Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay folks, we're gonna get started. So good evening and welcome to the Wednesday, June 24th, 2026 meeting of the City of Worcester Planning Board. My name is Albert Lavalle, I'll chair tonight's meeting. Do I sound okay back there? Can you hear me? Awesome. uh okay before we begin a couple of brief announcements concerning how our meeting is going to proceed tonight like all our meetings tonight is a hybrid format which means you can participate in person here at city hall or online by going to worcester math dot zoom gov dot com slash j slash one six one seven three one four nine seven nine or by calling in at six six nine two five four five two five two and entering access code 1617314979 followed by the pound sign. To manage remote participation during our hybrid meetings and prevent disruptions, all participants are automatically blocked from unmuting themselves, turning on their video, or sending chat messages. For remote participants who would like to comment on an item on our agenda, we ask that you use the raise your hand feature in Zoom during the discussion on that item. If you're joined by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star nine. If you're online, it's an icon in the app that you're using. Staff will call on you at the appropriate time, one at a time, and give you permission to unmute yourself. You then need to do that and you can speak. If you're joined by phone, you will be able to do that by pressing star six. Next, I note this is a public meeting which is both being broadcast and recorded. Minutes are also going to 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 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 number of 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 department the day prior to or the day of the next meeting to confirm if the item is going to be heard or postponed that night. It is not uncommon for items to be postponed multiple times before they're heard by this board. Once an item is called, There will be a brief presentation of the item, followed by any additional comments and clarifications from members of the city staff, then an opportunity for anyone from the public to speak on that item before we proceed to board discussion and action. Finally, all applicants should be aware that approvals are generally conditional. Decisions are generally signed by the board at the next meeting and, where appropriate, filed with the city clerk the following day, which is what begins any appeals periods. Decisions are typically not released to the applicant until all the conditions of approval have been satisfactorily addressed. It is the applicant's responsibility to address those conditions of approval, and a lack of doing so may result in delays or enforcement action. Applicants with questions on that are asked to please call the Planning Division. Okay, so we can get started with our postponements first. So being postponed tonight, item number 1, 24 through 28, Chequesset Road and 029 Dominion Road, a definitive site plan and MGL 81G private street improvement. Our request is to move the public hearing to July 15, 26, and extend the constructive grant deadline to August 6, 26. Item 2, 278 Grove Street, 4 Brookfield Street, and 4 Powers Court, a definitive site plan. Request to postpone the public hearing to July 15, 26, and extend the constructive grant deadline to August 6, 26. Item 5, 1 New Bond Street, a definitive site plan. Request to postpone the public hearing to July 15, 26, and extend the constructive grant deadline to August 6, 26. and item number six 114 lincoln street a definitive site plan the request to postpone the public meeting to july 15 26 and extend the constructive grant deadline to august 6 26. is there a motion on the postponements postpone item one two five and six second uh and was that mr mccormick who made that motion

It was.

Okay. Hi, Connor. Hi. On the motion, Mr. McCormick? Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well. Postponements pass 5-0. Moving into our agenda, first item of new business we'll hear tonight is item number three, Fort Cliff Street. This will be a public hearing for a definitive frontage subdivision plan.

Evening, Mr. Chairman and board members. My name is David Sadowski. I'm the principal of DJ and Associates. We're out of Clinton, Massachusetts. I'm here representing the landowner at Fort Cliff Street for a definitive subdivision plan. Back in ZB 2024-022, certain reliefs were asked for for this definitive frontage subdivision. Those have been inscribed on the plan and they have been met on the plan put together. The planting of trees and some removal of concrete, removal of impervious surfaces. There's also notes on the plans that all work will be performed before a building permit is sought.

Okay, thank you. Additional comments from city staff?

This is Steve Carey in the planning division. Not too much more to add. This is a definitive frontage subdivision plan, so the board's purview in this case is with regards to the amount of frontage that each of the two lots that are being created has as the engineer NOTED. THE REQUISITE RELIEF FOR FRONTAGE WAS ALREADY GRANTED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. SO THIS ACTION BY THE BOARD IS TO ESSENTIALLY FORMALLY SPLIT THE LOT VIA SUBDIVISION PLAN.

THANK YOU, MR. KERRY. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM CITY STAFF? HEARING NONE, IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS ITEM? There's no one in the room. Is there anyone online with their hand raised? Board members, Mr. McCormick, you might go first.

Sure, yeah, no comments for myself on this one. Happy to support.

Thank you, Mr. King. No concerns, thank you. Mr. Dallara. No comment, thank you. Mr. Toomey. No comments, thank you. Mr. Rosendeh.

no comments thank you i also have no comments this is straightforward i think we're ready for a motion okay i would make a motion to approve the definitive frontage subdivision plan for for cliff street so there's just staff recommended conditions of approval seconds on the motion mr mccormick

yes mr king yes mr delera yes mr toomey yes i vote yes as well motion passes five to zero good luck thank you very much for your time i know your volunteers uh next up item number four zero twenty and thirty six washington square and portions of former foster street right-of-way this will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan

good evening members of the board my name is Donald O'Neill I'm a lawyer here in Western here this evening on behalf of Washington Circle Realty in connection with this special permit application site plan application for a hotel uh hampton inn hotel 105 room of five-story structure with approximately 88 parking spaces with me this evening is opici construction corp the design build firm that has been working on this project and also a representative from allen and major associates which is civil engineering form and i believe the um we have had a lot of back and forth with staff. I made numerous changes in response to comments that we have received. Most of the remaining recommendations are agreeable. There are a couple that we want to discuss with the board. And I think rather than go through those now that we can HIT UPON THEM AS WE GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION IN TERMS OF THE AREAS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. THE MEMO DOES INDICATE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR A WAIVER FROM THE INTERIOR PARKING SPACES IN THE PARKING AREA WHICH REQUIRE ONE SPACE FOR EVERY 10 CARS. WE'RE LOOKING FOR BASICALLY A PARTIAL WAIVER ON THAT. based on the cars that we have, I believe it would require seven spaces and we are providing five spaces. But it's just a question of not having enough room basically to provide the additional trees. The parcel itself is 56,000 square feet. But it is fairly constricted in terms of the footprint that we're putting on the building and the parking that's available. And it is, as you can see from the application, an assembly of a lot of different bits and pieces from various owners. And the owners in this case include Washington Circle Realty, as well as some of the properties still owned by the Redevelopment Authority and some by the City of Worcester. There is a 99-year lease and some easement rights on the city property, which allow for the construction on this site. But I will turn it over to Opeche, and then if you have any questions for me or any legal issues that come up, I'm available for that.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is David Sherbourne, architect and vice president at Opeche Construction. With me also from Opeche is Andrew Pike, our president, and behind me is Barry Stowe, our civil design manager. So what I want to do, we had some slides here that we had shared with staff to sort of highlight some of the changes that have been made since we first met with the team. So with the staff. So existing conditions here, Don hit on this, it's a 56,000 square foot lot. The prior use was a larger traffic circle up until the current Washington Square circle until 2007. There are a number of site utilities that add to the complication of what we're doing here in terms of placement of the building and significant work to relocate those utilities and tie into those around the new development, those being obviously municipal water and sewer, national grid. with underground electric. We've got natural gas on site and municipal stormwater conveyance from Foster Street as well. So we've started work with the National Grid and Verizon to start the process of relocation of those utilities. If we could go to the next slide, would be great. So just to summarize a little bit more, so this is a five-story building. I will point out that this is designed to be fully non-combustible, fully sprinkled. It has 105 guest rooms. Guest amenities, which are typical for Hampton Inn, which is a Hilton prototypical hotel, would be a fitness room, lobby lounge, guest laundry, EV stations on site, and food and beverage services, which With this particular brand, we'll just point out that that is for hotel guests only in the form of complimentary breakfast. and a small marketplace for convenience items. We are proposing 88 parking spaces on site, including four ADA spaces to meet the code requirement. We will point out that this is less than what we would typically see on a hotel of this size. Typically we see in the branch light to see one guest parking space per guest room. Obviously this is a complicated site and we know that there are no parking minimum parking requirements and but 88 seems to be the right sort of mix here in terms of what we see in terms of peak parking demand which is overnight when it also sort of doubles up with the time in which we see the fewest number of employees within the building as well if we go to the next slide please Here is just the basic zoning requirements, so there's no requirement for minimum lot size, nor minimum frontage. No requirement for ground floor residencies in terms of front yard setback. Maximum front yard setback, it is 15 feet. We do articulate along a pretty complex front property line, but we are in compliance with that. No requirement for side yard setbacks. No requirement for building height. We are 68 feet from grade to the highest parapet, five stories. We are well under the floor area ratio. and obviously exceed the minimum requirement of parking. If we go to the next slide here, we will see a colored site plan. So I just want to hit on this a little bit in terms of the intentionality of the placement of the building along Summer Street and then facing, turning and facing Washington Square there. And so we really were intentional about trying to activate the streetscape there. I know that through the various meetings that we've had that there's been talk about more glazing and more activation. We've tried to maximize that as much as we can, the program requirements for the hotel, the adjacencies that come with that. And so what you'll see at the north side of the building, we have a stairwell that's serving the upper floors. From an egress standpoint, we have ADA parking spaces under the drive-in. We have a two-way curb cut on Summer Street that gives a turn into the drop-off area. There will be a right-hand turn out onto Summer Street at the request of the staff, which we are amenable to. And then really south of that area is the amenity space would be front desk and registration, the market, the lounge, food service areas. And so we've tried to maximize that as much as we can because of the unique nature in terms of way the site turns around Washington Square. we do have some back of house spaces and I think that's part of the conversations that we've had along the way through the IRT and the memos that were received from staff in terms of maximising glazing as much as possible. I will point out that we have sufficient height on first to second floor to make sure that we maintain at least 14 feet between the driveway and the ceiling of the drive under to make sure that any Emergency service apparatus can clearly fit under that and all portions of the building that hang over that. One change that has happened in some of the coordination with particularly National Grid in terms of the electrical is now in the northwest corner of the building. We have a dumpster enclosure. There was a comment that we had received about making sure it's not like a chain link enclosure. That will be a masonry enclosure with similar masonry to what we have on the first floor of the hotel facade. that is a hilton requirement to make sure it's uh sort of complementary to the building and then what we have also done since the initial site concept was we've had to move the transformer and generator over to that same vicinity as well and so what we're now proposing is a fence screening around there with some landscaping in front of it so to a minimize it from summer street but also being a hotel and hospitality being important making sure that when guests first arrive to the site that there's sufficient screening so they're not looking at any utilities there as well. What you'll then see is running north to south is two parking trays of parking. We did receive a comment from staff memo requesting that we meet three foot landscape buffer requirement. That What's in question there is the westernmost edge of the site where it abuts the approximately 20 foot tall retaining wall up to the railway lines. There was a request to make those compact spaces. What we are proposing to do is reduce the length of those spaces to 16 feet. but keep the width of the parking spaces at nine feet, knowing that in our experience, you'll get both compact and regular sized vehicles parking closest to the building. And the concern being that if we narrow to eight feet, that as the parking lot starts to fill up, you get unusable spaces for a majority of the vehicles that show up on site. I know that we are seeking relief for interior landscape trees. I guess we would point out that given that we, you know, 17 parking spaces shy of what we would typically see in a similar size hotel, the heat island effect and impervious areas is drastically minimized anyway and so we feel like the relief of two interior trees is a reasonable request to make. On the next slide here is some of the other feedback that we've had following the IRT meeting and from the definitive site plan completeness review. We did make some enhancements along the eastern side of the facade facing Summer Street we've created a more prominent canopy and numbering and address for the entrance door into the lobby area. We looked at the north stair which is on the northeast corner of the building where we added additional windows and glazing there and created a direct sidewalk connection to the stairway door as well. Along with that were some facade treatments where we wrapped the corner of that building with additional brick veneer. And then if we turn to the southwest facade treatment, we have added additional glazing at ground level facing Union Station as well. And I think when we talk about glazing throughout this review process, we know that there's Obviously, there's some sensitivity to the placement of the site relative to Union Station, and what we've tried to do, given the program restraints that we have, maximize glazing as much as we can, create the appropriate level of articulation and material changing at all facades, but in particular, we've taken a hard look at the southwest facade treatment The memo that we received yesterday, there's comments about some additional landscaping being added to that southwest and southeast corner, which we are happy to do. Obviously, I think from a staff and planning standpoint, it appeared that additional glazing would be preferred, and if not, something like a trellis could be placed to sort of activate that street level. We don't think that adding glazing to some back of house areas such as storage and mechanical rooms is appropriate, given that if we had them there, they would be opaqued or filmed out. So we're happy to work with staff in terms of getting the appropriate right of treatment in terms of trellis and landscaping in those corners as well. One thing that came up was mechanical screening. We have a document that's in the package, and I can show you later that We can confirm that with the placement of the parapets and intentionally placing all mechanical equipment down the centre spine of the building, it is not visible from street level around the adjacency of the property. I can also confirm that the roof will be a cool colour, it will be a white roof and it is solar ready as required by the opt-in specialised code as well. And then finally, a few comments pertaining to the site itself. We have added a tip-down ramp on the southernmost walkway that exists under the railway bridge, connecting the parking lot to Foster Street. We have added additional landscaping, particularly screening from Summer Street and Washington Square to enhance screening in front of parking areas. And I touched on earlier was the screening that we now have in front of the electrical equipment near the northern portion of the site. And then what I will lastly touch on, if you can go to the next screen here would be great. So this will be the view looking south towards Union Station, the northeast corner of the building. So you can see here there's the drive under with the building off Summer Street. We've got the stair and you can now see if anyone had seen the original proposal, we've added significant amount of glazing and wrapping the corner of the stairwell to activate that corner, bring some more interest to it. If you go to the next screen, this would be the view from the northern side of washington square so it's a little tough to see here at the left hand side we had activated a door off the stairwell that we have confirmed that would be for not just exit only but for guests to enter the building we've added canopy there and then about halfway up the right hand side of the building there it's a little tough to see we've added a canopy to the pedestrian entrance door that will be ADA compliant, added signage in terms of the address and numbering to activate and bring some attention to that as well. One thing that I'll touch on here, particularly with this view, I think is the best one to speak to. We did receive in the memo that we initially got on Thursday and updated yesterday, A request to firstly continue the precast banding at the second floor line just to create the continuity of that and give the true sense of base around the building. We are happy to make those changes and make that a condition of approval that we will make those changes to the building design. Secondary to that, there was a request or recommendation to consider adding masonry in the form of more brick to the upper floors. The initial comment was to add brick over all four upper floors. Since the latest memo said it was a request for floors two through four and leaving the fiber cement panel, which is a Nichihar product. This is a smooth panelized system rain screen. At this time, we're requesting that we are happy to do the banding at the second floor line, but in the request of the brick, we feel like we've provided adequate modifications and areas of brick as it is, and leaving the Nichihau paneling, thinking that it gives us a better definition of the brick pier elements that pump out and give us some horizontal and vertical relief. So we are requesting that we at this time would not be adding additional masonry. Part of the consideration that as well is not only in terms of the overall composition, but there is significant cost increases to the project. agreed to a number through the various IRT comments and memos that we've received in the form of additional relieving angles and steel weights on a project that is a complex site. There's significant costs relating to utility relocations, complexities with the site, and just trying to make sure that we maintain the feasibility of the project as a whole. And then finally, on the next page, this will be the view from the south side of Washington Square. So this is the corner here that we know that we've had requests for additional glazing in the first floor. The spaces within this area is stairway, some storage, some mechanical spaces, and the food prep kitchen area. And it's unfortunate we would love to promise the entire first floor to be public amenity space and really activate that, but the reality is is that we can't have a lobby and a lounge and breakfast area without a kitchen to support that. And so because of the added height that we have between the first and the second floor, we've been able to add a number of clear story windows in there and get as much glazing as we can. Again, what I had stated earlier is that we're happy to work with some of the latest recommendations to provide additional landscaping if needed and sort of activation through trellis or some sort of treatment of that lower facade to give it a ENHANCE STREET PRESENCE WITHOUT NECESSARILY THE ADDITION OF GLAZING. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'LL STOP TALKING AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, ANY COMMENTS FROM CITY STAFF?

Sure. Through the chair, this is Michelle Smith in the city's planning division. The applicant's project has been highlighted, I think, great length. So I'm not going to try to rehash all of those comments. I do want to acknowledge that the city has been looking to redevelop the site for a hotel since about 2019. So it's exciting to have a proposal like this finally in front of the planning board. So we're glad to have made it to this point and want to acknowledge also that the applicant has really worked to iterate on the series of different comments that staff's provided through various different avenues, including working with us in the last few days to continue to build off of that. So we appreciate their responsiveness. in terms of the staff comments i think that are remaining at this point i know attorney o'neill wants to review uh certain items that are i think uh points of of concern that would like to be addressed ahead of um any any vote by this board but just again orientation we are right in the the downtown um right across from union station sorry my mic is maybe getting a little reverb here But this is walking distance to Union Station, walking distance to the hub, walking distance to our MBTA platforms and to ride share facilities or bikes, rather bike share facilities that we have located just across the street. So a great location in the urban core. And again, the applicants made a number of modifications to the architectural design to try to reflect that urban nature. We have, as far as our comments that are remaining go, things that have adjusted since the board saw the memo last, because we did make some minor modifications today, so I want to call attention to that. We have relocated one of the conditions related to screening for rooftop mechanicals to prior to occupancy, or rather prior to issuance of a building permit rather than before release of the decision. So we've shifted that so that was previously 1B and that's been relocated now to be condition 9. We have added some language into a few different conditions as well as struck On page two of the memo, you'll see a note about some landscaping that was required for a loading space. In reviewing that, we determined that that was a drop-off area, and the provision that was referenced here was able to be ignored because the context is different. So just calling that we are not looking for that. We've added condition J to address that change just for notation purposes in terms of clarifications on the plan. We have added another item, which is an adjustment to condition 1T2 related to accessible walkways throughout the site, just clarifying that that is where it's required by law. And then we have made, I believe, one more adjustment. I just want to make sure I catch it. That might have been it. I think that actually might be it in terms of the modifications that we made last minute. So just for the board members, those adjustments, you heard the comments in terms of the request for the extended cornice, something that the applicant has agreed to. I think the point of discussion that you heard is the condition 1C related to the brick. We did adjust the language in the memo to reflect brick or matching veneer because I think the intent of the condition was related to the appearance of that more kind of permanent masonry, which is coming from the urban design guidelines and the comments in the context of Union Station. I understand that concern that the applicant has about that, so certainly open to discussing that further. um in terms of the glazing uh the condition i think that they reference that there's a point of concern around would be 1e and hopefully this is lining up with attorney o'neill's points for discussion which is reflect the glazing for the wall ratio along washington square to be three to one which is per the urban design guidelines um i don't know exactly what ratio it's at this is a bit of eyeballing that that we do if it's not quantified so i don't know if the applicant has the exact ratio it sounds to me like they're looking for that to be struck certainly we could offer modifications to reflect to the maximum extent practical in order to enable function functionality of the spaces as designed if if that were something that the board were looking to keep and and then i think related to the concern about the interior trees we currently have the condition one eye which reflects the requirement of those two additional shade trees ultimately if the board wanted to strike that you would be able to delete the last part of the sentence there after the three foot landscape buffer there is an area between the railroad tracks that are located to the west of the site one of the many site constraints that requires a three-foot buffer for parking. And the wall, unfortunately, does not count as part of that three-foot buffer. So they are going to need to shift those spaces, essentially making them compact, so losing two feet in depth. And so if they adjust the width, they should be able to make the adjacent landscape buffers wider to accommodate those trees. So that's how we've conditioned this. It wouldn't necessitate all of those parking stalls being wider. just a few of them in order to accommodate the additional area to get those planted. We understand that they would prefer not to do that, so again, if you wanted to make the adjustment that latter part of the sentence where it says, and expand the landscape island to the south, that part could be struck, and that would just mean that the three-foot landscape buffer would need to be provided along the railroad tracks. Other items, I think those were the main points of discussion. I'm hoping that I've covered all of the items they were looking to discuss in that respect. But otherwise, just a couple comments from DTM that I wanted to highlight in terms of their conditions. There's a traffic study. traffic to impact evaluation as well as a transportation demand management plan that were prepared for this there's some additional length in the conditions that relate to the ongoing as well as interim completion components of those different plans that are incorporated in here as well as perpetual conditions specifically related to circulation if we go back to the site plan the egress that is two or the entrance and egress that's two directional from Washington Square, essentially along Summer Street. In that particular section, there's a concern about vehicles moving into the site, so that's being recommended as a right in, right out only, which the applicant has agreed to, but just want to call attention to that in terms of the plans since that was not reflected on there. And then there are a couple requirements in terms of the transportation, the traffic study that specifically recommended modifications in the public realm, specifically on Foster Street, so a few items that may need to be petitioned to council and installed in coordination with DTM and DPW. So those, again, are conditioned and referenced here specifically that REPORT RECOMMENDED REMOVAL OF ON STREET PARKING ALONG SECTIONS OF FOSTER AND DTM WELL AGREEABLE TO A SMALL AMOUNT OF THAT IS NOT AGREEABLE TO THE ENTIRE LENGTH AS RECOMMENDED FROM THE TRAFFIC STUDY. SO I BELIEVE WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THE APPLICANT AS CONDITIONED BUT JUST WANTED TO DRAW THOSE CONDITIONS TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION SINCE THEY'RE A BIT UNUSUAL. I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE, BUT WE'LL WRAP UP OUR COMMENTS THERE RATHER THAN REITERATING THE DIFFERENT THINGS THROUGHOUT THE PRESENTATION THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MS. SMITH. DPW, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING?

YES, THIS IS LESLIE RODRIGUEZ FOR DPW. THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL BONDING. THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT WILL BE $78,000. THIS IS THE BONDING THAT WILL provide for the repair of the street in case the applicant did not repair the street after construction. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Attorney O'Neill, before we go to public comment, I just want to be clear. The items that you are requesting that we consider changing are item 1C, item 1E, item 1I. Is that accurate?

Yeah, D. D?

I don't think it's D. C?

What did you have, I? No, I'm sorry.

Yeah, you might not have R, most recent.

All right.

Yes, C was the paneling on the upper stories. Correct.

E is the glazing.

Glazing, I guess, was on E. We did have a discussion about... about that and the ability to do something i'm not sure that we can do this straight three to one

Yeah, it sounded like Ms. Smith was suggesting, and I also heard the applicant suggest... Some trellises and some other kind of... I think if we just add to the maximum extent practical there, that will probably allow you some freedom.

Yeah, and a lot of it has to do with the function of the hotel and the need for the functioning of the hotel. We can't have windows everywhere. And I guess the request is to extend the landscape buffer

yeah so we're looking for relief you can just speak in the microphone just for folks online and stuff so we're looking we're proposing to provide the three foot buffer by shortening the spaces from 18 to 16 feet but we don't want to go narrow to eight feet we want to keep the width at nine feet so it's a partial concession there in terms of achieving the three foot buffer but not going to true compact spaces

Correct. That's what you're asking for. Correct. And the board can discuss whether or not it's willing to grant that waiver. Okay. So those three things. Am I correct? Yes. Okay. All right. So I just highlight that for my fellow board members. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item tonight? I see a couple folks. Come on up.

Mike Kane from the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce. Good evening, Chair LaValle and members of the board. I'm here to speak in support of this project. Again, 105 rooms right in the downtown district is really critical, especially to all that we want to do on bringing and attracting events, concerts, as well as revitalizing our downtown. So it's great to see this project on the agenda here tonight. I also got to talk about the design process. I think it looks great. Definitely going to be looking forward to driving past it on my way to work and seeing the construction. I think it really fits right on in with the area around Washington Square. And then lastly, I want to talk a little bit about the workforce initiatives here, being able to provide temporary workforce for the construction and building trees. as well as the permanent workforce once it's done. So again, all together, great to see a developer doing a hotel here in the city of Worcester. Definitely something that we need, especially looking at the hotel numbers compared to other cities of our similar size. So all in support with this. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. The other gentleman that wanted to speak.

My name is Steve Meader. I live in Holden, Mass. I don't know if you need the address for Quail Run, Holden, Mass. I think this is a wonderful project. The land use is good. The massing is good, where it's actually brought to the street with the parking lot tucked behind. The only real question that I have on the thing is actually from this rendering right here, which is the south-facing portion of the building, which is actually the north facade, which is the area along Front Street, really, when you look at that portion of Washington Square. This is the area where there's been the most debate about glazing and the use behind it. And so what I'm actually wondering is a few options on that. First of all, I want to point out that that's your entire view to Union Station. Okay. So when you actually start looking at views from the building, that's the best view. And so what I'm wondering is what are some of the alternatives we can do to sort of address not only the facade, as I was putting glazing, but actually the use behind it. So do you have a floor plan, the first level floor plan for this? Yeah.

Yeah, it's in the slides.

Okay, so what I'm wondering here is, without sort of completely redesigning the building or anything like that, and that's not necessary, is suggesting a repositioning. So when we look at actually the lobby, the lobby is actually on the back wall of the building. So could we look to sit there and take, and I understand the position of the lobbying next to the entrance for the tunnel through the building or the portico that you have over there. So you want to keep it on that side. But can we take the cafe and the portion that's over there and pivot the lobby to the actual street side on Summer Street? freeing up that area that's the back of the building and then repositioning the kitchen and the pieces that are over up to the stairwell we're not looking to extend we're not looking to change the stairwell but um i can't quite read what your uh your food prep area i believe it's over there um so we're looking at the and it's actually says four prep the little type type of ever in there so but i believe that's food prep So could we look to literally put the lobby up onto the Summer Street side and then take the food prep and move it to where the lobby was on the back of the building and then give the cafe and the pantry kind of, we're sliding the pantry down, and then you're giving the full cafe views of not only the square on Summer Street but of Union Station itself, activating that edge. You're going to get 80%. of the side of that building actually having some glazing around the entire thing with activity behind it you're not interfering with the stairwell the portion where the stairwell comes up and you have the mechanical on you see the stairwell and the alcove you're still going to have that sort of portion that's kind of a dead wall but through some of the things that they talked about we can address that but that area of where the food prep and opening that and sliding the pantry and that food prep area to the back moving the lobby to the front, you're not really repositioning anything to a point where you're affecting the functionality of it. You're just making better use of the space. And actually, when you start looking at from the people that are using the building itself, you're giving them fantastic views of the entire square and Union Station. So it's kind of interesting that, and it's a very complicated project, and you get, you know, anything when you design these things, you kind of get locked in. But To me, as a designer, I'm looking at that Washington Square Union Station view as the view that I really want to see as far as I'm sitting in that cafe or I'm sitting in there at a table looking out on the street. As far as what you'll get along, the understanding of the relationship, too, of walking down the actual Front Street Portico and getting to the... other side of union station um we start looking at that and some of the retail space that are over there you're you've got to look at what's uh crime prevention through environmental design so basically by having glazing and having an active use that you can see people behind there makes the area feel safer Even if you sit there and you have the wall and you have a class story up above, that class story is way above anybody's height. It's going to be about eight feet above you. So when you're walking along that wall, you're walking along a dead wall. So activating that edge and making it an edge that actually is welcoming and feels safe is really important, particularly when we start looking at Union Station as people walking to the station as opposed to sitting there driving and parking in their car or being dropped off. We have to start looking at it from a pedestrian point of view. and realize that basically what's that experience going to be like ideally when we look at that space that i was talking about sort of switching around and moving it for the actual street presence it would have been nice to actually sit there and look to see if rather than they're running their cafe um could they actually look at a starbucks or looking at a dunkin donuts or some sort of thing where now that's actually bringing people in from the street and when we look at sort of all the buildings that are around there And we have room for more and eventually it will grow. There's no convenience retail. There's nowhere for anybody to literally sit there when you're at the bus ports, when you're at the station itself, other than when you're inside the station to actually even get a coffee. So the ability to literally sit there and say, can they look to find a sublease to operate that space would actually enhance the pedestrian activity and create a lot more activity in that building that isn't just for the guests. But short of that, even for their guests, repositioning some of the interior really won't affect much of the design at all. You're not touching any of the stairwells. You're not touching anything. You're just taking that food prep area and you're moving it to the back of the building where they currently have the lobby. You're still keeping the lobby on the north side on the port. So it's not interfering with that. It's just a slight repositioning. So that's my question is, is that possible? And then when we look at sort of the landscape buffer, i think that strengthened a little bit with some of the landscaping and actually adding some sort of i want to say a perimeter fence not a wall you don't want a dead wall going over there but the idea of you have your landscape to the front and then you put some brick pillars and you run some wrought iron that actually defines the territory and the pedestrian experience from the parking lot so you're able to sit there where you're not creating a wall where everybody's walled off and you can't see one another but the idea of when you're walking you know this is sidewalk this is parking lot I think it's great that they're able to also address some of the trees along the viaduct itself because when we start looking at views from the hotel room to the parking lot and you've got the railroad track, kind of those trees and the natural landscaping will actually kind of buffer things and make it kind of tone down the concrete block that they have over there. And this is one that's a little bit odd, but it's one of those things where we look to do it, we just don't know who's going to do it. But the idea of actually, when we look at the views, particularly from the hotel, can we look somehow, and I'm not putting this on the developer, but putting some landscaping on top of the viaduct. where we'd look and literally sit there and say, can we put some planters up there? Can we put some trees that obviously you wouldn't want to do like a pin oak or something that's like a 60 foot canopy tree, but putting in some flowering trees that actually make the viaduct an actual interesting thing. And all you need to look at is the, I'm trying to get the viaduct in New York City, the High Line, where they've actually got an active pedestrian use on that. But we can't quite put pedestrians up there. We can still make it look decorative. And at the same time, aside from the trees being along that viaduct wall, I would do some uplighting where we're lighting up the wall itself. okay and it's going to kind of actually make that parking lot feel a lot safer and when we look at the environment it's kind of giving you an interesting thing from when you're walking through that area it just through that type of lighting it's going to make it feel safer at night and you can do all kinds of things with led lighting where it's changing the different colors that you want and everything else so let's look at the viaduct as a piece of art and actually let's enhance it again that's not putting on the developer that's literally looking and saying well what do we do to to kind of you know We know what we want to do. Let's just find out how to do it. But the point in this one is really that street wall on Front Street that's facing Union Station. And we can't, with the position of the stairwell, and you can see it over there, you're not going to get that last alcove to sit there and become a glazed wall. And I agree 100%, you don't want to put glazing with a storage room behind it. That's just not going to work. But if we can reposition a portion of it, we're turning the corner, and you're really enhancing your entrance. And basically, you've sort of balanced things on both sides of the entrance, and you've created a much better experience for not only the people in the hotel, but for everybody walking by it. So I think this is, you know, if I was to rate this building and what they've done, 99% home run. It's a great building. They're doing wonderful stuff. I mean, when we need to look at it, I don't need to knock the, because it's the same home as the hotel across the street, but you've got one hotel that's basically sitting behind a parking lot where you've got this one sitting in front of it. So you're giving this building like it should to Union Station, but let's let it react with Union Station. So I think that's the thing to look at and understand that. I think some repositioning can be done on the ground level. And for us from a city to understand that urban design is done by the city, not by the developers. Okay. So we kind of need the urban design portion to come in and say, you know, make this change. This is not only going to benefit the hotel, but it's going to benefit everybody around it. And it's going to make the area feel safer, much safer. And that's the difference between make or break in any community is literally sitting there and saying, what is it like at the street level? Okay. And like I said, right now, even with the clustering on that that brick is about eight stories i mean i'm sorry about eight feet eight to ten feet up so from a pedestrian they're only looking at block now i hate to throw this out there because i really want what i just said but short of doing that rather than just doing sort of the the um i can't remember some of the solutions along that wall if they can't do the benches Okay, decorative benches, really good decorative benches that are mixed in with some public art. You know, you see some of them where they've got actually statues of people sitting there and doing stuff and everything else. Well, having someone being able to sit there is some pedestrian activity as opposed to just walking by it. And when you're walking by any kind of public art that's right along the wall, you're not going to view it you can't see it because you're basically right up against it okay so you're not going to get any activity the only thing you would see would be from union station you could see whatever public art so at the very least if you can't sit there and make some of the suggestions i'm teaching i would look at benches okay really good quality benches that are mixed in with a form of public art on there and literally right up against the building so when people coming out they can just sit and you know do that and if you're worried about policing it, where it's a case where you don't want people sitting out there and they're afraid about whether it's homeless, which is an issue amongst itself, a social issue that can be dealt with, then you do the thing that I'm talking about, where you actually do a bench, but you actually put a statue on the bench. An interesting one is in Lane Council of Pennsylvania, where they have A person sitting on the bench, it's a sculpture statue with a newspaper, and the newspaper is all about Three Mile Island. So it's teaching you about what's going on in that city. So, I mean, let's just cop. That's what everybody does in the architectural world. You look at someone's project and, yeah, let's do that too. So grab that. We don't do Three Mile Island, but we'll do something in that bronze casting that's teaching us about Worcester. So those are my suggestions. And, again, I'm not trying to be critical of the project. I think it's fantastic. 99% there. This one step can make it a home run, grand slam, as opposed to a home run. And that's what I'm saying. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sure. Hi. I just moved here two years ago. And while I was here, I got... Tell us your name.

Sorry.

Oh, it's Amaria.

And you're a resident of Worcester?

Yeah. So I had a torn meniscus where I had to walk everywhere because I don't have a car. And like where the hotels are, you guys have these pedestrian crossing, but without like the lines that you can cross the street, you know, like a Hanover theater. So I was like thinking by the decor of this building, it seems to be like a very intricate architecture. and it's been built probably a couple hundreds, thousands, trillion years ago. So if this building looks like this and we work in it and all that stuff, I'm confused when I moved from Miami, because I lived in Florida for 12 years, and then I moved here, I see this building And then I'm realizing that there's no overhead bridges to help me out with my knee. Every time I would walk around, the cars will fly down from the green light. And then I have to gamble if they're going to hit me once I'm crossing. I almost got hit before. So I'm not going to talk as long as this guy because I don't know what the hell he was talking about. I don't know what he was saying, but... My situation is simple. Worcester is the second largest city in New England amongst six states. Boston, then Worcester. How is it that we don't have any overhead bridges to help minimize the lengthened traffic whenever we have a function, an event, anything that warrants people to be present? always make the day of us, the residents, hell. Why are there no overhead bridges in Worcester to help with the traffic versus hiring our polices to stop and have us cross when you're going back and forth from Hanover Theater? If you're walking over to Union Street, you gotta gamble if you're gonna get hit at the rodeo. Where are our overhead bridges? We're the second largest city after Boston.

And we have no infrastructure comparing to be second to best to Boston.

Literally at the overhead, every time you come into the city, you're worried about building hotels. But being someone that worked for Marriott for seven years, hotel guests, they talk. They talk to each other. And what they do is they talk about what's around. Worcester cannot develop as a city when the walking areas are unsafe. We have the entire drug epidemic down at the Union Station. When foreigners come here, that's what they see. As easy as it is to paint over those graffiti, you know that bridge that you drive under where the Union Station is?

Yes.

That's littered with graffiti. And you're looking to put a Band-Aid like a new hotel up when the place where we park and pay $20 to go to the courthouse, you guys have plants growing out the wall. Right across from where the courthouse is, over there, there's no maintenance, so it's destroying the building, it's destroying the wall. The trees are growing out of the wall where you guys are collecting $20 for parking to go to court. How is that area not being mended? Why are the trees and all this growing out the wall? Now I parked my expensive Mercedes Benz that I don't have yet, and now tree saps are falling on my car after I just paid $20 for parking. So my idea is that Worcester is second to Boston, and we are nowhere close as it relates to managing traffic to build a building that's going to bring in more traffic. So for me, who have a leg injury, because this guy was talking for 10 years, so he kind of let me think about a lot. How is it that we still have the resources and the money to build buildings, more buildings, but that hole at the Hanover Theater has been there for two years since I've been there? And then the city works on it. And then that again, cause traffic. And you guys don't have a system where you tell people this is going to be happening here to let us do a contingency plan. to get to work. So when you guys dig up a whole...

I think we're straying pretty far.

No, I live here. I'm telling you my problems. You want to put another...

I live here too, and I share your frustration.

You lived here longer than me. I have to finish. He was talking for a very long time. I didn't understand what he was saying, but you let him speak. so let me speak you've also been talking so there's a whole i was timing him he was talking for 17 minutes i've been talking for four minutes exactly i don't believe any of your time and now you're discriminating can i talk or not you can but i we're talking specifically about this project oh what's the project what's the project the hotel in washington square and if we have more hotels with no good roads then what's the point

I don't disagree with you. First of all, I'm a volunteer. I'm not the city. Let's be clear about that. We're citizens, same as you.

But I just don't want to be interrupted just like you didn't interrupt him anyways.

So there's a hole right beside the Hanover Theater. Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am.

And what happens is...

The Hanover Theater is not this project. I do have to be clear and I have to be respectful to other folks who are on the agenda and other folks who are part of the public who wish to speak tonight. If you have comments about the project, you're welcome to share them.

So how would the people that are coming to stay at your project hotel, how would they feel safe walking around the city? What's the point of building a hotel where the people are going to be walking? And then when they're crossing the rodeo, like right at the roundabout, right there where the Union Station is, there's a crossing there for us. I'm telling you because I don't have a car. I walk everywhere. So when I'm crossing the rodeo, they're flooring their cars coming around while I'm walking. Why are we going to build buildings if the guests won't feel safe? I don't want to post about it. I don't have social media or anything. So what's the point of rising up buildings when we have a hole at the Hanover Theater? It jammed traffic today. This is the first city I see that inconvenienced its people to have a watch party. You guys blocked off the road today. Let's be clear.

I did not block off the road.

The city blocked off the road today to have an event over the... gathering place where the skating rink is. And again, there was no communication with the residents. You're inconveniencing us. How would we know that the road is going to be blocked so we can create contingency plans to go to our jobs?

I would really like to help you, sincerely. What I'm trying to tell you is that I completely get your frustration and you're welcome to come here and vent it. But you might get more success or progress accomplishing what you seem to desire if you pointed it in the direction of the folks that can actually do something about it.

Oh, you're just volunteering? You're not from Worcester?

I live in Worcester. I'm a citizen, and I'm volunteering on this board, as are my colleagues.

Oh, well, I'm hungry. All right, have a good day.

I would suggest going to city council, sincerely. Mayor Fetty or John? You can complain to either of them, but you can also come here and speak to members of their staff. Eric. Thank you. Yes, please keep it brief.

So there's kind of a hidden real positive in what they've done.

In microphone also. Thank you.

So one of the things that's interesting is you know cities are always in transition eventually we're probably going to look at communal rail that runs north or runs up that route that actually heads to uh cambridge and comes through north station that means that's that portion of the viaduct so eventually what may happen over there is a platform that's put up there okay so one of the things with the platform is literally you put stairs and you put an elevator and you put portions of it that would actually interact with that viaduct that platform then becomes a pedestrian bridge from Union Station to this area crossing the street and doing that. It just takes time. And again, it's just looking forward and things like that. This building, the way it's designed right now, it's set it up perfect for that. So when we look at that, there's a real positive in what they've done and how they've positioned the building where we haven't painted ourself into a corner. We've actually opened the door to actually do it. So in a lot of the questions that she's raising, you have that potential. It's just going to take time. So, you know, crossing that street and using the viaduct as a pedestrian bridge along with the platform will basically answer everything that she was saying, at least with this portion of the street. So that's just a hidden thing and something to look forward to. But they did not paint us into a corner. They actually left the door open for that. So that actually makes the design very good.

Understood. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else from the public wishing to speak on this item in the room tonight? Seeing none, is there anyone online? This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. I'm not seeing anyone with their hand raised. Okay, let's move on to board discussion. And a reminder for my colleagues, there are three items in the memo that Attorney O'Neill has indicated the applicant would like us to consider removing. One relates to the requirement in 1C, Extending the brick veneer onto the higher stories to create more of a singular massing I would say as requested by staff item 1e Staff has actually suggested we modify this condition to add to the extent practical to allow the applicant the opportunity to address the intent without, I guess, meeting the letter of it with some perhaps landscaping trellises and then item 1i, which is related to the request of the applicant to remove the requirement for two additional interior shade trees in order to preserve parking. So, Mr. McCormick, if you wouldn't mind kicking us off.

Sure, thank you. Yeah, I guess overall for the site, very happy to see this project move forward. As I think someone mentioned, a hotel has been contemplated here for quite a long time. So it's exciting to see this project moving forward. And it is definitely meeting a need that the city has for additional hotel rooms to accommodate guests and visitors and all of that. So very excited. and looking forward to supporting it. But in terms of the site itself, I think the three items that you just mentioned, Mr. Chair, item 1C, I would tend to agree with the staff recommendation to extend the brick or matching veneer. I think the intent of that was to make sure I think it's in consideration of the historic Union Station that's across the street from it and kind of attempting to match that aesthetic to a reasonable extent. So I think that's a fairly reasonable suggestion or condition recommended by staff, and I would support that. I think the language for 1E that staff suggested was reasonable and it sounded like the applicant was amenable to that as well. So I would support the adjustment in language that staff suggested And for one eye, I think I would prefer to see the street trees if possible. It sounded like they were doable. If I was following it correctly, we'd be losing two feet in length of the parking space, which would then... Allow for additional room to to plant the 2 trees for me, I think. You know, I understand the need for for parking for hotel for use such as this, but I think the, you know, adding additional surface parking lots to downtown. I'm kind of sensitive to. what effect that has to the overall landscape and the urban heat island effect. So if it's possible to add the two trees, I would definitely support that. Yeah, but overall, happy to support this project. I think it's, like I said, really exciting. And I thank the staff and the applicant for what sounds like a pretty robust review process. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. And just for your information and others, it's a little confusing. So there is a row of parking against the viaduct that there's a requirement for a three-foot landscape buffer. In order to meet that requirement, the applicant is saying they're going to shorten those spaces, which they would be allowed to do anyway. The secondary issue that staff is proposing, some of those spaces then shrink in width to allow for a couple of shade trees to be planted in that area in conformance with the requirements. So it's sort of a two-step thing. Applicant seems fine with the three-foot landscape buffer. They are objecting to the trees because they don't want to shrink any parking spaces.

stood um yeah i mean i i think i still hold my position that um you know i guess converting some of those to fully compact spaces and the cost benefit to me of adding trees would be worth it but um but yeah like i said otherwise happy to support thank you mr mccormick uh mr king uh i would agree with the comments board member mccormick on this one in general happy to support it but align with his feedback on the comments thank you mr delera

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to see this project come to fruition as the proposal before us. I agree with my colleagues. In general, I would like to see some improvements to the facade and what staff is proposing, I think, is reasonable to at least achieve some semblance of facade improvements. So I would like to see what is proposed and 1C, 1E and 1I remain intact as proposed by staff. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dallara. And just to clarify on 1E, staff is proposing the addition of a clause to the extent practical. Is that right? Yeah. Okay.

Yeah.

Understood. Thank you.

Mr. Toomey. I guess my only comment relative to the parking, if someone has spent a lot of time in hotels, come in at 11 o'clock and you find a parking space that's got one car taking up two spaces because they're a compact space. I'd just as soon have the nine feet and sacrifice. I believe it would be two trees to be able to have full parking for that, especially where you're at 88 versus 105 rooms. So, again, it's not a deal-breaker either way, but, again, it's great to see this hotel coming in and, you know, hopefully we get it moving quickly.

Thank you, Mr. Toomey. Mr. Rosende.

I second Mr. Toomey's comments with respect to the parking spaces, but, again, I'm happy to see that something is getting built here.

Okay, for myself... The brick veneer seems like the board is generally in support of, and I will be as well happy with 1E. I would not be willing to sacrifice the trees. I understand the applicant's position, and I also have stayed in a lot of hotels, and I know it can be very frustrating not to find parking there. However, this is a key pedestrian environment in downtown Worcester. This is a... like the centerpiece of our city is Washington Square, I really don't like the idea that we're gonna kind of reduce the amount of trees that we would be required to put there. I wouldn't support that. So I'd be willing to modify 1E as proposed, leaving 1C and 1I as written. That's where I stand. Mr. O'Neill, I have a sense you wanna say some things.

yeah just with regard to the parking spaces i mean part of the reason why we're having the discussion is that um we're providing a three-foot buffer to a eight or nine or ten foot wall um so that there can be so i i don't think it in terms of looking from the outside in it's not going to buffer anybody on the opposite side because it's the wall that's there. And what we were trying to do is really wanted to keep those full size. And the idea was that, okay, so we can, and I understand that you are aware of this, but reduce the length but keep the width because in all likelihood what's going to happen is that people are going to park to the hotel. And you're going to, because those are people generally like to park closer to the door. And those will fill up first. And then you're invariably going to get full-size cars that have to use the compact spaces. And so not only are they shorter, but now they're narrower. And, you know, we are providing seven trees required. We're providing five. You know, that seems to me pretty close to seven. And that there should be some recognition on the part of the hotel who's going to be running a whole, you know, they need to accommodate their guest. And we're sort of... for the sake of two additional trees. There's a lot of additional trees that we've added on the perimeter, five out of seven. It seems to me that we're kind of meeting the city, if you will, on the length, but the width seems to be something which... hopefully you could take into account in terms of just that this is you know this is a business situation they do need to provide parking for their guests and would you know would appreciate it if the city would allow for not reducing the width and I think overall in terms of What's there now versus what we're proposing and all the other improvements that are being made that, you know, on balance, it's not really that much to ask for. We have agreed to practically everything else. Would you like me to pull the board? Sure. OK, I think I think I heard it, but but hopefully not some wish washing so.

I will just say I will vote now. Mr McCormick, how will you vote?

I think of a no is to maintain the trees and I would also be a no.

Correct, so no would be a yes would be modifying it and no would be keeping it the same. So you and I are on the same page. Mr King, how about you? And just confirm, so that's keeping it as is without the trees? No, with the trees. As is requires seven. They're asking for relief to go to five.

I'd be in, I'd probably be in now and just to take the width as well.

I mean, that's three. So, Mr. Dallara, do you care to weigh in?

I'm with my colleagues on this.

Okay, four. Mr. Toomey, you said you prefer the parking? Yes. Okay, so four to one.

All right. You know, in terms of the brick, I know we spent a lot of time on this already, but I mean, that is, it's a pretty substantial cost being imposed upon the applicant as well. You know, all brick facade can be monotonous, I would think, too. And I think that, you know, the material that we're proposing does give you more variation than you're going to have if everything's the same color. which is normally one of the things that staff is looking for is breaking up the facade so that it's not all the same and now what we're proposing basically is to take something which does show variation it does have a color change and making it all the same which is normally something that's frowned upon so and I guess the board will

You'll make your decision on that as well in terms of the voting, but I don't need a poll on that Understood and I would just say it's not the whole facade but it is a recommendation from staff To significantly increase the amount that appears to be brick doesn't could be brick veneer. I do understand loading and all that being an issue as it relates to structure and But given this kind of marquee location, Union Station being the gateway to kind of Worcester, Washington Square being where a lot of folks who are coming downtown go through, I think, for me, I feel strongly. And it seems that most of the board does as well. Anyone have any final comments before we bring this to a vote?

I'll weigh in a little bit on that. I mean, I know that we've heard and there's concessions being made in terms of, it seems like the board's agreeable to, you know, the sensitivity to Union Station, particularly on that southeast, southwest corner of the building, and we're agreeable to maximising glazing to the extent possible. To second that, regards to the brick, I mean, I know there's sensitivity to Union Station. I would make the counter-argument that if it was a fully red brick, train station, I would understand the desire to add more red brick here. But we're talking about a totally different animal. It's a predominantly white masonry building, and so I'm not sure if the desire is related to just the masonry and the fact that we've got red brick on this building. Let's add more of it. And to me, I'm just... It seems like, I don't want to say an arbitrary request in the sense that, well, we'd like more red brick because red brick is a historically accurate material in terms of better received than any sort of other façade treatment. I think to Mr O'Neill's point, here we've been very intentional on creating articulation, both the material change and depth of the building and accentuating the brick accents be very intentional with sort of a different veneer base and willingness to carry that precast banding around the building. My concern is that I get the request for masonry and we get this a lot in a lot of sort of more historically sensitive areas but in this application I'm not sure what positive response it's providing given that the focus here is Union Station and it's a completely different treatment of masonry in terms of color and geometry, roof lines and stuff like that. And so I get it and I understand if we're in a, If it's a different red brick train station, we're in a mill yard area with a lot of red brick buildings, totally get the request and we've obviously responded to that in the past. But I just think that here in terms of its treatment and articulation, are we giving up something in terms of what the current design is providing and its plane and material shifting and what that does for the overall composition and massing to go to predominantly red brick and we've lost some of that articulation. So I'll leave it there.

I appreciate your comments, and I'm sure we could have a much longer discussion. My mind is pretty made up, and it sounds like the board is as well, but if anybody wants to discuss this further, speak now. Okay, just one other thing I want to mention before we vote. Mr. Mehta, who has come to this board a number of times with creative ideas about architecture, just wanted to say thank you for your thoughts. I don't think this board is going to mandate that they move things around inside the hotel because that's not really our purview, but I thought it was a good suggestion.

Thanks. I may have missed something, but before you vote on the compact parking spaces, it could be written that Just that we have to provide the two additional trees. It may make more sense to just eliminate two parking spaces and keep the width as is, because that width is the entire length of the wall.

I believe it's written that way now, and that's how I read it. Ms. Smith, unless I'm missing something.

Yeah, I mean, if the applicant's preference is to have us break it up further, but basically it's sort of a two-part condition. The first is that they use compact spaces in that westernmost row relative to the depth of the stalls. And then the latter part is specifically that they expand the landscape island to the south to incorporate the two additional trees. If they'd prefer more latitude to find ways to incorporate those elsewhere, that's fine with us. We just anticipated that they would want to minimize the impact and probably just create like two compact stalls in that southern area by the entrance and widen the landscape buffer. But if they want to preserve the flexibility to put them elsewhere, we're fine with that. That was just our suggestion in terms of attempt to minimize their loss of overall spaces, understanding they're trying to honor keeping as many as possible as well but so up to the board.

Okay that would be appreciated. So you'd like more latitude? Yes. Okay so could we suggest then that condition one I instead of reading expand the landscape island to the south strike that whole part and just incorporate two more interior shade trees? Does that make sense?

Yeah, I think that would work.

So we'll delete basically. It'll say three-foot landscape buffer and reflect two additional interior shade trees.

That's what I would think.

Okay. I'm not sure I had enough of that before.

Okay.

So one, I guess one clarification sort of going back to the brick veneer. I mean, I know that we've had other requests from staff in terms of the glazing and I think everyone seems to be comfortable with maximizing glazing as much as feasibly possible. Can we have a similar statement relating to the brick veneer? I don't think that committing to all upper floors to be brick veneer, but some condition relating to working with staff to maximize brick veneer as much as possible and looking at how we play that out, particularly along Summer and Washington Square to incorporate as much as feasibly possible into the project that seems to make sense from an articulation and overall composition. Is that something that the board would be willing to to work with?

In our experience, if we give staff something that is too vague. It becomes an issue later on for everyone involved. It makes more work for you. It makes more work not just for the folks that are in this room, but when you get to ISD, et cetera, and they're reading this, they're like, what does this mean? What is the extent possible? So I do kind of hear what you're saying. I don't think this board is trying to hamstring you. I do think staff had suggested floors two to four. in those areas and i believe that's the way the condition is written now yes that is the way the condition is written now I'm sure minor deviations as you discover that there's an articulation reason you just want to highlight something, that generally can be worked out administratively. But I wouldn't, we can't just give sort of.

Would that apply to the full building perimeter or are we truly focusing on Summer Street, Washington Square and facing Union Station? I mean, obviously we've got the full west side of the building and even the north side, which are, from my standpoint, a different animal in terms of its sensitivity to Union Station. I mean, I guess right now it's sort of carte blanche, like masonry from floor two to four. Is it something that we can, street-facing facades, look at incorporating the brick veneer in those areas?

I'm not a fan, but I think board members might feel differently than I do. Only because I think you inevitably are looking at a corner at some point and you're like, why does it look like that?

Through the chair, I can just clarify too in terms of the comment and the intent to the applicant's representative's point on what we're trying to accomplish. It is relative to the masonry, the kind of aspect of the permanence of that type of material and consistency with those guidelines. So the red obviously is sort of the material and palette that they had proposed so that we were just suggesting matching that. with those upper stories to, again, create that continuous massing. In terms of our preference, specifically, it's more being sympathetic to Union Station, so the proximity to Union Station and the visibility from the public. To your point, yes, it's visible from multiple directions. I think the Washington Square-facing portions, which is a decent length of the building already, are the most important. Care certainly less about what projects into the parking area, so the kind of rear parking L shape if you will that I don't think we're you know, it will be less visible from the street Certainly, you might be able to see it peeking out from behind over off Foster Street over the railroad But it's I think a less important elevation than the facade facing Union Station Any board members feel differently than miss Smith I

Hearing none, I think then probably we could modify 1C to show along the Washington Square facing facades. We can probably add that after four, after two to four. Seems like that works. Okay, I think we might be ready for a motion.

Make a motion to approve the definitive site plan for 020 and 36 Washington Square and portions of the former Foster Street right of way. um subject to staff recommended conditions um on pages two through five of the staff memo with the amendments to conditions one c and one e as outlined i don't think we'd be including the waiver on page five

And through the chair, also condition I, we had modified relative to the trees.

Sorry. Yes.

One I.

And second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick. Yes. Mr. King. Yes. Mr. DeLera. Yes. Mr. Toomey. Yes. I vote yes. Motion passes five to zero. Good luck, guys.

Thank you. Moving on item number seven 123 Hamilton Street a public hearing for a definitive frontage subdivision plan Still here I Will be quick This is a request for definitive site plan approval for the record. My name is Donald O'Neill. I'm the lawyer here in Worcester and it is for Division over this property into two lots and the construction of a new three-family on the additional lot I have reviewed staffs recommendations of approval And have no problem with those There also are three waivers that are identified on page two I would request those waivers And would be happy to answer any questions you might have I

Okay, thank you. City staff on this?

This is Steve Carey in the planning division. much like the Defendive Frontage Subdivision Plan that came before you earlier in the evening. This is a plan to essentially create two lots. The requisite relief from frontage requirements has already been granted by the ZBA. So what the planning board here is doing is it's an approval under subdivision regulations. However, as Attorney O'Neill requested, all ALL REGULATIONS ARE WAIVED EXCEPT FOR THOSE THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR AN APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN FOR ESSENTIALLY A LOT SPLIT. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF CONDITIONS JUST WITH REGARDS TO TREE PLANTINGS THAT WE DO WANT TO SEE IN FRONT YARD OF THE LOTS THAT ARE BEING CREATED AND THAT'S IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE Zoning Board approval, so I just did want to note that as just something that makes this, you know, a slight detail that makes it not just a lot spent. So I just want to draw your attention to that. But otherwise, this is a straightforward Defendant Frontier Subdivision Plan.

Thank you, Mr. Carey. Any comments from DPW?

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

Thank you. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item? I don't see anyone in the room. Is there anyone online? Nobody is online. Okay. Thank you. Board members? Mr. McCormick?

Yeah, for myself, no concerns with this. Happy to support it.

Okay. Thank you. Mr. King? No comments. Thank you. Mr. DeLera?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No comment. I support this as well.

mr toomey no comments thank you uh thank you mr rozende no comments thank you um for myself also fairly straightforward happy to support um i think we're ready for a motion and we do need to close the hearing make a motion to close the hearing second on the motion mr mccormick yes mr king yes mr delera yes mr toomey yes uh yes as well for five to zero hearings closed

I would then make a motion to approve the definitive frontage subdivision plan for 123 Hamilton Street subject to staff recommended conditions of approval. Second.

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

Yes. Mr. DeLera.

Yes. Mr. Toomey. Yes. I vote yes. 5-0. Motion passes.

Thank you. Thanks.

All right, next up, item number 8, 1, formerly known as 5, Forest Hill Drive. This will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I'm James Tatro from Expedited Engineering here representing the owner of the property, GM Properties, LLC. The property is on the corner, sort of the hairpin turn almost, formed by two streets of Forest Hill Drive. and Moreland Street. Back in January, the board signed an A&R plan dividing that property into two lots. The existing house retained a 10,000 and change square foot area. A lot was separated from it going all the way to the corner. Containing 12,000 and some square feet what you have before you is a application for a definitive site plan approval For the reason the trigger which was hit was that of operating on and creating slopes greater than 15% There are some on that lot and just grading around that house just naturally in the form of grading from a drive under garage alignment where you're essentially one floor higher on the front towards Forest Hill Drive involves creating grades greater than 15%. WE ARE JUST IN FRONT OF THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION ON MONDAY. THEY VOTED TO ISSUE AN ORDER OF CONDITIONS. WE HAVE MADE A COUPLE REVISIONS LAST WEEK IN RESPONSE TO STAFF COMMENTS. WE HAVE BEFORE YOU A PLAN DATED JUNE 19TH WHICH I THINK ADDRESSES ACTUALLY ONE OR TWO EVEN OF THE COMMENTS AND THE SUGGESTED CONDITIONS FROM STAFF. This is, as I say, there was the existing house which had a long driveway out to almost the corner of Forest Hill Drive and Moreland Street. The new house will use that same driveway entrance without making any change. That curb cut will create the new house. The existing house will have a driveway off of, excuse me, of Moreland Street. If you're actually in front of that existing house, it appears to be a house on Moreland Street anyway at this time. If you're standing in Forest Hills, Hill Drive above it, it doesn't even seem to be actually part of that street. So that existing house will have a driveway off of Moreland Street. The new house will utilize the entrance that exists now off of Forest Hill Drive. We'll construct a relatively modest 26 by 32 home with drive under garage. And we'll have a four foot high retaining wall of conglomerate block on the I'll say the south and east sides of that house to create a minimal yard there. And I'll just leave it at also try to be relatively brief. I guess I would also say that there was one, we have no objection to the staff suggested conditions with one exception, which is number two, the construction management plan. As I say, we're actually using an existing driveway. The only intrusion into the rights of way will be for the sewer and water service connections. And the contractor said, geez, do I really have to SUBMIT THAT WHERE THOSE ARE THE ONLY INTRUSIONS. WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY PROPOSING ANY ALTERATION OF RIGHT OF WAY AND THAT SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THE FOCUSES OF THE STANDARD CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN CONDITION. SO WE WOULD ASK IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO DELETE THAT. IF NOT, FINE, WE'LL LIVE WITH IT. BUT I JUST THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE REASONABLE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.

UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU.

STAFF COMMENTS ON THIS? SURE. THIS IS STEVE CARING, THE PLANNING DIVISION. FOR YOU AS A SITE PLAN APPROVAL, For a single family home, it's before you because of the 15% slopes that it's being built on. As Mr. Tachar noted, the lot was created via an A&R plan separating off lot one where there is an existing house, which is accessed by a driveway off of Forest Hills Drive. That driveway is going to be reused for this single-family house. A new driveway is proposed for the existing house off of Moreland Street. We have a condition of approval with regards to that driveway, just making sure that it is three feet from the so that sort of southwestern lot line. Otherwise, conditions of approval, we just want to see downspouts reflected. One of the trees that was proposed is sourwood. We prefer it to be a species from the city recommended tree species list. More generally regarding trees, we just want to ensure that this does have a lot of mature trees on this lot. We want to make sure that they're protected to the extent feasible. we'd love to see it sounds like the construction entrance I know I do see that there's a detail for the site entrance I guess if the applicant could just confirm that the construction vehicles are going to be coming in via the driveway via the existing driveway that's great with regards to a construction management plan I guess I would I THINK WE'RE OKAY POTENTIALLY STRIKING THAT. I GUESS I'D LEAVE IT TO THE BOARD. TYPICALLY A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN IS, YOU KNOW, WE ASK FOR A PROJECT OF A LARGER SCALE. I THINK THAT THIS IS PROBABLY THAT DETAIL, THAT COMMENT WE HAD INCLUDED, AGAIN, JUST TO MAKE SURE AS THIS IS BEING BUILT IT'S MINIMIZING THE IMPACT ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE EXISTING TREES. I THINK AS STAFF WE'RE COMFORTABLE STRIKING IT, BUT WE OBVIOUSLY OF COURSE DEFER TO THE BOARD. OTHERWISE, THERE'S SOME COMMENTS HERE FROM DPW WATER AND DPW ENGINEERING FOR JUST ADDITIONAL THINGS TO BE REFLECTED ON THE PLAN. AND AS THE APPLICANT NOTED, THIS HAS BEEN THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION, SO ANY REVISIONS THAT THEY HAD REQUESTED RELATIVE TO EROSION CONTROLS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S MORE WITHIN THEIR PURVIEW, we have just added a condition that that be reflected. And I think that is all I've got.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Carey. Additional comments from DPW on this?

This is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We only have to comment is that we'd like to all the utility to be reflected in the plan and also to add the details for the driveway. He can find the details for the driveway in the City of Worcester page. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item tonight?

I don't see anyone in the room. Is there anyone online? This is Steve Carey. I do see a Peter Story. I have unmuted you on our end. You just have to unmute on your end, and we should be able to hear you.

Hello, am I coming through? You are.

Perfect.

So yeah, I'm Peter Story. I'm a neighbor to the existing house. Just a couple comments. So our house and that existing house are kind of stranded from sidewalks. So I wonder if there's an opportunity to connect the Forest Hills Drive sidewalk. down to potentially a new sidewalk on Moreland Street, since when there's new driveways being put in, it might be worth having that thought of. And then I don't know if this is anything that can be controlled, but whether there's going to be a new driveway for the existing house, it'd be nice to have a few feet between our lot line, since on our other side, we're getting squeezed. We're right up against our neighbor's driveway. So That's all.

Thank you for your comment, sir. I was a little confused about the driveway comment, only because the existing driveway or the new driveway is going to be replacing the existing driveway.

I think he's actually talking about on the existing house, a new driveway serving it will be coming off of Moreland Street here. And he may be the homeowner here. And he's saying he doesn't want it too close to him. Understood. I think we could certainly do something for either Arborvitae or some sort of plantings to help separate those, but it is kind of the spot that works best for the grades. So we would certainly have no objection to a condition stating that at the new driveway provided for number five, Forest Hill Drive, that vegetative screening will be provided to the abutter to the west.

Okay, thank you. I think we could incorporate that condition. Um, anyone else from the public wishing to speak on this? Hearing none, um, board members, Mr. McCormick.

Hi, um, no, no real concerns with the site, uh, plan. Uh, happy to support this. It sounded like the main two items were, um, potentially eliminating condition number two and then adding the condition that was just discussed. Unless I'm missing anything, I'm happy to support those adjustments and support the project. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. No, I agree that those are the two issues. It does seem like the construction management plan might not really be necessary. Staff seems to think that as well. Mr. King. Okay. Happy to support this one. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. DeLera.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No comment. I support this as well.

Thank you. Mr. Toomey.

No comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Rosende. No comments. Thank you. I also have no comments. We're ready for motion.

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. If I could just suggest with regards to the condition around the vegetative screening, if we want to just modify condition E to just say, because that was, the condition E we have is just about making sure that there is the three foot as required by zoning buffer between the driveway, the proposed driveway on the, accessing the existing house. If we want to just add at the end there and reflect a vegetative, vegetated screening on the west side of driveway.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

WITH THAT, I THINK I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DEFINITIVE SITE PLAN FOR ONE FOREST VILLAGE.

SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE SAID THIS, AND WE CAN STRIKE CONDITION TWO.

I would make a motion to approve the definitive site plan for 1 Forest Hill Drive with staff recommended conditions of approval with the amendment to 1E that was just outlined and striking condition 2.

Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick. Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Five to zero. Motion passes. Good luck.

Thank you very much for your time.

Next up, item number 9, 714 through 716 Pleasant Street, a public meeting for a definitive site plan.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. For the record, Mark Borenstein, an attorney at the law firm of Prince Labelle here in Worcester, representing the applicant, AA Eagle Properties, LLC. This evening, I'm joined with one of the representatives, Artin Amataj. So before you this evening is an application for a definitive site plan approval for the conversion of an existing two-family to a seven-unit multi-family low-res. We've got a two-minute video presentation for you, potentially.

maybe yep just uh steve carrying the plan division just give me one moment to switch to that video

There will be music. That's how we know it's working.

Maybe.

Apologies, I'm just working to get one other setting correct before I hit play.

You can just do it the old fashioned way if we had issues. It's OK. AA Eagle Properties LLC is excited to present its proposed multifamily development at 714-716 Pleasant Street. The property consists of approximately 13,500 square feet of land and is currently occupied by an existing two-plus-story, two-family residential structure with a floor area of approximately 8,680 square feet, along with an accessory garage and gravel driveway. The property is located just west of Newton Square and is surrounded by a mix of residential and neighborhood commercial uses. It is within walking distance of Midland Street Elementary School, Doherty Memorial High School, Elm Park, Newton Hill, Duffy Field, and numerous neighborhood businesses and services along Pleasant Street, Highland Street, and June Street. The property is located within a residence-limited RL7 zoning district. and within a managed growth area existing transit corridor under the Wooster Now Next plan. This designation encourages moderate residential growth in locations already served by public transportation and existing infrastructure. Consistent with that vision, a WRTA Route 2 bus stop is located directly in front of the property and Route 3 service is also nearby, providing convenient access to downtown Wooster and surrounding neighborhoods. The applicant is proposing to renovate and convert the existing structure into a three-story multi-family low-rise building. The project preserves the existing footprint and architectural character of the building while modernizing and improving the site overall. Proposed site improvements include 12 off-street parking spaces including 10 regular spaces and two compact spaces. Enhanced landscaping, retaining walls, fencing, bicycle storage, and utility improvements are proposed at the site. Overall, the project serves an important community need by creating additional housing in a highly walkable, transit-oriented location. The proposal aligns directly with the goals of the Worcester Now Next plan by encouraging moderate, context-sensitive residential growth along an established transit corridor. Ultimately, the project represents a significant investment in both the property and the surrounding neighborhood by preserving an existing structure, improving the site conditions, enhancing neighborhood aesthetics, and providing much-needing housing opportunities for the City of Worcester. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can flip it over to staff. We have maybe one requested change with respect to the conditions of approval, but we can address that after staff has provided their review. Okay.

Thank you. Planning staff?

Sure. Through the chair, site plan in front of you this evening for this project, given the number of units that you have here. So you see an existing structure that's being renovated, but they're actually adding a third story. So that's where the trigger is kind of coming in for the board's purview, combined with the number of units. We have recommendations for conditions of approval on pages two and three, which include the request for the addition of six different shade trees beyond what's already proposed to be provided, including some alongside the driveway in order to provide shade for the new impervious area. We are looking for the elevations to just be reflective of the capitals that used to exist on the front columns that have been modified in order to maintain that original kind of architectural design feature. And then the same with respect to the windows on the front side porch. on those elevations. There was a diamond pattern design and it's shown on one side of the architectural plan, so we just want to make sure that that continues to carry forward. We're also requesting a bike rack. DPW had a few comments, otherwise the rest of these comments and conditions are pretty standard. I'm happy to talk through anything that the board wants to discuss in terms of our comments. But otherwise, I'll just make note that the zoning board did previously approve this back in May, allowed the special permit to allow the use, dimensional relief related to the density of the proposal, as well as for parking and some modifications with respect to the driveway layout. I'm happy to answer questions. Thanks.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. DPW, do you have anything to add?

AS THE MEMBER OF THE BOARD SAID, THE COMMENTS, WE HAVE THE TRUE COMMENTS THAT WE INCLUDE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE APPLICANT THAT THIS WILL REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL BONDING AND THE ESTIMATE IS LIKE $10,500. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? Seeing no one in the room, is there anyone online? This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. Not seeing anyone online. Okay. Mark, do you want to tell us the conditions that you wish to discuss?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. staff is requesting six additional shade trees. Certainly willing to provide additional trees where possible. For the board's information, we already provided additional shade trees as part of the site plan review process and received comments from staff. So my understanding based, and I'll direct it to you through staff, my understanding is six additional trees based on what's shown on this current layout plan. In terms of the proposed location recommended by staff along the driveway, there are certain concerns with respect to visibility and sight lines by adding trees near the driveway. We are not able to put trees along the easterly boundary. It's too narrow in terms of the width. So willing to provide trees where we can, I just don't know if we can provide six shade trees on the site. So I defer to staff to identify where they were thinking those six trees were going to go.

Through the chair. So I guess my question back to the applicant is to confirm what the width of the landscape buffer is on the eastern side there.

So through the chair, my recollection was it's three and a half feet. And I believe there wasn't originally a comment as part of the ZBA process. where we sought the special permits and variances where staff was requesting trees along that boundary. The abutter was at the hearing and specifically said that he did not want trees along that boundary. So it's a pretty tight area given the proximity to the mixed-use building next door. So again, willing to provide trees. We have provided additional trees and shrubs. We're willing to provide additional shrubs. Just from a usability standpoint, we don't want the shade trees too close to the building. We don't want it too close to the neighbor's property. So just trying to meet the needs and the requests of staff, but certainly just want to be careful about what we're agreeing to with respect to these conditions, Mr. Chair.

Sure, through the chair. So on the west side of the driveway, there appears to be an easy opportunity to accommodate two additional trees along the edge of the driveway, possibly three. I think staff's thought was that the trees could be located on the eastern side. Three and a half feet should be adequate space. Our tree pits in the streets sometimes are three feet wide, so three and a half feet should be able to accommodate a tree. relative to the reference for the neighbor in terms of the trees and or sight lines I think there's room for trees to be placed further back off of the street away from any areas that would that would interfere with potential sight lines so I think I DON'T RECALL THE COMMENT RELATIVE TO THE NEIGHBOR OR WHAT SPECIFIC AREA THAT WAS IN REFERENCE TO, BUT I THINK ALONG THAT ENTIRE LENGTH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVEWAY IS, PROBABLY 100, WELL, THE LOT IS ABOUT 150 FEET DEEP AND THAT That almost spans the whole lot, so it's about 150 feet in terms of length of the driveway. So along that, providing three trees within that three and a half foot buffer at some point along that length.

I believe we got relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals specifically for that.

To comply with. with those specific requirements. So the staff are just requesting the trees. That's just, you'd ask for possible locations. I'm just throwing out places I see opportunities for trees. Yeah, no, I appreciate that.

And I'm just gonna ask Steve to pull up the Google Earth street view just so we can see, because I believe there's like a fence or the building's really close to the lot line. It's not as if like there's the buffer and then there's another grassy area. I think my recollection, having walked the street quite a few times, is the building is very close to the boundary.

Sure. We can pull up the first slide, I think, in the slide deck, which has an aerial image.

Don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill here, but we just want to have clarity on where these trees are going to go before we agree to them.

Just give us a second to switch back to slide. I think it's slide 39.

Yeah, there you go. You can see the building is very close to the lot line.

So I just want to be clear because I did discuss this item with staff previously. My understanding was certain number of trees were conditioned by ZBA as part of that approval. Is that correct?

Through the chair, I need to pull up the decision. So give me one second here because I don't remember all the conditions off the top of my head.

And Mr. Chair, my recollection was whether or not they were in the decision, we updated the site plan as part of the post-IRT overview process with staff. So regularly we submit plans to staff, staff come back with comments before the board even receives that final plan set. My recollection was that there was previously a tree added behind the dumpster area that wasn't previously there. So I recall us updating the plans to add additional trees. So again, happy to add trees where we can, but recognizing that the layout poses some difficulties.

Through the chair, I don't believe there are trees that were required as part of the zoning board of appeals decision based on what I'm looking at.

So then, Mr. Chair, if I may, if we go to the layout plan, you can see that we're showing proposed trees being added to the plan.

Layout plan?

Yeah. Because I recall we updated the plan to reflect the planting plan. Yeah, so, Mr. Chair, if I may, members of the board, if you scroll down a little bit, Steve. We added this tree here, proposed tree. We've added shrubs. I mean, we're happy to put maybe some street trees.

through the chair i'll just clarify i don't see any additional vegetation that wasn't reflected on the plans that are a part of the zoning board set if i'm looking at the right plan so all these plantings are new Through the chair, I think the point is regardless of what the CPA had conditioned, staff had recommended the six trees. Those were ideas about where they could go. If the applicant doesn't feel that they can accommodate those, I would ask them to suggest a modification to the condition.

So I guess through the chair, to staff, the applicant would request that we modify the condition to provide two shade trees i imagine we can find two places to put two shade trees six just seems like a significantly more daunting task again i spoke to the engineer earlier today and he specifically said that we cannot put them along the westerly side of the driveway so effectively it's going to be along that that westerly boundary of the property um and i'm sorry not the front yard i mean we could put it in the front yard um It's a nice setback and it would detract from the improvements to the building itself. Certainly trees are nice to look at too, but I don't know.

Just to clarify, did the applicant's council just say that they can't put two trees on the western side of the driveway?

So we, according to the engineer, there could be certain visibility issues with respect to putting trees near the driveway entrance.

even though there's five trees along the front, that'll obscure visibility?

I asked the engineer about access and the trees along the driveway. I'm an engineer.

Defer to the board on this. We don't need to spend, yeah, it's up to the board.

Engineers, we're very good at saying we can't do things until someone forces us to come up with a creative solution. So my question is, it looks to me like there's some trees in the front yard, or am I not looking at this closely enough?

Through the chair, in terms of what's proposed in the front yard, there are four trees, and then there's an existing shade tree in the public right-of-way.

Okay. So there are four trees that are going to be added to the front yard already? As it's today?

The applicant is proposing four trees, yes, as we've shown on the plan. That's the zoning board approved.

Got it. And the applicant is saying, staff is asking them to add six more shade trees.

addition to the trees that are on the plan i'm sorry that is the condition we have yep okay so mr chair i'd ask that we strike that condition given that there are four shade trees in the front yard being added or two i mean to add six shade trees just seems um like i mean i think if we have the planting plan i think we're already proposing a total of six shade trees you see five a three year we're fine with two trees Steve, maybe you could go to the bottom right. There's the planting plant.

The applicant's assertion is that it's not possible to put trees on the east side and it's not possible to put trees on the west side. There's room in the front yard for probably two trees. That's my suggestion without interfering with the building envelope. And given that there's likely utility infrastructure that runs through the front yard as well, that would be my thought. I guess I don't understand the rationale relative to the west side of the driveway. I understand the proximity of the building. Obviously, if we go back again to slide 39, you can see the location of the adjacent structure. So there's concern along the length of that structure for adding those. it does appear to me that there would be the ability to add an additional tree in front of the building on the east side of the driveway and then the garage that you see there is being removed as part of the project does look like there's a portion of an existing tree in the backyard for the house that's on the right i'm not sure if that how current this particular image is and if that tree is still there but given that location It's possible you could get one more tree in there, but that's probably the max. So if they could do two in the west and two there, that would be four. So I think a reduction from six makes sense. But again, not understanding that fully, but happy to compromise and say two trees because they can definitely provide those in the front yard. But if the board would prefer to strike it altogether.

Attorney Bornstein, two trees in the front yard, is that acceptable to the applicant?

Could we just say add two additional shade trees on the site? So that way if we put it on the westerly boundary of the site itself, I just want to confirm with the engineer.

Yeah, so as it's written, if we just change six to two, that gives them the flexibility to put it wherever.

Yeah, okay. Let's do that. Thank you. Appreciate the accommodation.

Anything else?

No, Mr. Chair. Well, I would say just strike the language as including along the driveway.

All right, so change six to two and the part in between the commas about including alongside the driveway. Yes, sir. Everything else is acceptable to the applicant. Thank you.

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. We do have seemingly a member of the public with their hand raised online if the board is willing to entertain a public comment.

We are. I don't think we even got the public comment yet. Okay, sorry. Thank you. Is there anyone in the room wishing to speak on this tonight? Then let's hear from the member of the public online.

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. You should be unmuted now.

So I'm in a butter on the other side, the westerly side of this property that's going to be a massive addition to the area.

Excuse me, could you just tell us your name for the... Oh, I'm sorry.

Jean McInerney, 720 Pleasant Street.

Thank you.

So I just have a few questions on, I mean, obviously this is a done deal, but my questions are, there's been a number of discussions, lengthy discussions about the plantings around the driveway. His intention is, he needs to widen that driveway. So of course there's not going to be any space for trees. The driveway right now is barely, one car length, one car width wide, and a lot of plows cannot even get there. So that's happening. I don't hear anybody addressing that. But also the westerly side of the, my side of the property is a variance was, allowed for two and a half feet. So that means it's going to be closer to my property with no plantings that I can see have been required. In addition, no one is discussing the redesign of Newton Square Rotary, which affects exiting and entering the driveway as well as parking. in front of this property and parking in front of the pizza place. They're going to lose that parking. So I guess I'm just questioning, like, does anybody ever address these issues? You spent a lot of time on that property for the Hampton Inn, which I think the city of Worcester absolutely needs more hotels. So anyway, those are my questions. It's a major concern. It's a major concern because it's absolutely an assault on the neighborhood, which it could have been downsized and still increased some housing opportunities. The quote on how the size of the property It's the gross area. I've never seen that happen. When you sell a property, it's the living area, not the gross area. But they're including the gross area to make it like this massive open property in which to develop. So anyway, those are my two cents. I'm not happy with it. And I think it's going to affect my property values and absolutely is going to change the face of the neighborhood and set a standard for change to the whole area. And I will say, and this is kind of a personal opinion, those people that live in insulated neighborhoods, this will never happen to you, or those people that live or do not live in the city of Worcester, which it will never happen to you, the rest of us have to be impacted by all of these decisions because it will never affect where you live. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. JUST ONE THING I'LL HIGHLIGHT FOR YOU REGARDING THE NEWTON SQUARE REDESIGN BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT A PICTURE IN THE MEMO OF SORT OF WHERE THE STATUS OF THAT DESIGN IS RIGHT What we're allowed to sort of discuss and influence is related to the site itself, not the larger context of the transportation infrastructure. However, I do see this design and I do understand that it may preclude them from being able to take a left out of their driveway. They may have to take a right, similar to what we were discussing with the hotel that you mentioned. and then go around the rotary if they wish to, wish to go, I guess, up Pleasant to the west. So nobody's talking about it, but it is noted and it has been reviewed as part of the extensive review processes this property has had. And just for your comments as to the size, unfortunately, that's outside of our purview. That was zoning board who granted those various requirements WAIVERS, THOUGH I CERTAINLY AS A CITIZEN OF WOOSTER DO UNDERSTAND KIND OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU'RE RAISING. SO THANK YOU FOR COMING AND INVOICING YOUR OPINION. I'M SORRY THE ANSWERS AREN'T MORE SATISFYING. MR. KERRY, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE ONLINE? GIVE ME ONE MOMENT.

NOT SEEING ANYONE ELSE WITH THEIR HAND RAISED. OKAY, BOARD MEMBERS, MR.

Sure, I actually live my house is just around the corner from this location. I. I actually think this is a, I understand the butter's comments about it being a change to the scale of that, to the area. However, you know, I do, I do think that this is a modest increase in size relative to its location on a main artery and, and on basically on two bus routes and as noted in the now next plan is a managed growth area. But i guess aside from that from the site itself uh no concerns happy to support the project as designed i think the compromise on the on the trees is reasonable to the conversation we had so i'm happy to support it thank you mr mccormick uh mr king no further comments thank you thank you mr delero

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I'm sensitive to the abutter's comments as well, but as it relates to the purview of this board and the project before us, it seems appropriate. So I'll support this, and I would also congratulate Mr. Borenstein on being named to the Power 100 of the WBJ.

What?

Thank you, Mr. DeLera. Mr. Tooming. No additional comments. Thank you. Mr. Rosente? No comments, thank you. I also have no additional comments. I think we're ready for a motion.

Okay, I would make a motion to approve the definitive site plan for 714-716 Pleasant Street subject to staff recommended conditions of approval on pages two and three of the staff memo with the amendment to, was it 1A as discussed?

Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King?

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

Yes. I vote yes, 5-0. Motion passes. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Moving on to item number 10, 1 and 7, Renfrew Street and 680 Grafton Street. This will be a public hearing for a definitive frontage subdivision plan. Welcome back.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, for the record, Mark Bornstein, attorney of the law firm at Prince Labelle here in Worcester, with my co-counsel, Don O'Neill. We have a, yeah, we're, we're, it's a two-man band this evening. Can I get the slide deck, Steve? Just to orient the board, just because it's a little bit confusing. So we have a definitive frontage subdivision. It's a little bit funky. We're reconfiguring the lots to allow for a more developable portion of Grafton Street. And we just go to the proposed lots, existing and proposed. Steve, please. So the lots, two of the lots are currently occupied by existing residential buildings. 7 Renfrew Street is occupied by single family attached dwellings. 680 Graff Street is occupied by two families under construction. Maybe go to the next couple slides. That's the two family, that's the single family attached. So these are existing lots. Oh, go back please. So you can see here, we've got this kind of unique shape here. This is 680 Grafton Street. This is 1 Renfrow Street. This is 7 Renfrow Street. So currently, there's frontage along Grafton Street. We're proposing to create this new lot line here, which would separate this area shown as Lot B, which is about 3,870 square feet, and combine that with 1 Renfrow Street to create one lot there. And then maybe go to the next slide, Steve. And then we're going to add this piece that was previously part of 7 Renfro Street to 680 Grafton Street to provide frontage along Renfro Street. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted variances and some additional relief with respect to this modification. THERE ARE SOME WAIVERS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THEM AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE. THANK YOU.

STAFF ON THIS ITEM.

STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM. STAFF ON THIS ITEM.

STA

SUBDIVISION TO CREATE THESE, THE LOTS SHOWN IN YELLOW AND BLUE, AND THE LOTS SHOWN IN GREEN, BUT THE LOTS IN YELLOW AND BLUE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE DEFICIENT FOR FRONTAGE, ESSENTIALLY. THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE REQUISITE RELIEF FROM THE ZONING BOARD, SO THIS APPROVAL IS TO CREATE THE LOT LINES AS SHOWN. OBVIOUSLY, ALL OF THE the applicant has requested waivers from some of those regulations except for those that would be required for an A&R plan.

Okay, thank you. DPW on this?

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

Okay, thank you very much. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item? No one in the room. Is there anyone online?

Not seeing anyone with their hand raised.

Okay, board members?

Hi, this is Connor. No comments for myself. Happy to support it.

Thank you. Mr. King?

No comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. DeLera? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No comment. Thank you. Mr. Toomey? No comments. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Rezende? No comments. Thank you. I also have no comments. I think we're ready for a motion.

All right. I would make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick? Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Five to zero. Hearings closed.

I would then make a motion to approve the definitive frontage subdivision plan for 1 and 7 Renfrew Street and 680 Grafton Street, subject to staff recommended conditions of approval. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick? yes mr king yes mr gillera yes mr toomey yes i vote yes five to zero motion passes thank you good luck with your new partnership All right next up item number 11 Burt Street right-of-way the area adjacent to 70 74 winter street This will be a public meeting for an MGL 81 G which is a private street improvement Good evening.

Mr. Chair again for the record mark Borenstein attorney at law firm of Prince LaBelle here in Worcester representing W lofts Realty Trust The requested 81G approval relates to some utility infrastructure in Burt Street in connection with the mixed use adaptive reuse of 70 to 74 Winter Street. This project actually didn't come before the board. It was exempt from site plan approval given that we weren't proposing any modifications to the footprint of the building. All the modifications were interior. This scope of work relates to the installation essentially of a generator and transformer some some ballers and some additional electrical conduits we've reviewed staff's recommended conditions of approval they are generally acceptable the only modification that we would request is that the dpw engineering comment the off-site improvements will require bonding through dpw engineering we would ask that that be in effect prior to the commencement of construction as opposed to the release of the decisions But other than that, we're happy to answer any questions that the board may have, and the other conditions are acceptable. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Staff comments on this?

Sure, through the chair. So it sounds like the applicant's amenable to the conditions, but I will just highlight the concerns that we have and what those conditions address. So this is really a Chapter 12, Section 12 review, which basically is an open functioning street, but there's some modifications to that occurring. So the board's reviewing the adequacy of the surfacing, grading, drainage, and improvements overall. In this case, it's two existing former transformer generator pads that are being replaced with new infrastructures. There's an existing chain fence that's being removed. We might have a photo in our slides here that the applicant's proposing to remove and then just expand. So you can see here in the corner, basically removing the chain link fence you can see those metal bollards there and then they're it's covered in snow because this is back when this was in front of the zoning board for review but those you can see the concrete pads there and so they're looking to expand one of those in order to accommodate a larger infrastructure component and then use reuse the other pad for another piece of infrastructure so a generator and a transformer The plans show that the new bollards would actually be placed sort of closer to you as you're looking at this on the screen. Our concern is just that that not go any closer and further constrain the right of way. It's narrow already. It's only 15 feet clear from one side of the street to these bollards. So we would just want to make sure that that's maintained. So we have a condition to address that. It sounds like the applicant is agreeable to that. They previously indicated they wouldn't move closer, but just the plans were at conflict with that. The one other thing that we wanted to clarify, and we do have this conditioned as well, was just if we go back to the civil plan, you'll see that the improvements kind of taper off on the eastern side of the plan. Birch Street continues further east, and so we're just looking for them to specify exactly the extent of the improvements. within Burt, then that further eastern section, as well as if there's any interconnection in Grafton, which I believe there is, and that's where the DPW comments are coming from, so we're just looking to get that on the plan. If anything that I've stated is incorrect, I'll have the applicant's attorney correct me. I think the one other question we had was just if there is any changes to lighting in this location, just at that turn, there's some wall packs on the existing building. We're assuming that those are just going to remain, but wanted to confirm that there weren't changes occurring at that corner just because it's shadowed with buildings, so at night it might be dark because it turns 90 degrees. Wanted to make sure no one hits the infrastructure.

As far as I know, there's no modifications proposed with respect to that lighting. Great. It's treacherous out there. I was just telling Steve that I nearly tripped and fell when I took that photo. It's challenging back there, so certainly need that lighting.

Great. Thanks, so again, conditions of approval that staff have recommended are on page two of three. Generally standard conditions for this type of project, along with the plan revision conditions that I noted provided by our staff, as well as those provided by DPW Water and Engineering. Thank you.

Okay, DPW, do you have any comments?

Yes, the additional bonding will be HOW DO I SAY? WE GAVE THE ADDITIONAL BONDING AT THE MOMENT THEY OPENED THE PERMIT WITH DPW. SO IF THE BOARD WANTS TO APPROVE THE PROJECT WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL BONDING, WITHOUT PAYING THE ADDITIONAL BONDING NOW, that is okay because either way they cannot start a permit without paying the additional bonding right thank you yep okay thank you for that clarification um anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item anyone online steve carrying the plan division no one online all right board members

uh this is connor for myself no concerns with the plan happy to see this um building being uh renovated uh it's a it's a very beautiful nice building in the canal district so happy to support this plan to help move that along and no concern with the i think it's the moving of condition was it's 3h to prior to a building permit um Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Mr. King? No concerns. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. DeLera?

No comment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Toomey? No comments. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rosende? No comment. Thank you. Also no comments. Ready for a motion.

Okay, I would make a motion to approve the A1G GRO Chapter 12, Section 12, private street improvement for Burt Street right-of-way, subject to staff recommended conditions of approval with the amendment to Condition 3H to require that prior to a building permit. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick. Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. Mr. Gelera? Yes. I vote yes as well. Five to zero, motion passes. Thank you. Thanks. Next up, item number 12, 600 and 604, Lincoln Street, a public hearing for a zoning map amendment.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Committee. My name is Ruby Pezzanetti. I'm the chief operating officer for the Edward M. Kennedy Community Health Center. I'm joined here tonight with Kofi Adjaman, who is my director of facilities. We have locations at our administrative office at 115 Northeast Cutoff in Worcester, our first clinical site at 19 Tacoma Street in Worcester, and our second clinical site at 605 Lincoln Street on Worcester. I would like to address the rezoning petition from the health center, but really kind of want to ground the conversation on why there is a need and why this request is coming. Our mission at the health center is to help people live healthier lives, and we believe that everyone has a right to accessible, high-quality, comprehensive, and compassionate healthcare. As a community health center, NFQAC, we provide care to some of the most vulnerable residents in the city of Worcester. Those who are often disparate and at risk for high chronic risk disease and poor health outcomes. Our health center was founded as the Great Book Valley Health Center. If those who've been around for a while remember, we used to call it the Valley in 1972 by seven women who were seeking better access to health care for their families. These women lived in the Worcester housing, public housing complex, and relied on hospital emergency room for care. And as a result, they really wanted to bridge that gap to access. and were able to petition the worcester housing authority negotiated for a nurse practitioner and that nurse practitioner came to the valley to provide care in the worcester housing and that is in true form of what community and neighborhood is and true to that route the health center continues to grow to meet the increasing needs of the residents in the city of Worcester, which is a growth and a demand for access to affordable care. And we've been providing this service for over 53 years. This project is meant to continue to support that and continue to support the residents in the city of Worcester. So the health center is requesting to support to amend the zoning map. So that's 600 and 604 Lincoln Street. are consistently zoned as business limited 1.0, resolving the current split zoning conditions that exist today. This matters because the current split between BL1 and RS7 limits our ability to plan and use the site cohesively for healthcare, administrative needs, patient support, and community green space. are like we say we serve the residents of Worcester who often face barriers to timely affordable and comprehensive care in our health center really is the only option in the Worcester area. When you think about the greater partners such as UMass and Vincent, they no longer accept the Medicaid health plans that most of our patients do come with, and therefore we are the only option versus traveling all the way to the city of Boston to receive care. We feel that a unified zoning designation creates a cleaner, more predictable land use framework for the city, the health center, the neighbors, and the public. We were very thankful for the comments that we received during the open period, and we respect all of those recommendations coming from that group. And with that, we fully support the staff recommendations on maintaining a buffer, a RS-7 buffer, to the possible preserving existing trees and vegetation wherever possible and ensuring that no business related access parking or stormwater management occurs within that buffer. Our goal and intent was always to be there for the community and the neighbors and we have no desire to really deviate from that and what we've done for the last 53 years. Like I said, our project is meant to be thoughtful about how we grow our footprint within the Worcester community. And the future investment in that Lincoln Street parcel can really help not only grant and create more access to health care, but also bring additional jobs. to the city of Worcester and access for nearby Worcester businesses and neighbors. And so we really request that more than zoning, this is about really strengthening Worcester's healthcare infrastructure and expanding access to care and really reducing the disparities that continue to be exacerbated. with the current landscape of healthcare within this country. And with that, we're open to answer any questions that the chair or the staff may have.

Okay, thank you very much. Turn it over to staff.

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. So this is the zoning map amendment before you. It would extend the BL1 zoning district further into the parcels at 600 and 604 Lincoln Street, which are both presently split zoned. BL1 is the zoning district for the portion of the parcel that front on Lincoln Street. And then RS7, a single family zoning, is the portion of the parcel that fronts on Pasadena Parkway and a portion of Seattle Street. As you would imagine, there are significant differences between the RS-7 and BL-1 zoning districts in terms of land uses that would be permissible. RS-7 really limits land uses to strictly single-family housing. BL-1 would allow by right density of housing up to multifamily dwelling low-rise. A number of businesses would be allowed by right, such as a bank or credit union, food service, an office. Other businesses would now, would be allowed, but would require a special permit, such as like drive-through uses, motor vehicle service and repair, that sort of thing. A couple of manufacturing uses, a number of manufacturing uses as well would be allowed by a special permit. And then in terms of dimensional requirements, it's generally a bit more permissive in the BL1 zoning district. THIS PARCEL HISTORICALLY HAD BEEN A SITE OF A HISTORICAL PROPERTY THAT WAS DEMOED A FEW YEARS BACK. IT HAS BEEN FUNCTIONING AS A USED CAR LOT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. PRIOR TO THIS, IT IS PRESENTLY VACANT. AS THE APPLICANT NOTED, WE DID DISCUSS IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS FROM ABUTTERS THAT WE HEARD THAT THEY LEAVE A 25-FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN THE THE PASADENA PARKWAY, SEATTLE STREET, AND THEN THE PARCELS THAT ARE SORT OF ABUTTING TO THE NORTH AND EAST, WHAT THIS BUFFER OF RS7 ZONING WOULD MEAN IS THAT WHILE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO REGRADING IN THIS PORTION AND DO CLEAR-CUTTING SHOULD THEY WISH TO, NONE OF THE There could be no land use in this buffer that wouldn't be allowed in RS7 zoning, so there couldn't be any parking or any access way. In particular, we want to be clear that that buffer would mean that there couldn't be access to a business land use via Pasadena Parkway or Seattle Street. OTHER THAN POTENTIALLY EMERGENCY ACCESS. IF FOR SOME REASON SITE DESIGN NECESSITED EMERGENCY ACCESS OFF OF ONE OF THESE STREETS THEN POTENTIALLY THERE COULD BE AN EMERGENCY ACCESS WAY WITH THE GATE BUT THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY EXCEPTION. SO AGAIN WE'RE GLAD TO SEE THAT THE PETITIONER WAS RESPONSIVE TO THE IDEA OF DOING A 25-FOOT BUFFER AGAIN TO SORT OF MAKE SURE THAT THE zoning does not encroach into the single-family neighborhood that abuts directly to the north. I think that's it for my comments, but glad to answer any questions that the board might have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Carey. Any comments from DBW on this?

Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We don't have any comment for this one. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Members of the public? One at a time.

Hey, good evening. I'm Mr. Nathan Hicks, the abutter that they have not talked to at 608 Lincoln Street. just going to read what I have here. So I directly abut 604 Lincoln Street, which is that parcel of property with the L that's right there. Just a note there, proud combat vet who deployed, fought wars to uphold the rights and liberties and laws and protect the people of our great nation, right? I returned home to build a life in this neighborhood, right, at 608 Lincoln Street, believing that the rules of our community would protect the individual citizens and not bend them to a commercial expansion. I'm here to express my urgent, unequivocal opposition to this, this request to convert the entirety of this 604 Lincoln, which I see there is an adjustment of 25 feet now, so that is a change. into the BL1 zone erases the intentional design that was set for this area, right? I strongly demand that the back half of 600 and 604 Lincoln Street retain the current RS7, a family residential designation to protect the residential integrity of that Pasadena Parkway, Wayside Road, and Seattle Street. I'm going to a laundry list of reasons why this is not good for our neighborhood. But I already put that in one letter to you guys. So please review that for your consideration. A couple of critical things right here is the existing split zoning was established to as a defensive shield between the heavy commercial strip on Lincoln Street and the quiet single family homes behind it. Erasing this boundary allows commercial zone to break through and swallow the residential backyard corridors. And like they said, this can set a precedence for all the other businesses along that area. Under RS7 zoning, residential setbacks are legally mandated and protect the homeowners. Rezoning the entire property to the BL1 allows the commercial structures up to 40 feet tall to be built right against our property lines. A commercial building of that scale will completely loom over my yard and my neighbor's yard. It'll be blocking the natural light and strip away all the privacy that my family and the other neighbors have in this area. Moving this commercial zone boundary directly to the single-family backyards means that commercial HVAC units, industrial lighting, dumpsters, and delivery areas can be placed inches from our property lines. The noise, the odor, the light pollution, and heavy degrade are living conditions. They did mention just here that they want to help those people that can't get the help. If anyone goes to any of our local neighborhood meetings, you'll understand that The problem is that those people are getting dropped off down there due to the methadone clinic that's there and the free bus rides that they get here in the city. I don't think it's going to help, and the homeless shelter that's getting put up, right? Adding a healthcare facility here in that manner for the size that they need is not going to be beneficial to the residents that live there and that are behind that Lincoln Street boundary. Lastly, this amendment opens the corridor to high-density commercial traffic, forcing traffic condition patterns closer to the intersections of Pasadena Parkway, Wayside Road, and the Seattle Street crossing. Just note that just up the hill right there is an elementary school. We already have issues that we complain to the city about for people drag racing and flying up and down the roads. Adding more traffic to that area is unreasonable. All right, now I do not object to any reasonable low intensity commercial use of the existing commercial frontage that faces Lincoln Street, keeping it as is. However, expanding the business zone into the residential setback half is a failure to protect the citizens who live in our neighborhood, our city. As a veteran who sacrificed to defend the rights and liberties of our citizens, I expect our local government to stand for the community members it represents. I urge you, the Planning Board, to issue a recommendation of denial for the amendment unless the applicant is willing to modify their request to keep the portions of 606 and 604 Lincoln Street strictly zoned as an RS-7. I thank you for your time and consideration and your commitment to protecting the Worcester residents and our heritage. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Go ahead, sir. Bruce Hoffner. I'm a trustee of one of the properties on Lincoln Street and Wayside Road. So first of all, I'm on Medicare and Medicaid. So I don't have any problem going to UMass to get health care. So I pretty much resent the fact that you're saying that you're the only show in town.

Just a point for you. You got to talk to me, not to the applicant. I'm sorry.

Through you to her, I resent that. The second thing is they bought the property at 604. There was so much discussion about the hotel getting a couple of trees and so forth. They ripped out every single tree, every single bush. at 604 Lincoln Street, ripped them right out, never replaced them, nothing, all right? Before they put a nail in any of the building, before they did anything, and they've never replaced it. They're not good neighbors. There's junk on the back, Pasadena Parkway in Seattle. There's trash piled up there. It's been up there for years. Mr. DiPilato can attest to what I'm saying. They never do anything about it. They're not good neighbors. I don't expect them to be good neighbors. They're lying now. What's going to happen down the road? This boundary was put there to protect the neighborhood because when they changed the zoning, they had every intention of, protecting the people that are in that neighborhood, not turn it into a commercial venture. They made $2.7 million profit last year. Not last year, in 24. They made $54.5 million in revenue. This is a profitable game. Let's not play the bleeding hot. All right. This is this is a business. OK. And it's a 501 C which is they're not paying real estate taxes. OK. So they're not paying real estate taxes across the street and now they're not paying real estate taxes there. But everybody else in this neighborhood every other business has to pay outrageous outrageous real estate taxes. And you can't talk to the assessor because he's MIA all the time. You can't. It's just impossible. But you have 501Cs that jump in the neighborhood, all right, and they just grab everything they can. I just feel like they're a thief in the night and we're getting fleeced. The neighborhood, they've never been to a meeting. They've never been to a neighborhood meeting. We have neighborhood meetings all the time. 50 Oreo Drive was up there. I didn't see them there for that meeting. Okay, that turned into a homeless shelter in the middle of the winter. All right, and all those people that went to the homeless shelter, all the drug addicts and so forth, are still in that area. They're sleeping in areas. They're sleeping in woods, by the church, everywhere. They're still there. Okay, they nod out in the middle of the street. Little kids are trying to go to school. They got to walk around them because they're nodded out on the sidewalk and in the street. This neighborhood's turned into a holy hell, all right? And they're not making it better. And it's because this was put there for the neighbors to have some sort of peace and quiet so businesses weren't encroaching on the neighborhood. we we can't stand this again we can't they already disrupted it i hear they want to put a hotel in okay we have a shortage of hotels now all right there's a perfectly good hotel up on the hill on oreo drive it's been unused for five years because this board approved it for a shelter for behavioral health people, and they couldn't get the funding. They didn't even have the funding when they were asking for this, but you approved it anyways. And then you threatened us with having an area where you're gonna have people supervised to be injected with drugs. You said, oh, we need that in that area, too. I mean, you need to be reasonable here. This is very unreasonable. This is beyond reasonable. Let's not play the bleeding heart game, because it's not flying. There's plenty of other places in Worcester where they don't have to encroach on a neighborhood, a peaceful neighborhood that Many people enjoy, okay, it's one of the most affordable neighborhoods in the city where a family can buy a house, can afford to buy a house. Once we encroach on this, what's going to be left? You know, a lot of people work two, three jobs to buy a house. This man's had, his family's had this property for three and four generations. He doesn't deserve that. His doorstep is right there. This is, and it's an abomination of justice. You seriously need to do some thinking about what's going on here, and don't be hoodwinked like you were before. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Hi, I'm Jeff DiPolato. And as Bruce had said before, nobody contacted me as far as anything about that. being done. Okay. I'm seeing that footprint at the first time. See that little box there right off of Seattle Street. That's a house right there. They're right next to the house. Okay. That's my neighbor. Okay. Mr. Lawrence lives there. He's 72 years old.

And he's ill. Otherwise he'd show up here.

I live on the other side. I'm on the corner lot right there, okay, of Pasadena and Seattle. And I own the property, probably a considerable amount of property in that area. You're having this right on my doorstep, okay? I've already had somebody break into my house. They broke into the front door, they broke into the side doors, and that's not even having them on top of me. this is a buffer. The reason why we have different zones it used to be rs5. The We need housing for people. We don't have any places to put people. Now you're taking spaces for housing away so that they can put industrial issues here. If you define what the BL can do, now I can have somebody, you know, they can manufacture whatever they want right next to my house. Never mind, I mean, I do facilities. Okay? So, okay, they're going to have air conditioners. They're going to have all these other units. They're going to have generators. I know with generators, every Wednesday or every Tuesday or whenever they want to do it, they're going to have those things fire up because they have to maintain them. Okay? That's going to, right now, with the trucks and stuff like that that are banging with dumping and everything else, I hear that. Now, all of a sudden, now I'm going to have all this noise and all these possible people coming into my neighborhood, into my yard, into my home, my privacy. People are going to go up and they're going to look right into my house. I mean, really, the only thing that I have right now is the difference between the zoning. And as you keep on encroaching in it, what prevents anybody from having a home or something like that, having their own private place? I don't want people looking at me as I'm, you know, cooking on my grill or whatever. I don't want people, you know, wandering through because they left a facility. They've got a 25-foot. I know right now on that corner between Seattle Street and Pasadena Parkway where they're doing, that's all ledge. What are they going to do if they're going to build on that? Are they going to start blasting? Because I know that area. I've been there since my grandparents were there, since, you know, 1920s. That subdivision was built and designed in 1915. This is historic. I'll show you the plan. I have the plan. I'm a civil engineer. That's going to affect me huge. Never mind all the other people that are right there that have been there for decades and generations. That's not going to be beneficial for anybody in that area. I'll be honest with you. If they can make it, you know, I've seen so many different things. I'm not opposed for people to having help. But if you go up Oreo Drive, they put all these other buildings for those purposes. The VA hospital that was there, my grandparents owned that land, and they built the VA hospital off of Lincoln Street, which then became the Kennedy Center. And now they're coming over and... taking the property there, which is fine, but don't start encroaching onto the residential area. And, you know, I mean, I don't want to look out my front door or out my bow window, okay, and see a big dirt building. I'm sorry. I mean, 30 years I've been paying off on my house, okay, and that's not going to help.

I'm sorry, I just- It's going to deeply affect the- The property values? The property values. This is going to kill the property values. This is a detriment.

Sorry, just because you had your turn and now it's this gentleman's turn. I'm sorry.

I apologize. I don't mind him talking with me.

I get that. I'm just supposed to keep order and all that.

I appreciate that. But like I said, nobody confronted me. Nobody even considered me whatsoever as far as that. I raised four kids. I got 10 grandkids and stuff like that. And all of a sudden I'm going to feel all warm and fuzzy saying, oh yeah, we're going to have, I don't even know what their facility is going to be doing.

They haven't said, and so maybe this is a good opportunity for me to just make sure you guys know kind of what the process is. So if you want to make a change to the zoning map in Worcester, the first thing you do is you file a petition, which the applicant has done. I mean, through a Byzantine process here first. We hold a public hearing. You folks have just come. You've participated in a public hearing. We're going to make a recommendation to city council in a few minutes. And city council is going to take that recommendation and refer it to another committee. The committee is going to talk about it. And that committee is going to make a recommendation to city council. City council is going to look at those two recommendations or not. Not. And they're also going to hold a public meeting where you'll also have the opportunity to voice your concerns. And they are the folks that will actually decide whether or not the zoning change should happen, which someone who now has been doing this for a little while, I imagine is very frustrating to hear because it's like you just came, you took time out of your day, out of your night, you had to listen to a whole bunch of other applicants and be very patient just to get to your point on the agenda. where you can come and speak uh and now to find out there's going to be two more of those those sort of events before city council kind of decides what to do so i just wanted to make sure that up front about that um and i you know i'm i'm a resident as well i i do uh understand your concerns um i'm not opposed to change

do a lot of change i'm a civil engineer okay and i can understand but when you're changing the landscape of residential area okay that's that's not the intent it was never the intent since the you know since the design of the subdivision i i think you've made that that point well

I guess what I'm trying to tell you is that the most effective discussion you're going to have is going to be with your city councillor. Okay. Those are the folks that ultimately are going to make the decision. Appreciate that. Mr. Carey, is there anyone online?

We do have a member of the public online. If I could just respond, though, real quickly with regards to the land uses that would be made possible by this extension on just the portion of the lot that, again, is subject to a zone change. Manufacturing uses in the BL, there's none that would be really allowed by right. There are a handful that would be allowed with a special permit. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. THERE IS SOME MANUFACTURING ASSEMBLY PACKAGING RESEARCH AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS THAT DRY CLEANING IS ANOTHER ONE. BUT AGAIN NOTHING BY RIGHT THAT WOULD REQUIRE SPECIAL PERMIT. AND THEN IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL USES THAT WOULD BE NOW ALLOWED IT'S UP TO AN INTENSITY OF A MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING LOW RISE SO THAT'S THREE STORIES. SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY ON THAT FRONT. And also just reiterate what the chair had said with regards to this process is just at the beginning and there are many steps and many more opportunities for public input as well. But let's go to the commenter online. I see his name is Joe. Joe, I've unmuted you on our end. I think you just have to unmute on your end and then you should be able to speak.

Hey, how you doing? My name's Joe Karsha. I live on Wayside Road. I want to just first off say that I support health care. And I acknowledge there's a lot of quality of life issues on that strip. And health care is part of the solution when it comes down to it. I am very concerned. I think that there's a transparency issue with Kennedy. we i know i've helped create agendas for countless neighborhood meetings uh for years at this point and we've been asking our city councillors about this property as soon ever since it was purchased and we've gotten a bunch of different stories um i can tell you i think in october joe petty personally told me the mayor of worcester personally told me he called stephen kerrigan and was told this would be a single-story administrative building no patience just administrative building uh built on this lot so i don't know if you could you know refer that question to the representatives there that would be something just at least worth asking we hear about a project but we haven't heard anything about it the other thing uh you know i did write a letter and just wanted to reiterate here I'm asking you to reject this application right now. Because of the can of worms, it's going to open up. Even if they do do a small building, this just permanently changes the zoning and it's going to be easier. I mean, what's stopping them from selling this building or this property in the future and then someone coming in and building something much more intrusive? So I'm asking you to reject this and not an expert at zoning at all but my idea was have them submit a plan to build on these these zones and if they deviate from the rs7 ask for a variance um and that that would just that seems reasonable and it would give the taxpayers and and the people that are raising their families here and enjoy the neighborhood. Otherwise, it just gives us an opportunity to really be, it just gives us some teeth and the opportunity to have a say in what's being put there. And, you know, there are some concerns about what is the property is going to be. Again, the mayor of Worcester has told us that this is just an administrative building. And it's just from what I heard from the reps there, there's some discrepancies there. So I think that's pretty much all I have to say. I really appreciate the opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Anyone else online, Mr. Kerry?

Not seeing anyone else with their hand raised.

Okay. Anyone else in the room? Just want to say a few more things. Yeah.

Hey, thank you, Mr. Hicks, 608 Lincoln Street. Just to add a couple little things, right? All about the community, helping the community do what it is. What you're not seeing is what he was talking about, about that gradient right there, right? So that little L sliver to the right side of that property, right, or right next to 604, that's in red, that's my property that was rezoned into the BL1. I do have rights as it being a residential property to build within those sections, right? And there's things that I have to follow. But the key point of why I bought that property in particular is that front line right there on Lincoln Street. That's about a 10 to 15 foot drop of a rock ledge, right? That keeps me separated from all the stuff that happens down there on Lincoln Street. Kennedy Health is directly across from my house, right? Currently, the Kennedy Health Center, with what they're allowed to do over there, they have to have those certain lights that don't affect, like they have to filter and all this stuff. The problem is, all the lights at Kennedy Health right currently shine into my bedroom my kids bedrooms right and they're protected under uh what they had already bought and purchased so they don't have to fix any of those issues i've tried to communicate uh other issues with the canady health center um with their snow removal right like the people that go and remove the snow they blow all the snow directly right at their uh uh corner right there of 604 in my property right again uh being a combat veteran what i didn't tell you is i'm a disabled veteran as well and what's that mean for me when the snow storms happen i gotta dig out not only what the snow plows put over there but also what they put over there um The Kennedy Health Center, it is good for the community and it is good for the community on the opposite side of the street, all right? I have four young girls, right? Three of them are preteens and one of them is a two year old, right? My daughters play in that backyard. The last thing that I need to have, right, is to have a four-story building put there to help these people that they're trying to help that have these problems. I don't need them on that side of the street. Again, I purposely bought it because it was up and it was elevated and my family was protected from all the stuff that's happening across the street. All right. I support what they do. I support all the stuff that they're doing for the city and the schools and all that stuff. Right. It's a big moneymaker. And that congressman. Right. He's doing well throughout the state. What he doesn't need to do is to go and allow. this encroachment right um and change the landscape once you start it here then every other property is going to be able to go do the same thing and it's not about what's happening right now and what they want to do it's like joe mentioned it's what the future is because they're not going to be there forever just like the va hospital wasn't there forever right they were there they were right there across the street they got the opportunity to build down by umass and they left right? The vacant building. If they want to build something more, I think it would be more beneficial if they look at going further on the current property that's across the street, using some of that area that they have that's massive parking that is unused, right? They have opportunities. And they have opportunities to put something up right here. But they don't need the extra space. The only reason why they want this BL1 is because of that one-to-one ratio. And that one-to-one ratio, by granting the actual property that's there, that means the same amount of square footage that the property is that whatever they put there can be as well up to that 40 foot high mark. That's negating all the stuff that has to go there. The street lights, right? Like the dumpsters, all those things, putting it on that side of the street is going to be an issue, right? It's going to decrease the property values. And what I'm most afraid of is that, uh, I'm going to call it the riff-raff, right? They're now going to have direct access over here, and my family is no longer going to be safe. All right? Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? Hearing none. Board members? Mr. McCormick?

Sure. Yeah, for myself, I definitely appreciate all the abutters coming out and waiting through quite a long meeting tonight to have the opportunity to speak on this. I think there are a number of concerns that were raised that ARE SIGNIFICANT AND IT DOES SOUND LIKE THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE KENNEDY CENTER DOES NEED MAYBE THERE IS SOME ROOM FOR IMPROVED COMMUNICATION WITH YOUR BUTTERS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT Is going on with your with your sites and how it's impacting the surrounding neighborhoods. So I hope that they view this as an opportunity for that. And I don't know if they have any response to some of the comments they heard tonight, but for myself, I think I'm looking at this is. Strictly more in a, in a zoning sense. I know this board historically has tried to write. I think what we often see is the wrong of split zoning where lots are split in half this. You know, I think in this case, this. PROPOSED AMENDMENT DOES CORRECT THAT TO AN EXTENT. I DO APPRECIATE THE BUFFER THAT IS BEING PROPOSED. IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WAS A CHANGE FROM THE INITIAL PROPOSAL. AND THAT DOES PROVIDE SOME LEVEL OF GUARANTEE TOWARDS THE ABUTTERS TO THE REAR. BUT THIS IS ONE SINGLE PARCEL HAVING IT SPLIT ZONED IN MY MIND REGARDLESS OF THE USER. because the zoning outlasts the current property owner. I think generally it is better to have a unified zoning for a parcel. So I think I would be inclined to support this amendment. But again, I think as the chair mentioned, this is just the beginning of this process and discussion. So I think there's a lot more discussion to have, especially between the property owner and the abutters. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Mr. King.

I do appreciate all the abutters' concerns on this one. Just going back to the main focus with this own amendment here, we do tend to not... really like the split zone lots. Seeing this location, it would make sense in this case that I would support the BL1, but I do think that there should be further discussions between Kennedy Community Health Center and the neighbors as this does move forward.

Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. DeLera.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I would echo what my colleagues have said. Looking at this project from strictly a zoning standpoint, rectifying the split zone, I think makes sense. the concerns expressed by the butters are important to consider as well and i would advise them that as you said mr chairman this is just one step in a very long process and as part of that process they ought to express their concerns to city council because some of the issues that they're describing are broader policy concerns and there are some avenues that they can pursue to perhaps rectify if not remedy those thank you

Thank you, Mr. DeLera. Mr. Toomey.

Question for staff. I'm just trying to put proportions together. What is the depth of the BL1 from the street to the RS7 area?

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. I don't have an exact measurement. I would ballpark about 100 feet right now.

About 105. 100, 500. And the RS7 is how much footage beyond that? That's about another 70?

Probably approximately another, you know, at the... About 100. Yeah, it looks like an additional 100, maybe closer to 50 on the sort of far southwest side.

That's a rock ledge going all the way up. Okay.

uh and again i i just i i look at the again there's a lot of bl1 to be able to i don't know what extra they need that land for to be able to do that versus what they can do with what the bl1 that's there already again i hear the the thing that this was put in intentionally to be split to prevent the to protect the residential neighborhood so i think my leaning would be to not change the zoning from what it is now

Thank you, Mr. Toomey. Mr. Resende? No comment. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. For myself, so Mr. McCormick is correct. We generally don't like split zoning because it creates really weird issues with sites when somebody goes to try to do anything, whether it's build a house or build a business. That said, we're not actually talking about removing split zoning here. We're talking about almost removing split zoning, which to me is indicative that there's an underlying issue. If we still feel we need a 25 foot buffer to protect the residential zone on this one lot where everything else is split zoned, I just, I don't think we're doing it right as a city. I, in general, I want to, you know, I think we have some very real challenges that Kennedy in particular is like in the midst of trying to solve. So I don't want to give any indication I'm not supportive of that mission. I just, looking at the way we're going about it here doesn't, it feels a little round peg square hole to me. TO SOMEBODY'S POINT, I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MR. MCCORMICK, THE PROBLEM WITH ZONING IS THAT IT LIVES ON, RIGHT? LIKE WE MAKE A CHANGE NOW, IT'S GOING TO BE THERE FOREVER. YOU GUYS COULD SELL THE PROPERTY, LIKE A MILLION THINGS COULD HAPPEN, RIGHT? SO I WOULD BE INCLINED NOT TO SUPPORT THIS, AND I DO WANT TO BE SUPER CLEAR TO EVERYBODY, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THIS BOARD MOTIONS AND PASSES, IT'S A RECOMMENDATION. SO WE CAN SAY YES, WE CAN SAY NO. No effect, you know, in terms of this will still move forward. But I would be inclined not to support this.

Through the chair, just to clarify, I wanted to answer Mr. Toomey's question with respect to the distance. So the BL1 extends, basically the portion of the property that's in the BL1 is about 145 feet. So Lincoln Street Inn is about 145 feet. It varies a little bit. It's not a perfect line. In particular, the residential component on the left-hand side west here, it's about 67 feet, the residential zone. That's about 67 feet on the right-hand side. That's about 160 feet, so it is the majority on the back right there. So I just wanted to clarify. That's for the larger lot.

is there any other um board discussion on this item i think mr chairman oh go ahead yeah i i i feel that the comment that you made regarding the the need for a 25 foot buffer around this entire uh part of the change is compelling um and so i believe i would lean against this proposal based on that. It's an imperfect solution.

Thank you, Mr. Dallara. I think that tips the balance a little bit. So I think the question for the board is how do we want to motion or how do we want to say this to city council in our recommendation? What I would propose is that we recommend against approving this change as written with the caveat that we believe additional discussion between the current property owner and the abutters may lead to a solution that works for all parties, but as is without reconsidering zoning of that entire stretch of BL1, it does not seem practical to us to alleviate one split zone lot. Does that make sense? Any comments on that?

through the through the show just to clarify to just in terms of the comments for the board um relative to the recommendation to council i think your discussion is around specifically the buffer and the need for the buffer which relates to the desire to prohibit access um so just want to confirm if you want us to to thread that particular comment along that really at the end of the day your concern is that this is extending beyond that kind of first block and starting to potentially transform access into the neighborhood. Is that part of, just so we can characterize the reservations appropriately?

Speaking only for myself, it seems like, you know, Lincoln Street is a commercial corridor. We set a zoning probably a certain number of feet from the center of the roadway as BL1. which is appropriate. But of course, existing lots were not divided in that way. We understand that. I think what seems to be true to me is that the distance from the existing roadway was appropriate for commercial corridor. And beyond that is also appropriate for a residential buffer. So I, in general, don't support the idea of removing the split zoning, but I especially don't support the idea of we're going to leave a 25 foot buffer on this one lot and Leave the rest kind of existing Zoning shouldn't be spot zoning and this is essentially spot zoning

This is Connor. I think I would largely agree with the chair on that. I do think we have changed zoning in somewhat similar situations to this, but I think the 25 foot buffer and maybe a little bit of not considering you know that having that create uh an additional or just like changing the split zone of that lot um and not really addressing that the entire lincoln street corridor um i think yeah i think i think the comments that the chair made uh summarize some of those concerns um and i would support or uh vote with with the chair on how we characterize that

This is Board Member King. I would agree with that as well.

Okay. I think we're ready for a motion. We do need to close the hearing.

I'd make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormick?

Yes.

Mr. King?

Yes.

Mr. DeLera?

Yes.

Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes. Five to zero. Hearing is closed.

I would... don't want to do this um i would make a motion to recommend to city council the uh the feedback that was articulated by the chair in regards to uh not approving or not supporting the zoning amendment as proposed um but to con to include the considerations that were that were discussed second on the motion mr mccormick

Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well, five to zero. That motion passes. I wish everyone good luck as this moves forward.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

And so just to recap on the process, so this recommendation goes back to the full city council. The city council will typically vote to refer it to economic development subcommittee where there would be a subsequent hearing, public hearing opportunity for public comment. And then beyond that, it could go back to the full council with a recommendation. So those would be the kind of next steps and trajectory with this recommendation.

Okay, A&Rs.

This is Steve Carey in the Planning Division. In our plans, first one is 74 Summerhill Avenue. This is to create two lots out of one, lot one and lot two. This is in the RL7 zoning district, which requires 65 feet for a single-family detached dwelling, which both lots would have, making them both buildable lots. The red line indicates the lot line that's being proposed. 74 VALMORE STREET, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A ZERO LOT LINE BEING PROPOSED WITH A SLIGHT JOG, I THINK, TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH LOTS HAVE THE REQUISITE LOT AREA, I BELIEVE, FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY SEMI-DETACHED THAT YOU SEE HERE, A DUPLEX THAT YOU SEE HERE. SO AGAIN, THAT RED LINE WITH THE JOG IS THE ZERO LOT LINE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED. 30 Inverness Avenue is another zero lot line being created. It would create lots 1LR and lot 1RR, but our addressing coordinator has assigned these numbers 30 and 32, which is reflected on the plan. Both lots have the 35 feet of frontage required for each side of the duplex. And then 30 Boardman Street, this again creates two lots out of one. Both lots have the requisite amount of frontage required for RG5, which is 50 feet for a single family detached dwelling. And yeah, both lots do have the 50 feet of frontage. And then 240 Moreland Street is actually not properly before the board, so we can skip that one. We did not receive the application form signed by the owners on the deed for 240 Moreland Street. So apologies that this is still on the deck, but the others 13A, B, C, and D are good to be endorsed should the board vote too.

Is there a motion to endorse?

I would make a motion to endorse A&Rs 13A through D. Second. Second.

On the motion, Mr. McCormick? Yes. Mr. King? Yes. Mr. DeLera? Yes. Mr. Toomey? Yes. I vote yes as well, five to zero. That motion passes. A couple items in board policies and procedures. First is elections. So most specifically, we elect a chair and a vice chair. I do believe we've also historically elected a clerk. Do we need the clerk? If you say yes, then we do.

Your regulations specify that you have a clerk?

Okay, so we need a clerk. We need three. Does anybody, so I believe at issue is Mr. McCormick has been serving as vice chair, but is going to be transitioning off the board. So we need another vice chair. If anybody really wanted to be chair, I would happily, you'd have my endorsement. I'm also happy to continue serving. So anybody want to nominate themselves? i would uh if you're up for it uh mr chair i would nominate you to remain as chair i think you've done an excellent job a second doubt thank you that's very kind um perhaps not as kind as if someone was like i want that job uh but how about a vice chair is anybody willing to serve as vice chair

um the key duty would be uh chairing meetings when i'm i'm obviously not here uh this is connor again i i would be willing to do it for the for as long as i'm still on the board but i think brandon and anthony have been on for quite a while as well so if either of them are up for it i'd be happy to make a motion to I like them.

Unofficially, I may need to step down this coming May. So there's some time. So I wouldn't mind doing it until May at that point. But yeah, I just don't know if it would make sense for me to take it on and then have to step down next May.

How often do we have the elections?

Well, so there's a couple ways we could do this. We could renominate Connor and eventually, so my understanding is we're looking for another board member in that district. When that person is eventually approved by city council, Connor will step off. Prior to that, Connor could continue to serve. We would have an election as soon as he was gone, which I think answers Mr. Toomey's question. Mr. King could certainly fill that role too, though seems a little reluctant about it. Not for nothing, but I'm not able to attend the next meeting, so whoever we elect is going to chair the next meeting.

like i said i'm willing to do it um anthony if you're feel like you were up for it i'd be happy to pass the torch thank you for that um i think for now i i would recommend uh taking mr mccormick up on remaining until the time that he departs and then maybe we can resolve it at that point i'll clarify mr chair we do these annually usually around the end of may which is when appointments are

you um i would second the motion i don't think i actually can but i would second the motion for mr mccormick okay i would second if i'm allowed to okay uh so we have uh also a need for a clerk which um a little unclear what their actual duties are but i think they sign things on occasion uh mr king perhaps you'd be willing to serve in that role i can do that one Great.

I would make that motion.

Second. Okay. So I think we have a slate. Let's consider that that's one motion for I will serve as chair, Connell will serve as vice chair, Brandon will serve as clerk. Is there, I think there is a second on that motion. So on the motion, Mr. McCormick. Yes. Mr. King. yes mr delera yes mr toomey yes oh yes five to zero that motion passes uh the last item in board policies and procedures is michelle would like authorization to advertise a proposed change to the subdivision rules and regs so that we can approve it at our next meeting can we have a motion for that i would make that motion second on the motion mr mccormick yes mr king yes mr delera yes mr toomey yes i vote yes uh five to zero that that motion passes um minutes are tabled to next meeting is there a motion to adjourn so moved second all in favor say aye aye aye we're adjourned thanks everybody thank you