Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Um, good evening and welcome to the Wednesday, December 3rd, 2025 meeting of the city of Worcester Planning Board. My name is Albert Lvali. I'll chair tonight's meeting. Before we begin, a couple of brief announcements concerning how our meeting will proceed. Uh, all of our meetings are in a hybrid format. You can participate either in person here at city hall or by going online to worestermath.zoomv.comj16173149. zoomggov.comj1617314-979 or by calling in at 669-254-5252 and entering access code 161-731-4979 followed by the pound sign to manage remote participation during our hybrid meetings and prevent disruptions. All participants are automatically blocked from unmuting themselves uh or turning on their video or sending chat messages. For remote participants who would like to comment on an item on our agenda, we ask that you use the raise your hand feature in Zoom during the discussion on that item. If you are joining by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing star9. Staff will uh then call on members of the public one at a time and give them permission to unmute themselves. If you're joining by phone, you can do that by pressing star six. Uh, next I note this is a public meeting which means it is both being broadcast and recorded and minutes will also be published at a later date. To help with that process, we ask all speakers participating in person to use a microphone to please clearly identify yourself each time you speak. In the first time you speak, please also state your city or town or residents for the record. To help maintain an orderly meeting, please address all comments and questions through the chair rather than directly to any of the other speakers or applicants. Um, there are a couple items on our agenda that are going to be postponed tonight. I'm going to read through those shortly. If you're here on one of those items, best thing to do is, uh, first know, no additional notice will be sent to you prior to the next meeting. But, um, either the day of or the day prior to the next meeting, the thing to do

would be to call the planning department, um, to hear if that item is going to move forward. It's not uncommon for things 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. Uh, lastly, all applicants should be aware that approvals are generally conditional, decisions are generally signed by the board at the next meeting, and where appropriate, filed with the city clerk the following day, which is what begins any appeals periods. Decisions are typically not released to the applicant until all conditions of approval have been satisfactorily addressed. It is the applicant's responsibility to address conditions of approval and a lack of doing so can result in delays or enforcements. Applicants with questions are asked to please call the planning division. All right, getting into our agenda. There are two postponements tonight. There are item number two, one ledgewood lane uh definitive subdivision plan. The request will be to postpone the public meeting and hearing to December 17, 2025 and extend the constructive grant deadline to January 8, 2026. And item number three, 149 Malden Street and Zero Morgan Street, a definitive site plan and definitive subdivision plan request to postpone the public meeting in hearing to December 17, 2025, and extend the constructive grant deadline to January 8, 2026. Is there a motion on the postponements? post.

Uh motion to postpone items two and three. Second. Uh on the motion, Mr. McCormack. Yes. Mr. King. Yes. Mr. Delera.

Yes. Mr. Tumi. Yes. I vote yes as well. Motion passes five to zero. Uh and into new business. First item, only item is zero Chester Street. This will be a public meeting for a definitive site plan. Hi guys. Hi. [clears throat] So, um, Mr. Chairman, I'm James Dro from Expedited Engineering. Here with me also is Mike Fam, who's the principal of Modern Structures,

Modern Structures, Inc. Worked with Mr. Fam on a couple different uh projects. Wanted to make sure I had the right corporate name here. Uh he's the applicant for uh site plan approval on the construction of four lots on the I'll say the southerntherly side uh of Chester Street next to number 27 uh Chester Street. Um these lots are um uh all in a I just describe the situation. The property uh is all sloping down from the back of these lots toward Chester Street. Uh there is some wetland at the very back of these lots. Uh there is also near the back of these lots uh an existing sewer easement. Um and we've uh filed a couple of different versions of these plans now with the city trying refining things with uh staff input. Um we now uh propose on the backs of these lots uh a 2:1 slope um with uh a bit of a special uh stabilization with uh geogrid layers uh to which effectively makes the uh soil block that'll be excavated about 10 feet into that slope act as as as as I say is kind of a block uh and makes it hold together a bit better uh than just even the normal stabilization of the face of the slope. Um we in reaction in response to uh uh city comments, we have uh an area drain proposed in the back of each of these lots um to pick up uh runoff and and convey it to the street drainage system. Uh we initially had uh two of these lots, the upper ones on the screen here. Uh lots nine and 10 is proposed as drive under layouts and the two lots uh on the lower part of that that of what

you see lots 11 and 12 as on-grade garages in response to uh staff comments. Uh the two that were proposed as on-grade garages have also been revised to be drive under garages which allows for you to the uh to gain about 7 ft more of rise through the the lot and thereby have the slope behind those lots uh the height of it be lessened. Um, we also made uh changes to the uh proposed uh plantings in order to uh both achieve the appropriate number of street trees in the front pursuant to I think it was Michelle Smith's uh uh specific direction and to provide uh that at the toe of the slope in the back more hydrophilic species would be planted which if there is any any wetness there would be better able to take advantage of today. Um [clears throat] I would also note that in the course of uh staff review uh we added actually multiple sheets to this plan set. Uh at the very back of it is a plan called uh I think it's sheet SS11 slope stabilization plan uh where we've colored on there what are where there are anything but a sort of normal 3 to1 slope. If it's a 2:1 slope that requires a fabric surface uh on that sheet it's colored in blue. So the contractor can see exactly where he's expected to use that. Uh and there are areas in red that uh continuing the the wonders of aliteration red for riprap areas where uh that is proposed. We also added uh again pursuant to staff comments. Uh we now have three sheets that I think are are titled as interim grading plans and we uh have one which is trying to describe and show to the

contractor where a temporary settling basin will be on these lots first as construction is initially uh is begun and it would be of course on uh lot 12 which is going to be where things are going to come in from And then as uh earth work and cutting of material proceeds where a second one would be I believe it would be on lot 10. Uh and then as construction begins on first lots uh 9 and 10. And this was a a good suggestion that actually came from uh Victor and Michelle Smith was that we had initially said oh we'll build lots 11 and 12 first. and they said, "Well, why don't you build lots nine and 10 first because you have more area for a good temporary settling basin on number 12." So, we've got to circle back, we've got interim grading plans showing where temporary settling basins will be as construction starts, as every as all the basic basically all the uh soil material removal has been done and as house construction is started on the first two lots, numbers nine and 10. So we've got three extra uh spots there to describe and we actually had to again pursuant to staff comments we had initially show those temporary settling basins meeting the D standard which is uh it accepts at least an inch of runoff from all the contributing area. The staff uh uh made us aware that the city wants those to be able to handle uh the two-year storm flow uh to those areas. And so we actually enlarged them uh as part of the process. So I I I guess the main thing I'm trying to get across is we've uh worked with staff to uh revise the plans to where they are now, the version you

have in front of you dated uh November 13th, and made a lot of uh revisions uh and refinements to the plans pursuant to the staff comments. And I I think uh that now we've got a uh a pretty good plan with with more appropriate uh amount of detail for a contractor to be able to figure out exactly how he should be prosecuting or executing this work. Um I'll I'll leave it at that. I'll just uh try and answer any questions uh that you have. Okay. Thank you. Uh staff comments

through the chair. Through the chair. My name is Victor Panek. I'm a planner with the uh division of planning and regulatory services. Um so this is an application for site plan review at zero Chester Street. The applicant is proposing to develop four lots along Chester Street with detached single family dwellings and make grading changes to a fifth lot. The site is currently heavily wooded with a wetland area at the rear of the site and at the top of the hill. From the wetland area, the site slopes down steeply towards Chester Street uh from an elevation of roughly 670 at the rear of the site to 630 along the front lot lines. To develop the lots, the applicant proposes to clearcut most of the project area and to make a more or less 20 foot cut into the slope to regrade it. Proposed regrading will result in proportions of the site at a 1:1 slope. um particularly behind the buildings. The applicant is proposing to secure the proposed slopes with a mix of rip wrap uh and geog grid. To manage storm water runoff, the applicant is proposing some infiltration trenches at the rear of the site and infiltration units in the front yards. Uh trees are proposed to be planted throughout the site with specific species having been chosen for the backyard that can tolerate swampy conditions. City staff has a number of concerns with the proposed plans. Uh the intensity and extent of the proposed regrading is a concern in itself. Uh but it is exacerbated by test pit data that shows that groundwater is likely only 4 to 7 ft below grade. Uh with a proposed 20ft cut into the slope, it's very likely that groundwater will be encountered during construction and that post construction the properties and dwelling uh dwellings will experience constant ponding issues. Uh the applicant has provided some plans for how to manage groundwater breakout during construction, but the nature of the site

makes this an a relatively inescapable long-term concern. Um the issues with groundwater seepage also raised concerns with the stability of the proposed 2:1 and 1:1 slopes behind the buildings. Um that's identified in the memo from DPW where DPW requests that a geotechnical engineer provide an analysis of slope stability. Uh staff recommends uh that after some discussion, the board continue this application to a future meeting to allow the applicant to supply such a letter prior to the planning board approval along with a more detailed cut and fill analysis. Um finally, while the applicant proposes infiltration units in the front yard of each property, the groundwater is so close to the surface that the infiltration units likely cannot achieve separation necessary to function effectively. Uh, Massachusetts storm water standards generally recommend four feet of separation from the bottom of infiltration units to groundwater and prohibit anything with less than 2 feet separation. All four of the applicants infiltration units are shown with essentially 2 ft of separation and the unit on lot 10 has only 1.5 ft of separation. Um, so staff is concerned that these units will not function and storm water runoff will pond elsewhere on the site and eventually run off the property into Chester Street or to the abuing properties. Um, this situation is also further exacerbated by drainage infrastructure in Chester Street that's been identified by DPW as being limited in capacity or effectiveness. Um, there are many other more minor items that staff has identified in the plans that need a bit more clarity or correction, but they're generally covered by the staff recommended conditions in the memo. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Pac. Um, is there anyone from DPW who'd like to comment on the call? Uh, hi, this is Leslie from DPW. Uh besides the comments that already was mentioned by Mr. Panek, I don't have any other comments. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um there's no one in the room. Is there anyone online wishing to discuss this item from the public?

Um I don't believe so. We have a Dena Tadeshi who's raised her hand, but I believe that she lives near the Morgan Street subdivision. So, I just wanted to say out loud that that item has been postponed to the board's next meeting on December 17th. Thank you. You're welcome. And um we have Todd Miller from Inspectional Services that's raised his hand, so I think he may want to comment as well. Yeah, Mr. Miller, would you like to speak?

I would, sir. Thank you. Again, this is Todd Miller, Inspectional Services Department. I'm here also just to be another added voice to the concerns expressed by professional staff over at IST, sorry, at DPRS. Uh, ISTD is in complete agreement with the concerns that have been expressed and that that slope and the affiliated runoff and ponding issues is something that uh we have great concerns about medium and long term. That's also

Okay. Thank you. Um, so to the applicant, I I would note this. This is a fairly uh I've only seen um maybe two or three projects in the eight or so years I've been on this board that involved this extensive a cut uh into a slope. And I think staff's expressing some concerns because some of those projects have had issues with groundwater. This is an area where uh we've got um that that's as Mr. Pak noted a little bit exacerbated by the existing infrastructure in the street is already a little challenged. Um so I I think we're just wanting to be a little cautious here which is why uh the uh DPW is asking for a geotech to evaluate. Um, you know, candidly, I think this board without uh more um a more affirmative uh stance from from staff would be inclined to actually ask for peer review here to make sure that we've done the appropriate uh steps to address the the site condition. It's not that these aren't, you know, um buildable lots. It's just that there are some some challenges that we want to make sure don't become problems uh down the road. That's that's sort of our role here. Uh and I I guess having heard that and having heard Mr. Panak's comments, um I know my recommendation to you would be to uh perhaps uh come back with the geotech um letter at some point. is is that

that we are actually [clears throat] already pursuing that and I uh in in full cander I I will as I I think I said to Victor uh very few times does does an engineer actually design something completely completely new. Um our actually proposed stabilization here was was strikingly similar to to what was done uh on a a different site for us by a geotech engineer. we've reached out to that uh that engineer uh to try and and get him on board with uh either a a letter or a or a in in support or a a specific plan uh to bring to the to staff and to the board.

Okay. Yeah, that that seems like an appropriate next step. Any other comments from board members on this item?

Uh this is Connor for myself. No uh additional comments. I think you summarized it well and it sounds like the applicant's willing to um uh go after some of the information that staff had mentioned they were looking for. So I'm all set. Thank you. Thank you Mr. McCormack. Um Mr. King, anything from you? Agreed. No additional comments. Thank you, Mr. Tum. Uh no comments seems planned. Sorry. Uh so then Mr. Chairman, I I think I would ask uh to continue this to your next meeting and we will try and um um get you additional uh corroboration of the appropriateness of the design in the interim.

Okay. Um Mr. Panak, you does that work or would you prefer a different meeting?

Uh no, that works. I I just wanted to plug that we're also um really looking for a cut and fill analysis. The applicants plans do provide the quantity of um of material to be removed from the site, but I think we're looking for something a little bit more detailed about um where that's going to be taken from and how that coincides with the expected groundwater levels uh subsurface in those areas to get a good understanding of where groundwater may break out during construction. I and through the chair to to Mr. Panak, I think we would uh probably try and add additional uh information to the interim grading plans uh where again where we're partly showing, okay, here's how it is as we've cut out for lot 12. Here's how things will look as we've cut out for all four and and try and get additional information quantifying at each stage uh uh how the how the cut is being done. I I would just add one thing uh on the date of the continuence. I think staff would recommend that it be January I want to say 7th I think is the January meeting. Um for materials for the 17th we would need those a week from today which doesn't seem particularly feasible. Um but that's just our suggestion. Um I we through the chair if it is possible to uh continue to the 17th we will make every effort to get information to you at least a week before the meeting. If we can't we'll at that time a week out we will ask you to continue. Uh I just know the applicant would would like to uh conclude the process if possible.

That's fine. That that's your right. I I would just um I I always encourage applicants to be realistic. If you think it's possible, um, then sure, let's do it. Uh, so is there a motion to postpone this item to uh our December 17th meeting and the constructive grant deadline will be January 7th, 2026. To continue 0 Chester Street to December 17th with a constructive grant deadline of January 7th. Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormack, yes. Mr. King, yes. Mr. Delera, yes. Mr. Tumi, yes.

I vote yes as well. Motion passes five to zero. See you guys. Thank you for your time. We'll try and uh do what we can to get back for you right away. Awesome. Thank you, chairman. Uh all right, next item on our agenda. We're moving into other business. Um we have a subdivision performance agreement. Are we hearing these tonight? Okay, not doing that. ANRS then

this is Rose Russell in the planning division. Um ANRS A through C are not properly before the board. Um so first up is ANR for 22 Outlook Drive. Um this is a private road. It's on the official map. Um don't have it in front of you here. Um but it is available in Google Drive. Um and right here on the table, um this is an RL7 zoning district with a 65 foot requirement. This is a through lot with frontage presently today on Outlook Drive. And then the new lot will have frontage on Swan A um which is also a private street on the official map. They're both um in city standard condition. Um so the plan is uh endorsable by the board. Um, next up we have Ed Credential Road. This is um an ANR on a public street. We're in an RS7 zoning district which requires 65 ft of frontage. Um, this lot is being split right down the middle. Both lots have 65 ft of frontage. Um, and Credential Road is a public street up to typical city standards. Um, so no concern on this one as well. And that's all we have for tonight.

Is there a motion on the ANRS? Motion to endorse ANR's D and E. Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormack. Yes. Mr. King, yes. Mr. Delera, yes. Mr. Tumi, yes. I vote yes. That passes 5 to zero. Um, Ros, am I correct? There are no minutes.

There are no minutes for tonight, but I just want to make a quick announcement about our next meeting. Um, it is being held at the inspectional services building. It's on the second floor, room 109. Uh there is a large parking lot so it should be a little bit more accessible than coming to city hall. Um this will be our first meeting over there so it'll be a little bit new. Um typically go in the side door closest to um the cross street but it's at 25 me street room 109. Um we'll still be doing a hybrid fashion and if we have any updates I'll let you know uh before then. So thank you.

Okay. Hopefully everybody heard that. Does anybody have any um board policy procedures or other discussions? Hearing none. Is there a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. On the motion, all in favor say I. I. I. We'rejourned. Thanks everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Good night.