMILY INSTEAD OF A TWO FAMILY, WHICH TRIGGERS THE REQUIREMENT FOR SPRINKLERS. IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, THAT MEANS AN OLDER BUILDING, IT'S REALLY HARD AND REALLY EXPENSIVE TO INSTALL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INTO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE BASICALLY WITHOUT TEARING THE WHOLE THING APART. AND THE COST OF INSTALLING That type of a system in this property is somewhere around $35,000 to $40,000, which is a lot of money to add one additional unit to spend that on sprinklers, let alone the cost of the additional structure. Now, in the location that we're proposing, I think it's important to note, meets all of the setback requirements that would apply to a primary structure on the property. So aside from front yard setback, under the ADU regulations, you can go as close as five feet to the property line. i think you know that perhaps that has something to do with the idea that there'd be some limitation on size particularly where you're allowing a structure to be built within five feet of the property line in this case we've got 22 feet in the rear we've got nine feet on the side uh we're about uh i think it's 42 feet actually in the front. And we do also have a 10 foot setback to the existing house. So although this is a larger structure than a typical ADU, it's well situated on the lot. It's not overlooking somebody's backyard, you know, five feet off the property line. It meets all of the setbacks that would apply if this were just a freestanding building. So I think that that's another factor which would support our request for a special permit to allow for a larger structure. Again, the ability to fit within the normal density requirements, the ability to satisfy all of the conventional setback requirements. We are also providing, although it's not a requirement, we do have parking that would be provided for the ADU. And feel that this is a location which should be able to support an additional unit in a way that doesn't negatively impact any of the abutters, any of the neighbors, or I think overall, you know, the appearance of the property would, I think, would be approved in that we are. Another factor is the impervious surface area. We're at with the proposal that's before the board we're about 35 percent so we're well under the 50 that would be allowed in an rl7 part of what we had presented also included the removal of some of the existing pavement uh particularly the um basically the front yard was, it's a very small front yard, but it was all pavement. And what it shows in the plan is that immediately in front of the property, we are proposing to remove the pavement and to install vegetation in that area. And we're also talking about removing some of the pavement on the opposite end of the property. And staff has proposed Helpfully recommended quite a few trees to be planted on the property as well, which are not there currently. And that would be part of any approval that we get from you. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have for me.

Thank you, Mr. O'Neill. Staff comments on this item?

Sure. Through the chair, this is Michelle Smith in the city's planning division. So in front of you, again, a special permit for an accessory dwelling unit. This is an existing two-family structure that you have on the lot. We are in an RL7 zone. They are proposing this detached structure, which is a garage on the first floor with an accessory dwelling unit above on the second story. So rather than storage, they're seeking to have that space be used as a habitable unit. They have obtained permission from the Zoning Board of Appeals to install a garage of this size. So they already went to the zoning board to be able to have a large accessory structure on the lot. And so now they're in front of this board to consider whether it's appropriate to exceed the by right threshold of 900 square feet for an accessory dwelling unit. The board members will mostly recall that we've had discussions about this 900 square feet and where it came from before. Just for a little bit of a refresher that parallels the language in the state law, And so that's where that 900 square feet ends up tying to. We've had discussions about is 900 square feet right for Worcester. Jury's out on that in particular, but the board is here and serves to decide whether when someone is proposing a larger ADU, it's appropriate. The same thing if there's dimensional issues related to setbacks or otherwise that are inconsistent with those regulations. In this case, none of those are true other than the size. So really, it's about size here. So 900 square feet is what we allow by right. Anything greater than that just needs special permission from this board as the board deems appropriate. So they're proposing just under 1,300 square feet, 1,296 square feet for this proposed structure. It is a three-bed, two-bath unit that is proposed, like I said, on top of this garage. So they are seeking special permission through this board for that purpose. The property is located within a managed growth area We are encouraging housing density in our city-wide long-range plan in this location. The neighborhood is a mix of mostly single and two, but a decent number of three-family dwellings within Waukesha at about 400 feet to the closest bus stop, generally with decent pedestrian facilities. The proposal will eventually require, if approved, filing with the Conservation Commission based on the ground disturbance that the applicant will have to seek and obtain. As I mentioned, it did go in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. They did approve that. They required some reconfigurations of the driveway as part of that approval. So the applicant has generally revised the plans to be responsive to the feedback that was provided by the board. So that's reflected on the plans that you see here. What they have done is they've reduced and removed some of the impervious area elsewhere on the site and reduced the driveway width to 22 feet, which is what is required by the ordinance. They've also converted some areas of existing impervious surface to lawn, and we are recommending additional enhancements to that through tree plantings and otherwise through the conditions that we have proposed. for you, which I believe are on page three of the staff memo, and I'm happy to go through. But they've already made a number of those adjustments. So at this point, I'll just note that the existing two-family is about 2,600 square feet based on the assessor's record. So each of the units is about the same size as the ADU. There are two existing units in the existing structure. So this is about the same size as those units, just above the garage in a detached structure. Attorney O'Neill did indicate that a three-family with the dimensions in terms of lot area and frontage for this lot would be allowed by right. That's true. The use itself, however, requires a special permit. So any three-family in this zone needs a special permit. So in this case, they're seeking the ADU because it's a detached structure, so it wouldn't qualify for our definition of what a three-family is. I'm happy to answer any questions that the board members have. Otherwise, as I mentioned, our recommended conditions of approval are on page three. We have a couple revisions to a prior iteration that are itemized and read based on the most recent drawings that were sent along. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Smith. Other city departments?

This is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We don't have any additional comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item? Not seeing anybody in the room. Is there anyone online?

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. No one online.

Okay. Board members, Mr. King?

No comments. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Mr. DeLera?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a little concerned with the size given the statute. I understand that it's a consideration about whether 900 square feet makes sense going forward, but that's the statute as it is. And while this board has made some exceptions when circumstances suggested that adhering strictly to the 900 square feet would be problematic, I'm not so sure that's the case here. So...

little bit hesitant to support this one thank you thank you mr delera mr toomey uh no comments at this time i'm going to vote to approve okay thank you mr toomey uh mr resende no comments thank you i don't think your microphone actually turned on but no comments thank you okay um i i'm sensitive to mr delera's comments however i think they could build this garage regardless. And if you're going to build the garage, you might as well also build the ADU is kind of my feeling. And I don't, I understand the rationale behind the 900 square feet. I don't, consider it to be a problem if you're putting a unit inside an existing structure. I don't think we should artificially constrain units. And Attorney O'Neill, for what it's worth, everything you said about sprinklers in the three-family problem I thought was incredibly accurate. So I certainly have experienced that as well, trying to make some of these things work. So I'd be happy to vote to support this. I think we're ready for a motion.

All right. Make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second. On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. Mr. Rosende? Yes.

I vote yes as well. Five to zero. The hearing is closed. All right. And I make a motion to approve the special permit subject to staff conditions for 28 Harrington Way. Second.

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

I find Mr. Chairman's comments convincing, and I'm going to vote yes on this. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Toomey? Yes. Mr. Rosende? Yes. I vote yes as well. Five to zero. That motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Good luck. Next on our agenda, item number three, 26 and 28, Milton Street, a definitive site plan and an MGL private street improvement, MGL 81G.

I'm back. For the record, Donald O'Neill, lawyer in Worcester. And I'm here this evening in connection with the request for site plan approval for Milton Street Properties LLC. And this location is at 2628 Milton Street. This is a project which has previously gone through zoning board to secure required relief and in connection with this application there's the definitive site plan approval and then also 81G improvements to the roadway in front of the property which we have applied for an application and I would submit to the board it's actually a significant improvement for over the existing road conditions that exist in that location and you know would be kind of a overall enhancement I think to the neighborhood to have those road improvements um you know completed um i have gone through also with me this evening is the um the owner of the property and also joe graham who's done the engineering and bob o'neill who's done the survey work on the property so on some of the um more technical um uh conditions that are listed in the memo are raised, and I may have them assist with the response to that. But there are a couple. In general, the vast majority of the recommended conditions of approval suggested by staff are acceptable. There is also a suggestion that we apply for a waiver, one waiver, which is on page five. So I would request that waiver be granted, and that's for the location of trees over nine inches in caliper. On the conditions themselves under the recommendations, there are a couple that I think that the engineer could probably respond to directly, but under DPW conditions, this is on page two of eight, number C, it's in that location that it also reappears on page four as L. So it's essentially the same condition. And my understanding is that there's an engineering solution to this, but that the one that's suggested is not something which can be done, given the width of the road. But I'll let Mr. Graham respond to that. And the other... The thing that I would like to have him respond to as well is on page three of eight, condition K, which recommends that the existing pavers that have been installed to the rear of the property be removed in favor of pervious pavers. And I'll let Mr. Graham deal with that, but it's my understanding that That was a question which was raised early on by staff in that when the infiltration chambers were designed for this project, knowing the concern about that pavement that was there. And they're pavers. It's not asphalt. It's concrete decorative patio pavers. That the engineer took that into his calculations when he sized the infiltration units. And there is a trench which collects the water. And the chambers are large enough basically to deal with that water, collect it, and deal with it underground. And that there really is no need to remove them. And in terms of waivers, I guess I already have addressed that. But the other provisions that are provided would be acceptable to the applicant if we could have some discussion maybe about those two items.

Understood. Thank you. Staff comments on this?

Sure. Through the chair again, Michelle Smith in the planning division. So in front of you, we have a site plan application that's triggered both by the steep slopes that were present on the property that warranted some of the retaining walls, as well as the number of units. So in excess of five units, bringing this in front of the board related to the site plan. And then because we have a private street where there's work proposed within the street, the planning board governs and oversees any construction activities that are occurring in there. So two different approvals, the Chapter 12, Section 12, and the Dividend of Sight Plan in front of the board this evening. In terms of our comments, we do have a number of conditions. Pages 2 through 5 include a comprehensive list of those, as well as our other colleagues in different departments. Attorney O'Neill referenced two that I will let Ms. Rodriguez speak to. But if DPW is amenable to an alternative, I might suggest you consider adding language to keep what is proposed, but indicate or an alternative to prevent ponding that's acceptable to the Department of Public Works and see if that might allow for some resolution outside of the meeting. But I'll defer to Ms. Rodriguez on that particular item. Just specific to item K, to give a little bit more history on the context of the project, it's a partially mostly retroactive proposal. If you've driven by the site, you've seen that these structures are all mostly constructed. These were constructed without building permits. The retaining wall in the rear was constructed prior to the acquisition by the current owner back in around 2007 under a prior building permit. It was constructed in a manner inconsistent with the plans that the planning board had approved that time. So this site has a history of things being built that were inconsistent or didn't have approvals. So the applicant's here tonight to proceed with moving forward with the building permit and gaining occupancy for these structures. So as you heard, The Zoning Board of Appeals did grant a series of relief for height, for setbacks for the retaining walls, as well as for the front yard impervious and driveway setbacks for a few of the lots. So that was all granted back in February, and now they're in front of you here for the remainder of the site improvements, as well as the improvements to create adequate access and frontage for the intensity of the development here. So the comments that staff had provided with respect to the pervious pavers were simply that the site is almost nearly entirely impervious with the changes that have been made with the roof runoff, with the retaining walls, the driveways, and the patios. And so our recommendation was to try to increase infiltration and recharge by providing that in a pervious manner. We understand that that's already been constructed. Obviously, that construction was without authorization. So that's why staff have recommended that. We had recommended that at the Zoning Board of Appeals. The board chose not to include that or require that condition to be addressed. Ultimately, up to the planning board here as to how you feel relative to the same. But just staff felt the need to carry that forward. So that's kind of bringing us back around to K, which I know Attorney O'Neill wanted to discuss specifically with the board. So I'll let the board be able to discuss that further. Otherwise, most of the comments are kind of typical or revision reconciliation related across the different civil and architectural plans for addressing discrepancies, providing information around the shared stormwater management facilities that cross the zero lot lines that would be proposed for the units. So that is all something we would be looking to be addressed. In terms of the street improvements, just to clarify exactly what's proposed, essentially you can see the section kind of in a hatched area to the south, land south of where the two lots are for these two structures. They're, again, a total of six units, as you can see here. So there's an enhancement to Milton Street. This section is currently a private section that is bounded on either end by public sections, not directly, but in the vicinity. So you have more typical public street further to the south and to the north. And then this dirt section that links other private portions that are paved to the south. So they're looking to widen that to a consistent width of 20 feet along the frontage shown here, including kind of tie-ins to the adjacent roadway. It would also transition the surfacing of the road from what's currently pothole-y gravel, if you've been out there, to a paved surface. There's a steep drop-off on the western side, so planned south. So they're also proposing a guardrail. And staff are recommending, while the applicant has not proposed drainage, we are recommending installation of drainage, which relates to the concerns that you heard from DPW about the – gentle slope the nature of it being so flat the likelihood of ponding or flooding resulting from that so wanting to make sure that there's adequate way to convey that water out and make sure that that issue has been addressed but i will let my dpw colleagues comment better on that i'm happy to answer any questions but i think at this point that's where i will leave the staff comments that we have for this evening thanks okay thank you miss smith uh additional comments from dbw

As we mentioned in the, I'm sorry, this is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. As we mentioned in the letter, we also recommend the installation of a new catch basin on the road to prevent wash out of the road. And also the details for the pavement, it have to be one and a half inch top and two for the binders. That would be all, thank you.

OK, thank you. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item tonight? Seeing no one in the room, is there anyone online?

This is Steve Kerring, the planning division. No one online.

Thank you, Mr. Carey.

Mr. Chairman, could we respond a little bit to some of the comments from staff? Sure. Yeah, just... And maybe I misunderstood, but we are actually installing two catch basins. There are other plans that have been proposed and have been approved. And that should handle, I think, the roadway runoff. And also, I just think it would be helpful if... Just to follow up on the suggestion that maybe alternative language to some of the conditions that we talked about. So with your permission, I would just have Mr. Graham kind of hit those two points quickly. I know you've got a long agenda, but just to get the point across that we have as to why we object to those provisions as currently written.

Okay, just for clarity's sake, let's be clear about which provisions.

Yeah.

Could you just read those?

We are talking about item K, which is on page three, which talks about the removal of the pavers and replacement with pervious pavers. that have already been installed. And we feel that that's not necessary, and we've provided for that with the infiltration. Also, number L, which is the next one on page 4, and the same condition as L basically appears on page 2 as under 3C.

uh and that has to do with the profile of the road and vertical curves and the transition okay thank you and go ahead and let us know what you think good evening this is joe graham i'm the engineer record on this project um in following up on um what we already discussed We received this project after it had been substantially completed in portions. And one of the areas that we try to limit the redisturbance is that rear patio paved area. And we worked with the construction team to install a slot trench or a trench drain that is routed to that shared infiltration system in the front, and we adequately sized that in order to capture that stormwater. I do agree much of the site is impervious, and managing it was a challenge, especially with the tiered retaining wall systems. But we felt that in order to adequately address all of the flow, we would prefer to keep the pavers in the rear as a closed drainage system through a trench drain, routed to that infiltration system in the front, providing enough recharge to meet the stormwater regulations. Is that already constructed? That was in the process of construction as we received the project. So we used that as our basis and then continued to develop that design into a compliant design as we did several site visits to ensure that the trench drain was installed and that we were working towards a solution that is viable.

Okay, so if I'm understanding you correctly, the plan that was being constructed but had not been approved was to install a bunch of pavers in the backyard. and utilize a drainage system that's located in the front yard using a trench drain because so much of the site was impervious. And what you've done as the engineer of record is come in and make sure that that's sized appropriately in the design that's now being presented to us to approve. Correct. Okay. Understood.

Taking portions of what was completed and making sure we're not going back and ripping out things that were already constructed and trying to manage that design. Okay. So that was four to address, I think, the patio pavers in the rear. And as far as the roadway improvements, I know we talked a little bit about that. Being consistent with the approved sewer extension plan that identified two catch basins, we have updated the plan since the one presented tonight that has two catch basins located on the bottom right of your screen. Those catch basins... are consistent with that sewer extension plan connecting to that drainage infrastructure, providing the needed drainage to Milton Street. On Milton Street, we have a consistent cross slope, a 3% cross slope, across all of milton street which is somewhat less conventional you see a typical crown but given the site constraints and trying to connect the two paved areas on both sides and try to manage both grades of of where we ended up the 250-ish feet of that roadway was not long enough to transition to a more normal crown or do you know other things like that so we we were able to then, we install, or we're proposing to install a HMA berm along that bottom edge to manage and route that storm water to those proposed couch basins.

Okay, so maybe I'm a little confused. What I see in the DPW conditions is that you are to provide a profile of the proposed road showing the grading and utilities. That's condition L. Am I looking at the right condition?

Yes, there was an improved sewer extension plan that had that profile, and I think that's what it was referencing in that.

I see. You're saying it already exists.

Correct.

Does it?

Through the chair, I defer to Ms. Rodriguez.

Yes, what we mentioned is to reflect the installation of a new gas basin at the southwest end of the proposed road. Is that part of the plan already?

I believe the engineer is saying it is. There's a condition on our memo anyway, perhaps not in your letter, that's listed before that requiring them to provide a profile. in showing proposed grading in utilities. And they're saying that that's part of the sewer extension plan already.

We can recreate it and put it on a sheet if that's needed as well.

Mr. Chairman, if that's the case, then we can leave the condition and I may have misunderstood But I thought that it couldn't be done. But in fact, it already has been done. So that just says that we've got to submit the plan showing that. And if it's doable, then there's no issue with it. So I would drop my request to delete those two sections and just remain opposed to the one requiring the removal of the

existing pavers in the backyard right item k okay um i guess i'd ask my colleagues on the board to weigh in on their uh opinion on the condition k which again is requiring uh a substantial portion of a lot is impervious including some concrete pavers in the backyard that's uh i don't know how large the area is but fairly large staff is requesting uh has a condition in to remove them applicants requesting that we strike that condition uh mr king do you want to share your thoughts yes so from the applicant's standpoint they are installing the catch basin and i guess a question to the staff the main target is that they would replace the existing pavers with pervious pavers no they they want to keep them because they're already installed the applicant does correct and then yeah staff wants to remove them okay or replace them with pervious i would be okay with removing that condition for now thank you all right thank you mr king mr delera thank you mr chairman um

I would defer to staff's judgment on this one. I feel like the attempt to engineer this with the existing pavers in place is a suboptimal solution. It may or may not work. We don't really have crystal ball, but given the sheer amount of impervious surface here, I would prefer to err on the side of caution.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. DeLera. Mr. Toomey?

Yeah, I also think I'd go on the side of caution and make the change.

Thank you, Mr. Toomey. Mr. Rosende?

I also would defer to staff and keep that condition.

OK, for myself, I would just say the litmus test for me is, would we approve this plan, regardless of the fact that you've already built a substantial portion of it? Would we approve this if you brought it before us? And I've never seen so much paving in the backyard. I really don't think we would. I know I wouldn't vote to approve it, so I'm not going to vote to approve it retroactively. You know, we say that when a developer starts building something without permit, they're doing that at their risk, and that's the risk this developer, whoever built this, took. I would vote no on that as well.

How would you like us to proceed? Yeah, so we'll live with it and remove the pavers.

Understood. OK. Then I think we're ready for a motion on the petition in front of us. Mr. King? Did we lose Brandon?

I think he's unmuted now.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, we can hear you now. Yep. My internet just got very spotty. Were we looking for the motion?

Yes. The conditions as written are given the board's preferences are acceptable to move forward with.

Okay. I make a motion to, this would be approve the Defendant Site Plan for 26 and 28 Milton with staff conditions as noted. Second. On the motion, Mr. King?

Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. That motion passes four to zero. Thank you.

And through the chair, if we could also take a motion relative to the chapter 12, section 12. I think I didn't hear that as part of the recommendation.

Sure. Yes. And make a motion to approve the MGL 81G and chapter 12, section 12 for the private street improvement. Second. On the motion, Mr. King.

And through the chair, that's subject to the conditions on page two.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right. We happy. I think we're happy. Is there a second on the motion? Yes. Second. Okay. On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey?

Yes.

I vote yes as well. That passes four to zero.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda, item number four, 264 Stafford Street. This will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan.

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 with the Graham families village LLC. The proposed buyer of the property on Stafford Street with me tonight is Moses Dixon, who is the executive director of the senior connection and the principal of the project. Andy Howarth of Worcester Community Housing Resources Matt Ashley from bowler engineering And hopefully Anna R. Scott of Davis Square Architects is remote tonight, but available if there are any questions. What I'd like to do very briefly is to present a little bit of background information. then ask Moses Dixon just to give you a little bit of information about the grand family village concept and why it's needed. And then Matt Ashley can answer any technical questions regarding we've already been through the memorandum with the staff. It's been very helpful. I think we've fired out the details, but we're here tonight for definitive site plan review of a really unusual, unique and much needed category of housing. We're calling it the Grand Family Village Housing Village, and it's going to be located on about 3.65 acres of land at 264 Stafford Street in Worcester. This village, the purpose is designed to support grandparents who are raising their grandchildren. It's going to provide up to 39 units of affordable housing in a single low-rise multifamily building. It's going to be a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom units, and it's really designed to accommodate the needs of these grandfamilies. Moses Dixon is going to tell you more about that in a minute. The project is designed to preserve open space, promote walkability, and foster community connections. All of the units are going to be affordable at 60% AMI. And due to the nonprofit educational purpose of this proposed community, we received a Dover Act zoning exemption from the code department. Without this zoning exemption, this multifamily low-rise building would not have been permitted in the RS7 zone. So with that, I'm just going to ask Moses Dixon to just give you a brief explanation of the grand family village concept.

Thank you, Todd, and good evening to the board. As Todd mentioned, the concept of grandparents raising their grandchildren, also known as grandfamilies, in Massachusetts, there's about 40,000 of these families. And Central Massachusetts and Worcester makes up about 30% of this population. At Senior Connection, we have been servicing these families for the past four and a half years through our Grandparents Raising Grandkids Resource Center, which has touched over 600 plus of these families in Worcester and Central Massachusetts. One of the biggest challenges or the main reasons why these children end up in the care of their grandparents or other relatives are due to things such as the opioid crisis, parent separation, And unfortunately, some of the parents of the children have succumbed to death. Traditional housing such as public housing does not allow for children to be in public housing with older adults. And so these grand families types of housing, there's examples all across the country. There's one in Boston. We visited several of them. But what makes the one that we're proposing here unique in Worcester is that we're going to also embed the resource center on site with staff that would have 24-hour access to be able to service these families. So this is an important population, many of whom are experiencing homelessness because of the cost of living. And as Todd mentioned, this would be totally affordable. And so we are very excited about this project because it is a type of housing that is needed for this type of population. Thank you.

Thanks, Moses. Mr. Chairman, Matt Ashley from Bowler is here. Maybe we can hear any staff comments and then we can respond.

Sounds like a plan. Okay, thank you. With that, comments from staff on this item?

Sure. This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. So before you is a site plan approval for a about 60,000 square foot multifamily building and associated site improvements. The building is going to contain about 39 dwelling units, has about 45 surface parking spaces. It's set back from Stafford Street by quite a ways, access through a or a private way. The parking lot has two-way circulation, and there's a walking loop. And I can move forward a bit. There's a walking loop around that sort of slopes down and back around the back of the building, where there is access to sort of a garden level of the building, which kind of works with the existing terrain. There is a turnaround in the parking lot a fire truck that uses grass pavers we did ask the applicant to confirm that that paving area is able to be plowed to make sure that it remains accessible for emergency vehicles during winter they confirm that it is there's also a patio in the playground at the rear our conditions of approval there's a couple related to storm water we do want to see a mounding analysis for the infiltration units that are that are proposed I believe the infiltration unit is handling most of the impervious surface. There is some impervious roof runoff that's going to be channeled into a rain garden at the back. We've asked to see some plantings there. Other conditions of approval relate to lighting, some additional tree plantings, which I understand the applicant has asked for some revisions to those recommended conditions, and I'll let the engineer, Matt Ashley, comment on that. And then the other thing I'll note, just for a condition of approval, is regards to, we've asked them to install signage naming the private way that's accessing it, Kettlebrook Way, that's based on a former subdivision plan that was here and is sort of access to the site is sort of named Kettlebrook Bay within our system. So that would just be easier for fire response. And then I'd also add one of our conditions of approval also relative to that driveway opening there is that the sidewalk be extended along the frontage of that property just in the interest of the walkability and walking access to the site. And that's all the ones that I'm just highlighting but happy to touch on any others.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Kerry. DPW, any comments from DPW on this item?

This is Leslie Rodriguez from DPW. In this case, the paving will have to be light from burn to burn since on multiple connections in the street. And it will also require an additional bonding. That would be all, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Ashley, you want to respond to any of that? Matthew Ashley with Bowler Engineering. I think everyone in front of me has done a great job, so I'll try to keep it short here. So there was a couple of conditions of approval I just wanted to highlight about the additional tree plantings out here. So we've worked with city staff, already added additional tree plantings during some initial comments above and beyond what was required. And then staff has requested three more in specific areas. Specifically, it would be near the grass pavers in the far left corner right there, and then an additional tree in that island right in the middle. So we did previously look at it In working with DPW and the utilities underneath, we want to keep an appropriate separation from those shade trees to those utilities. Rule of thumb, our best practice is about 10 feet, just so the roots don't interfere and start trying to find anything with those utilities. For that reason, we did not want to put two additional trees there. However, we do agree with adding one more in the driveway, right where Steve is pointing on the board there, That's not a problem. We can add additional shade tree there as well. So that was just the modification we wanted to add to that one specifically. There was another one on adding screening around the transformer. I'm guessing through landscape would be our best approach. We are not opposed to that. We just wanted to add some language that National Grid would have to sign off on that. I just don't want to have to come back if they're not going to allow a certain screening around it. But we'll work with staff on what's appropriate in National Grid.

OK, understood. Anything else?

I believe there was a condition relative to the stone channel. It'd be staff's preference to see that stone channel. This is at the rear of the property here, what I'm highlighting. It would be staff's preference to see a vegetative soil there. The applicant has explained, though, why they are. have concerns about that, and I'd let the engineer speak to that.

Yeah, thank you. So in particular, from the property line on the plan left here, that's kind of like a ridge. So on the abutting land to the left, it comes up. There's a ridge there. It comes back down. And in the previous development, it looks like the developer may have put in some type of engineered slope over there. So it is lower, not visible from the other properties with the vegetated area there. But with that engineered slope, we expect that some more runoff would come through there, whether it was just kind of grassed or wooded over there. And so with that, it's also tough to get down there. So we wanted to do the riprap slope for less maintenance and just for the volume that theoretically could come off of there on that slope during rain events. It's below the patio area, not visible from the abutters, and this would just require less maintenance. And for those reasons, we wanted to keep the riprap swale there versus a vegetative one. OK, understood.

From, I think, staff's perspective, I think we're comfortable with that as long as the board is.

OK. All right, anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item tonight? Anyone online?

Not seeing anyone online.

Mr. Chairman, before you close the hearing, I just wanted to make two last points. One, one of the requests in the staff memorandum was for the submission of complete architectural plans before the decision is released. And I just wanted clarification on that. And the architects online, I just want to make sure that we can deliver what's being requested. And then secondly, I wanted to, there's a continued reference to Kettlebrook Way which is really just a historic reference to a subdivision that was proposed in the late 19, I think it was 97. Subdivisions expired, Kettlebrook Way is removed from the official map. I know the city is carrying it on its GIS system as kind of a historical relic. We may be proposing a different name and we just want the flexibility to work with the city staff and the fire department if it's acceptable to them, we'd like the ability to submit a different name. We don't know what that is yet. But that would be before we request any house numbers or water connections or do anything else. We understand that it's essential that there be clear addresses for emergency response and we'll absolutely comply with that. It just may not be Kettlebrook way.

A question from Mr. Kerry and Ms. Smith. Is that even a planning board item? Can we just say that it needs to be... If we leave the condition as is, does that prevent some sort of discussion from happening later on?

I guess I'd defer to Ms. Smith on this.

Through the chair, just can we clarify which specific condition that you're seeking to modify? Just so I'm looking at the right.

Sure. I think there were some references. For example, on page 2 of 6, item 1B, street sign naming the driveway Kettlebrook Way, consistent with the former subdivision, as an example. And I think there might have been another mention of that here. But that's the idea. In your prior approval page, five of six, you note that Kettlebrook Way was removed from the official map. So we just want the flexibility to continue a discussion without coming back to the planning board for that.

Through the chair, staff's open to adjusting that, but we'll say generally speaking that there's historical reference to the property by that, and we generally try to avoid changing that once that's been established. So I just want to make sure that there's not an expectation walking away that there will be a change, because I don't want the applicant to walk away with that expectation. We're happy to adjust the language so that there isn't a necessity to come back to the board, but does that

I guess the point we're trying to make is that we need the flexibility to deal with the fire department and the city staff. If we have a name that's acceptable, we'd like the flexibility.

I think you're saying the same thing. Ms. Smith's saying you may have a name that you want and the city may not let you do it. Understood. I think at this juncture, what makes the most sense is let's adjust the language so that should that name ever work its way through city politics, you'd be You'd be not needing to come back here to make that change.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And then just wanted a clarification on what complete architectural plans means. Sure.

Which condition are you referring to for that one?

That is on page two, paragraph one.

Revised site plans, complete architectural plan set, Oh, I see.

Yes.

Just wanted to make sure we could deliver what you're asking.

Sure. Yeah, the architectural plans that have been submitted are satisfactory in terms of the scope of them and the floor plans and the elevations that have been provided um we just we do have a condition i believe just in terms of reconciling um there's a few discrepancies between architectural plans and site plans which is a pretty common condition of approval but yes with regards to complete um the the plans that have been submitted are um are satisfactory what we mean by complete being um floor plans um you know showing points of egress yeah yep thank you

OK. So Mr. Kerry or Ms. Smith, could we maybe have some proposed language for that condition?

Through the chair, I'd recommend that you just adjust B to state, reflect the location of a street sign at the intersection of Stafford Street and the driveway name consistent with city requirements.

Thank you. And then for, I think, we're comfortable striking condition G. And then in terms of modification to condition J1J, I think we could make it say add one additional canopy tree strike up to on the northern side of the driveway such that there are trees every 50 feet along the driveway in accordance with subdivision regulations. So striking essentially changing three to one and striking at the southeastern end of Middle Landscaping Island at the southwest corner of the lot adjacent to the grass papers. And then finally, condition K, I think we can just add subject to national grid approval.

Okay. I think we're ready for a motion.

Okay. I make a motion to- Oh, sorry. Before we, we do have a raised hand online if the chair is willing to entertain a public comment. Sure. Kelly Flanagan, I am unmuting you on our end. I think you have to just unmute on your end.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Oh, great. So I just live across the street. I'm wondering when construction, visible construction might start and when this is hoped to be completed. I may have missed those dates. My apologies and thank you.

I can probably answer. At this point in the process, the applicant still has a good deal of work left to do in design. They could give you potential construction dates.

i think the applicant would like to uh i'll just let you know that you should consider those um very preliminary at this point thank you mr chairman um so understanding with that admonition you know we're in the middle of financing we'd expect construction to start in approximately one year and it'll be about a one-year construction period okay thank you i appreciate it

And this is Steve here in the Planning Division again. Just sorry, in that time before we take a motion, one other amendment to the recommended conditions, just condition 10 under perpetual conditions, we should just strike Kettlebrook Way from the end of that so that it just reads, driveway sign which shall be maintained by the owner for the named private driveway.

Understood. OK. Thank you, Mr. Carey. Board members, does anyone have any comments? I don't think we went through that part already.

question what was the breakdown of one two and three bedrooms the breakdown is four one bedrooms 32 two bedrooms and three or four three bedrooms i think the idea of one bedrooms is there may be some children who sort of age out and maybe have their own units, even though their grandparents may be living with other children.

Your microphone's off, Mr. Toomey, just to say no. OK, anyone else from the board before we have a motion?

No comment except to compliment the applicant on this admirable project.

Hear, hear.

Mr. King, I think we're ready for a motion. All right. I make a motion to approve the definitive site plan for 264 Stafford Street subject to the conditions as modified during the discussion. Second.

On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Dallara? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. That motion passes four to zero. Good luck to the applicant. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next item on our agenda, we're going to take two at the same time. So first will be item number 5, 4651-52 Modoc Street, public meeting for a definitive site plan. We're also going to take an A&R related to the same property, which is 14C.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Donald O'Neill. I'm a lawyer here in Worcester here this evening on behalf of St. Anthony's Realty LLC in connection with this request for site plan approval. We had a previous site plan approval in connection with the subdivision of this property, which has only... road itself has just been recently accepted within the last year i believe thereabouts maybe even a little less but it is a project that we're seeking to amend the site plan approval to allow for additional units to be constructed within the area that's available on the existing roadway and replace what had been proposed as three single family units with duplex units, which is consistent with the bulk of the other houses that have been constructed on the street. And we have submitted for your approval in connection with this an A&R plan, which comes up later on the agenda in terms of the actual division of the land. I have reviewed staff's memo and the recommended conditions of approval. There were two that came up today that were on page two, items A and B, that we hadn't picked up on before, but I have spoken. with the engineer, that's Joseph Graham, who's here this evening as well. And he has confirmed to me that the issue can be solved with the rotation of the proposed structure on the lot in such a way that there wouldn't be a problem with respect to the driveway setback and also the two curb cuts on one lot with less than 80 feet of frontage. So the conditions which are listed on page 2, A through M, are acceptable to the applicant. I would like to discuss proposed condition N, which is a DTM condition regarding the sidewalk crossing of driveways so that the again this is a new subdivision there are newly installed sidewalks in the subdivision and they're asphalt and they were approved as asphalt by the planning board so as I read this provision what they're requesting is that We have an asphalt sidewalk, and then where it crosses the driveway, you install a concrete sidewalk and pick up the asphalt on the other side of the driveway. Because the condition, this is a little bit cryptic in terms of how it's described here, but it says that the same material as the sidewalk city specifications as determined by the commission of public works which are not actually the subdivision rules and regulations specifications they do call for concrete basically i believe in all cases and so what i would suggest or request that the board do is just provide that the have no issue with in terms of the what they're looking for in terms of the design but just that it be the same material as the existing sidewalks on either side of the driveway which are practically brand new and maybe staff could clarify for you that the language that's included in there would in fact require concrete sidewalks okay But other than that, we're okay with the conditions.

So just to be clear, you're okay with A and B? Yes. Okay.

Okay with the, I think what they're saying, the adjustment.

Yeah, you're going to have to make an adjustment in order to make it work. We can comply, yeah. But condition N, you'd like to have staff provide some additional clarity on? Okay. Comments from city staff on this?

Sure. This is Steve Kerring, the Planning Division. Just one point of clarification. This is actually not an amendment to an existing site plan. This is a new site plan. We agreed just because of the scope of how different this, what's being proposed was from what was approved. When this was approved as part of the original subdivision, these were three individual lots, each with a single family. And now it's five lots with, you know, a total of 10 units with five duplexes. So just given the scope of that change, it's actually was submitted as a new site plan approval. So as Attorney O'Neill stated, this is part of a subdivision that has been completed. The road has been completed, as well as the sidewalks. Each lot has half of a duplex on it that has a zero lot line. Each duplex has a garage first level with two stories above. Each also has an infiltration unit on its lot to infiltrate stormwater runoff. The issue we're referring to and trying to address with conditions approval 1A and 1B is these two lots here, 124 and 125, the driveway that crosses over a lot from lot 124, accesses lot 124, but has its curb cut on lot 125. That doesn't meet requirements for a three-foot landscaping buffer. And then also because of the way there's basically two curb cuts on lot 125. Two curb cuts aren't allowed on a lot with less than 80 feet of frontage within a residential zone. So in order to fix that... The building can be rotated slightly to the east such that this, where I'm indicating with that cursor here, becomes the zero lot line. If the board requires additional explanation from the engineer with regards to the feasibility of that, that's fine. And then as far as other conditions of approval, there is a couple that were carried over from the prior approval when three single family lots were approved in this area including some evergreen screening i think from this property up here as well as some additional tree plantings with regards to condition n from the dtm comment i would defer to michelle smith with regards to city specifications i would say that i think the intent of the dtm comment was less about the material and more with regards to making sure that as they're constructing these curb cuts, that it's just important that regardless of the material, the sidewalk continue at grade through the curb cut and not dip down. If you're walking this loop, you want the sidewalk to remain at the same grade. But again, with regards to materials, I guess I would have to defer to Michelle Smith.

Through the chair, just to make sure I understand the question. The question is whether this can be asphalt or cement. So typically, cement is the city standard. However, I think in this case, it's a new sidewalk. No one's looking for it to be. fully reconstructed of a different material to asphalt today. So long as that works with the driveway openings, as Mr. Carey was describing, we want to make sure that the pedestrian realm is preserved across the driveway rather than that dipping down to sort of favor a vehicle.

Sure. And I have no objection to that. I just want to make sure that it's consistent material.

Okay.

Thank you.

Hmm. OK. Additional comments from DPW on this item?

This is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We don't have any additional comments. Thank you.

OK. Thank you. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item? Anyone online? Not seeing anybody online. OK. Board members, Mr. King, do you mind starting?

Yep. Overall, this seems to make sense. I'm in line with staff comments. Happy to approve with those in mind. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. DeLera?

Agreed. Thank you. Mr. Toomey?

Yeah, just one item that may be out of the scope of things. All of a sudden, I see houses with train tracks, just that there's some sort of buffer between train tracks and... where kids are potentially living. I know there's been a person that was killed recently in that area. I just, you know, being able to just protect that area to make sure the kids can't get there if there are kids living there. I think that's out of our scope.

It's probably out of our scope, but I assume the railway company has a fence there, correct?

Okay. It's their responsibility to have that fence then?

I think the fence was there before they started work on the site, but I don't know for sure.

Again, this is out of the scope. I just see the train tracks and get nervous with that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Toomey. Mr. Rosende. No comment. Thank you. JUST FOR MYSELF, I KNEW I RECOGNIZED THIS ADDRESS AND IT TURNS OUT, A LITTLE FUN FACT, MY VERY FIRST MEETING OF THE CITY OF WISTER PLANNING BOARD WAS JUNE 13, 2018. THIS ITEM WAS ON THE AGENDA. ATTORNEY O'NEIL, YOU REPRESENTED THE CLIENT AND WE APPROVED THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION IN WHAT I RECALL WAS A FAIRLY ROUTY

uh discussion with some of the butters yes um glad to see a lot of progress has been made since then um i'll be happy to support this uh and with that mr king i think we're ready for a motion okay i make a motion one one second sorry steve carrying the planning division we should uh endorse the anr plan uh first creating the lots before we approve the site plan right so you want to present it yes i can pull that up on the screen right now So on the screen you see in red are all the lot lines that are going to be created. I just note that actually this lot line here, where I'm indicating with my cursor, actually jogs out the space in between as a easement area. I assume that's going to be no longer needed an easement area as the building will be rotated. The lot lines to be created are as shown on the screen, except for this red line to be jogged here. Each lot needs 35 feet of frontage for the single family semi-detached dwelling for the side of the duplex that's on it, which each does have. And this is the RL7 zoning district.

Is there a motion to endorse? I make a motion to endorse ANR 14C. Second.

the motion mr king yes mr delera yes mr toomey yes i vote yes as well four to zero that passes and we're ready for a motion on the main item all right i make a motion to approve the definitive site plan for 46 51 and 52 monastery subject to staff conditions second on the motion mr king yes mr delera yes mr toomey yes i vote yes four to zero that passes thank you good luck Next up, item number six, 417 and 421 Cambridge Street, a public meeting for a definitive site plan.

Donald O'Neill, here for the applicant in connection with this project. There are two existing brick buildings ranch-style houses. Actually, there's a third, but we're dealing with two here. In this location on Cambridge Street, to the rear of the property is the Gold Star Condominium Project, which has a driveway entrance that's shown on the left-hand side of the screen. The proposal that was presented to and approved by the zoning board of appeals is to add two stories to each of the structures to create two, three families for a total of six units. We've kept the properties separate so that each on their own lot as Pretty much within We made one adjustment to the frontage On Cambridge Street That was made just to divide up the available furniture that was there And I believe that is shown I'm looking at this here, but the We do have a plan, I think, which shows the frontage actually more of a straight line. Well, part of the approval that we obtained from the zoning board of appeal allowed for that line to be returned actually to its original location. And that made sense because the driveway, it's a shared parking arrangement. And that lines up with the center separating the two lots. So there's a shared entrance in terms of the driveway. And then we've allocated the parking to each individual property based on which side of the line that they're on. So the parking has been designed as a shared facility. There is also on the... UNIT ON THE LEFT, THERE'S ONE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE UP CLOSER TO THE HOUSE THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE'S PARKING IN THAT LOCATION AND THAT ACTUALLY THERE ARE SEVERAL SPACES THERE BUT WE'RE WITH THIS APPROVAL FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF PROVIDING ONE SPACE IN THAT LOCATION AND THEN I BELIEVE IT'S THE ADDITIONAL SPACES ARE IN THE SHARED PARKING LOT We have, Engineer has designed and provided for infiltration of the parking lot area and has done the testing and has done the sizing in terms of the infiltration that would be provided in that location. The engineering in this case was done by Level Design. And Nick Kelling, who's one of the engineers, is online if, or should be online if the board has any specific questions for him. But I have reviewed the recommendations by staff. And in general, the conditions are acceptable there there's one that there's a question about the that any fences on the property be a solid board fence and I seem to recall that this came up at the zoning board as well and there was a question about there is some fencing I think on top of the retaining walls that is uh proposed as um i think final coated cyclone fence and i'm just wondering if if that um condition is intended to apply to the, you know, the wall fencing at the top of the wall, which is more typically tends to be, I think, a vinyl-coated cyclone fence. And I'm not sure, I don't know if they could, staff might clarify that. I mean, if it's, it just seems that in some applications, a solid board fence, you know, on the property can be... it's not a fence that is along a boundary line or a thing of that nature um what condition are you referencing this is um uh c i believe one c yeah okay um so i'm just not sure what uh where that's intended to apply okay um any other questions before no staff weighs in And there are three waivers that are listed on page three. I would request those waivers.

Okay. Comments from city staff?

Apologies. I think there's some confusion on our part about who was presenting this item. Give us one second. Sure. So through the chair, this is an application for a site plan. The applicant was in front of the zoning board for a suite of relief. Earlier this year, it obtained approvals with a variety of different conditions. We're in an RG5 zone, and they are essentially constructing, as you heard Attorney O'Neill state, an addition to add additional units above. So collectively, the trigger here is both slope and the total number of units for the project. So they're constructing this central parking courtyard, if you will, of approximately nine spaces. And then there's one existing parking space that will remain, which is off property on the left for the lot to the left for the condominiums that you see there. So there's a funky easement through an odd-shaped driveway that provides access to that one parking space that serves that left-hand side portion of the structure. So with this, that creates a total of six units of three and three in each of the buildings. Our recommendations for conditions of approval are on pages two and three of the staff memorandum, which I believe includes all of our colleagues' comments. At this point, unless the applicant has a specific concern related to the recommendations, I'm not sure that... there's anything in particular that's worthy really to highlight on this one, as it'll be addressed through the conditions. And I apologize, Attorney O'Neill, I was anticipating not talking about this item, so I did hear you mention a question about offense, but can you clarify for me which condition it was you were looking to modify?

Yeah, on condition three, I was just, and maybe Mr. Kelling, who's on the line,

um could if if he is available could weigh in in terms of the fencing that that's present on site yeah good uh good evening everyone um uh the fencing on site we were just for slope protection or fall protection we're amenable to any uh you know condition you're looking for um I just, I don't know exactly where it pertains to either, Mr. O'Neill.

So through the chair, if my recollection serves, there's a sort of a wall that connects between almost the two buildings that's at the rear of the parking area. I believe that is the area that we were referring to related to the fencing. Assuming that we're referring to condition 1C.

So that's up in sort of the two parking spaces between the buildings, the top of that area?

Yeah, through the chair. I'm just going to point on the screen because it'll be faster. But I believe the fencing is right here. So it's a chain-link fence that goes and connects between the two. So it's in the middle of the property. Given that kind of aesthetic, that was the comment that Steph had.

Yeah, and that's what I thought that that was a general vicinity that they're talking about. And I'm just not, I don't know that a solid board fence is necessarily... more attractive than a less prominent vinyl-coated cyclone fence.

Through the chair, the applicant wants to install chain-link fence?

Yes.

Yes. So we are suggesting, as we always do, to not install chain-link fences. Defer to the board. If you want to allow it, we want to ensure that it's vinyl-coated.

I mean, Mr. O'Neill, the condition does say if chain link fencing is used, it shall be black vinyl coated. So you certainly have the option to do black vinyl coated chain link fence, which is our, let's say, minimum standard. staff would love to encourage you to do more. If you don't, if the applicant doesn't feel it's appropriate, they would still be in compliance if they put black vinyl chain link fence in there as this condition.

It does say though that reflect the decorative style fence in place of the chain link fence where fencing is proposed. Sort of sounds like the But then it's inconsistent because then it says if you do, if you, notwithstanding that, if you'd still have a cyclone, let it be vinyl coated. It's not a huge point for us. I'm just thinking that I don't know in that location if it's, it's not screening. Yeah. any neighbors or anything of that nature and it just seems to be more of an obstruction kind of like a little piece of fence in the in the middle of the between the two houses uh that kind of block your view of i suppose it blocks the view of the parking but um I'll defer to the board in terms of what you think is appropriate in that location, but I'm not sure if it weren't a condition of approval, I don't know that anyone would install a solid fence in that location overlooking their own parking.

I think this condition is written in such a way as to allow a certain amount of flexibility FOR TASTE. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO THAT ADDRESSES 1C. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF ON THIS ITEM?

THIS IS LESLIE FROM DBW. WE DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS EXCEPT THE ONES THAT WE ALREADY PROVIDE. THANK YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WANTING TO TALK ABOUT THIS TONIGHT? Anyone online? Nobody online. Board members? Mr. King, do you mind starting? No comments on this one. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Dallara?

No comments from me either. Thanks.

Mr. Toomey? No comments. Thank you.

Mr. Rosende? No comments. Thank you. I also have no comments. I can't wait to drive by and see what you do with the fence.

I think we're ready for a motion. I make a motion to approve the definitive site plan for 417-421 Cambridge Street subject to staff recommended conditions. Second. On the motion, Mr. King?

Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey?

Yes.

I vote yes as well. That motion passes 4-0.

Thank you.

Moving on to item number 730, Enid Street. This will be a public hearing for a special permit related to an ADU to modify the dimensional requirements for that ADU.

So, for the record, Donald O'Neill, lawyer here in Worcester, here to see him on behalf of the applicant. I will say that I'm JUST RECENTLY GOT INVOLVED WITH THIS PROPERTY, BUT THAT IT INVOLVES A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS AN EXISTING SPLIT LEVEL HOUSE THAT HAD A PARKING GARAGE UNDERNEATH. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY. MAYBE A SLIDE THAT MIGHT SHOW THE... ACTUALLY, IT MIGHT BE IN THE STAFF MEMO. It's a BL1 zone. A little over 80 feet of frontage and slightly under 5,000 square feet. So it would have the frontage that would be required for a two-family. Generally with the BL with the 40 feet per dwelling unit, which... it's a little excessive but that's what it is and the lot is also crossed by a city of worcester sewer easement looking at the screen on the right hand side the owners of the property have um And it's a relatively new house. The photographs depict that. But they've had a serious water infiltration issue where they're getting a lot of water coming into the house, basically coming off the road. going down the driveway and entering into the structure. And this really is a situation which was causing damage throughout the house. So my understanding that they looked at They had to do something with the garage to prevent the water from continuing to basically come into the building. And they are proposing for that purpose an ADU, converting some of the space within the building to an ADU unit. the using what had previously been the garage space for residential use the footprint there is also i believe a sort of a new entrance on the rear side of the property that is shown, but it's pretty minor. Not a major expansion of the building in any case, but that the basic footprint of the house isn't changing. The foundation's not changing. I think it shows the... I believe it's that structure that's right there on the left. And that's part of the... plans that were submitted. This is a project which was permitted. It did go through the code department and again I'm late to the picture here but it somehow or other it kind of slid through the cracks. And part of the issue that presents itself now is the, ADU space within the existing house is more than 900 square feet. But it is within the existing building. So there's no expansion beyond the building. It's just an allocation of the space within the house proper. so there's an issue in that regard and that the um requirement of relief for overnight it's over 900 square feet um and it appears that it's always been over 900 square feet on the plans that were submitted and you know acted upon uh as well um so that's one issue and that requires the um a special permit from you uh the other issue here is that The only parking that was available off street parking was available was was the garage space Which is no longer has been taken out of commission You know and converted into the ADU space However the garage was more of a liability than an asset just because of the flooding that was taking place. So in order to eliminate the two parking spaces that were previously provided in the garage, that also requires a special permit relief from the board. And what the owners are requesting is they have been I guess, making do with parking on the street. That seems to be working for them. And they're seeking your approval basically to allow for this sort of a creative solution to eliminating the flooding problem with the ADU, but to allow that to proceed with the Elimination of the parking which was on site which as I say is was problematic now staff has reviewed staffs memo there are a number of conditions and there's been a lot of discussion back and forth with the applicant the applicants builder and staff which occurred prior to my involvement, but they've been very specific and sort of dealing with the applicant to make sure that they realize that that this is a that there will be no parking no off street parking and in order to ensure that it's actually it's too real too close to the street really to have any parking you know just a driveway situation and one of the conditions a couple of conditions that staff have included in the memo including the curb where the driveway was and to any areas that are previously used as driveway or any other impervious areas and I guess there's an area where there's some gravel that's been dropped their staff recommendation is that on the left hand side that that be removed and that the area in front of the what was the garage entrance also be, as I say, the curb reinstalled and then that area be loomed and seated and returned to a lawn. And it's a little bit drastic in terms of, again, it's a new house. And this is kind of a major modification. The flooding situation is real. It's not something that somebody made up in order to get an ADU in there. And if you can't use the space for parking without flooding the rest of the house, then there seems to be some alternative, and this is what they've come up with. So I'm happy to... answer any questions you have to the extent that I can and also again agree that the conditions proposed conditions or approval are acceptable to the applicant and ask for your approval okay thank you comments from city staff on this item

Sure. This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. I was actually just adding to the slide deck a picture we have that shows the flooding when it did happen, which is now on the screen there. So you can see that there was pretty severe flooding in front of the house. So again, sort of the history of this is that As part of a solution to the flooding, they walled off the garage and decided to basically convert that garage space to an ADU. So this is partially retroactive approval, again, for an ADU that is within the existing building, aside from that rear bump out that you see here. So with that rear bump out, which really provides sort of like access into the ADU space, and then the utilization of the existing space, that ADU is greater than 900 square feet, which is one aspect of relief needed under the special permit. The other is the elimination of the parking spaces. There really isn't adequate parking in this front area for a parking space. The rear of a... the rear of a car would sort of hang into the right of way if someone were to park there. So there can't be parking there. And then on this left side, there is some existing DPW infrastructure that makes it somewhat tricky to have parking over on that side. It's also staff's opinion that the more impervious surface that can be removed from this, the better it would be for the flooding issue. So that's why our recommended condition of approval is removing the gravel and stones on this left side and returning it to some sort of landscaping. And then if the curbing were reconstructed across the former curb cut. Again, that would keep any floodwaters that are in the street, would sort of help keep them from going onto their property. And then finally, the applicant had indicated a desire to have some sort of patio in the front area. And we would, again, condition that any pavers used would be pervious, again, to help solve the flooding issue. So happy to answer any questions the board has. Thank you, Mr. Carey.

Any comments from DPW?

This is Leslie from DPW. We don't have any comment for this one. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone from the public on this item? Anyone online?

Not seeing anybody online.

Board members?

Mr. King, do you mind starting? Yeah, just from the reasoning behind this ADU, I'd be happy to support it with the staff conditions. Thank you. Mr. Dallara.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I could go along with this with the staff recommendations.

Okay, Mr. Toomey. No comments, thank you. Mr. Rosende. No comments. Thank you. For myself, I have to say it's a little novel to solve a flooding problem in your garage by putting an apartment there, but I'm happy to approve this with staff conditions.

Okay.

I would make a motion to approve item number 7, 30 Eaton Street, subject to staff recommended conditions. Apologies. I make a motion to close public hearing. Second. On the motion, Mr. King?

Yes. Mr. Dallara? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. Mr. Rosendeck? Yes.

I vote yes as well. Five to zero. Hearing's closed. All right. And I make a motion to approve the special permit for 30 Eaton Street, subject to staff recommended conditions. Second.

On the motion, Mr. King?

Yes.

Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. Mr. Rosende? Yes. I vote yes. Five to zero. That motion passes.

Thank you.

All right. Next item tonight is going to be, is this still you? I'm trying to set a record. Item number nine, 30 and 42 LaGrange Street. Just a note on this item, Mr. King, I hope you checked your email. I have a conflict I need to recuse, so I will turn over the gavel to you.

Yep.

So up next is the zoning map amendment for 30 and 42 LaGrange Street, and it would be the zoning map amendment. Over to Attorney O'Neill. Yeah, just have a seat. Yes.

Am I supposed to start?

Yes.

Okay. I'm sorry. I had a Wizard of Oz voice coming from the screen. So this is a proposed zone change. And there's a bit of a story that goes behind it. And I think... i'd like to go through that with the board the staff has issued a memo which is i'd have to say is not very supportive of what we're looking to do and normally you have a memo that is a little bit more neutral pros and cons on each side. And I think that this one is mostly like a 99% con and very little pro. And I think it's important here because there are a couple of things that aren't really, to my mind anyway, addressed. in a sort of a neutral way in the memo. I understand that when you have a zone change, there is a school of thought that says that you need to consider all of the possibilities that could come along with a zone change and not necessarily Any of them are not necessarily going to happen, but might happen. But in this case, I think some of the things that are overlooked in the memo, although there is reference to them, is that this property is included in the overlay zone because Worcester Lagrange LLC with the authorization from the previous owner, which was a machine shop, basically a machine shop business that was there with a lot of underutilized brick OLDER BRICK STRUCTURES THAT HAD LOST THEIR CURRENT USE FOR MANUFACTURING PURPOSES. AND THE APPLICANT IN THAT CASE PETITIONED THE CITY COUNCIL TO INCLUDE THIS AREA, REZONE IT SO THAT IT WAS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED WITHIN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT. So it wasn't just something, there's a comment in the sort of a benign reference in the staff memo that on such a date, the city council approved a zone change. And here it is now that someone comes along and wants to take some of the property out. The only reason that it was ever included in the overlay district is because the owner requested that it be included. And I would have to say that I find it hard to believe that at that time when the change was made, there were multiple lots. It was six or seven or eight separate parcels that had been cobbled together. by the previous owner in terms of the business operation that was there, multiple addresses, multiple buildings, and they were all included in the request that we made to have the property included in the overlay district. And I find it hard to believe that if we had left this lot out of that request for rezoning, for some particular reason. If we know what we know today, we never would have included this parcel. This is a vacant parcel. It's been used for parking by the previous owners of the property. And I think the staff memo is, you know, goes through the history of the property. But It's been vacant for quite some time and has been used as a parking lot. And interestingly enough, in terms of the project for the overall LaGrange Mill development, this area was never considered for really for anything other than parking. So it's always been a parking lot. And in fact, your board approved the site plan for the development that showed this as a parking lot. And that is referenced on page 7 of 7 at the very end of the memo. It indicates that there was an initial provision that had 15 parking spaces there, and then the more recent one has 41 spaces. And that was designed, approved, reviewed, and acted upon by the board and approved. And the overall plan for that property has always been to provide parking for a more or less sister development or similar development that is proposed for across the street at 98 Beacon Street. So the, and there is a site plan that was approved by this board for 98 Beacon Street too. That in fact shows a parking lot on this property that the, was very open, very, very clear that this parking was intended to provide additional parking. for 98 Beacon Street. And if you look, there's the building. Walk across the street, there's the parking lot. And the issue really becomes one of, within the overlay district, the only parking that's allowed... at least my understanding of it, is for accessory parking as opposed to a freestanding parking lot, which would not be allowed within the overlay district. I believe it would be allowed in the underlying BG6 district, but not the overlay zone. So... The property, this parking lot actually abuts and is part of the Lagrange project, which is the owners have closed on that. They've secured financing and they're proceeding with development of that site. Part of their um financing that they went through um during the course of the financing that they went through it became apparent that this was complicating the finance that they had because it was it was a property which once again the intent was to lease this space to the property across the street But since it was contiguous with the rest of the development, you didn't run afoul of the freestanding parking lot by itself, because it was adjacent to and contiguous with the other property. So that became an issue in terms of the financing for Worcester-LaGrange LLC. are proceeding with that project and they have formed a new LLC which is now Whistler-LaGrange Land LLC, but it's basically you're still dealing with the same cast of characters. So the problem with the leasing was a problem for the applicants developing that project and it's a more serious problem for the applicant at 98 Beacon Street who has also submitted and obtained from your board site plan approval. And as I think we showed that previously, the plan shows the parking across the street with the understanding that that space would be leased and would provide some parking. 98 Beacon Street has a total of 58 units. the parking which they have on their side of the street, and maybe we could get the site plan back up again, is seven or eight parking spaces. And we just found out that National Grid has decided to place their transformer in a location that's going to eliminate one of those spaces. So they had very few to begin with and even less now. And they had... You know, I've always been looking to satisfy their parking needs by this space which is across the street. And in fact, a similar problem arose for them in dealing with their lender because the lenders are very kind of reluctant to finance a project where you have 58 units and seven parking spaces and you can say yes i have a lease situation but elise is an ownership and it's not something which they can find anybody who's comfortable with that arrangement because leases do run out eventually and you know there could be some issue some dispute over the terms of the lease or any kind of a condition which would potentially put that project at jeopardy if they were to lose their parking. And I understand that the notion is that there are reduced parking needs, but seven spaces for 58 apartments. Not enough. And they do need the additional parking. But because it's on the opposite side of the street, like directly across the street, maybe down a little bit, the people could walk right to it. It's a problem because of what I think is actually... an oversight in the underlying overlay district provisions. And I would suggest to the board that you would consider what you should do is amend that to provide for a situation where you could approve a parking lot situation like this within the overlay district by special permit from the planning board, which would give you the ability to control that. And if you have a situation like this, you could grant a special permit, it would be allowed. That doesn't exist now. And probably the likelihood of by the time that would get proposed and go through council and the rest of it, it's like two years from now, something like that. So the situation that we have is we can't, the applicant at 98 Beacon can't proceed with that project without parking. And the only parking that's readily available is this parcel across the street, which has already been reviewed and approved and designed for parking. The parking lot that they want to build is the one that's already, the sign's out there. We know what it is. So the other solution, I suppose, would be to try and purchase another older structure up there and demolish it, a contiguous structure, and demo it to create a parking lot, although there's a nice parking lot across the street that is not needed for the main project. And that will remain, I guess, a vacant lot. So the memo from staff talks a lot about how horrible this would be to create a donut hole in the middle of an overlay district. What I think is more horrible actually is to have a project where someone's ready to go to build 58 apartments and they can't do it because they don't have parking. and the way that the overlay district is written, you can't provide the parking unless it's on your lot or your contiguous lot to your property, even if it's 20, 30 feet away. So that I think is a deficiency in the ordinance. And there's no ability to go to the zoning board and get any kind of a use variance or anything else which will allow for this situation because they can only grant dimensional relief. So you're left with the situation where it has to be a zone change in order to allow this. We're very clear about what the The intent is to use it as it's been designed and always sort of envisioned, but in a way that would allow for the owner of 98 Beacon Street to purchase this lot to satisfy the parking needs that they have. So this is a petition that we filed. We hope that we get your approval. I know all of the horrible things that can happen with this that are outlined in the staff memo, but what's happening is it says, I think, there's wording to the effect that know that that approval of this um zone change uh removal of this um zone would result in the property being less likely to produce diverse mixed-use development lowering its potential for housing and job production i mean that's completely contrary to what actually would happen what what it should say is that removal of this lot would allow for the 58 units that are proposed and have been approved and are not being built and will not be built to go forward so this is all presented as this is something which is going to harm you'll have a map and you'll have one area within it that's not included in the overlay district but that allows for another project what's more important to have a nice map that's entirely consistent with no donut holes or would you rather actually have actual construction of these units which have been approved someone's ready to do it and they can't because of because of really because of, I would say, shortcomings in terms of the ordinance itself in terms of what it allows. So we're looking for a little common sense here to allow that this, you know, and what's the worst case scenario? And I'm convinced that not what we're looking at at all, but you would then have a, An 18,000 square foot lot that's zoned BG6, which is a business general. And somebody could build on it, whatever you could build on a BG6 within that confines. Why anyone would want to build on it when it's best and most productive use is a parking facility and you've got a ready, willing, and able buyer who's ready to purchase it and go forward with his project. And if the zoning is not... approved then you know that like to hear somebody explain how it is that that other project is ever going to go forward with seven parking spaces it's not so what we're asking you to do is to remove it once again the which should look great the only reason it's in the overlay district is because we request that it be included Now we're looking to take it out because we've run into this situation. And if the ordinance were written a little better, We wouldn't have to do that, but we do. So we're hopeful that we'd like your support if you can give it to us. I understand that is a recommendation only. And ultimately it goes to the city council. And we're prepared to make a similar argument to them and go forward regardless of... what the board's vote is tonight, but we certainly would feel that it would be, since you've approved both of these projects and you've approved the actual proposed parking facility, which is well-designed, a lot of landscaping, all of the things that basically, if it had been built for this project, it's the same parking lot. I'd ask for your vote of approval in terms of your recommendation and happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, Attorney O'Neill. Do we have any comments from staff?

Sure. Through the chair, I'm going to go ahead and give a summary and I apologize in advance because I am going to go through the whole memo. Little did you know you were coming into the most vibrant zoning change discussion you've had in maybe years. So I'll speak on behalf of the commercial corridors overlay here and the specific proposal, which is specific to this parcel and what this change means just for this parcel. So our comments are specific to the change for this parcel, not for other developments and what's happening in the general neighborhood, but what it means to take this one lot from the zone it's in and to transition it into a different set of considerations and what that means relative to the purpose and intent of that district as well as the long-range plans, which is the sort of tone that our comments take. So, as you heard summarized, the applicant is seeking to remove from the commercial corridor overlay downtown sub area, or the CCODD, which is paired with our BG6 or Business General 6, our sort of downtown district, our most dense, most flexible district that we have in the city. So they're seeking to modify that by removing this property from that. This is about 18,000 square feet or so of land that's being removed right now. It's, again, in that same pairing, that BG6 and CCODD. That district is actually our MBTA community's compliant district, our 3A district. Since we've adopted that, I don't believe we've had changes to that we've certainly not had modifications to remove or alter that that pairing is what makes us compliant with the state law. So as we modify that there are potentially additional things that we need to do with respect to that. With the state, we've reached out to the state but haven't necessarily heard back from them relative to exactly what that means, and we have not had time to go through or reanalyze this related to the exercise that was required originally to become compliant. While it's unlikely that removal of just this section of area would make us noncompliant, it does start to establish a precedent and encourage reduction of that District so it's something that we wanted the board to think thoughtfully on because that has not come up before And it has not come up since we've adopted a long-range plan either and In terms of continuity in zoning, every zone change the board considers, generally speaking, consistency in zoning. Is something split zoned? Is something making something split zoned? And generally, kind of what we call donut holes and trying to avoid donut holes. So you heard Attorney O'Neill mention that. We did call attention that not only would this create the only location within the city where we would now have just BG6 and not BG6 and CCOD pairing, But it would create this kind of loop within the center of the overlay that has been established by the applicant on this area as part of this larger complex, which they are, as you heard, seeking to redevelop for a number of variety of great purposes. In terms of the long range plan and the vision that set forth, and I'll talk a little bit more in detail about this, the removal of this district, we just make note that this is generally what we would say probably inconsistent with the objectives of that. And again, I'll talk more about that. So specifically, what does this mean when we're talking about removing the CCOD? The BG6 would say the same. All of those requirements and all the flexibility that that district affords would remain in place, but some of the restrictions as well as the flexibility that are introduced by the CCOD would be removed. Specifically for purposes of use, that means that lower density and auto-centric uses become more available. So right now, The applicant's not able to construct a two-family dwelling or use the property for motor vehicle sales, repair, garage display, also not allowed to use them for automobile refueling. Similarly, in this BG6, the downtown subarea, we do not allow non-accessory surface parking lots. So you heard the applicant's Council described that what they'd like to do is make it a parking lot. By making it a parking lot that is its own parking lot, it's not associated with anything. The only use of the land is surface parking. We don't allow that in this zone. So they're seeking to remove it essentially for that reason. But there are other things that would be allowed on the property, like I described, the two-family property. the automobile refueling station, albeit that's through special permit, motor vehicle sales, that is something that would be by right in the underlying district. So those are, again, just generally lower density, auto-centric uses that we're trying to transition away from with these types of zones. So the purpose specifically of this district is to encourage compact, pedestrian-friendly development that's physically and functionally integrated through site design, dimensional, and parking standards that limit parking, provide flexibility for development initiatives, and provide incentives for mixed-use development. I won't go through the rest of the different objectives of it, but essentially that's the tone that the CCOD takes for this area and the areas in our community that are zoned that way. In terms of other things, we have additional regulations for drive-through uses within the CCOD, which, again, would be eliminated. Drive-throughs require a special permit where they're allowed regardless. The CCOD, again, has other things that it's trying to do because we are trying to accomplish a lot of flexibility here. So we relax dimensional requirements specifically for mixed-use developments that have a ground floor active facade we eliminate floor area ratio which means essentially you can build as densely as you would like because we don't have a height limitation and we also wave lot area and reduce frontage to just 40 feet so it really provides you with the ability to very densely develop the property for a variety of different uses including multi-family dwellings as well as mixed use and commercial There are some additional restrictions that are introduced, including if there's a ground floor commercial, there's a required five foot setback that applies. And similarly, if the sidewalks aren't greater than eight feet, there's also a setback that would get required through the CCOD. Buildings have design guidelines that are codified, requiring buildings to be oriented towards the street, have active facades. have a primary pedestrian entrance along the street all of these types of design elements that are working to activate the pedestrian realm and connect spaces and people so the parking requirements i think is an important one to think about there are no parking requirements regardless of whether you're in the bg6 or if you're in the bg6 and the ccod so There's no parking requirements here. What the CCODD does is it establishes maximums. So there's no minimums. So when the applicant indicated there was inadequate parking, it's not inadequacy created by zoning. So I just want to be clear that the code isn't what is establishing what the assertion there is. In terms of our maximums, those are essentially the minimums that we have everywhere else in the city, so two spaces per residential unit. In terms of zoning for the property, historically, up until the zone change that's been referenced by the petitioner, which was established, on this property in 2020, the change to the BG6 and the CCOD, the property was split zoned. It was split zoned RG5 and MG2, kind of at the fringe of a former manufacturing area in our residential neighborhood. That character is really defined to the south and west as more residential and to the north and east as a bit more manufacturing and industrial. However, a lot of that industry has ceased and has been transitioning as the applicant's proposing to renovate a number of these buildings for residential purposes. Some of the other buildings in that area, the Junction Lofts, a variety of buildings on Herman Street, all of these buildings getting converted to residential or mixed-use component residential. So that's definitely a trend in this area, but there are still some manufacturing uses, particularly, again, to the south and east. Historically, in terms of the land use here, as you heard, the lot has largely been vacant. It actually interestingly goes back to a time where it was used originally as a boarding house and lower density residential uses way back when. Since then, it basically had two smaller storage buildings and seems to have been used in association with a fuel and lumber company. So really kind of contractor yard type aesthetic. and more recently has been used as accessory parking associated with the commonly owned property to the east. In terms of alignment with the long-range plan, as I mentioned before, the property, the land use vision and the growth areas aren't necessarily a parcel-by-parcel analysis. We did the entire city, so these are kind of more like blobs that cover different areas. So the property is located within a managed growth area, so managed growth areas are anything in the city that's essentially within walk shed to transit corridors. So about a quarter mile radius outside of transit. So the property is located within that area for a variety of different corridors. But it also directly abuts a transformative growth area. So these are areas that We expect to see transform, as we've been talking about with the proposal that's happening in terms of the transformation of the mill buildings to residential, but also require some physical investment, whether it's in infrastructure or roadway design and utilities that need upgrades, or the vision and existing conditions maybe need to change from what they are in order to get to what the goal would be. So that future vision that was defined specifically for the transformative growth area that this directly abuts was an artisan district. So encouraging things like hotels, residential, commercial, retail, food and beverage, fashion, furniture. And then it also is within proximity to the corridor along main street that's a mixed use corridor transformational growth corridor and specifically that encourages things like commercial with complementary residential and office on upper floors banking barbers the personal service type uses that you you see consistent with the existing corridor along main street So these are, again, areas that kind of the stated vision from the plan as part of our long range objectives and suggestions for trying to bring things in terms of our regulations and codes into alignment with that vision. In terms of permitting, you heard a lot about the approvals, and some of you will recall them, but perhaps not all of you. So going back in time, there was a site plan approved back in 2021 that involved the construction of 63 dwelling units, at the time about 5,000 square feet of commercial space and 85 parking spaces. So that was approved. That did not generally include this particular area. It did include a driveway through it, but the majority of this was really not proposed to be configured as parking at that point in time. But in 2024, they submitted a special permit request to exceed the maximum parking requirements, which applicant had alluded to, as well as the site plan. the site plan was ultimately withdrawn so the parking configuration was never definitively approved but the board did approve a special permit to allow for an exceedance in parking the design that was shown on the plans again never progressed to the like construction level plans through a site plan process but specifically included 41 parking spaces in in this particular area i believe if our account was correct So as part of the overall sort of I'll call it south side of the street project, there were a maximum of 50 parking spaces allowed for the 25 residential units that were proposed in the building. And the applicant had proposed accumulation of 67 parking spaces. and the board had opted to proceed with the understanding that these parking spaces that were sort of in exceedance were part of an overall comprehensive package of other neighboring developments related to kind of the shared parking arrangement that you heard about so i don't want to discount that is the history that is what was presented to the board but the staff comments that are provided are specific to this lot and what that means when you you take away the ccod for specifically this lot, imagining potential other higher and better uses than surface parking when it comes to property. I understand that's the applicant's opinion for that. But our comments are specifically just for the lot and what that means for this lot independent as it relates to zoning. I'm happy to go through or clarify anything that is unclear for anyone. And we'll pause my comments there. So thank you.

Thank you. Do you have any comments from any other city staff? Hearing none, do we have any comments from the public?

This is Steve Kerring, the Planning Division, not seeing any members of the public with their hand raised online. Okay.

Is there anyone in the room? Okay. With that, we'll transition to comments from the board. Board Member Dallara, would you want to start?

uh thank you mr king um so my concern here is that what's being proposed is approaching at least to me spot zoning and that's not something that we should generally be in support of i'm sympathetic to the applicant but i don't think this is the solution to the problem It sounds like the problem is really with the ordinance, and that would be the appropriate mechanism to address this. Thank you.

Mr. Toomey? No comments at the moment. Thank you. Mr. Rosenday?

No comments. Thank you.

Okay, and just for me, I would look to agree with Board Member DeLair on this as well. We wouldn't necessarily wanna have the spot zoning, even though I do completely understand where the applicant's points lie that this is targeted for parking for a larger development. With that, I guess a question to staff, if we were to not recommend this to City Council, what would their next steps be?

Sure, through the chair. So ultimately, your recommendation is just that and city council may choose to take it or not. So once you send a recommendation along that goes back to the full council, it typically gets referred to the economic development subcommittee and there would be another public hearing and opportunity to be heard at that point. applicant would make their presentation, staff would summarize the same comments, and then that committee would make a deliberation, make a referral back to the full council, and then the full council would separately deliberate, decide whether they want to advertise the change. Usually at that point, they've sort of made up their mind about whether they're moving forward or not. So as it relates to this particular process, that's what would happen. I'm not sure if that's your actual question, though.

Yes, it was. Okay.

Okay.

Okay, so with that, it seems the board is relatively aligned, so I would entertain a motion.

Motion to close.

Is there a second?

Second.

And, okay, just to confirm, this is the public hearing?

That's correct. That's correct, and I'll just note to Chair King that our lovely new board member is not able to vote on this item just because it's not a special permit. So just for sake of the motion, your three members and your vote. OK, perfect.

All right, and on the motion, Board Member DeLera.

Aye.

board member to me yes and i vote yes just to clarify what the the recommendation um is just to close the hearing correct yes correct yeah and this is on closing public hearing and i vote uh yes as well and i'll take a motion on the recommendation here

Mr. Chairman, I move that the planning board issue a negative recommendation on the proposed zone change regarding 30 LaGrange Street and northeast portion of 42 LaGrange Street to reduce the CCODD commercial quarters or district downtown sub area.

Is there a second? Second. All right, Mr. DeLera. yes mr toomey yes and i vote yes as well thank you very much thank you for your time

Okay, next item we're going to hear tonight is item number 11, 321 Greenwood Street, public hearing for a zoning map amendment.

Good evening, members of the board. Mr. Chair, for the record, my name is Joshua Lee Smith. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Bowditch and Dewey. Here tonight representing the petitioner with respect to what I'm hopefully you will agree is a pretty straightforward request with respect to this zone change. We've received the staff memo in connection with this matter. Essentially, as you can see, outlined here in red is the property. And as you can see, it's a split zone lot, almost 50-50. The pink portion is within a business zone, the BL1 zoning district. And the back portion or the rear portion in blue is within a manufacturing district, ML0.5. So this is how I might characterize this, an exercise in cleaning up what is sort of a remnant of what, in looking at Michelle's memo, there's some history with respect to some of these parcels along Greenwood Street and the back portions of which served as a buffer with respect to the manufacturing zone. There are some manufacturing-related industrial types of uses to the east, to the right, as you can see in this depiction here. And so we're just looking to make this parcel all uniform and to make it a BL1 district. If the property becomes a BL1, it expands significantly. Obviously business type uses. It further restricts manufacturing type uses, which in this particular neighborhood, really not appropriate given the properties that especially front along Greenwood Street and across the street, as well as north and south. BL1 district also would provide some encouragement with respect to some types of residential uses, which my client is interested in exploring. So that's really what we wanted to present this evening. One thing I will point out as well You can see in this illustration here, the parcel directly to the south in 2023, that's 325 Greenwood Street. That parcel went through the same exact exercise. It was a split zone lot, and it was corrected, cleaned up in 2023, and is fully now a BL1 zoned parcel. So with that, I promise to be brief. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Comments from staff on this?

Sure. Steve Carey in the Planning Division. Not too much more to add. It's a split zone lot. It's zoned BL1 towards the Greenwood Street side of the parcel. This zone would extend that to the back. It would allow any uses that are currently allowed in the front to be extended to the back. The table on page two of your staff memo summarizes those change in permissions largely. BL1 is much more permissive with regards to residential uses, much more restrictive with regard to manufacturing uses as you'd imagine. There are some dimensional requirement changes as summarized in the paragraph that's below that. And then with regards to the history of the site, going back to 1971, it had been zoned to light manufacturing. 1987, it was residential. And then by 1991, there was this split here that really remains to this day. As Attorney Joshua Lee Smith indicated, the parcel directly south of this went through the same process get rid of the zoning split then. And this is the parcel going through the same process. In terms of the Worcester Now Next comprehensive plan, this area is designated as a managed growth area, calling for moderate increases in housing density. Sounds like the commissioner is interested in residential use on this property. it would be aligned with the now next plan to facilitate that through the zoning change. And that's all I've got. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Carey. Anyone from the public on this item? I think no one in the room. Is there anyone online? Nobody online. Board members, Mr. King? No comments. Thank you. Mr. DeLera?

No comments, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. Chumi. No comments, thank you. Mr. Rosende. No comments, thank you. No comments from me either. Straightforward. I think we're ready for a motion.

All right, we'll make a motion to close public hearing.

Second. On the motion, Mr. King. Yes. mr delera yes uh mr toomey yes i vote yes as well um that motion passes four to zero and now to the main event all right i make a motion to favorably recommend the zoning map a member for 321 greenwood street to city council second on the motion mr king yes mr delera yes mr toomey yes i vote yes as well four to zero that motion passes thanks everyone Next up, item number 12, 455 Grove Street, a public hearing for a zoning map amendment.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Stephen Maddows of the firm Myrick, similar to the application you just reviewed, here this evening seeking a favorable recommendation for a proposed amendment to the zoning map relative to a split zone for a property located on Grove Street, owned by CP58 Gardner Street LLC. The parcel consists of approximately 11,141 square feet. It is mostly zoned BG3, As you might see in the memo from staff, a small portion of it, less than half, 3,600 square feet, is located in the RL7 zoning district. The property has historically been used only for commercial purposes. In fact, the existing commercial garage that's on the site is partially in the RL7 zoning district. So we're seeking to amend the zoning bylaw to have the lot zoned entirely in the BG3. So it's similar to Attorney Smith's comment. It's a cleaning up, if you will, of this zoning to have a consistent uniform designation for the parcel. And Mr. Nick Chacharoni is with me this evening on behalf of the owner.

Okay, understood. Comments from the Sonomont City staff?

Sure. Steve Carey in the Planning Division. Another fairly straightforward currently split zone parcel. This zoning map amendment would get rid of that. that split. There's a portion of the eastern portion of the parcel is zoned RL7. This will extend the BG3 zoning district to encompass it. The BG3 zoning district currently sort of covers this corridor covering sort of Gold Star Boulevard and West Boylston Street that was previously expanded out to the west from that to cover the parcels that are across Grove Street from this one. So BG3 district really already has been expanded out from West Boylston Street already on the north side of Grove Street. This would expand it just a bit further on the south side of Grove Street. Generally, uses in BG3, as you can see on the table on page 2 of 6, is more permissive across just about all uses. and allows for more density. And I guess I'd just note that, according to our now next, this area is within an area designated for transformative growth, allowing for higher density, more jobs. And the expansion of the BG3 district here would be aligned with that. I'd also note that the existing land use on the parcel is a commercial warehouse that really is currently, the current land use is more aligned with BG3.

Okay, thank you very much. Anyone from the public on this item? Anyone online? Board members? Mr. King? No comment, thank you. Mr. DeLera?

No comment, thanks.

Mr. Toomey? No comments, thank you. Mr. Rosende? No comment, thank you. Also no comment. I think we're ready for motion.

Make a motion to close public hearing.

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

Yes.

I vote yes as well. Four to zero.

Hearing is closed. All right. I make a motion to favorably recommend 455 Grove Street, the zoning map amendment to city council.

second on the motion mr king yes mr de laura yes mr toomey yes mr rozende oh i'm sorry not mr rozende uh i vote yes as well four to zero that item passes thank you very much uh moving on to other business street petitions there's one

Good evening, Mr. Chair. For the record, Mark Borenstein. I'm an attorney at the law firm of Prince Labelle here in Worcester, representing the property owner of 195 Mill Street, Worcester Mill LLC. This evening, I'm joined by the principal owner, Sam Adams. Before you is a petition to seek a discontinuance of a portion of the accessory roadway component of Mill Street in front of the subject property. The petitioner is seeking this discontinuance to facilitate an acquisition of that particular property in connection with the redevelopment of the property. The petitioner is seeking to construct and hopefully in the not so distant future you'll hear an application for multifamily development on the property. We have met with DTM, DPW regarding the proposed discontinuance. We have some ongoing conversations with those departments with respect to access to and from the discontinued portion of the property. And we are working on a plan to ensure that there's a safe access and connections after the discontinuance has been affected. Certainly, there are some utilities on the discontinued portion of the property, and the petitioner will grant necessary easements to the city to ensure that those are either maintained or they are relocated at the petitioner's expense. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have.

Okay.

Thank you. City staff? I do not have any comments. I'm not sure if Michelle Smith does, but I don't think we have any. Do you want to get Michelle?

What was that? Do you want to get Michelle?

Sure. Sure.

dpw or wait yes this is leslie rodriguez from dpw uh the uh director of engineering andy truman and me and i we examined this and it was his opinion that we don't have any we don't we do not oppose to discontinue the identified portion of mill street thank you okay thank you uh planning staff

Sure. Through the chair, I will comment on behalf of the Department of Transportation and Mobility, unless one of my colleagues already got those comments. Great. So you have, as part of your packet and probably reviewed prior to the previous meeting, comments from the DTM. So with the applicants proposing, is a discontinuance of both the right-of-way in the function of the easement that we have on a large section of it, but also a portion that we own and fee through a ancient taking, essentially. And then that would, by virtue of the discontinuation, free up potential acquisition of that property for disposition to this developer for use for their private site development, which is what they're seeking to do. So DTM just makes note that specifically across from the site is Coe's Pond Reservoir and the related park We have Coase Knife, and then there's a series of conservation easements and ownership that surround the park to sort of create a circumnavigation for folks in the area and to enjoy. And we've continued that through boardwalks and other things that actually traverse you through some of the open water. And there's a future vision that would continue to allow for that comfortable circumnavigation through an enhanced area of the park. when Mill Street is redesigned. So essentially there is a desire to see this exceptionally wide right-of-way redesigned. You're all probably familiar with the qualms of Mill Street and the hopes and dreams we have for its future. And that future, unfortunately, in the transportation planning world is like 10 years out from when you start planning for it. So while that work is hopefully underway soon, that is a kind of longer-term solution for the corridor. So there's a concern about loss of enough of the right-of-way, so essentially what has been proposed here is consistent with what DTM anticipates needing for that future redesign, even though we don't know exactly what it's going to look like. So they believe that they'll have plenty of width with what will be left. The funky part, though, is that you can see this jug handle and this change sort of bifurcates that jug handle and creates these leftover pieces. And so there's a practical concern about how that gets handled, as well as any subterranean infrastructure, wanting to make sure pedestrian circulation and vehicular traffic, everything is nice and clear and cleanly understood by any type of user who's using that, especially as it's in sort of a transitional condition. Because while the property owner abutting this intends to develop this as part of a private site, Obviously, we see economic conditions can change and plans don't come to fruition. So there's a concern that once this would be discontinued, the city would kind of lose those opportunities. So basically, the concerns I think of our colleagues both at DPW and DTM are just ensuring that we have adequate protections built in for any discontinuance to ensure that this still functions for all of the things that it needs to function for, for cars, for people. for snow plows, et cetera. So their comment letter just says that we don't oppose this, but we want to make sure that these other factors are fully vetted and that the city is totally comfortable with that prior to moving forward with discontinuation.

And what is the planning board's role in that process?

Yes. So the planning board's role in this process is specifically just to make a recommendation, just like a zone change. So you're not the final determiner on this. The process this will take once you make a recommendation is it will go back to full council. They will refer that not to economic development, but to public works. It's a little bit different than a zoning petition. So it goes to the public works committee. They'll have their own hearing on it and then make a recommendation back to full council. So at that point, there's additional hearing processes, there's additional time for the applicant to coordinate with DPW and DTM to ensure that what they're proposing is perfectly in sync with what their expectations are.

So what the city would like us to do then is, in our recommendation, incorporate DTM and DPW's comments.

Yes, we would recommend that you, should you choose to favorably recommend, you do so with the caveat that the DTM and DPW comments be resolved to the city's satisfaction.

Understood. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item?

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division, not seeing anyone online.

Okay. No one in the room? Board members?

No comments. Thank you. Mr. Valera?

One question. So with the remaining width in that turnaround, so as you're approaching the area that will be abandoned, would vehicles still be able to make that turn?

No. Through the chair.

Was that a no?

Yeah. So through the chair, no. The ongoing discussions with DPW and DTM will ensure that any portions of the right of way that remain in effect are closed off if someone could access it. So what we're kind of working through right now is where will the driveways be located? Will there be a turnaround in front of the property to the west? So we're kind of working through that minutia with them. But the expectation is, and this is the conditions or the recommendations from DTM and DPW, is to ensure that there is safe access to and from Mill Street. So to the extent possible, we're going to eliminate as much as possible that accessory roadway.

Okay, so it'll discontinue in that function. So essentially once you're traveling on Mill Street and you want it to reverse direction, you'd have to just keep going farther at that point?

Correct. So through the chair, when we first started the discussion regarding the discontinuance, DTM supported the discontinuance because it would actually create a much safer condition for pedestrians and motorists. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Toomey. No comments, thank you.

Mr. Resende. No comments, thank you. Also no comments. I think we're ready for a motion.

I'll make a motion to favorably recommend the discontinuance and removal of portions of Mill Street with the recommendations from the DTA and DTO.

Second. On the motion, Mr. King.

Yes.

Mr. DeLera. Yes. Mr. Toomey. Yes. I vote yes as well. Four to zero. That motion passes. On to A&Rs. Thank you.

All right. So two more A&Rs in addition to the one that was endorsed earlier. This one actually has been before the board before for endorsement, but we did not have the signed application form, actually, at the time of endorsement before. So just to make sure we're doing things properly, we're just having the board re-endorse this one. But essentially, it's adding the lot line. It's moving the lot line that is from this old lot line, removing that, and then adding a new lot line here to create this sort of lot 1A 1ar and lot 1br so this is the bl1 zoning district requires 40 feet per dwelling unit in here in the zoning district both do have that 40 feet to be considered a buildable lot and then sorry 14b this is 18 crown street these are lots that are being created essentially to facilitate a single family attached style dwelling. Each of those requires 20 feet of frontage in the RG5 zoning district, which each does have.

Is there a motion to endorse A&Rs? Motion to endorse. Second. On the motion, Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. 4-0, that motion passes. board policies and procedures tonight uh ms smith you can interrupt me if i get this wrong but uh there was a one-stop grant application uh that came available to the city's planning division yeah through the chair so the board had taken a vote to authorize the local planning assistance hours that we get each year from certain members including mr toomey's attendance at

CMRPC's quarterly meetings. So basically we accrue hours. We have a ceiling of hours. And so we use our full allocation of those hours, which is really like a couple days of someone's time. to write up a scope of services for an overhaul or an update to our subdivision regulations, which date back to the early 90s. And so they provided us with that scope of services and made a recommendation that we proceed with a community planning grant as part of the one-stop funding program that the state has. And so we did opt to make an application for a $100,000 project. So it would be a $90,000 grant from the state with a $10,000 match from the city which would be paid out of the economic development consultant fees budget and so we've submitted that application and we had hoped that the planning board could make a motion to support that application so this would bring those regulations into alignment with modern stormwater standards for example green infrastructure is not something we expressly allow in the regulations you often see waivers for things like road widths And that's because our roadlets reflect a very auto-centric design that came out of the 1980s, which was get everybody everywhere they want to go as fast as they can go. Wasn't considering things like what we now have as a 25 mile an hour speed limit. So these streets are for 45 mile an hour roads. So things like that where we would just reconcile what we had envisioned for ourselves in the 90s is not what we envision for ourselves now. So we need to make adjustments to those regulations if we want to build what we actually want now. Otherwise, we're going to have 1990s Worcester. So we have submitted that application. If the board would like to support that, we would certainly appreciate it. Up to you all to take a vote on that. Otherwise, we'll keep you posted as to what pans out from that grant application. It'll probably be a few months before we know anything as to the outcome of it. I'm not super hopeful just because of the way they prioritize and score projects. They're typically looking for things that are more actively producing housing. However, we tried to make an argument to indicate how much housing this really does tangibly help support. So we'll see what happens, but yeah.

Is there a motion to support this application?

I make a motion to support this application.

Happily seconded.

Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Dallara? Yes.

Mr. Toomey?

Yes. I vote yes as well. Four to zero, that motion passes. Any corrections or additions to the minutes from April 22nd or May 13th? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve them? Motion to approve the meeting minutes. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Four to zero, that passes. Is there a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

second uh all in favor say aye aye aye aye thank you everybody we're adjourned good night