2026-07-20 - Zoning Board of Appeals

0:02Good evening and welcome to the Monday,

0:04July 20th. Wow, this is really picking

0:06me up today.

0:07Meeting of the city of Worcester Zoning

0:09Board of Appeals. My name is Jordan Berg

0:10Powers and I will chair tonight's

0:12meeting. The meeting of the Worcester

0:13Zoning of Board of Appeals will be

0:15conducted in a hybrid manner

0:17with both in-person and remote

0:19participation.

0:22As a preliminary matter to tonight's

0:24meeting, I would like to confirm the

0:25board members and staff who are present.

0:27Board members, when I call your name,

0:29please respond in the affirmative. Uh

0:31board member Abramoff?

0:33>> Here.

0:34>> Board member Muremi?

0:35>> Here.

0:35>> Board member Turco?

0:37>> Yeah.

0:38>> Board member Barnegan?

0:40>> Here.

0:41>> Board member Saco?

0:42>> Here.

0:44>> Um

0:45and for uh city staff, uh Michelle

0:47Smith?

0:49>> Present.

0:50>> Uh David Horn?

0:51>> Present.

0:52>> Amy Beth Lefe?

0:53>> Present.

0:56>> Um before we start, a few housekeeping

0:58notes. Tonight's meeting is being live

1:00streamed from the city of Worcester uh

1:02website and the recording will be

1:04available for rebroadcast. This is a

1:06public meeting, which means both that it

1:09is being recorded and that minutes will

1:10be taken and published by a later date.

1:12The public may participate remotely by

1:14calling 1-669-254-5252.

1:20Again, that number is 1-669-

1:252-54-5252

1:30and the access code is 1-60-456-4634.

1:38And again, that access code is 1-60-

1:414-56-

1:434-634

1:45or using the link shown on the screen.

1:47Once an item is called, there will be a

1:48brief presentation of the item followed

1:51by any additional comments and

1:52clarifications from members of the city

1:54staff. Then an oppor- then an

1:56opportunity for anyone from the public

1:57to speak on that item before we proceed

1:59to board discussion and action.

2:02To manage remote participation during

2:04our hybrid meetings and prevent

2:06disruptions, all participants are

2:08automatically blocked from unmuting

2:09themselves, turning on their video, or

2:12sending chat messages. For remote

2:14participants who would like to comment

2:15on an item, we ask that you use the

2:17raise your hand feature in the Zoom

2:19in Zoom during the discussion on that

2:21item. If you are joined by phone, you

2:25can raise your hand by pressing star

2:27nine. Again, if you're on by phone, you

2:30can you use your your hand raise your

2:33hand feature by pressing star nine.

2:36Staff will then call on members of the

2:37public one at a time and give them

2:39permission to unmute themselves. If

2:41you're joined by phone, you will then be

2:42able to unmute yourself by pressing star

2:44six. Again, that's star six. Please note

2:47the board appreciates brevity in your

2:49comments.

2:51Excuse me. To help with this process,

2:53we ask all speakers participating in

2:55person to use a microphone. To please

2:57clearly identify yourselves each time

2:59you speak. And the first time you speak,

3:01please state your city of town of

3:04residence for the record. To help

3:06maintain an orderly meeting, please

3:08address all comments and questions

3:09through the chair. That's me.

3:12Rather than directly to any of the other

3:14speakers or applicants. Applicants

3:16should be aware that approvals are

3:18generally conditional. Decisions are

3:20typically signed by the board at the

3:22next meeting and filed with the city

3:24clerk the following day, beginning the

3:26appeal period. It is the applicant's

3:29responsibility to address any conditions

3:31of approval, and lack of doing so may

3:33result in delays or enforcement. Please

3:36contact the planning division with any

3:38questions.

3:40Any party aggrieved by a decision of the

3:42board has the right of appeal under Mass

3:45General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 17.

3:49There are a number of items on our

3:50agenda being continued or postponed,

3:53which I will read through shortly. If

3:55you are here on one of those items,

3:57please note that no additional notice

3:59will be sent to you before the next

4:01meeting.

4:02The best thing to do is call the

4:05Planning Division the day prior to our

4:06next meeting to confirm if the item will

4:09be heard or postponed that night, as it

4:11is not uncommon for items to be

4:12postponed multiple times before they are

4:14heard by this board.

4:16I suggest for the purposes of

4:17streamlining our board meeting that

4:19board member Barnhagan offer to make any

4:22motions and that board member Abramoff

4:24second any such motions. In the event

4:26either prefer not to do so, I simply ask

4:28that you identify another member.

4:31All right.

4:32So, we have a few items

4:35for continue We have one item for

4:37continuance. 149 Plantation Street, a

4:40request to continue to August 10th, 2026

4:44with the extended construct grant

4:45deadline to September 1st, 2026. Is

4:48there a motion?

4:49>> I'd like to make a motion to continue

4:51consideration of 149 Plantation Street

4:53to the dates as stated by the chair.

4:55>> Second.

4:57>> On the motion, board member Abramoff?

4:59>> My vote is yes.

5:00>> Board member Meremi?

5:01>> Yes.

5:02>> Board member Turkeno?

5:04>> My vote is yes.

5:05>> Board member Barnhagan?

5:06>> Yes.

5:07>> And my vote's yes. Is There is one

5:10postponement on 6 Woburn Street, request

5:14to postpone to August 10th, 2026 and

5:16extend the constructive grant deadline

5:18to September 1st, 2026. Is there a

5:20motion?

5:21>> I move to postpone consideration of 6

5:23Woburn Street to the dates as stated by

5:25the chair.

5:27>> Is there a second?

5:28>> Second.

5:28>> On the motion, board member Abramoff?

5:30>> My vote is yes.

5:31>> Board member Meremi?

5:32>> Yes.

5:33>> Board member Turkeno?

5:34>> Yes.

5:35>> Board member Barnhagan?

5:36>> Yes.

5:37>> My vote's yes. All right. If you are

5:39here for 149 Plantation Street or 6

5:43Woburn Street, or if you're online,

5:45please contact the Planning Division and

5:47they can give you more information on

5:49when that will be heard.

5:51All right, that means that we are at um

5:53number two, zero Grafton Street.

6:00Oh, yes, sorry. I apologize.

6:02Um I just got right into it. Before you

6:04go, uh we have some updates um that we

6:06got blindsided by. So, if

6:08>> Mr. You go. Go ahead.

6:09>> Through the chair. So, just quickly

6:11giving the board members and for board

6:13members who are online to just a

6:15reminder uh from various communications

6:17that have been happening over the last

6:19couple days about changes that have

6:21recently come into effect for the state

6:23law. So, Mass Gen. Laws 40A, our zoning

6:25act, provisions that govern most of the

6:28work here that the board does. Um those

6:30specific provisions have been updated as

6:33of uh effective back to July 1st, but um

6:36adopting into law uh earlier this month

6:39as part of the state budget bill or

6:41House Bill 5555.

6:44Um that specifically includes changes to

6:47the thresholds and criteria for

6:49variances. So, staff has asked each of

6:52the applicants for to provide updates

6:55relative to the findings of fact for any

6:57case that involves a variance. Due to

6:59the timeline on that, those are

7:01supplemented um in applications and

7:04they're interspersed throughout your

7:05packet digitally or in hard copy here

7:08depending on how you're accessing that.

7:10Um so, we will ask as the applicants

7:12come up to read into the record the

7:14updated findings since those are first

7:15being provided to the board members this

7:17evening as part of the deliberation that

7:20the board will be making about any case

7:22that involves a variance.

7:24The most important thing for the board

7:25members to understand is that the state

7:28law essentially replaced the prior

7:30version of the law and deleted in that

7:33replacement the language that authorized

7:35the board to impose conditions on

7:38variances.

7:40Um with that in mind, the board needs to

7:42carefully consider the criteria

7:44understanding that they cannot impose

7:46conditions on a variance. The variance

7:49either meets the threshold or not. That

7:51threshold has been lowered from a series

7:53of hardships to a practical difficulty.

7:57Which the state has outlined some

7:59parameters for you and what you shall

8:01and may also consider. And so we've

8:03outlined that essentially coming up with

8:05seven different criteria that you're

8:07considering through what the applicant

8:09provides to you.

8:11So I just ask that if needed the board

8:13members take that slow and for the

8:15benefit of the board that each applicant

8:17read into the record as they approach

8:19the podium when they're describing their

8:21petition the specific argument for each

8:24of those criteria as part of their

8:26presentation for the benefit of the

8:28board.

8:29I'm happy to answer questions. I know a

8:31lot of the board members have questions.

8:33We will be discussing this at length

8:35after the meeting and can talk about

8:37other changes that folks have questions

8:39to. But before we get started this

8:41evening if any of the board members want

8:43to ask questions, I'm happy to do my

8:45best to answer them with the little

8:46information that I have based on the the

8:49minimal information we've been able to

8:51glean from the state and through

8:53conversations with the city solicitor's

8:55office.

8:57Thanks.

9:02>> Yes. Thank you.

9:04And with that

9:06zero [clears throat]

9:08Grafton Street.

9:11>> Good Good evening Mr. Chairman, board

9:13members,

9:15staff and interested public. My name is

9:18David Sadowski. I'm the principal of DJ

9:20and Associates. Our business is located

9:23in Clinton, Massachusetts for the

9:24record.

9:26I'm here to present zero Grafton Street.

9:29Along with me is the builder and also

9:32the owner of the property.

9:34We've been here before with board

9:35before.

9:36One of the things that we had was we

9:38didn't have the 10% recreational space.

9:41We've now met that requirement.

9:44Um I'd like to actually show you um we

9:46actually have a rooftop.

9:48Remember I did talk about putting

9:50kids playground on the roof, but we

9:52didn't go there.

9:59We have a lounge type We have a Excuse

10:01me, we have a lounge type area that

10:02we're proposing for the roof of one of

10:04the buildings. Uh it has some shielding

10:06from the sun. You'd be able to sunbathe

10:09um in safety. You'd be up on the third

10:11floor.

10:12Both of the buildings are going to have

10:14access to all the different things we

10:15have. You can see on the screen our

10:17plans have changed a little bit. We've

10:19We've brought in some different color

10:21and other stuff.

10:22Um we also have a gym inside one of the

10:25basements. In any other we have pool

10:27table,

10:28uh tennis We have Excuse me, ping pong,

10:30things like that. But it extensively

10:32areas. We provided a dog park outside.

10:35We were thinking about a bocce court and

10:37shuffleboard, but we've gone with the

10:39dog park. Uh and we still have the

10:41barbecue area that we had previously

10:44had. So we've gotten I think we have

10:466,300 some odd.

10:48And we have a site that has including

10:51wetlands 59,000.

10:53And uh so we're over the 10% of the

10:55gross area.

10:57So that was one of the things that we

10:59were kind of stuck on it whether we were

11:01going to move forward or not.

11:03You know, and then also um I'm

11:05satisfied. We had a couple of the plans

11:08didn't have the correct zone because the

11:10existing conditions was done when we

11:11were in one zone and it carried that

11:13plan forward, so it didn't reflect the

11:15zoning change that we got for that

11:16particular lot. Cuz if we didn't get the

11:18zoning change, we couldn't have the

11:20buildings that we have.

11:22Um since then though we found out that

11:24we uh we need a variance for frontage.

11:28And we were recommended to get a

11:29variance for 20-ft aisle width

11:33uh to cut down on the amount of

11:34impervious that would allow us to have

11:37um a 5-ft landscape and have the

11:39sidewalks along um the property

11:42along with landscaping along the

11:44building.

11:45Uh if I guess I'm going to read into the

11:47record um

11:49>> Yes, please.

11:50>> I received this at about 1:30 today and

11:52I tried to throw it together.

11:53>> scrambling.

11:54>> [laughter]

11:55>> Well, my office is moving from a second

11:57to a first and they never activated the

11:58first, so I never even had the internet,

12:00so I had to get on the print shop and

12:01use their little um

12:03whatever.

12:04Um response letter. Uh number one, how

12:08strict enforcement of the provisions of

12:10the city of Worcester's zoning ordinance

12:12would result in a practical difficulty.

12:16Uh my response is strict enforcement of

12:18the zoning rules cause a practical

12:20difficulty when a property's unique

12:22physical features, such as an odd shape,

12:25uh slim available width, and the power

12:28line traverse traversing through the

12:30property make the property practical

12:32unusable for any other type of use which

12:35is dependent of frontage relief.

12:39Uh number two, how the grant of relief

12:41from the practical practical difficulty

12:43benefits the petitioner and public

12:45interest including supporting the

12:48production of housing. My response was

12:50by granting frontage relief more housing

12:53units could be constructed. This would

12:56benefit the petitioner

12:58because of cost of the project and cost

13:00of extending the utilities. We have to

13:02bring the sewer line up Grafton Street

13:04as part of this project, so the more

13:06units the easier it is to to uh stretch

13:08the cost, as well as the public because

13:11we'd be we'd have additional one and two

13:13bedroom units in housing. So, that's how

13:15it benefits both the petitioner and the

13:17public. Number three, how the grant of

13:20relief from the practical difficulty

13:22will not be a detriment to public

13:25health, safety, and welfare of the

13:27neighborhood.

13:28I said, "Being practical, the additional

13:30units which could be built with the

13:32frontage relief would add residents who

13:35could support local neighborhood

13:36businesses."

13:38With an engineered design, the vehicle

13:40access egress would exceed the minimum

13:43City of Worcester safety requirements.

13:45Thus, and then the public health of the

13:48neighborhood would benefit from

13:50long-term rental leases of the units.

13:54Um

13:56Then how do And then the board can

13:58consider, it says on this part, how the

14:00practical difficulty relates to the soil

14:02conditions, shape, or topography of the

14:04land or structures.

14:06Uh my response is due to the long shape,

14:08long and narrow, the soil conditions, 50

14:11uh excuse me, 33% of the lot being

14:14hydric soil and or conservation

14:16restriction.

14:17The strict enforcement of the drive

14:19aisle with 20 ft in lieu of the 24 would

14:23result in the loss of apartments

14:25and practically speaking make the

14:27project cost prohibitive.

14:29Uh number five, how a strict enforcement

14:31of the provisions of the City of

14:33Worcester's zoning ordinance would

14:34impose a financial hardship on the

14:36petitioner. Again,

14:38this is my answer, the strict

14:40enforcement of the zoning ordinance's

14:42result would result in less apartments

14:45versus the high cost of property and

14:47extension of utilities. These factors

14:49result in financial hardship.

14:52Number six, Roman six, how the benefits

14:55sought by the petitioner can be achieved

14:58by some other method feasible for the

15:01petitioner to achieve. I said, "By

15:03relaxing the 5-ft wide landscape strip,

15:06then the drive aisle could be expanded

15:08to 24 ft if we didn't have to put a 5-ft

15:11landscape buffer. That would be an

15:12alternative."

15:14And number seven, how the practic-

15:16practical difficulty was not

15:18self-created. And I said, "The property

15:21owner bought the property boundary as

15:22is. The previous owner subdivided the

15:24property from his original property.

15:27This land was excess not needed for his

15:30operation.

15:31So, we did not create this fine We did

15:33not recreate this hardship. The property

15:35was bought as is. The wetlands existed

15:38before, and we didn't take and we didn't

15:40cut any pieces off for anybody else to

15:43have or benefit from.

15:45>> Okay. Thank you. City staff.

15:49>> Sure. Through the chair, this is

15:51Michelle Smith in the city's planning

15:52division. So, the applicant was in front

15:54of you back in May, and you continued

15:56the hearing um after having some

15:58discussion uh to allow them to make

16:00revisions responsive to the comments

16:02that the board gave, also to address

16:04some of the comments that staff had

16:05provided. So, the applicant has worked

16:07to make a number of revisions relative

16:09to the special permit specifically

16:11that's being sought. We do have

16:13recommendations for conditions of

16:14approval that are outlined on pages

16:16four, uh five, and six. Um those

16:20conditions include uh further uh

16:23progressions of the architectural uh

16:24design elements um and some screening

16:27items uh that we would expect to be

16:29addressed and and incorporated also as

16:31part of site plan review. So,

16:33specifically looking at the uh elevation

16:36from Grafton Street, looking for there

16:38to be some sort of uh bench under that

16:40instead of a table or retaining the

16:42original language uh around creating a

16:45direct pedestrian entry onto Grafton

16:47Street. Uh we understand that the

16:49applicant doesn't like uh that option.

16:52Um and so, again, we've changed that

16:53language to say or um reflect

16:55installation of a bench. And then, we

16:57have also asked that they use uh either

17:00larger sliding door with Juliet

17:02balconies on this elevation or reflect

17:04double windows throughout. Um that's you

17:06can see there's now six windows, but

17:09it's still a relatively blank elevation,

17:11which is the street-facing elevation. Um

17:13so, that's where we're asking for the

17:14adjustments to be incorporated. And

17:16then, similarly including some evergreen

17:19shrubbery around along that elevation to

17:21help screen some of the

17:23blank massing that the building provides

17:25oriented to the street as well as

17:27eliminating the gutter that comes down

17:29kind of the middle there.

17:30So these are the the conditions other

17:32than the ones that the board had

17:34generally seen prior

17:36that are outlined on that section. In

17:39terms of just a quick reminder in terms

17:41of the relief and what's being sought

17:44um

17:45for this particular case.

17:46So by right development options here

17:49they're asking for relief from the

17:51frontage requirement. So by right option

17:53would be 16 units of housing

17:56that would include

17:58basically

17:59three sorry four three families. So 12

18:03units and then ADUs on each lot. So that

18:05would be kind of the by right

18:06residential alternative. There are a

18:08variety of other non-residential

18:09alternatives for which there is not a

18:11cap on frontage or for which there is

18:14not the higher requirement for frontage

18:16that we have imposed for residential. So

18:18a variety of different commercial uses

18:20grocer retail personal services bank or

18:23credit union food service lab research

18:26manufacturing a variety of uses.

18:29In terms of the

18:32other relief that's requested they're

18:33seeking a special permit to modify the

18:35parking layout dimensional requirements

18:37with respect to reduction in parking

18:39spaces by one space or 10%. And then

18:42also relative to the drive aisle which

18:44is a 24-foot requirement and they are

18:46down to about 20 feet at the narrowest

18:48point through the parking area.

18:50So they're seeking that reduction

18:52through the request that's in front of

18:54you this evening

18:55related to the drive aisle itself and

18:58the parking space the applicant could

18:59lease offsite parking in terms of

19:02parking that would comply with the

19:03zoning ordinance that would be within

19:051,000 feet. They could also widen the

19:07drive aisle to be 24 feet although

19:09widening that would either reduce the

19:11size of the footprint shift the building

19:12closer to the wetlands, and or

19:15in interfere with the 5-ft buffer that

19:18landscaping is required in. So, there

19:19are some other design and

19:21implications for that type of

19:23adjustment.

19:24Um I'm not going to go through the other

19:26comments that staff had had, but will

19:28remind folks that we are in a

19:30transformative growth area that has a

19:31land use vision as industrial along this

19:34corridor resulting from now next. Um

19:36while it's not a site-by-site analysis,

19:38it was envisioning the corridor

19:39associated with Route 20, which

19:41obviously is better served for

19:43kind of automotive and larger uses that

19:46are relying on freight and other

19:48auto-centric uses, which is why that's

19:50categorized as such. It's not to say

19:52that it's not appropriate. The applicant

19:54did go through the process of rezoning

19:55the property from a manufacturing

19:57district to a business district um

19:59through the city council. And in front

20:00of you this evening are these requests

20:02variants for frontage and the special

20:04permit to modify parking and loading.

20:05So, again, relative to the variants, no

20:07conditions can be imposed specifically,

20:09but relative to this to the special

20:11permit, there are a variety of

20:13recommended um conditions that we have

20:15listed here. Thanks.

20:18>> All right. Is anybody here for Zero

20:20Grafton Street?

20:23Don't all rush at once. Very good.

20:26Is that

20:34Yep, that's at the end.

20:39Okay.

20:41Um

20:43not seeing anybody. Is anybody online

20:45for

20:49Zero Grafton Street?

20:54Okay.

20:55Um in that case, uh we will go. So, we

20:58had a couple number of things um that we

21:01listed, but uh the last time um that

21:03you've addressed in this application.

21:04So, thank you for going through that. Um

21:07and so, just to be clear for the other

21:09board members,

21:10um, we needed clarity on getting to the

21:1210% recreational, which we're very

21:13thankful. I think that looks great on

21:14the top. To get there, um, we had some

21:17questions about, um, the just make

21:20cleaning up the actual, um,

21:23the files on hand, which they also did.

21:25Thank you for that. Um, and um,

21:28I think the other piece is around the

21:31drive aisle, the frontage, all make

21:33sense to me. Um, um, and just to speak

21:37clearly for the new variants,

21:39um, I think, uh, based on what we've

21:41seen on what the applicant read into the

21:42record, I think it's clear that it

21:44meets, um, the threshold and vision for

21:46practical difficulty.

21:48Um, and so I feel comfortable based on

21:50that for the variants and for the

21:52special permit. In terms of the special

21:54permit, I guess my only question to you

21:57all is, um,

21:59is for the Yes, so just one second. I'll

22:01ask you a question and then you can say

22:02what you want to say and then answer.

22:04Um,

22:05I have questions about, uh, the Juliet

22:08sort of like, did you see that? So the

22:11facing the You know, obviously we have

22:13an interest in the zoning for the

22:15for the for the side of the building

22:17that's facing the street to sort of

22:19clean it up a little. Um, and so it sort

22:21of has some a little bit of appeal even

22:23though we know it's the side of your

22:24building. So, um, the city is sort of

22:26giving you some options on how to get to

22:28that. I guess I'd love for you to talk a

22:30little bit more about that, um, and make

22:32sure that that's

22:34okay with you all. And other than that,

22:35I'm ready to move forward based on if we

22:37can get some agreement on sort of the

22:39side that faces the the street.

22:41>> Through Through the chair, I'd like to

22:42address the conditions of approval.

22:45>> Uh, sure. Go ahead.

22:46>> I'd like to look at letter H.

22:48>> Yep, absolutely.

22:48>> Reflect reconstruction of the sidewalk

22:51along the pro- property's frontage to

22:53cement concrete with granite curbing. We

22:56wish to get that stricken.

22:58>> Okay.

22:58>> Any, uh, right now it's an asphalt

23:01without a granite curb the whole length

23:03of our property. What we'd like to do is

23:05any place that we bring utilities in,

23:08we'll restore that sidewalk to its

23:10original condition making sure it's ADA

23:13compliant.

23:14There's no place on that street all the

23:16way down to the shopping center where

23:18there's cement sidewalk or granite curb.

23:21We'll put granite curb at the roundings

23:23and on the entrance way into our

23:25property

23:26uh to make sure that it's safe for snow

23:28plows, but I don't I don't know if the

23:29applicant should have to restore a whole

23:31sidewalk that

23:32wasn't concrete or granite to start

23:34with.

23:35>> Okay.

23:36Anything else?

23:38>> Yes. Um

23:40I'm going to have Andre come up and talk

23:42about the white reflected roof. That's

23:44Jay. He's going to talk about K and he's

23:46going to talk about L, the sliding

23:48doors.

23:49>> Okay.

23:53Just state your name and city of town of

23:55residence for the record.

23:57>> Good evening.

23:59Uh Andre Cassis, Shrewsbury, Mass.

24:02Uh thank you for having us tonight. Uh

24:06So

24:08regarding the uh you guys had asked for

24:11a white roof and that was our

24:13uh plan all along. It just

24:15the wasn't uh

24:17the the plans didn't reflect that. Now

24:19it's it does. It's it's going to be a

24:20white roof uh white TPO roof throughout

24:23both buildings.

24:25Uh

24:26K, the uh Juliet

24:30that particular side uh so

24:33there's two bedrooms on that side and uh

24:36there's actually a closet. So the only

24:38place to to have uh a window or a door

24:42is where we where we ended up putting a

24:44window. And uh

24:46that's the smaller of the two buildings.

24:48So the bedrooms are quite small. We've

24:52reorganized

24:54those bedrooms in many ways and that was

24:57the only way we were able to give the

25:00bedroom some sort of a

25:02access from the doorway to be able to

25:04put a bed and uh

25:06and then have a closet. So,

25:09to the left and right of the window,

25:12there's an actual There's a closet. So,

25:14if you go to the floor plan,

25:16and

25:18you can see that uh

25:22So, there's really not

25:24not a not a way to put a a big slider

25:27and have a Juliet balcony. We can put a

25:29doorway and have a Juliet balcony, but I

25:32think having a doorway swing into the

25:34room would limit the access of that

25:37bedroom. So, that's why we stayed with a

25:39window. Uh

25:41>> Okay. So, you could but you could put a

25:42second window in.

25:44>> Uh we couldn't put a second window

25:46because there's a there's a closet.

25:49>> You could

25:50Yeah. So, if you put a window in a

25:52closet, I'm I guess I would say I think

25:56Um well, I guess I'll I'll I'll leave it

25:58up to the other board members. Here's

25:59what Here's what I'll say. Um

26:01I understand that that's an internal

26:03problem.

26:04If you if you if somebody wants a if

26:07somebody wants a window to their closet

26:09or not is not the concern for the zoning

26:11board. What's And I'm not going to like

26:13go through with you like how to design

26:15your property. What is important to us

26:18is that that's facing the street. So,

26:20like from my perspective, I don't care

26:22what's happening on the inside. I don't

26:24care that that's a problem for you.

26:25What's the problem for us, the city of

26:27Worcester, is that it's ugly and it's

26:30looking at the city. So, you have to fix

26:33that. Not like I'm not going to tell you

26:35like what to do or how to how to address

26:37that. So, from my perspective, L should

26:39stay because like a double you have the

26:42you could either do a Juliet balcony or

26:43double window. And like how that works

26:46with the flow of your internal is

26:48totally great. You should figure that

26:51out. But like we need something that

26:54looks nice, and a blank wall is not what

26:58should be the way in which somebody

27:00approaches this from the street. And

27:01that's our interest in this. That's our

27:03oversight of this for the special

27:04permit. So, um thank you. I totally

27:07understand. And um I my reflection is

27:10like, okay, yes, that is a problem.

27:13>> Okay.

27:13>> Someone should work on that. From our

27:15perspective, we need something to look

27:17nice from the outside. If you have other

27:18things you'd like if there's other

27:20suggestions, we'll take it on how to

27:22break up the massing on the side, but

27:24it's just a blank wall.

27:25>> So, we we also uh divided the wall into

27:28three sections. If you can look, we we

27:31uh we broke it up with a uh with a you

27:34know

27:35with a board.

27:35>> Yeah. Yeah, and that looks great. And

27:37so, what we're looking for more

27:38>> a we switched to a bench, as you wanted,

27:41and we put a roof. So, those are all

27:43things that we had done.

27:44Uh is that

27:45>> Those are great. Um I think

27:48uh we are happy with that. That's K. So,

27:51that works, I think, for us, and we can

27:53let Well, leave it Well, it works for

27:54me. I guess I'll speak for myself. I'll

27:56leave it to the other board members to

27:57discuss. I think um and thank you. So, I

28:00guess I'd say just from my perspective,

28:02I think it sounds like you're addressing

28:03J, which is great. We don't need to I

28:05really appreciate it. You'd like us to

28:07reflect back on H. I'm open to make I'm

28:09open to the changes you've suggested for

28:11H for myself. I think that that's fair.

28:14So, it would from my perspective, it

28:16would say um granted rounding on

28:18entrances and corners, um and restore to

28:22original conditions um that are ADA

28:24compliant where you rip up the sidewalk.

28:26That I can I think that that's um for

28:29me, that's for again, speaking for

28:30myself, that's a fair compromise. I'd

28:32keep J. I'd keep K, because it sort of

28:34gives you some of the ability to work

28:36through the things you're working for.

28:38And for me, I would like to keep L as

28:41is, and it's up to the applicant to

28:43figure out how to make it look more curb

28:44appeal. And so, they have the option of

28:46double windows or a Juliet balcony. And

28:50if neither of those and so those are the

28:52options before them to figure out how it

28:54works. So, to me that sounds great.

28:57Otherwise, I'm happy to move this

28:58forward

28:59and I think yep, that sounds good. Okay.

29:04Um

29:05>> Through the chair, did you want staff to

29:07just comment with respect to AJ on the

29:09cement concrete? So, I'll just clarify.

29:11So, the city standard for sidewalks is

29:14vertical granite curbing and cement

29:16concrete.

29:18So, the applicant's alterations to the

29:20site included a driveway, which is near

29:23the limit of the property's frontage

29:27located over on the plan plan east if we

29:30pull up the civil drawings. As I

29:33understand the applicant is expressing a

29:35concern about only

29:37addressing areas where there is work

29:39happening, but just in reviewing the

29:40plans the way that the connections are

29:43essentially diagonal and where the

29:45access is proposed and with the

29:47regrading and other work that'll be

29:48occurring in the right of way, it's

29:50typically been this board as well as the

29:52planning board's protocol to request

29:55that that be reconstructed in the

29:57current city standard.

29:59And essentially, we've included along

30:02the length of the frontage because I

30:03think it's probably about 40 ft further

30:06from where the limit of

30:08uh

30:10a saw cut may be from the

30:14plan west side of where that is.

30:17So, ultimately the board can have a

30:18discussion. It'll be something that we

30:20would request and would expect the

30:21planning board

30:23to put forward relative to site plan

30:24review. I would note for the board in

30:26considering whether you feel that's

30:28appropriate, the applicant's asking to

30:30reduce the parking requirement and we

30:31feel that it's important to empathize

30:34emphasize and bring the pedestrian realm

30:36up to current city standards to

30:38encourage walkability given the

30:40reduction in parking. So, that's a place

30:43where we're trying to emphasize the

30:45priority of the pedestrian

30:47um, and help facilitate that um, with

30:49the residential use in this area.

30:50Ultimately, it's the discretion of the

30:51board as to what he thinks is

30:52appropriate, but just in terms of the

30:54justification for why staff typically

30:56makes those requests and um, a reminder

30:58of what the board has done

31:00uh, and what I would anticipate the

31:01planning board to do later. Thanks.

31:04>> All right. Board member Bramson.

31:09>> Thank you. Uh, through the chair. Um,

31:12just to be clear, we're looking for uh,

31:1413 ft of relief approximately uh, for

31:17the frontage, which is about 6 and 1/2%.

31:20Is that correct?

31:22>> Yes.

31:23>> And which is fairly small um,

31:27and um,

31:29uh,

31:31a reduction in the drive aisle and um,

31:37one parking space.

31:39I don't really have a problem with this

31:41and I think that the um, can you put up

31:44MBTA, excuse me, the the plan with the

31:46end of the building facing the street?

31:49Now you've added the um,

31:51the lines in the middle.

31:53>> The other one, too, as well.

31:56Yeah.

31:57>> Which one faces the street?

31:59Okay.

32:00>> Uh, top right.

32:02>> That's what we're going to see.

32:04>> Yeah.

32:05It'd be nice if it had some more

32:06architectural detail.

32:07>> Th- that, excuse me, not that's not the

32:10facing Grafton Street.

32:11>> the street.

32:12>> That's the other one, the previous one.

32:14>> The previous one is facing the street.

32:16That that's

32:17>> That end which has

32:18>> That one's facing the street.

32:19>> the awning there?

32:20>> Yes, sir.

32:21>> I don't have a problem with that.

32:23>> Okay.

32:23>> Um, yeah, yeah.

32:24>> So uh,

32:27uh,

32:29yeah.

32:29>> So that would be striking

32:31>> striking uh, K. Is that correct?

32:34>> No, K is

32:35>> I L.

32:37>> Yeah.

32:38Because the awning the already the red

32:40reflects the awning so that does that L

32:44K reflects what they're showing as I

32:47understand it because it has the awning

32:48now. They've updated the things for us.

32:51>> And through the just to clarify through

32:52the chair K requests that instead of the

32:55table that you see that there just be a

32:57a bench

32:59instead of that basically faces the

33:01street.

33:01>> The bench or table I I'm

33:04I'm good with both.

33:05>> That'd be like waiting through the chair

33:07that'd be like waiting for an Uber or

33:09waiting for something to come along for

33:10a pickup.

33:11>> would be nice. If is that all right? A

33:14bench or something like

33:15And and so I don't mind striking

33:18L and they're already putting the

33:21the reflective roof on.

33:23Um and um

33:26I I don't see a problem personally don't

33:28see a problem if um

33:30if the sidewalk is restored to its

33:32original condition.

33:34Um

33:36with the granite granite rounding on the

33:38curbs and things.

33:39>> Yes.

33:40>> Yeah, I don't have a problem with that.

33:43Um

33:43everything else on it is okay?

33:46All the other conditions? And do you um

33:48request the waivers?

33:50>> I'm sorry.

33:51>> Do you request the waivers?

33:52>> Yeah, there's two waivers they're

33:54requested about showing the buildings

33:56within so many feet.

33:57>> Well, subject to hearing from everybody

33:59else I don't think I have a problem

34:00supporting

34:01>> Okay.

34:03Um

34:04board member Ramirez voting but um do

34:06you have thoughts?

34:08>> Um I also have no problem supporting

34:10this with the given conditions and my

34:12only comment would also be on the

34:14aesthetics of the building on this side

34:17with the windows as well. That's like

34:19the first thing that got my attention so

34:20I see a little bit of

34:22an area to upgrade this but other than

34:24that I think it's a good project.

34:28>> Um board member Carcona

34:31>> I have no comment in regards to

34:34um the

34:37um K and

34:40J

34:42and I think these um the the granite

34:46pavement, whatever he wants to do, I

34:47have no comment.

34:49And I agree with you, Mr. Chair.

34:52So, I'm fine.

34:54>> Okay, thank you. Um board member

34:56Bartelegian and board member Sacco will

34:58both be voting on this item. Um board

35:00member Bartelegian.

35:02>> Uh through the chair.

35:03Uh it seems like we're the only points

35:06of discussion are H and L, and I'm I

35:08agree with everybody else that this is

35:09fine moving forward. So, we just have to

35:11just have to decide whether H or L is

35:13included in the in the right. So,

35:15um

35:17I don't have a problem with striking H.

35:20I would like to keep L.

35:22Uh that would be my preference. So, I

35:24don't know where we are with the tally

35:25here, but

35:27through the chair.

35:28>> Okay, thank you.

35:30Uh board member Sacco.

35:32>> Uh through the chair, I would be

35:34amenable to striking both H and L.

35:38Other than that, I have no additional

35:39comment. Thank you.

35:40>> Okay, so it sounds like there's

35:43um

35:44I'm I'm of um

35:47I'm of two minds. I guess I would be the

35:49decider on

35:50L. Um I'm I'm happy to

35:54it's such a it's such a de minimus

35:56amount of of rec of um

35:59oversight from our board that I'm I'm

36:03I'm at like I'm more I'm more I feel

36:06stronger about the planning board having

36:08a say on H and L more than I feel like I

36:11like we should um since it does feel

36:14like more site plan than

36:16I don't know. It feels like a weird um

36:18for such a small special permit

36:21to be sketching out for them, but

36:24through

36:24Uh no, no, no.

36:26>> Excuse me, one one comment to the chair.

36:28Um

36:28Uh

36:29by right alternatives would be um

36:33I think the Michelle assuming it's 16

36:35units, did you say?

36:38>> Correct. It would be 12 units basically

36:40three three families and there would be

36:42four of them each on their own lot and

36:44within the three family each would have

36:45an accessory dwelling unit.

36:47>> Right. And this is just for um

36:49Is it 12?

36:51>> Yeah.

36:52Right.

36:53>> 12 units each, so it's 24 units.

36:55>> Okay.

36:55Just a week or two. Thank you.

36:57>> Yeah. Okay. Yes, go ahead.

36:59>> Uh through the chair, you know, we have

37:00extensive tree plantings. Um we need to

37:04have uh one every 25 ft along the

37:06street. Then we have the wetland where

37:09the trees everything to the north of the

37:11power lines is going to be a shield.

37:13It's going to be There's going to be so

37:14many trees growing there, you're really

37:15not going to see the building is my

37:17whole contention.

37:19Um you know,

37:20because of the

37:22um requirement of the planting every 25

37:24ft, it's going to really block out the

37:26facade of the building anyway, so

37:28whether it was a one window or two

37:29window,

37:30you're not going to see that look within

37:32four or five years of the trees grown.

37:35>> If I could.

37:37>> Okay.

37:38Um

37:40my So, I'm I'm amenable. Uh my

37:43preference would be to

37:45augment I'm I'm amenable to my

37:47augmenting H um and

37:51uh

37:53and striking

37:55L based on the fact that there's

37:58um

38:01Yeah, based on the fact that it's

38:04uh

38:05sort of

38:07They already have some stuff there and

38:08frankly, yeah, because I I feel like the

38:10planning If the planning board wants to

38:11add those in, I would be also

38:12comfortable with it. So, I'm sort of

38:14feeling strongly that

38:15um we should move it along. Okay.

38:18So, um

38:19is the board amenable to as as requested

38:24having

38:25having the language for H

38:28um say rounded edges and um

38:34uh and granted for curbing on rounded

38:36edges and the entrances and restoring

38:38which will functionally be the whole

38:40thing

38:41um on places that they

38:43um to its original condition

38:45um

38:46and then for L

38:48um I know that you'd like to keep it so

38:49I just you know keep up No, but that's

38:51uh for Are people comfortable striking

38:53it?

38:55Board member Bramson, does that sound

38:56right?

38:56>> What does that sound striking out?

38:58>> Yeah.

38:59>> And then uh yeah.

39:00>> Amending amending H.

39:01>> Amending H?

39:02>> And keeping it generic.

39:04>> granite rounding on the corners which

39:05seems to what they offered.

39:06>> Yeah.

39:07>> And then if disturbed they will restore

39:08any of the

39:10>> Yes.

39:11>> sidewalk to the original condition.

39:13>> Yep. Okay.

39:14Um does that sound okay for board member

39:16Torcono and board member Sacco?

39:19>> Um

39:19>> Yeah, I'm sorry.

39:21>> Through the chair, could you just

39:21clarify for H?

39:23>> Yeah. So um the reflect construction of

39:27the sidewalk along the property frontage

39:30um to

39:31uh where they are disturbing which as

39:34you pointed out is the basically the

39:36entirety of the frontage

39:38um

39:38to

39:40uh

39:40to the original condition ADA compliant

39:43with granite curbing on um on the

39:46roundings and the entrances.

39:51>> I'll just clarify too that ultimately

39:52this is going to be a DPW's

39:53determination for what happens within

39:55the right of way. So just because the

39:57board alters this, I want to be clear

39:58that staff's going to still make this

40:00request um

40:01at planning board uh and would

40:03anticipate the planning board to request

40:05>> strongly that H should that that

40:07planning board should take that as the

40:08thing to do. I just feel like we are as

40:11a special permit so small. I feel I feel

40:13pretty strongly like we should be

40:15limited.

40:15>> Through the chair, then I would just

40:16recommend you strike that and and leave

40:18it for the planning board.

40:19>> I'm happy to strike it then. Yep.

40:21Strike H and L. Is that okay? And then

40:23the planning board will take it up.

40:25>> Yeah.

40:26>> Okay. Yeah, you know, if that feels That

40:27feels right to

40:28>> Through the chair, these aren't even

40:29building plans. I'm surprised it's even

40:31on here.

40:34>> Uh through the chair, staff generally

40:35makes a point of uh

40:37raising points we anticipate may be

40:40controversial at the earliest stage

40:42possible to prevent points of conflict.

40:45>> Yes, we encourage also we do have a

40:47special permit, so we do like to have

40:50oversight over things on how it looks

40:51since that is the purpose of zoning, so

40:53>> You You just told us it didn't matter

40:54what you put down.

40:55>> Yeah, we're just um I think in this case

40:57that because the special permit is

40:58actually limited in terms of the

40:59request, that's the reason I feel

41:01differently. If you're asking for more,

41:03I would definitely feel more strongly

41:04about it. It's as simple as that.

41:06>> One other comment uh through the chair,

41:08thank you for um to the petitioner for

41:10meeting the new requirements

41:12>> Yes.

41:12>> on such short notice.

41:14>> Yes. Yeah.

41:15>> You're welcome.

41:15>> Yeah, we're all Thank you very much.

41:16Today was a wild day.

41:17Today was a wild day.

41:19Um okay, in that case, I will take a

41:21motion to close.

41:23>> I'd like to make a motion to close on

41:24Zero Grafton Street.

41:25>> Second.

41:26>> On the motion to close, board member

41:28Abramoff?

41:28>> Yes.

41:29>> Board member um Torcono?

41:31>> Yes.

41:32>> Board member Barthelt?

41:33>> Yes.

41:33>> Board member Sacco?

41:35>> Yes.

41:36>> My vote's yes. Is there a motion on Zero

41:38Grafton Street?

41:39>> Um I'd like to make a motion on Zero

41:40Grafton Street for approval of a

41:43variance for relief of 13.18 feet from

41:46the 200-foot minimum frontage

41:48requirement for a multi-family low-rise

41:50dwelling in a BL1 zone and for a special

41:54permit to modify the parking dimensional

41:56layout and/or landscaping requirements,

41:58loading requirements, and/or the number

42:00of required parking spaces with the

42:02special permit subject to the

42:05uh conditions of approval set out on

42:07pages 4 through 6 of the staff memo,

42:10but striking conditions H and L and the

42:12waivers as requested by the applicant.

42:14>> Is there a second?

42:16>> Uh second.

42:17>> On the motion, board member Bramoff.

42:20>> My vote is yes.

42:21>> Board member Turkeno.

42:22>> Yes.

42:23>> Board member uh Barnhagen.

42:25>> Yes.

42:25>> Board member Sacco.

42:27>> Yes.

42:28>> Five votes yes. Thank you very much.

42:30>> Thank you very much for your time.

42:33>> Um next up is uh

42:36row adjacent to 692 Millbury Street.

42:50>> Through the chair.

42:50>> Yes, hello.

42:51>> Hello.

42:52>> Yes, go ahead.

42:53>> Yes, I uh I am uh Matt Runnings here. I

42:56am the real estate manager for uh Lamar

43:00Advertising here in uh

43:02the Eastern Massachusetts and Rhode

43:05Island region. Um I reside, for the

43:07record, in East Greenwich, Rhode Island.

43:11>> Okay, go ahead.

43:15>> Yes, so um we [clears throat] have been

43:17operating a billboard

43:20located adjacent to 692 Millbury um just

43:24across from Denison Lubricants

43:26um for decades now. This was approved in

43:29uh 1998, which actually predates Lamar's

43:32appearance in the market. We are seeking

43:35to modify the southern face from a

43:38uh

43:39existing vinyl advertising panel to a

43:44modern uh digital advertising panel.

43:47There will be uh no change in the size

43:50of the panel. There will be no change in

43:52the height, and there will be no

43:53engineering needed um as it can support

43:57a digital panel.

43:58Um

44:00we would be complying with all state uh

44:03regulations regarding outdoor

44:05advertising. We would still to get

44:06approval from the MassDOT outdoor

44:10advertising board, the OAB,

44:12in the event that we were approved this

44:14evening.

44:16Um,

44:17I'm happy to answer any questions. We

44:18operate numerous boards.

44:20Um, our closest digital is

44:24uh

44:26at the 290 146 split.

44:29Um, and our proposed digital will not be

44:35uh facing any residential

44:37uh

44:38establishments or residences uh at this

44:41time. And uh

44:43as I said, we're not imposing any

44:47uh enlarging or anything like that. Our

44:49advertisements change instantaneously.

44:52They would change every 10 seconds.

44:53There is no flashing. There is no

44:56animation. Um,

44:58the digital panels now bear a very

45:01striking resemblance to a traditional

45:03sign. It can be very difficult to

45:05actually tell the difference unless you

45:06see the change instantaneously.

45:09Um

45:10and we're I'm happy to answer any

45:12questions uh regarding this.

45:15>> Okay, thank you.

45:16Uh city staff.

45:17>> Sure, through the chair. This is

45:18Michelle Smith again in the city's

45:20planning division. So, in front of you

45:22this evening is a request to modify an

45:24existing freestanding non-accessory or

45:27billboard sign.

45:29Um, so this freestanding sign is a

45:30static form, so it's not digital. It's

45:33a, you know, a a static face that you

45:36see on the screen or was included in the

45:38packet.

45:39Um, this is located in a split zone

45:42district, so part of the property is in

45:44a manufacturing limited 2.0 zone, part

45:47of the property is in a BL1 zone, part

45:49of the property is in a RG5 zone, and

45:51the entirety of the location that this

45:53is in is within the Blackstone River

45:55Parkway sign overlay district. So, the

45:57applicant, as you heard, is looking to

45:58convert the southern face of the

46:00billboard, which faces the northern

46:02travel lanes of 146 in terms of target

46:06market for advertising.

46:08Um, that's that's where this is facing.

46:10The applicant is proposing to maintain

46:12the existing size of the panel, so they

46:14are below the thresholds that we have in

46:16terms of zoning compliance um for the

46:19size. So, they're just going to keep the

46:20existing size but change the face of the

46:23billboard to digital. The northern side

46:26of the billboard, which faces the

46:28southern travel direction for folks on

46:31146 is not proposed to be altered as

46:34part of of this proposal. That is

46:36because the underlying zones do not

46:38allow for that conversion. Um, that's

46:40where the property is located in the

46:41residential and the business zone, in

46:43which we do not allow uh

46:46billboards um

46:48at all. So, uh there's not a a path for

46:50them to convert to digital as there is

46:52on the southern face.

46:54Um, that path is through that special

46:56permit here, and as you will see in your

46:59packet that there are a plethora of

47:01different conditions um for the

47:03applicant as far as findings go. There

47:05are a lot of them, so just want to call

47:08attention to sort of the the length of

47:10them cuz there's quite a few

47:12um for this type of of approval.

47:14Specifically in terms of of what they're

47:16seeking, this is a a non-conforming

47:19billboard in the sense that today under

47:20our regulations they would not be able

47:22to install one at this location for a

47:24variety of reasons. I mentioned the

47:26underlying zoning being problematic, but

47:27also um some of our other dimensional

47:29requirements since this was installed

47:31back in I believe uh the board

47:33authorized this back in 1998 um with a

47:35prior special permit where we had

47:37different regulations in effect at the

47:39time.

47:40Um, after that we adopted sign overlay

47:42districts.

47:43Um, so that sign over overlay district

47:45would prohibit that today.

47:47Um, and then again um the the underlying

47:50zones would also prohibit that, the

47:51business and residential zones that the

47:54the northern portion of the sign's

47:55located within.

47:56Um, so those are our two ways that it's

47:58not conforming. In addition, we also put

48:01limitations on the number of billboards

48:03that can be located on a given lot.

48:05Unusual as it may be, this is located

48:08actually within a railroad right of way.

48:10So, while it's on a lot, it's a

48:11exceptionally long lot.

48:14There are two billboards as far as staff

48:16was able to identify on this particular

48:19lot, both within you know visible

48:21distance from one another.

48:22So, the other billboard is located

48:24further to the south

48:26and also visible from 146. So, there's a

48:29summary of some of those dimensional

48:31requirements and how the applicant is

48:33intending to meet them or or doesn't

48:35meet them specifically with respect to

48:36the maximum number of billboards.

48:39Obviously, that's not proposed to be

48:40changed just altered in the sense of how

48:42they are proposing to reface

48:45with a digital

48:46digital sign face.

48:49There is no by right alternative as a

48:51result of the location within the

48:53Blackstone River Sign Overlay District.

48:55Billboards are expressly prohibited from

48:57that district with the intent of protect

48:59protecting view corridors and preventing

49:02visual clutter.

49:03So, there's specific language around the

49:05intent behind that in the city's zoning

49:07ordinance. And then again, similarly as

49:09I mentioned, the RG5 and BL1 portions

49:13to the north would not be eligible for

49:16the special permit to even be

49:17considered.

49:19So, really it's only this southern

49:20portion where you're you're seeking that

49:23you should consider the location still

49:24within the Blackstone River Parkway Sign

49:26Overlay District as you discuss.

49:29Their by right option is to just

49:31continue to operate the billboard with a

49:33static face. So, they could keep the

49:34billboard that's there now. From a

49:36zoning perspective, we did have three

49:39questions that we'd asked the the

49:41applicant to comment on specifically

49:43describing the types of advertisements

49:45if they would feature local businesses,

49:47national advertisements, or some

49:48combination of both. We also wanted them

49:51to describe further the necessity of the

49:53proposed digital display and the

49:55benefits that that provides. Um and then

49:58just called out some of the specific

49:59dimensions in terms of uh proximity to

50:03other features. So, typically with

50:04billboards we do call out the location

50:07of

50:08um

50:08other billboards which you've noted uh

50:10you have noted in the memo uh adjacent

50:12to the site and part of the purpose of

50:14the Blackstone um

50:16Parkway River Parkway sign uh overlay

50:18district is the relationship to the um

50:22park and corridor there. So, it's about

50:24255 ft away from Blackstone Gateway

50:26Park. Obviously, it's also a view

50:28corridor into the city and into Union

50:30Station and otherwise um in terms of uh

50:34proximity to residential. So, we are on

50:36the west side of 146 and then across

50:40from that directly across from that you

50:41have Millbury Street and along Millbury

50:43Street you do have residential

50:44properties. Um so, the nearest

50:47residential property I believe is 193

50:51or so feet um

50:53along that that other section of

50:56Millbury Street. Um as the applicant

50:58stated, they will also need permits from

51:00the outdoor advertising board um through

51:02MassDOT. So, there is a comment that was

51:04included from the state to that effect

51:06and I will also call attention that we

51:08did receive public comment just today um

51:11in the afternoon. I think we were able

51:13to share this with the applicant, but in

51:14the event that they did not see that, so

51:16just wanted to call attention to the

51:17comments um that were received here and

51:20are available in the packet. Um happy to

51:22answer any questions. We do have where

51:24the board to move to a vote um

51:26recommendations for conditions of

51:27approval outlined I believe on page two.

51:31Um

51:31I'm sorry, the the page numbering is

51:33missing on this one.

51:35It may not actually be page two um cuz I

51:37moved my pages around, so I apologize.

51:40Um but we do have recommendations for

51:41conditions of approval that are

51:42outlined. They are all on one page.

51:44There are three waivers that staff had

51:47um identified um but the applicant has

51:49not requested those. So again, if you

51:50move to vote something procedurally just

51:52to take care of. Happy to answer

51:54questions. Thanks.

51:55>> Yeah, I think it's page four

51:59of

52:01seven?

52:03Yeah, page four of seven.

52:06I believe.

52:07Um, if the applicant could please answer

52:10the questions

52:11um

52:12as requested by city staff. Um and

52:15Michelle, could you just repeat those

52:16three questions again for my benefit,

52:18please?

52:18>> Yeah, sure. So they those are also

52:20listed in the the memo um as one, two,

52:22and three under review questions and

52:24comments on the unnumbered page.

52:26Uh but they're specifically about um if

52:28the advertisements will feature local

52:30businesses, national advertisements, or

52:32some combination. And then the necessity

52:34for the digital display specifically. Um

52:37if they could describe that in a bit

52:38more detail, that would be great.

52:40>> Thank you.

52:42Yes, if the applicant could please

52:43answer those questions.

52:44>> Thank you. Uh definitely. So we're

52:47getting with regards to the first one,

52:49um we currently advertise about 95% of

52:52our advertisements are local

52:54um throughout our uh all of our

52:56locations uh in Worcester.

52:59About 5% are national. Those are sold

53:01um

53:02by other contractors. They're not sold

53:05uh they're sold through our corporate

53:06office. They're not sold through our

53:07office in East Providence, which manages

53:10um our entire market.

53:12Um regarding uh the second question, we

53:15did mention it in slate out in the uh

53:18memo that

53:20Amber Alerts is a major uh thing. FBI

53:23Alerts during the Boston bombing, we

53:25used our very few digitals to advertise

53:28uh the manhunt at the time. We also

53:31utilize our digitals. Many of our in

53:33municipalities in the region utilize

53:35them for um all seasons local events,

53:38whether there's a uh

53:40a play or or a Christmas show going on

53:43somewhere, or there's a Christmas

53:44market,

53:46um

53:46a town fair, any of those things to to

53:49that respect. Um

53:52in some markets, I I worked in Baltimore

53:54long ago, they would put on uh the

53:57Orioles score during the playoffs. Um

53:59there's a lot of there's a lot of

54:02opportunities uh for the municipalities

54:05that we work with to utilize that and

54:07and we try to present all of those

54:09options to the municipalities that we

54:11operate in. Um obviously emergency

54:14messaging with the smoke alerts that we,

54:17you know, we'd had over the last uh few

54:20days. Um something like that could be

54:22utilized as well.

54:24Uh we look at it as a positive

54:26opportunity and that's without getting

54:28into um simply the local businesses,

54:30which I I answered with question one.

54:32Um

54:33A lot of them like our boards, they like

54:35our locations.

54:37Um and we feel that we definitely

54:40uh provide benefits and the service to

54:42the community and the and the commerce

54:44within it.

54:46>> Okay.

54:47Thank you very much.

54:48Um is anybody here for row adjacent to

54:52692 Milbury Street?

54:56Is anybody online?

55:02Okay.

55:03Uh we'll get started with city uh with

55:05um board comment and um

55:08we can go from there. So, I'll just say

55:11um that I really appreciate the the

55:13thoughtfulness of

55:15um the applicant. And so, whenever I

55:17think about a digital billboard,

55:20um I'm always weighing uh

55:23like

55:24>> [clears throat]

55:24>> the location as well as sort of the

55:27broad benefit to the city and um and and

55:31like how disruptive it will be

55:33um versus the fact that it is

55:35environmentally

55:37um atrocious and and damaging for

55:40seemingly just limited benefit. And so

55:43in this case, the proximity to the

55:47Blackstone River Valley,

55:49the fact that there's already a

55:50billboard there, the fact that there's

55:51already a digital billboard on 146,

55:55and the fact that it's so close to an

55:56overlay where we wouldn't allow it,

55:59I just don't think that that meets the

56:02high cost of a digital billboard, which

56:04is environmental degradation in a time

56:07of growing climate change. It feels like

56:09I'd have to put my head in the sand and

56:11believe climate change isn't real to

56:12approve this.

56:14And then also on top of that,

56:16the just the dangers to to accidents on

56:20an already narrow 146,

56:23a sort of a narrow part of the highway.

56:26And and so those things together, I'm

56:29going to vote no on this.

56:31And I welcome other

56:34other board members

56:35>> First thoughts. Board member Abramoff.

56:36>> Thank you through the chair.

56:40Essentially reflecting what you just

56:42discussed, I agree there's I see little

56:46limited benefit to the city. And

56:50the one of the neighbors or citizens of

56:54Worcester sent in a very I thought a

56:56thoughtful comment on it talking about

56:59the proximity to the

57:01Gateway Park and the impact on the

57:04wildlife.

57:06She also talked about the driver

57:08distraction including

57:11included

57:13peer-reviewed traffic studies have shown

57:15crash rates can spike 25 to 29%

57:18along the high-speed corridors. And then

57:21I think something very much on people's

57:24minds these days as our electric bills

57:27continue to skyrocket is the amount of

57:31um

57:31electricity that this is going to

57:33consume. Uh she points out that it's up

57:35to 46 times

57:37uh the draw of an externally lit static

57:40sign

57:41um

57:42and about to eight times the energy of

57:44the average home. So, thinking about all

57:46those aspects, I think I agree with you.

57:48I would uh also be against this.

57:52>> Okay.

57:53Uh board member Moremi.

57:56>> No comments at this time.

57:57>> Okay.

57:58Uh board member Torcona.

58:01>> Uh no comment, but I'm leaning towards

58:04um declining if to be precise.

58:09>> Okay.

58:10Um

58:11uh for this one um because

58:15board member Bartegan, you were the last

58:17one I asked. My impulse is to save you

58:19for um to have you do um not this one,

58:22but the next one. Um but uh please do

58:25your um if you have any comment, board

58:27member Bartegan.

58:27>> I I just uh through the chair, thank

58:29you. Um

58:31I I I have a hard time voting for

58:33something like this uh

58:34basically solely due to the energy use.

58:38Um

58:40I mean, frankly, billboards should be

58:42slowly being phased away. There are four

58:44states in this country that have banned

58:46them altogether and I'm sure they're

58:48better for it. I don't

58:50uh it seems like an anachronistic from

58:52bygone days. I you know, I really don't

58:54think we need to be

58:56uh expanding billboard use at all,

58:59especially in such a way that would

59:01increase

59:03um energy costs uh and usage in the

59:06city. So, I would

59:09I would be against this.

59:11Uh board member Sacco.

59:13>> Through the chair, uh nothing new to

59:15add. I I'm pretty much on par with the

59:16rest of the board. Against this one.

59:18Thanks.

59:19>> Okay.

59:20Um so, just to be clear for the

59:22applicant, um it does not sound like uh

59:25you have the votes

59:27um to get through. So, the options to

59:29you are,

59:31we could you can continue it to figure

59:33out with your client and yourselves,

59:35your course of action. We can vote

59:38at this moment,

59:40up or down and it sounds like it will be

59:42rejected or you can

59:45ask to withdraw.

59:50>> Well,

59:51I would

59:53I would like to take uh

59:55some time to

59:58kind of respond to the various concerns

1:00:01and comments.

1:00:02I I did read the

1:00:05comment

1:00:07from the resident on Clayson Road

1:00:11and uh

1:00:12did take note of of many of the things

1:00:14that she wrote in

1:00:17and I've taken note obviously with the

1:00:19environmental concerns and and the

1:00:20energy concerns and I I

1:00:22feel I can respond to them. Um

1:00:25but at the same time it may be

1:00:28best to withdraw and reissue but I I

1:00:31would want to be able to provide the

1:00:35clarity. I should say I am

1:00:37I work for Lamar Advertising. I'm not an

1:00:39attorney, you know, they're not a client

1:00:40of mine. Um, so I do feel you know, I've

1:00:43been in this business some time and uh

1:00:46if if the board would be open to it, I

1:00:48know

1:00:49there was a long debate on the item

1:00:51before hours.

1:00:52Um

1:00:53but I I feel like I can respond to some

1:00:56of these concerns, especially the study

1:00:58that was cited.

1:01:00Um

1:01:01other issues we can do to mitigate

1:01:03energy usage, um visibility of the sign,

1:01:06proximity to the residences. I feel like

1:01:08all of these can be addressed. Um, and I

1:01:11can try to be as succinct as possible.

1:01:15>> Are you So, the the request is to

1:01:17continue, I think, is what you're asking

1:01:19for?

1:01:21>> Um, yeah, if if if possible.

1:01:24>> okay. Yep, we will

1:01:25>> if that is the only way for us to kind

1:01:27of respond to these things because if we

1:01:29withdrew and came back in a month,

1:01:32you know, no new information would be

1:01:34known and that would be my concern.

1:01:36>> Yeah, so the the way if you would like

1:01:38to if you would like to address the

1:01:40issues, my suggestion would be to

1:01:42continue it and

1:01:44uh and then that way it'll give time for

1:01:46you to address the the board's concerns.

1:01:49That would be the my opinion on the best

1:01:51way forward

1:01:52based on

1:01:53based on what I'm hearing from you.

1:01:55>> I appreciate [clears throat] that uh Mr.

1:01:56Chair. Um, so yes, we we did

1:01:59>> Okay.

1:02:00>> So I'm sorry.

1:02:01>> No, go ahead.

1:02:02>> Okay. So, I mean, we did take Our

1:02:05biggest concern is is residential glare,

1:02:08of course. That's our number one

1:02:09concern. We chose the southern face, um,

1:02:12you know, before we even got the zoning

1:02:13determination, the southern face was

1:02:15chosen because it has

1:02:18pretty much zero impact facing any

1:02:20residential

1:02:21um

1:02:22structures at this time. Uh

1:02:24it's perpendicular to these structures.

1:02:27Digital panels these days have changed

1:02:29in the past several years where it they

1:02:32can now act basically as a computer

1:02:35privacy screen in the fact that if you

1:02:38tilt one way or the other or if you're

1:02:40looking at it a little from the left or

1:02:42a little bit from the right, you see a

1:02:44black panel. You you don't see our

1:02:46advertisement. Um, that's been something

1:02:49that we've been trying to incorporate.

1:02:51We haven't had to necessarily in some

1:02:54areas, but it's something that we have

1:02:57we can offer and we can ensure uh if

1:02:59this was something that would be put in,

1:03:01um,

1:03:02that it would be, uh, you know, we could

1:03:04provide proof of that. Um, the second

1:03:07thing we we do know uh

1:03:09proximity, obviously, to uh the

1:03:11Blackstone

1:03:13uh

1:03:13River Park. Uh Uh, the loop of the

1:03:16visitor center is about 800 ft um south

1:03:19of where we are. Um

1:03:21I can say that nothing along uh

1:03:24McKean Road uh our signs are not visible

1:03:28from the walkway that's just to the

1:03:30west. Um our board could be possibly

1:03:33visible

1:03:35um in the winter months or in the fall

1:03:37months, but there is a lot of vegetation

1:03:39there and of course there's the building

1:03:40along um 7 Clancy Way which also

1:03:44um blocks the uh

1:03:47blocks visibility of of the board here.

1:03:49Um just kind of going into the

1:03:52study that was cited. Uh this was a 2014

1:03:55study. There are numerous state studies

1:03:58that refute this. Um

1:04:00The obviously I'm I'm a biased actor

1:04:02here, but I can say that there really is

1:04:04no um no uniform thought about this.

1:04:08There have been studies in Sweden. There

1:04:09have been studies in the states. There

1:04:11hasn't been anything in a long time.

1:04:13The 2018

1:04:15um NHTSA fact sheet is kind of the most

1:04:19recent um thought and and it was more

1:04:21about distracted driving. Um and they

1:04:24talked about cell phones, adjusting

1:04:26controls, other occupants in the car,

1:04:28eating or drinking. They didn't even

1:04:30They didn't really give billboards their

1:04:32own category when they were trying to

1:04:34sort out distractions. They They kind of

1:04:37put them in under external distractions

1:04:39which included rubbernecking and things

1:04:41like that. Um

1:04:43They did find at least that any

1:04:46distractions were well below uh the

1:04:48NHTSA's 2-second threshold. They believe

1:04:50any distractions that are 2 seconds or

1:04:52longer um as I'm sure you could imagine

1:04:55because how long that would be if you

1:04:56imagine driving a car

1:04:58that is the threshold and obviously any

1:05:00of any of our boards are are well below

1:05:02that. With the energy usage

1:05:05we pay for all of our energy usage of

1:05:07course, but there are municipalities

1:05:09within our market where we have

1:05:12um restrictions on our hours of

1:05:14operation, for instance. We could we

1:05:15can't operate after 11:00 or 10:00 at

1:05:18night. We can't uh turn it back on until

1:05:217:00 in the morning. Um something like

1:05:23that. Um

1:05:25and like I said with with the

1:05:26residences, we

1:05:29we're perpendicular with a lot of these

1:05:31uh houses here, and we obviously are

1:05:35just trying to avoid We want to be good

1:05:36neighbors. I know that there's been some

1:05:38some other businesses putting ones in

1:05:40without, you know, concern about where

1:05:42they're choosing.

1:05:44Um we definitely did choose this

1:05:46location because it would have minimal,

1:05:49if any, um

1:05:51residential impact.

1:05:53Um I I apologize if I'm missing one or

1:05:56two of the other concerns. Um

1:06:00but those are obviously the big ones,

1:06:02and I I do not think that

1:06:05as far as a visible impact from the

1:06:07park, bikers, walkers,

1:06:09um

1:06:11pretty much would never be able to see

1:06:13our sign during the period of operation.

1:06:16Um and and I feel like that's the

1:06:18biggest one along with energy, and we

1:06:19are obviously able to um

1:06:23you know, modify the hours of operation

1:06:25around that. The figures that were given

1:06:27in

1:06:29the um

1:06:30Ms. Fratoni's comment,

1:06:33uh I believe are a little outdated. Uh

1:06:35our digital's kind of what I had said

1:06:37with the ones that

1:06:38can shield visibility in the in the view

1:06:40shed.

1:06:42Um

1:06:43they don't They are a lot more efficient

1:06:45now. Obviously, I I

1:06:47I'm an environmentalist, and it of

1:06:48course it'll be using more than a

1:06:50traditional sign,

1:06:52but those figures are are in my opinion

1:06:55uh excessive.

1:06:57But that that's something that, you

1:06:59know, we can obviously mitigate um

1:07:02as time goes by. So, uh if there's any

1:07:05other direct ones that are missing or

1:07:07any follow-up questions,

1:07:09um you know, I'm happy to

1:07:11uh address those as well.

1:07:14>> Uh thank you very much. It's very

1:07:15thoughtful. Um

1:07:17I I want to be So, I'll I'll kick it

1:07:20back to the board and I'll be clear I

1:07:22guess I should be clearer with you. Um

1:07:24so, if So, to to pass this board you

1:07:27need um four votes in affirmative uh to

1:07:30pass for the special permit. So, um you

1:07:33would need four votes in affirmative to

1:07:35pass. And if you don't get four votes,

1:07:38then it gets rejected. Um and then that

1:07:40comes with um like your ability to come

1:07:43back before us in a certain amount of

1:07:44time um without making changes and so

1:07:47forth. It sort of limits your ability to

1:07:49access this board um if we vote if if

1:07:52you do not get four votes. So, to be

1:07:54clear, those are um before you. And so,

1:07:56if we vote tonight and we vote to turn

1:08:01it down, that's um that

1:08:03um that sort of limits your access to

1:08:05the board for a period of time. If we

1:08:08vote to If we vote If you say,

1:08:10"Actually, I want to pull it." um then

1:08:12that gives you the ability to access

1:08:15this board again in a more timely fa-

1:08:17fashion um

1:08:18uh

1:08:19where you could sort of come before a

1:08:21board um and make the case again. If we

1:08:24continue it, um what continuance means

1:08:27doesn't mean sort of continue

1:08:28conversation in this board meeting. It

1:08:30means um gives you time as the applicant

1:08:33to maybe put in writing some more

1:08:34answers to some of these questions. And

1:08:36at a future board meeting, we would

1:08:38discuss it. But you did um make uh I

1:08:40think some really thoughtful um

1:08:42additions to the conversation here. So,

1:08:44I'll just um give the board members here

1:08:46a chance to weigh back in to see um how

1:08:49they're thinking uh based on your

1:08:51testimony, which I very much appreciate.

1:08:53So, I'll just say again I'll just say

1:08:55for myself um again, I really do

1:08:57appreciate I think um the thoughtfulness

1:08:59of the applicant and sort of addressing

1:09:01some of the concerns. Um, for myself,

1:09:04again speaking only for myself, um, I

1:09:06did research this and the applicant is

1:09:08correct. The study that was cited is,

1:09:11um, dated for sure. There are some more

1:09:13additional studies. There aren't great

1:09:15studies as the applicant, um, I think

1:09:17accurately pointed out. Um, but even in

1:09:20the studies that were, um, that sort of

1:09:22the industry itself has put out, which

1:09:24again are not, um, necessarily as up to

1:09:27date as could be, um, that's still

1:09:29anywhere from two times the average of a

1:09:32of a house of normal household, um, a

1:09:34single family home to be specific, um,

1:09:37and so the 46 times of a static sign,

1:09:39obviously a static sign just has those

1:09:40little lights. A sign that's moving is

1:09:42going to have a lot more. Um, and so I

1:09:43think to an average home is a maybe a

1:09:45fair standard. Um, and so up to eight,

1:09:48two to eight is probably, I think,

1:09:50somewhere in that range would be, um, as

1:09:52best as I could tell. Again, I think

1:09:54it's accurate to say that technology is

1:09:56increasing and as best as possible, um,

1:09:59I think for us to to get at. It's hard

1:10:00for us to exactly know. Um, and so I I

1:10:03take that very seriously. I think the

1:10:04other piece for myself, again, is not

1:10:07actually the pedestrians because in this

1:10:08case, I think it's relatively limited.

1:10:11It's actually to the fact that it's a

1:10:13resource area, um, with in hopes of

1:10:16growing some wildlife, especially

1:10:18outside of the railway, um, and sort of

1:10:20having lights on in those areas is a

1:10:22distraction for the types of things

1:10:25we're trying to sort of grow in the area

1:10:27of the Blackstone River Valley. Um, so

1:10:28yes, I think that there are ways that

1:10:30the technology can be of not, um, of

1:10:34less concern to people walking or

1:10:37accessing, um, the sort of walking by,

1:10:40but I do concern about the sort of the

1:10:42location based on the, um, you know, I

1:10:45would feel more, I would be more likely

1:10:47to say yes in an urban neighborhood

1:10:49where there's already a lot of lights,

1:10:50um,

1:10:51as opposed to a place where we're trying

1:10:53to not have as much light where we're

1:10:55trying to do, even though it's next to a

1:10:57highway and a railway, um when you get

1:10:59beyond that is something that we're

1:11:00trying to foster some wildlife. So, that

1:11:03is those are the reasons that I'm still

1:11:05a no, although I do a very much

1:11:06appreciate the thoughtfulness of the

1:11:08applicant. Um and so, um that would be

1:11:11one no. So, if you get two no's, then it

1:11:14cannot pass the board, um and we would

1:11:16we could vote accordingly. So, um I will

1:11:18ask I'll go through the board list again

1:11:19and get people's thoughts. Board member

1:11:21Brombach.

1:11:23>> Uh thank you to the chair. Um

1:11:27Uh he did give some response to the

1:11:29concerns that were brought up by um

1:11:34uh

1:11:35the letter from one of our um

1:11:38fellow residents.

1:11:40But, I'd like to see more documentation

1:11:43of that. I think

1:11:44uh something new that we that that has

1:11:47come out in the past few years is how

1:11:50much energy,

1:11:52you know, is available in a community

1:11:53because if if uh energy goes to um

1:11:57something like this,

1:11:59and it drives up the energy costs, we're

1:12:00all going to end up paying for it. I see

1:12:02limited benefit. And then, my primary

1:12:04concern is is traffic safety.

1:12:07You know, I'd hate to approve this and

1:12:08find out that somebody uh

1:12:11uh got hurt or or killed in a in a in a

1:12:13traffic accident because this was

1:12:15distracting.

1:12:16Um so, uh

1:12:19um

1:12:20I'm still a no.

1:12:22>> Okay.

1:12:23Uh board member Brombach.

1:12:26>> No other comments, but I support

1:12:27everybody's comments.

1:12:29>> Okay. Uh board member Tarcono.

1:12:32>> Um

1:12:34I'm still on the fence, and I'm for if

1:12:36the applicant wants to redraw and come

1:12:39back, that's fine, but I'm still not

1:12:43going to be able to vote on it,

1:12:45to be clear.

1:12:47>> Thank you very much. Uh board member

1:12:49Breitenhagen.

1:12:49>> Uh Uh, the chair. I I think

1:12:52I appreciate the the applicant's

1:12:54responses. I really do. Um, I would

1:12:56still for me I'm just going to focus on

1:12:58the environmental piece. Uh, I

1:13:00you know, obviously it's going to use

1:13:02some energy. And I guess I

1:13:05I would encourage the applicant to move

1:13:07ask to continue. And when they come back

1:13:10prov- I think I would put the burden on

1:13:13the applicant in this particular case.

1:13:14Show that this is environmental neutral.

1:13:16Um,

1:13:17sure. If you can come back with some

1:13:19more information about how much this

1:13:21kind of LED lights would actually use.

1:13:24And maybe there are some environmental

1:13:26benefits for not having a physical

1:13:28billboard. Like I'm not sure if if you

1:13:30have to replace these boards and what

1:13:32you know, what

1:13:33you know, whether this canvas ends up in

1:13:35a landfill or whether you can, you know,

1:13:37provide solar somewhere else. I don't

1:13:39know what what it could be. But I would

1:13:41I would say that if this adds much

1:13:43energy use to the city system, I would

1:13:45still be a no. And I would want proof

1:13:48from you, the applicant, that it

1:13:50doesn't.

1:13:51So, that's just my thought.

1:13:53>> Yep.

1:13:53Uh,

1:13:55Board member Sacco.

1:13:56>> Uh, through the chair. Nothing new to

1:13:58add on my end.

1:13:59>> Um,

1:13:59>> I'm with the rest of the board. Thanks.

1:14:01>> Okay.

1:14:02Um, is that clear to the applicant? Uh,

1:14:05so it sounds like you do not currently

1:14:06have the votes to move forward.

1:14:09So, your options are to continue to a

1:14:11future meeting, to pull uh, the to pull

1:14:14the application,

1:14:15um, or to um, or for us to vote.

1:14:33>> No worries.

1:14:37>> And uh, sorry I was muted and

1:14:39accidentally. Thanks for unmuting me.

1:14:41>> No worries.

1:14:43>> I appreciate everyone's input. It's very

1:14:45uh, very helpful. Um, and I do I do

1:14:48believe that um,

1:14:50with some time to address the concerns

1:14:53that we may be able to

1:14:56assuage some of those.

1:14:58I do not know if the most the best way

1:15:01to do this would be a continuance or or

1:15:03a withdrawal or the formality between

1:15:04the two.

1:15:05>> Yeah, no it's it's a you want a

1:15:07continuance is the answer.

1:15:09>> Okay, in that

1:15:11in that case Mr. Chair, um,

1:15:13yeah, Lamar would would like to request

1:15:15a

1:15:16continuance to address the concerns of

1:15:19the board.

1:15:19>> Okay, thank you very much. On the motion

1:15:21to is there a motion to

1:15:23>> To to what date?

1:15:25I would actually

1:15:26like him to have enough time to actually

1:15:28come up with the

1:15:28>> a great point. Thank you very much. So,

1:15:30the next board meeting is August 10th.

1:15:32And then the the meeting after that is

1:15:34August 31st. Do you think you can get

1:15:36something back to us by August 31st?

1:15:40>> That was the one I had in mind. I

1:15:42believe we could address that and

1:15:43obviously if I

1:15:45if we needed something further I could

1:15:47talk to staff who've been very helpful

1:15:48with us throughout the process. So, yes,

1:15:50that would be fine, sure.

1:15:52>> Yeah, if you need more time you would

1:15:53just request it of the staff and we

1:15:55would do as you saw at the beginning of

1:15:56the meeting, just continue it.

1:15:58Okay.

1:15:58>> There is through the chair, just want to

1:16:00be clear to you that we typically look

1:16:01for new information essentially 10 days

1:16:03ahead of the hearing. So, wanting to be

1:16:06sure that the 31st still works with

1:16:07getting us the information to get to you

1:16:09all and process

1:16:11around the 17th of August.

1:16:13>> Did the applicant hear that? So, you

1:16:14would need the information to the city

1:16:16staff by August 17th.

1:16:19>> I think that's something that we we're

1:16:20comfortable taking on, yes.

1:16:22>> Okay, and again if you're not able to

1:16:23just let the city staff know and we'll

1:16:25we'll move accordingly.

1:16:26Okay, is there a motion to

1:16:29continue this to the October 31st, I

1:16:32mean excuse me, August 31st meeting?

1:16:34>> I'd like to make a motion to continue

1:16:36the right away adjacent to 692 Milbury

1:16:39Street to the date as stated by the

1:16:42chair.

1:16:42>> Is there a second?

1:16:43>> Second.

1:16:44>> On the motion, board member Abramoff?

1:16:46>> Yes.

1:16:46>> Uh board member Murray me?

1:16:48>> Yes.

1:16:49>> Board member uh Turkano?

1:16:55>> Yes.

1:16:56>> Board member Sacco?

1:16:58>> Yes.

1:16:59>> My vote's yes.

1:17:00>> And consider that I made the motion, I

1:17:01guess we'll do the first case.

1:17:02>> Yeah.

1:17:03>> All right.

1:17:05Thanks.

1:17:06Uh

1:17:06>> Thank you so much.

1:17:07>> All right. Next up is Oh God help us.

1:17:10Number four, 256 Sunderland Road.

1:17:19>> Um good evening, members of the board.

1:17:21Um for the record, my name is Donald

1:17:22O'Neal. I'm a lawyer here in Worcester.

1:17:24I'm here this evening on behalf of

1:17:27Sunderland Village LLC

1:17:29in connection with uh the property at

1:17:32256 Sunderland Road. Um we're seeking a

1:17:37special permit to allow the um

1:17:40single-family attached um residences

1:17:43that are proposed uh because this is in

1:17:46a RL7 zone.

1:17:48Um in connection with that, we're also

1:17:50seeking a

1:17:52variance for the frontage requirement uh

1:17:56which

1:17:57uh in our case would amount to

1:18:00uh 550 ft because it's based upon

1:18:0425 ft per unit. However, in the

1:18:09situation that we have and similar to

1:18:12the other

1:18:13condominium developments that are

1:18:14located on the street,

1:18:16the access to the property would be by

1:18:18private driveway uh which would be

1:18:22maintained installed and maintained um

1:18:25by the applicant uh without um

1:18:29um

1:18:30you know, any kind of a maintenance

1:18:31obligation on the part of the city. So,

1:18:34with respect to the frontage,

1:18:36um we're requesting the relief because

1:18:39we're actually using probably about

1:18:42I don't know, 35, 40 ft of frontage at

1:18:45the most uh, to provide the driveway

1:18:48entrance. And under the provisions in

1:18:51the ordinance, they're assuming that the

1:18:53frontage

1:18:55um, requirement would be actually on a

1:18:57public street, hence the 7 25 ft per

1:19:01unit is uh, reasonable when you're on a

1:19:04public street, but

1:19:05um, not so

1:19:08much in this case where we're accessing

1:19:10through one driveway. The one driveway

1:19:13also has um,

1:19:16in regard to the variance relief, has

1:19:18advantages because

1:19:20uh, you control the traffic um,

1:19:24through one location.

1:19:26Uh,

1:19:27in and out. Uh, there's plenty of room

1:19:29uh, for people

1:19:31um, trying to exit

1:19:33onto Sunderland Road to to queue up if

1:19:36they need to in order to get out. Um,

1:19:39and uh, you avoid the situation where

1:19:42you've got multiple

1:19:44driveways um,

1:19:46coming out onto Sunderland Road, which

1:19:49um,

1:19:50you know, gets a fair amount of traffic

1:19:51and um,

1:19:53given this location and the topography

1:19:55on the site, um, what we're proposing, I

1:19:58think it's a big improvement in terms of

1:20:00uh, safe access to the property.

1:20:03So, we're asking relief uh,

1:20:05due to the site conditions, which

1:20:07warrant uh, central driveway access. And

1:20:11also regarding the special permit for

1:20:13the use,

1:20:14um, it's obviously entirely consistent

1:20:18with

1:20:19surrounding uses uh, in that

1:20:21neighborhood. Uh, and feel that this

1:20:23would be um,

1:20:26a way to utilize the space that's

1:20:28available to create additional housing

1:20:31uh, with minimal impacts on the city. I

1:20:33did review the recommendations

1:20:37um

1:20:38from staff, which appear on page four

1:20:41of the staff memo.

1:20:44Uh

1:20:45most of them um

1:20:47we're happy to accept. Uh there's a

1:20:49couple that I just want to bring to your

1:20:51attention. The um

1:20:53second one, uh 1B,

1:20:55um

1:20:57requests that trees be planted every 50

1:20:59ft along the center line road and also

1:21:01along the common driveway

1:21:03in compliance with the subdivision rules

1:21:05and regulations.

1:21:07Um we are um

1:21:10it later on in the somewhere else in the

1:21:12in the staff memo it indicates that

1:21:13unless we're requesting a waiver from

1:21:15the planning board, which we do intend

1:21:17to request. Um particularly

1:21:20with respect to the uh northerly uh

1:21:23section

1:21:24of the property, um

1:21:27we've got a sidewalk, uh we've got an

1:21:30arborvitae hedge, we've got a fence,

1:21:33um all in that location.

1:21:35Um so it uh seems that um

1:21:39uh I think we need to look into that a

1:21:41little bit more, um

1:21:42which we will be doing because we're

1:21:44required to go to site plan approval.

1:21:47So if we Our intention would be to

1:21:49request a waiver and hope that the board

1:21:52would be comfortable leaving it to the

1:21:54planning board uh to either grant that

1:21:56waiver or not uh just because of the

1:21:59concern that we have about

1:22:01uh requiring those trees and how it's

1:22:04going to work with the um

1:22:07between [snorts] the um

1:22:08an extension of the sidewalk uh and also

1:22:12the uh screening that's going to be

1:22:13provided for the detention basin

1:22:16um

1:22:17and the fencing as well. It it's a lot

1:22:19going on there.

1:22:20>> [clears throat]

1:22:21>> Um so we're requesting that at this

1:22:23point.

1:22:24Uh Um, we have no problem with A, C.

1:22:29Um

1:22:31D, um,

1:22:32talks about, uh, extending

1:22:35uh, the sidewalk into the property um

1:22:40from Sandalwood Road along the northerly

1:22:43side of the driveway.

1:22:45Uh, we're agreeable to the northerly

1:22:48extension.

1:22:50Um, this is at a minimum and we would,

1:22:53uh, ask that the um just provide that

1:22:55the condition

1:22:57um, I guess maybe that be a might be a

1:22:59problem now that you have problems with

1:23:01conditions, but that the

1:23:03um

1:23:04uh,

1:23:05there's an existing sidewalk will be a

1:23:07sidewalk on the northerly side.

1:23:10Uh, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to

1:23:11do that on the southerly side. So, we

1:23:15have no objection to the condition

1:23:17generally, but uh,

1:23:19would, uh, strike the minimum

1:23:22installation and just provide that the

1:23:24sidewalk be

1:23:26installed along the northerly portion of

1:23:28the driveway.

1:23:30Um

1:23:33the with respect to the last condition

1:23:36uh, we're proposing, um

1:23:39private trash pickup, which would be

1:23:41curbside.

1:23:43Um

1:23:44so there is no dumpster. I the way that

1:23:46it's written, I mean it I I don't it

1:23:48says if there's a dumpster. No dumpster

1:23:50is proposed.

1:23:52So, I don't really have any objection to

1:23:54that wording, but we are not going to be

1:23:56providing a dumpster, so I think it's,

1:23:57um

1:23:59repetitive or or not necessary.

1:24:02Uh, and the only other provision that I

1:24:04would, um,

1:24:05like to bring to the board's attention

1:24:08is, uh

1:24:09>> [snorts]

1:24:10>> a G

1:24:11which requests that we

1:24:15um

1:24:16reduce the size of the

1:24:18driveway to 9 ft.

1:24:21Uh,

1:24:22which is the width of the driveway door.

1:24:25We We do object to that just because the

1:24:29um

1:24:29>> [snorts]

1:24:30>> um

1:24:31doesn't really give uh

1:24:34people room to get in out of their car

1:24:36um without you know, stepping on the

1:24:38grass or stepping on what will

1:24:39eventually become

1:24:41mud if it's, you know, if it gets a lot

1:24:44of foot traffic. Uh, and feel that um

1:24:47what's proposed in the plan

1:24:49is um

1:24:50appropriate and an appropriate width

1:24:53that would be involved and that 9 ft we

1:24:55just think is a little thin.

1:24:57Uh, it's one thing if you need it in

1:24:59order to

1:25:00meet uh impervious coverage restrictions

1:25:02or something like that, but generally

1:25:04that's not our situation and feel that

1:25:07it's a little bit uh

1:25:08too narrow or more narrow than we would

1:25:10um prefer.

1:25:12>> [clears throat]

1:25:12>> Um

1:25:14the um

1:25:15other than that um

1:25:18we're agreeable to the provisions. Uh,

1:25:21there were some other suggestions or

1:25:22comments in the back page uh, which uh

1:25:26we feel that we can be worked out at the

1:25:28planning board level.

1:25:30Um Rafael Hernandez from Acropolis is, I

1:25:34believe, online to the extent that

1:25:35you've got any questions about

1:25:38the uh building uh layout or the facades

1:25:41that are proposed. We have

1:25:43dressed up the building so that the uh

1:25:45units which face Sandlin Road uh have a

1:25:51They've added a door and they've done

1:25:52some other things to to connect with the

1:25:54street a little bit better. Uh, and we

1:25:57have provided those to staff. I think

1:25:58it's the bottom

1:25:59right hand on the screen that showed

1:26:02would be the unit that faces Sandlin

1:26:03Road.

1:26:05But if you to the extent you have any

1:26:07questions for Rafael, he's

1:26:09should be available. And also Mark Albag

1:26:12had done the engineering

1:26:14on the um

1:26:16project. He's also available online to

1:26:18the extent you have any questions for

1:26:20him.

1:26:21And if you have any questions for me,

1:26:23I'll do my best to answer them.

1:26:25>> Um I have two I guess I have two

1:26:28questions. The first is

1:26:30do request the waivers.

1:26:34The waivers, do you request the waivers?

1:26:35>> Oh yeah, yes. And the two waivers that

1:26:37are listed on page five.

1:26:39>> And then the other is just for the city

1:26:41staff I think. So we have here a written

1:26:45uh

1:26:46finding of facts based on the new

1:26:48outline for the variance portion of this

1:26:50request. I

1:26:53don't Does the applicant need to read it

1:26:55or is does this suffice as being read

1:26:57into the record?

1:26:57>> Mr. Chair, Attorney O'Neal provided so

1:26:59ultimately it's the board's

1:27:00determination. I would suggest unless

1:27:02each of you have read that already which

1:27:04I'm not sure that you have cuz you were

1:27:06provided with it at the meeting that the

1:27:07applicant just read it into the record.

1:27:10I also think that in this particular

1:27:11case the last four findings they did not

1:27:14update so they would need to crosswalk

1:27:16that with the findings that were

1:27:17previously provided which don't directly

1:27:19align. There's a lot of parallels but

1:27:21they're not identical.

1:27:23So we just want to be sure that the

1:27:24record's clear if you vote to approve it

1:27:26what the findings are.

1:27:28>> [clears throat]

1:27:28>> Okay, so just to be clarified the

1:27:31currently

1:27:32two and three are the same as what they

1:27:34were before and so we would need to know

1:27:36what's changed. Is that a is that the

1:27:39what you're saying?

1:27:40>> Uh

1:27:41one, two, and three were provided today.

1:27:44>> Yes, correct.

1:27:45>> so those are new and then

1:27:47>> I got it.

1:27:47>> four, five

1:27:49>> six

1:27:49>> six, and seven are similar but not

1:27:51identical to the previous. So we have

1:27:54not gone through for each case and

1:27:55crosswalked them for the applicants.

1:27:57That's something the applicants need to

1:27:59do and so we would recommend that the

1:28:00board ask them to do that here for each

1:28:03case cuz it's not been something that

1:28:04our team has had the time to be able to

1:28:06do unfortunately.

1:28:08>> I got it. Okay.

1:28:10I will for the [clears throat] for the

1:28:12purposes of moving this along, I will

1:28:14take one, two, and three and I'll ask

1:28:16you to do four, five, and six

1:28:18just to walk it through for the board.

1:28:19So, just really quickly for board

1:28:21members for the record, how a strict

1:28:23enforcement of the provision of the city

1:28:24of Worcester ordinance would result in

1:28:26practical difficulty. The applicant has

1:28:27written the strict enforcement of the

1:28:28zoning board a zoning ordinance would

1:28:30limit the number of proposed units to

1:28:32eight, which results in practical

1:28:33difficulty since the ordinance assumes

1:28:35that units will be assessed directly for

1:28:37the lots for road frontage

1:28:39notwithstanding the fact that lot area

1:28:41can accommodate the 22 units proposed

1:28:42for the site without any relief provided

1:28:44the units are accessed by the private

1:28:4622-ft

1:28:48wide shared driveway proposed. Although

1:28:49the driveway access provides mitigate

1:28:52mitigates the need for the frontage

1:28:54required in the zoning ordinance for

1:28:56access. There's no provision in the

1:28:57ordinance which addresses the situation

1:29:00other than the variance relief option

1:29:02provided. So, basically because the way

1:29:04it envisions is that the 22

1:29:07uh uh uh single-family

1:29:09attached would be on the street and the

1:29:11ordinance sort of assumes that without

1:29:13us making the variance and obviously

1:29:15wouldn't work. The second thing the

1:29:16applicant writes how the grant of relief

1:29:19for the practical difficulty benefits

1:29:20the practitioner public interest

1:29:22includes supporting the production of

1:29:23housing. The request relief will allow

1:29:25for or the construction of additional

1:29:27housing to help meet the need for the

1:29:29same by using the proposed driveway

1:29:30access to the units which mitigates the

1:29:32need for the frontage required by the

1:29:34ordinance. I think that's clear. And

1:29:36then number three, how the grant of

1:29:38relief for the practical difficulty will

1:29:39not be at the detriment to the public

1:29:42health, safety, and welfare of the

1:29:43neighborhood. The relief sought may be

1:29:45granted with no detriment to the public

1:29:47state health and safety and welfare of

1:29:48the neighborhood by providing safer

1:29:50access to and from Southern Sunderland

1:29:53Road from the unit occupants which

1:29:55directly and indirectly benefit the

1:29:56neighborhood gen

1:29:57Okay. So, for five for five and six,

1:30:02can you just walk us through how it's

1:30:04changed a a based on the updated

1:30:07um

1:30:08uh variance requirements.

1:30:17And

1:30:18apologize. We're all We're all working

1:30:19through the new rules as as best we can.

1:30:22Yeah.

1:30:28>> Uh five Did you say five and six?

1:30:29>> Four, five, and six.

1:30:30>> Four, five, and six.

1:30:31>> What? And seven, sorry. Four

1:30:35>> So we could we could I was going to say

1:30:37the chair if you if you asked the

1:30:38question basically four is how the

1:30:40practical difficulty relates to soil

1:30:42conditions, shape, and topography of the

1:30:43land and structures.

1:30:47>> So in the um

1:30:52a

1:30:53Well, in the original application, I

1:30:54think that we had indicated that the

1:30:57um

1:30:58topography on the site as well as the

1:31:01proposed structures

1:31:03um

1:31:08>> [snorts]

1:31:08>> And given the the size of the lot, which

1:31:10actually has ample area to provide

1:31:14the number of units that that is

1:31:15proposed,

1:31:17uh the limitation on the frontage

1:31:20um

1:31:22that was available

1:31:24created in this case a practical

1:31:26um

1:31:27difficulty in terms of developing the

1:31:29property to utilize the space that was

1:31:31available.

1:31:33Um

1:31:37A strict enforcement of the provisions

1:31:39of the zoning ordinance

1:31:41um would impose a financial hardship on

1:31:44the petitioner in that

1:31:46uh it severely limits the

1:31:50uh

1:31:52number of units that could be

1:31:53constructed um

1:31:55on the site

1:31:57uh disproportionately to the amount of

1:31:59area that's available

1:32:00um you know, particularly in a situation

1:32:04where

1:32:05um,

1:32:06the frontage requirement

1:32:08um, is um,

1:32:12based upon the actual use of the

1:32:14frontage as opposed to a driveway

1:32:16access.

1:32:17The

1:32:21benefits sought by the petitioner can be

1:32:23achieved by some other

1:32:25method feasible to the petitioner to

1:32:27achieve.

1:32:29Um,

1:32:30I don't believe there is another

1:32:31alternative which would allow us to

1:32:34put 22 units on the property without the

1:32:37requested relief that's granted.

1:32:40Um, and the

1:32:42um,

1:32:46practical difficulty

1:32:48uh, was not self-created by the

1:32:51applicant. The slot has um,

1:32:53been in this

1:32:56configuration for 25-30 years.

1:33:00Uh,

1:33:01and that um,

1:33:03the

1:33:05alternative requirements um,

1:33:09>> [snorts]

1:33:11>> proposed use that we have is based upon

1:33:15the requirement of the zoning ordinance

1:33:17which doesn't provide an alternative.

1:33:22>> City staff.

1:33:24>> Sure, through the chair. This is

1:33:25Michelle Smith in the city's planning

1:33:27division. So, in front of you this

1:33:29evening again, a variance request

1:33:31related to frontage. The applicant's

1:33:32seeking relief of 337.54

1:33:36feet, which is 61% of the 550-foot

1:33:39minimum frontage requirement in the RL7

1:33:41zone in which the property is located.

1:33:43They're also seeking a special permit to

1:33:45allow the use. So, we only allow um, two

1:33:48units by right basically on a lot in

1:33:51this zone plus an EDU. Um, so that's

1:33:53kind of the maximum without coming into

1:33:55a special permit of some form from this

1:33:58board. So the applicant's proposing six

1:34:00buildings and attached style dwellings

1:34:01as you see here on the screen.

1:34:03Four of those have four in each building

1:34:05and then two of those buildings have

1:34:07three units in each building as you see

1:34:09on the north side plan north of the

1:34:11driveway here. So that is what is in

1:34:13front of you.

1:34:15We do have recommendations for

1:34:16conditions of approval. I will review

1:34:18the the comments that the applicant's

1:34:20council provided. We'll note that there

1:34:22are two waivers that staff have

1:34:24identified recommend that

1:34:26that be handled procedurally to where

1:34:28the board can move to a motion. In terms

1:34:30of the by right options for this

1:34:32location, essentially your highest

1:34:34density option gets you to 12 units by

1:34:37right which is six duplexes each with an

1:34:39ADU.

1:34:40So that would be the highest density by

1:34:42right and then again anything of a

1:34:44higher density requires special permit

1:34:46from this board.

1:34:47Multi-family low-rise notably

1:34:50would be permissible with only 140 feet

1:34:52of frontage. The the applicant would

1:34:55basically be driven in terms of how many

1:34:57units they can have on the site by

1:34:59virtue of lot area. So that would be 40

1:35:01units would be permissible. Obviously

1:35:03that use still requires a special permit

1:35:06but just from a density comparative

1:35:08through special permit for cluster

1:35:09development there are also some options.

1:35:11Again not sure that that would get them

1:35:13close to the number that they are

1:35:14seeking but just as far as the range of

1:35:16options go.

1:35:18In terms of other comments that staff

1:35:20had and how those have kind of parallel

1:35:22their number of comments for the

1:35:24applicant's benefit specifically the

1:35:26comment around the sidewalk came from

1:35:28both planning and DTM. I will note on

1:35:30that the subdivision regulations require

1:35:32sidewalks on both sides. The planning

1:35:33board will need to weigh in on that at a

1:35:35later time. We have no issue with

1:35:37striking that at minimum the language

1:35:39was put there to just indicate that

1:35:41ultimately the planning board has a

1:35:43determination to make if they're not

1:35:45proposing to have those on both sides of

1:35:47the common driveway. So no no issue with

1:35:49that modification to D. We don't feel

1:35:52strongly related to G, but just trying

1:35:55to find ways to minimize the amount of

1:35:57impervious surface that's sort of

1:35:58visible from the public realm.

1:36:01And these types of configurations and

1:36:02based on comments that the boards have

1:36:04provided in the past relative to that.

1:36:06So, not a strong preference there

1:36:08ultimately the board's discretion.

1:36:11We did have a question about the

1:36:12dumpster. I understand that the

1:36:14applicant's proposing some form of

1:36:15curbside pickup. I guess I would defer

1:36:17to the board as you feel it's necessary

1:36:19to include a condition. Obviously,

1:36:20that's a

1:36:22type of pickup that's going to be unique

1:36:23compared to

1:36:25what one of our kind of by right

1:36:27options, if you will, would operate as.

1:36:29So, I think that might be something you

1:36:30may wish to consider. know if the

1:36:32applicant could talk more about that. I

1:36:34assume that bins would be

1:36:36maintained within the unit and rolled to

1:36:38the driveway and not to Sunderland Road,

1:36:40but I don't know the logistics of that.

1:36:42So, if you care to digress into that

1:36:44level of detail, you can. Otherwise, we

1:36:46have no issue with striking that. We put

1:36:48that there mostly as a catchall, so we

1:36:49didn't forget to talk about trash

1:36:50removal.

1:36:52But again, that's coming out of the

1:36:54comment on just understanding how that

1:36:55will operate.

1:36:57In terms of the other comments related

1:36:59to vegetation, you'll notice that there

1:37:01is a large infiltration system that's

1:37:03proposed the street

1:37:05given the size of that. It's actually

1:37:07related and proportional to the scale of

1:37:08the project. Staff had recommended

1:37:10screening and strictly enforcing the

1:37:13minimum requirement. Certainly, the

1:37:15board could choose to establish higher

1:37:17requirements related to vegetation. One

1:37:19of the special permit criteria obviously

1:37:20is impact on the natural environment.

1:37:23So, typically we are pro-tree, but I

1:37:25will just note subdivision rules and

1:37:26regs will require a bare minimum of five

1:37:29trees in the front yard. The applicant

1:37:30is only proposing one tree in the front

1:37:32yard for the entire property. If my

1:37:35understanding of trees versus shrubs is

1:37:37correct, hope it is,

1:37:39from the updated plans. So, that's

1:37:42that's just kind of our commentary

1:37:44around that. Ultimately, again, that

1:37:46would be something that the planning

1:37:47board will need to waive specifically,

1:37:49but also is something that this board

1:37:50has heavily like to condition related to

1:37:54use special permits and otherwise in the

1:37:55past to minimize kind of the visual

1:37:57effect of some of the features that go

1:37:59along with the intensity of the

1:38:00development. Again, ultimately the

1:38:02board's preference which relates to 1B.

1:38:06Similar comments I know the applicant

1:38:07indicated they were okay with, but

1:38:09that's kind of the same tone for 1C

1:38:11where that was derived from.

1:38:13Um

1:38:14And then

1:38:16I think that was everything Attorney

1:38:19O'Neill that you wanted to talk about in

1:38:21terms of conditions. Perfect. Want to

1:38:22make sure I didn't miss anything.

1:38:24I don't need to highlight the other

1:38:25items. Those are just again comments for

1:38:27the benefit of the applicant. In terms

1:38:29of the location, we are on the southwest

1:38:32side of Sunderland Road as you're

1:38:35possibly familiar from having gone by

1:38:36the site or being familiar with the

1:38:38site.

1:38:39There are residential condominiums that

1:38:41essentially surround the property on the

1:38:43western side of the street and then

1:38:45directly across the street there is

1:38:46another set of condominiums. There are

1:38:48also directly across the street a couple

1:38:50single family homes. You're about a

1:38:51block a wide block off of Grafton Street

1:38:54that is located in our managed growth

1:38:56area which is encouraging moderate

1:38:57increases in housing density within walk

1:38:59shed of transit. Here in closest bus

1:39:02stop is just under half a mile away.

1:39:05I'll just note the quarter mile walk

1:39:07shed is to the corridor not to specific

1:39:09stop in terms of the the difference

1:39:11there. The applicant will require site

1:39:13plan review as well as more than one

1:39:15building on a lot review from the

1:39:16planning board and a notice of intent

1:39:17filing with the conservation commission.

1:39:20Happy to answer any questions, Mr.

1:39:22Chair. Thanks.

1:39:23>> Okay.

1:39:24Is anybody here for 256 Sunderland Road?

1:39:29Is anybody online?

1:39:31Okay.

1:39:32This [clears throat] is for me pretty

1:39:35straightforward. I think this is a good

1:39:38application. I like the use

1:39:42of property. I think we would be as a

1:39:44city a detriment if we did if they went

1:39:47with by right with as much space as they

1:39:48have.

1:39:49So, I think the city has an interest in

1:39:51terms of the variance in moving forward

1:39:54with this level of moderate density

1:39:57single family detached all three

1:39:59together. It's not single family, it's

1:40:00three detached, but it's you know

1:40:02duplexes attached together in a place

1:40:05where there's a bunch of those makes a

1:40:06lot of sense. So, to me this is a good

1:40:08use of property.

1:40:10It's a good project. [clears throat] I'm

1:40:11happy to provide the frontage variance

1:40:13based on that based on the new

1:40:14regulations as stated. I think those are

1:40:17met in terms of the special permit.

1:40:20I think that these are good. They are

1:40:23single family attached dwellings in R07.

1:40:25So, I think that they meet our criteria.

1:40:29I'm I'm happy to strike in D at minimum.

1:40:35I um

1:40:40I'm I'm comfortable with the applicant

1:40:43asking us to strike G

1:40:46reduce the length. I think the plan is

1:40:48not much more than that. So, I'm

1:40:50I'm comfortable with that as well. I

1:40:52think the interest for the city is to

1:40:54limit how many people are parking in

1:40:56front so that you're not sort of like

1:40:59getting what we see in some other

1:41:00subdivisions where people are like

1:41:02using what space is available to try to

1:41:04fit in as many cars as possible. I don't

1:41:06quite think that's possible here. So,

1:41:08I'm comfortable with based on what I've

1:41:10read of the plans. I think with G

1:41:13I would be

1:41:15I don't know if the applicants are

1:41:15amenable. I hear what they said on H.

1:41:18I'd like to put at least somewhere in a

1:41:20plan and maybe we can just ask the

1:41:22applicant to say that their plan is for

1:41:24curbside pickup, but I would just like

1:41:26so that if something changes we're not

1:41:28like then left with no oversight over

1:41:31the over the trash pickup. So,

1:41:34I'm not I'm not um

1:41:36I had wrote down like curbside pickup

1:41:38applicant will be responsible as stated,

1:41:41but I'm also happy to say like

1:41:44that any plan that the that the

1:41:45applicant has to give a plan over to the

1:41:47city just so that we're not in a

1:41:48situation where they change where you're

1:41:50changing up how you're doing trash and

1:41:52then we don't have regulations for a

1:41:53dumpster.

1:41:55So I don't know. I I sort of defer to

1:41:56the city, but just to make sure we

1:41:58capture what you've said in writing in

1:42:01some form or another.

1:42:02Um, but other than that and then for B,

1:42:07I'm I would like to keep B. I understand

1:42:10the applicant's desire to have it

1:42:12waived.

1:42:13I It's for me it's pretty minimum and so

1:42:18I my person I'm not, but if other people

1:42:21want to strike it, if people feel

1:42:22strongly one way or another,

1:42:24I don't feel like this wouldn't be the

1:42:26reason to hold it up. So the summary of

1:42:29my position is I I agree with the

1:42:31applicant's edits for D and G.

1:42:35I'm happy to work out something that

1:42:36captures what the has happening on the

1:42:38ground for H

1:42:39and I'd like to keep B, but I don't

1:42:41think that's a reason to not move it

1:42:42forward and I'm very happy to move this

1:42:44project forward. I think it's a

1:42:45fantastic project.

1:42:46Okay, board member Abramoff.

1:42:48>> Mr. Chairman, could is it possible to um

1:42:51>> Yeah, go ahead.

1:42:52>> to if we if we do end up keeping keeping

1:42:55B to provide that in that location or if

1:42:58not possible in another location on the

1:43:00property or

1:43:01>> Yes,

1:43:02I would be amenable to that.

1:43:03>> know, if it's really busy on that area

1:43:06um

1:43:07it may be another location where

1:43:10we could um

1:43:12locate a tree which is not going to

1:43:15affect visibility and as it's not going

1:43:17to be crowded by the arborvitae and the

1:43:20and the fencing and the sidewalk etc.

1:43:22>> I'm amenable to that, absolutely.

1:43:24>> So So through the chair would be the the

1:43:26request as I understand it would be to

1:43:28request the quantity of shade trees that

1:43:30are required, but um, not the spacing,

1:43:33basically, if I understand attorney

1:43:35Jones.

1:43:35>> I would say I would say keep the wording

1:43:38if app- and say if applic- if possible,

1:43:41and if not some other location on site B

1:43:43made. So, at least we're keeping that

1:43:44that we would that our desire is to keep

1:43:46the spacing, but if not possible, um,

1:43:49that they would work out for another

1:43:51site.

1:43:51>> Okay.

1:43:53Uh, board member Bramhall.

1:43:54>> Uh, thank you. Uh, through the chair,

1:43:56yeah, I agree with B, you know,

1:43:58saying

1:44:00you can't fit them on the street,

1:44:02put them somewhere.

1:44:04If that's okay with the applicant,

1:44:05striking G is fine.

1:44:08Um,

1:44:08the dumpster, I don't really care if

1:44:10there's a dumpster there or not. You

1:44:12know, you have to arrange for garbage

1:44:13pickup.

1:44:15>> Yeah, I mean, the dumpster we're not

1:44:16planning one. I mean, so this

1:44:18>> Well, this says if if it is

1:44:19>> If if if we do, then we'll we'll show

1:44:21it. What's So, I think it could stay if

1:44:23it needed to.

1:44:24>> you're okay with it if with the way it's

1:44:27worded.

1:44:28If there's a dumpster, you

1:44:29>> Yes.

1:44:29>> put it on the plan.

1:44:31If there's no dumpster,

1:44:33don't include it.

1:44:34>> Yeah.

1:44:35>> to talk?

1:44:35>> Yeah.

1:44:36>> Uh, tell them who you are.

1:44:36>> You have to just turn on the You have to

1:44:38green light.

1:44:39>> Name and uh

1:44:40>> Name and city of Town of residence.

1:44:41>> Uh, yes, Robert Dupray, owner's rep, um,

1:44:44Massachusetts. Um,

1:44:46with respect to a few of these issues,

1:44:48excuse me.

1:44:49Uh, don't The reason we don't leave

1:44:51dumpsters, cuz this isn't our first, you

1:44:53know, go around, let's say. Um, what

1:44:56happens is they create uh, nuisance from

1:44:59a pest standpoint. Additionally, they

1:45:01they cause problems where people look

1:45:04for a free dumpster, let's say, and how

1:45:06do you police that? That becomes an

1:45:08issue. All of these uh, units have

1:45:10sufficient garage space. Everyone's

1:45:12going to have containers in the garage.

1:45:15So, it's not a concern.

1:45:17Collection once a week always works out.

1:45:20And that seems to be the most efficient

1:45:23way to do it. You know, cuz if you have

1:45:25a big box, and then next thing you know,

1:45:27someone's uncle brought something, you

1:45:28know, it just turns into a nightmare.

1:45:31With respect to the trees now, the whole

1:45:32north side, as you know, has been it's

1:45:35been delineated from a wetland

1:45:36standpoint, but that's heavily forested.

1:45:39And we have a lot of really large

1:45:41capital trees there, oaks and such. So,

1:45:44I mean,

1:45:45we're big about trees, but we're also

1:45:46practical, cuz I've done the movie where

1:45:49we put in a lot of trees, and the next

1:45:50thing you know, 8 10 years, the roots

1:45:53have grown through everything. Or or

1:45:55a a bushy area, a what green [snorts]

1:45:58space becomes one giant hedge because

1:46:00there's so many plants. So, you have to

1:46:02incorporate future growth, and the

1:46:04reason we don't want to put the trees

1:46:06along the detention basin on Sunderland

1:46:09is because the arborvitaes won't be such

1:46:13an issue with respect to root growth

1:46:14over the long run

1:46:16and possibly compromise the detention

1:46:18basin, where trees have a good chance of

1:46:20doing that. And that's what And there's

1:46:22some other considerations too, but

1:46:24that's our main concern there. And we're

1:46:26going to add, you know, we talked about

1:46:28we're probably incorporating privacy

1:46:30screening in that fence that surrounds

1:46:32the detention basin. So, you know,

1:46:36I

1:46:38we're going to It's a lot of times when

1:46:40it comes to trees, it's like you have to

1:46:41look at it once you get there because

1:46:43you have drainage issues here that, you

1:46:45know, structures and stuff. So, you

1:46:47can't just pop them just because it

1:46:48looks like you have an open space, and

1:46:50that's our concern. You know, we'll do

1:46:53fit, you know, it'll look more than more

1:46:55than adequate. I mean, everywhere we've

1:46:57ever gone, it's in It's always going to

1:46:59enhance anything in the neighborhood.

1:47:02And the beauty of this project, where

1:47:04it's a private project, it's a windfall

1:47:06for the city. That's the whole advantage

1:47:08of market rate, you know, condos because

1:47:10the city provides minimum services. It's

1:47:12just public safety and possibly a few,

1:47:15you know, students for school system.

1:47:17So, from a tax standpoint, it always

1:47:19turns out to be a big windfall.

1:47:21Might not be fair for the condo owners,

1:47:23but that's just the way it is, you know?

1:47:26>> Okay.

1:47:28Uh anything else, Board Member Bramath?

1:47:29>> No, I'm fine with it.

1:47:31>> Okay.

1:47:32Uh

1:47:33Board Member Remy.

1:47:36>> Um so, I really like this project as

1:47:39well, and I like the new layout of the

1:47:41parking on the northern side. My only

1:47:43question, and I'm sorry if I missed

1:47:45this, is

1:47:46um what is the connection between the

1:47:49outdoor recreation space to the northern

1:47:51side of the building? Just wondering

1:47:53about that piece.

1:47:54>> Good question.

1:47:56I'm sorry, I didn't

1:47:57>> Sorry. Uh no, just wondering about the

1:47:59connection between the outdoor

1:48:02recreation space to the building. So,

1:48:04what is that?

1:48:05>> You're talking the wetlands area?

1:48:07>> Uh yeah, like the northern side

1:48:09>> The northern side, what it is basically,

1:48:12you know, we're not, you know, you're

1:48:13not allowed to turn it into a

1:48:15recreational area. It's a resource area.

1:48:17>> Okay.

1:48:18>> You know, so it's going to be also where

1:48:19the you storm water and the overflow is

1:48:21going to, you know, saturate, you know,

1:48:23that's the whole point. We the the

1:48:26wetlands are going to stay, the water's

1:48:28going to stay on site.

1:48:30>> Okay.

1:48:30>> You know, and permeate back in the

1:48:31ground.

1:48:33>> Okay.

1:48:34Thank you.

1:48:37>> Great.

1:48:38Uh Board Member Torcono.

1:48:42>> I have no comments at this time, but

1:48:46let's see

1:48:48if anybody else about so far, I have no

1:48:50more comments.

1:48:51>> Okay, thank you. Uh Board Member

1:48:53Parra-Hekken.

1:48:54>> Um

1:48:55uh through the chair, I I I agree this

1:48:58is a good project to move forward. I'm

1:49:00fine with

1:49:01B as amended. Um I'm fine with striking

1:49:05at minimum from D. I'm fine with

1:49:08striking G. And um I'm fine with just

1:49:10keeping H to the applicant. It's not

1:49:12really making a big deal of that. It's

1:49:13It's good to

1:49:14have it there in case something changes

1:49:16in the future.

1:49:17Otherwise, I have no other comments.

1:49:20>> Okay.

1:49:21Um and for this uh

1:49:24one uh board member Party again will be

1:49:26voting.

1:49:27Board member [clears throat] Saco.

1:49:29>> No comment.

1:49:30>> Okay.

1:49:32>> [clears throat]

1:49:32>> Um

1:49:34that being said

1:49:36um

1:49:37is

1:49:39uh

1:49:40Is there anything else? Otherwise, I'll

1:49:41take a motion to close.

1:49:47>> I guess just confirming that everyone's

1:49:48okay with the change to the all the

1:49:51>> Yeah, is everybody okay with So,

1:49:53um

1:49:54Go ahead.

1:49:57Um

1:49:58What?

1:49:59>> Through the chair.

1:50:00>> Yes.

1:50:01>> This is Eric talking.

1:50:03Which changes are we talking about? Is

1:50:05it

1:50:06>> that's a great question. Let me review.

1:50:09>> [clears throat]

1:50:09>> So,

1:50:10um to change

1:50:12um B to say reflect the shade trees

1:50:15shall be planted no less than every 50

1:50:17ft. Um

1:50:19if not possible, some other locations on

1:50:22site along Sunderland Road, common

1:50:24driveway in compliance with subdivision

1:50:26regulations.

1:50:28For D to strike at minimum,

1:50:31but keep the rest the same.

1:50:33To strike G as the applicant has

1:50:36requested and to keep H even though the

1:50:39applicant has made clear it's not going

1:50:41to be applicable, but just so that if

1:50:43something changes, uh we have some cover

1:50:46so that and if it they don't have a

1:50:48dumpster, doesn't come into kick in, so

1:50:50it's not a problem.

1:50:51Uh does that make sense?

1:50:53>> Yeah.

1:50:54>> Okay. Is everybody okay moving forward

1:50:56as stated?

1:50:58>> Yes.

1:50:59>> I am.

1:51:00>> Okay, great. Well, then I'll take a

1:51:01motion to close.

1:51:03>> I'd like to make a motion to close on

1:51:04256 Sunderland Road.

1:51:06>> Second.

1:51:07>> On the motion to close, board member

1:51:09Bramoff?

1:51:09>> Yes.

1:51:10>> Board member Mremmi?

1:51:11>> Yes.

1:51:11>> Board member Torcono?

1:51:13>> Yes.

1:51:14>> Board member Bartegan?

1:51:15>> Yes.

1:51:15>> My vote's yes. Is there a motion?

1:51:17>> I'd like to make a motion on 256

1:51:20Sunderland Road for the approval of a

1:51:22variance for relief from the minimum

1:51:23frontage requirement for a single family

1:51:25attached dwelling use in an RL-7 zone

1:51:28and a special permit to allow a single

1:51:31family attached dwelling use in an RL-7

1:51:33zone with the special permit approval

1:51:37subject to the conditions set forth on

1:51:39page four of the staff memo and the

1:51:41waivers as requested by the applicant.

1:51:44>> And

1:51:44>> And the right. And 1B amended as stated,

1:51:481D removal of words at minimum, the

1:51:50removal of 1G

1:51:53and that's it.

1:51:55>> All right. Is there a second?

1:51:56>> Second.

1:51:57>> On the motion. Board member Abramov?

1:51:58>> My vote is yes.

1:51:59>> Board member Moramey?

1:52:00>> Yes.

1:52:01>> Board member Torcono?

1:52:03>> My vote is yes.

1:52:04>> Board member Bartegan?

1:52:05>> Yes.

1:52:05>> My vote's yes.

1:52:11>> Congratulations.

1:52:12>> Thank you.

1:52:13>> Okay. Thank you very much.

1:52:14>> Mr. Chairman

1:52:16committee, thank you very much. Staff,

1:52:18thank you.

1:52:20>> Great.

1:52:22Make a motion for a 10-minute recess.

1:52:23>> 5-minute.

1:52:24>> 5-minute recess.

1:52:25>> Is there a second?

1:52:26>> Second.

1:52:26>> All right. All in favor?

1:52:27>> Yes.

1:52:28>> Aye.

1:52:30>> All right. 5 minutes.

1:52:31We will reconvene at 7:41.

1:52:37>> I was talking to anybody who would do it

1:52:39cuz

1:55:04>> Mhm.

1:59:09>> You guys ready?

1:59:10>> Yes, sir.

1:59:10>> Yes.

1:59:14>> If the applicant for 1 Jackson Street

1:59:15could please come forward.

1:59:17>> Sorry, through the chair, we just want

1:59:18to make sure that board member Sacco,

1:59:21are you back online, please?

1:59:23>> I'm here.

1:59:23>> And board member Turco?

1:59:31>> Board member Turco?

1:59:45>> I'm here.

1:59:47>> Yep.

1:59:50>> I'm here.

1:59:51>> Thank you. Go ahead.

1:59:52>> Um for the record again, my name is

1:59:54Donald O'Neal. I'm a lawyer here in

1:59:56Worcester. Um here this evening

1:59:59um in connection with this application

2:00:01for 1 Jackson Street um

2:00:06on behalf of Jackson Street Apartments

2:00:07LLC

2:00:09um seeking uh variance relief for the um

2:00:14parking requirement that would

2:00:17uh tie in with a change of use for the

2:00:20existing building.

2:00:22Uh what my client is proposing to do is

2:00:25to convert this building

2:00:27to residential use with a total of uh 32

2:00:32uh

2:00:32apartments

2:00:33predominantly uh studio and one-bedroom

2:00:37uh with a smaller number of uh

2:00:40two-family

2:00:42apartments as well.

2:00:43Um the problem here relates to the um

2:00:49building on the site which basically

2:00:51occupies the entire lot.

2:00:53Um so there is no

2:00:56uh possibility

2:00:58of um providing um

2:01:02parking that would meet the needs uh for

2:01:05the use that's being proposed. Certainly

2:01:08nothing close to the 36 parking spaces.

2:01:11However, um

2:01:13the

2:01:14original This is an obviously a uh

2:01:17an older historical building

2:01:20um which would have been constructed

2:01:23uh prior to I would say common

2:01:26automobile use.

2:01:28Um

2:01:29the not sure of the original date of

2:01:31construction, but the staff

2:01:33memo does indicate that the property was

2:01:37um

2:01:37originally constructed as five

2:01:39apartments. It's five floors, so I would

2:01:41assume it would have been one on each

2:01:43floor.

2:01:44Uh

2:01:45in 19

2:01:47uh 12

2:01:49uh it was converted to 12 apartments.

2:01:52Uh

2:01:53and that was the um

2:01:571913 rather. Uh

2:01:59and that use remained through 1969.

2:02:04Um so there never was that residential

2:02:08history to the property, but there never

2:02:09was

2:02:10um

2:02:12uh you know a a parking that would have

2:02:14been provided um

2:02:16because it wasn't needed.

2:02:18Uh

2:02:18this in regard I'd say it's similar to

2:02:20the Albion

2:02:22uh which is directly next door and

2:02:24actually owned by um

2:02:27the same owner of this property.

2:02:29Um

2:02:30the

2:02:32use that we're proposing now after 1969

2:02:35it was converted

2:02:37to um a warehouse use and some light

2:02:41manufacturing.

2:02:43Um and that um

2:02:45was the I guess the last sort of viable

2:02:50uh use that the property was put to.

2:02:53Um the relief that we're requesting with

2:02:55respect to the variance

2:02:57um again is tied to the building itself.

2:02:59There's just no ability to provide the

2:03:01parking.

2:03:02Uh

2:03:03and

2:03:04the change of use

2:03:07triggers the requirement uh for the

2:03:10provision of parking. It as it stands

2:03:12now it would be grandfathered for the

2:03:15warehouse use

2:03:17um that's in place. Uh so also has no

2:03:20parking and basically no loading dock.

2:03:23So it's um

2:03:25it's ill-suited for the warehousing um

2:03:30use.

2:03:31Um and the way that the ordinance is

2:03:35written

2:03:36um

2:03:38the applicant could continue that use

2:03:41which makes no financial sense um and

2:03:44also is um

2:03:47I I think I would submit inconsistent

2:03:50with

2:03:51some of the other renovation that's

2:03:53going on with the surrounding

2:03:54properties.

2:03:56Um the intent um

2:03:58here is to

2:04:00uh screen the tenants that are um

2:04:03will be uh

2:04:05renting the property.

2:04:07Uh

2:04:08it's our expectation although it's it's

2:04:11not

2:04:12um

2:04:15codified yet, but that that we're

2:04:17expecting that uh most of the tenants

2:04:19are going to be living within this

2:04:22location will be um qualified for as

2:04:25affordable units.

2:04:27Uh and um

2:04:30uh we're

2:04:32based on figures from the city the

2:04:35overall automobile ownership from

2:04:38apartment uses is actually uh nowhere

2:04:41near um

2:04:42what the ordinance um

2:04:45presupposes would be required for

2:04:47tenants. And and the reality is that

2:04:50that basically there are a lot of people

2:04:51who

2:04:52don't have a car and need a place to

2:04:54live or need a place to live

2:04:57uh

2:04:58greater than their need for a place to

2:05:01park a vehicle.

2:05:02Uh so there would be some self-selection

2:05:05that would go on. Uh people would be

2:05:07aware that uh there's no off-street

2:05:09parking. There's really kind of limited

2:05:11off-street parking, I think, in the

2:05:13neighborhood generally. So I don't know

2:05:15that anyone would be tempted to say,

2:05:17"Well, I'll find a spot on the street."

2:05:18cuz I don't think that's going to work.

2:05:21Um but in any case,

2:05:23uh we have a building which uh we're

2:05:26looking to renovate to provide

2:05:29um

2:05:30housing for um

2:05:32people

2:05:33uh that need the housing um and would um

2:05:39be happy to have the housing not

2:05:41withstanding the fact that no place to

2:05:42park a car, which perhaps they don't

2:05:44have.

2:05:45Um

2:05:46the

2:05:48>> [snorts]

2:05:48>> uh plan in this case actually is to seek

2:05:51additional relief from the planning

2:05:54board under the inclusionary zoning

2:05:56provisions, which would allow us to um

2:06:00cancel out basically the remaining

2:06:02parking spaces that are required. Based

2:06:05on the way the ordinance is written,

2:06:06there are 20 spaces that we would need

2:06:08relief from

2:06:09uh

2:06:11the board to uh

2:06:14proceed to the planning board level. We

2:06:16have filed an application with the

2:06:17planning board and would be going before

2:06:19the planning board. And as one of the

2:06:21conditions of approval um that goes

2:06:25along with the special permit that would

2:06:27be required for the elimination of the

2:06:29remaining 16 parking spaces

2:06:32is to um um

2:06:34certain number of units uh are required

2:06:37to be restricted and limited

2:06:40um under the affordability provisions.

2:06:43As I said, we're expecting that

2:06:45basically they all will, but whatever

2:06:48requirement that the planning board

2:06:51imposes as a condition of the approval

2:06:54of waving additional parking spaces, you

2:06:56know, we will satisfy that and and all

2:06:58likelihood probably exceed that, but um

2:07:01you know, that's the intention that

2:07:04we've got. Um I have uh looked There are

2:07:07a couple

2:07:08things in the staff memo um questions

2:07:11that were raised. Uh we did provide a

2:07:15transportation uh memo basically

2:07:19supporting our request for relief with

2:07:21respect to the parking.

2:07:23Uh there was one

2:07:25um

2:07:28thing that one thing that needed to be

2:07:29corrected in the memo itself, and that

2:07:33is the

2:07:34uh

2:07:35traffic engineer was looking at uh a

2:07:37different set of floor plans.

2:07:39Uh we do have a bicycle storage unit uh

2:07:43area proposed, which is in the basement,

2:07:46and it does have

2:07:47parking for I think 26 or not parking

2:07:51>> [laughter]

2:07:51>> uh storage for

2:07:53for 26 um bicycles. Um and there'd been

2:07:58an earlier one where I think that was on

2:07:59the first floor. Um that and that was on

2:08:03a uh on a uh December plan. The March

2:08:06plan actually has storage in the

2:08:07basement. And that area that was on the

2:08:11um

2:08:12first floor has been converted to a

2:08:15community room, uh which um I'm told

2:08:20that is somewhere around 500 square

2:08:22feet. We are aware that there's a five

2:08:24there's a requirement of 5 10% of the

2:08:27uh space for recre- recreational space,

2:08:30which would be the lion's share of that

2:08:32would be

2:08:34either all or almost all included in

2:08:36that room.

2:08:37And I think there's another 41 ft that

2:08:39we have to find somewhere.

2:08:41But uh you know, once again, there's

2:08:43there's limited ability to

2:08:45um outside of the building. We're not

2:08:47proposing any changes to the um

2:08:51structure of the building in terms of

2:08:52windows, doors, and that other than to

2:08:54put new windows and new doors, but not

2:08:56new openings.

2:08:57Um there are a couple of other comments

2:08:59in staff's memo about

2:09:02possibility of providing uh

2:09:04a connection for e-bikes.

2:09:07Uh I spoke to my client about that and

2:09:09uh

2:09:10he indicated that

2:09:12um

2:09:14based on the Abby on building next door,

2:09:17the fire department doesn't want

2:09:18chargers um within the building.

2:09:21Uh because if you don't monitor them,

2:09:23they

2:09:24they can uh ignite uh you know, and burn

2:09:27the building down. But we would um be

2:09:30open to

2:09:32an outlet uh outside the building. And

2:09:35also um

2:09:37there was a question about what what was

2:09:39the provision for trash?

2:09:41Uh trash would um

2:09:44be private pickup as well. Um

2:09:47my client owns the building also at um

2:09:515 Jackson Street uh where there is a

2:09:55ability to have a dumpster.

2:09:57Uh provide additional outdoor storage

2:10:00space for I think staff was recommending

2:10:03visitor

2:10:04bike rack of two. I mean, we could maybe

2:10:07even go a little higher than two.

2:10:09But uh anyway, a a small bike exterior

2:10:14um storage area and in proximity to

2:10:17whatever the charger would be.

2:10:19Um other than that, and there are a

2:10:21couple of waivers that are recommended,

2:10:23uh, two waivers that are listed on page

2:10:26four of eight. I would request those

2:10:28waivers.

2:10:29Um,

2:10:30I did provide, um,

2:10:33I I I've I I misunderstood the memo that

2:10:37had come out in terms of the provision

2:10:39need to provide

2:10:40uh, responses to

2:10:43the various, um,

2:10:45>> [snorts]

2:10:45>> uh, criteria that have been, uh,

2:10:48recently imposed. But But I have I used

2:10:50my 5 minutes.

2:10:51>> Okay. Great. Yeah. Yeah.

2:10:54I I will say I think I think when things

2:10:56shake out, may is not the same as shall.

2:10:59>> Yeah.

2:10:59>> And it'll probably think out, but for

2:11:01the purposes of making sure we're

2:11:02covering everything, I think

2:11:05>> Great. If you have it, please say it.

2:11:07>> ready.

2:11:08>> All right. Well, [clears throat] then

2:11:09I'll I'll just go really quickly for

2:11:10this for the record.

2:11:13Since you did provide for one, two, and

2:11:14three,

2:11:15how strict enforcement of the provision

2:11:17of the city of Worcester ordinance

2:11:19result in uh, practical difficulty. The

2:11:21existing structure on site occupies

2:11:23almost the entire parcel, which leaves

2:11:25no room for off-street parking on the

2:11:27lot and presents a practical difficulty.

2:11:29The prior use of the property for

2:11:30warehousing and light manufacturing was

2:11:32grandfather was a, quote, grandfather

2:11:34use, which allowed for the continued use

2:11:37of the building without off-street

2:11:38parking. The applicant is now proposing

2:11:39a new residential use for the property,

2:11:41which triggers the need for the zoning

2:11:43ordinance for required off-street

2:11:44parking. How the grant relief of the

2:11:46practical difficulty benefits the

2:11:47practitioner public interest, including

2:11:49supporting the production of housing.

2:11:51The requested relief will allow the

2:11:52building to be modified to provide

2:11:54much-needed housing for occupants who do

2:11:56not require off-street parking and will

2:11:59and will eliminate the prior use for the

2:12:01building, which are inconsistent with

2:12:03the neighborhood transition to

2:12:04residential use generally. How the grant

2:12:06of relief of practical difficulty will

2:12:08not be detrimental to public health,

2:12:10safety, and welfare in the neighborhood.

2:12:12The requested relief may be granted with

2:12:14no detriment to the public good since

2:12:17the proposed residential use of the

2:12:18property is keeping with the evolving

2:12:20residential character of the surrounding

2:12:21neighborhood and building will be

2:12:23occupied by tenants who are aware of the

2:12:26fact that no off-street parking is

2:12:28available, [clears throat] which allow

2:12:30the building to be used for

2:12:32housing tenants

2:12:34who have no parking needs or have made

2:12:37alternative private arrangements for

2:12:38parking prior to occupancy. Um

2:12:41Okay.

2:12:42And then you have the ones for

2:12:45four, five, six, and seven. Okay.

2:12:47>> Uh so, with regard to four,

2:12:50um the practical difficulty in this

2:12:53situation relates to the uh structure

2:12:56on the building, uh and specifically the

2:12:59fact that it occupies pretty much all

2:13:01available space.

2:13:03Um so, that would be the the

2:13:06difficulty that uh we have in terms of

2:13:08providing off-street parking given that

2:13:12there's no land available because of the

2:13:13structure.

2:13:15Um a strict enforcement of the

2:13:17provisions of the zoning ordinance would

2:13:20impose a financial hardship on the

2:13:22petitioner

2:13:23by uh requiring the petitioner basically

2:13:26to maintain the existing warehouse um

2:13:31use of the property

2:13:32uh in a building

2:13:34uh which was um

2:13:37uh not designed for or ideally suited

2:13:40for that use. So, I think that that

2:13:43would be a financial hardship on the

2:13:45petitioner.

2:13:46Uh

2:13:48Item six.

2:13:51Um

2:13:52Uh

2:13:53there is no other alternative

2:13:57that

2:13:58um

2:13:58I'm aware of that would

2:14:01uh provide some other feasible means to

2:14:04uh provide the required parking uh

2:14:07because the required parking

2:14:10um is actually required on the ordinance

2:14:12to be on the lot. Um, and there's no

2:14:15physical possibility of doing that.

2:14:17And the practical difficulty was not

2:14:20self-created since this is an existing

2:14:22building built in

2:14:24somewhere in um

2:14:27Well, it was renovated in 1913. So,

2:14:31uh, probably 20 30 years before that.

2:14:34Uh, so that that's a pre-existing

2:14:35situation that was in effect when the

2:14:37property was purchased.

2:14:40>> Okay. Um, I have one other question. So,

2:14:42in the application, I just want to

2:14:44clarify

2:14:45um, that the we have here that the

2:14:47applicant indicates that 100% of the 32

2:14:50units will be affordable at or below 60%

2:14:53AMI. Is that correct?

2:14:59>> So, through the chair, um, that was a

2:15:01conversation that we had had prior to

2:15:03the meeting tonight. There was a

2:15:04misunderstanding about how much

2:15:07affordability the applicant was going to

2:15:10be using for the planning board special

2:15:13permit. And so, where we landed was that

2:15:17doesn't impact the amount of relief that

2:15:19they are seeking tonight. So, that by

2:15:22the time we get to the planning board

2:15:24process, we will have vetted what

2:15:27affordability deeded restrictions the

2:15:31applicant is going to be using.

2:15:33>> So, what we can say for this meeting is

2:15:36that some portion of the building will

2:15:37be affordable sufficient to get the

2:15:40needed relief, which will obviously be

2:15:42significant cuz there's no parking. And

2:15:45to what extent that is will be

2:15:46determined between now and the planning

2:15:48board. Is that correct?

2:15:49>> Yes. And I think the it'll the number

2:15:52whatever number it is that's required

2:15:54will be what it is. Um,

2:15:57but that the that doesn't really impact

2:15:59the relief that we're getting from you.

2:16:01But,

2:16:02but we're not there's no way to make

2:16:04parking spaces either. So, we're going

2:16:06to have to um, satisfy those

2:16:08requirements.

2:16:09>> Yes. Okay.

2:16:11Uh city staff.

2:16:13>> Through the chair, this is Amy Beth

2:16:14Leith [clears throat] for the planning

2:16:15division. So, as discussed, this is a

2:16:17variance for a relief of 20 spaces from

2:16:21the base requirement of 36 spaces.

2:16:25That's the minimum parking requirement

2:16:26for a multi-family dwelling. And the

2:16:28applicant is proposing to reuse the

2:16:32existing building. Again, they're not

2:16:34proposing any changes other than um

2:16:37aesthetic changes. They They are um

2:16:40restoring the existing building,

2:16:42removing the exterior stairwell/fire

2:16:44escape, and replacing existing

2:16:46ground-level hardscape elements like

2:16:49walkways. Um the Attorney O'Neal gave

2:16:53you kind of the history of the building

2:16:54with how it transpired through the

2:16:57residential uses.

2:16:59Um

2:16:59no parking or loading for motor vehicles

2:17:01is proposed. Bike parking is proposed

2:17:04with the 26, the bike storage space with

2:17:07the 26

2:17:08um spaces for bikes.

2:17:11Um this will be a 32-unit building. As

2:17:14indicated, we will determine before the

2:17:17planning board process what level of

2:17:20affordability and the number of units

2:17:22um so that the applicant can take

2:17:26advantage of the density bonuses through

2:17:28the inclusionary zoning ordinance.

2:17:31Um we are in the BG3 zone, and this

2:17:37building is also located within the CCOD

2:17:40E elsewhere, the CCOD E. Um

2:17:45there is ample transportation, public

2:17:48transportation. There's a bus stop

2:17:49located right at the end of the street.

2:17:51This area of the city is in the

2:17:54transformative growth area for the

2:17:56citywide long-range plan,

2:17:59um which envisions the uses to be mixed

2:18:03use with some commercial units on the

2:18:05first floor and then housing above those

2:18:08units.

2:18:10Um

2:18:13As Attorney O'Neal did indicate, 10%

2:18:16because of the zone, um 10% of the lot

2:18:18area must be provided as recreational

2:18:21space for new residential

2:18:23developments. And because the privilege

2:18:26of the old residential uses is much,

2:18:28much expired,

2:18:30um

2:18:30they do need to provide that recreation

2:18:33space.

2:18:34Um they will need to have that

2:18:37clarified before they are able to

2:18:40be approved for their building permits.

2:18:43Um

2:18:46And also, on their plans, they should

2:18:49designate what the uses are going to be

2:18:50for the community spaces.

2:18:53We talked about trash.

2:18:56We talked about the TDM plan.

2:19:00We talked about the bikes.

2:19:02We talked about the exterior. We would

2:19:03like to see the exterior bike racks for

2:19:05guests.

2:19:07Um the one thing we didn't talk about,

2:19:08there's no mechanical room indicated on

2:19:10the plans and there are no mechanicals

2:19:12reflected

2:19:14cuz this is the survey just kind of

2:19:16shows the existing parcel. So, um the

2:19:20applicant should address how mechanicals

2:19:22are being housed or where they're going

2:19:23to be located.

2:19:25Um

2:19:26and then again, because the building

2:19:28does take up the entirety of the lot,

2:19:30the applicant should coordinate with

2:19:32National Grid and DPW if any of that

2:19:35work is going to impact the right of

2:19:36way, if there's any transformers that

2:19:38need to be placed anywhere.

2:19:40Um and so, if the applicant can just if

2:19:42they have any knowledge of what that's

2:19:43going to look like.

2:19:46>> Uh

2:19:47through your um Mr. Chairman, um

2:19:50Rafael Hernandez is also involved in

2:19:52this project. I believe he's online.

2:19:55And I think he if if he could jump in

2:19:57and answer the question in terms of the

2:19:59mechanical

2:20:00uh components, uh that would

2:20:05would help.

2:20:06>> Great.

2:20:08>> Hi, yes. Rafael Hernandez, Acropolis

2:20:11Design, Worcester, Massachusetts.

2:20:13Uh yeah, this building is well planned

2:20:16to be fully electric.

2:20:19Um roof There'll be heat pumps on the

2:20:23rooftop, um either zoned or individual

2:20:27hot water heaters inside all the units.

2:20:30So, the

2:20:31the mechanical requirements will be a

2:20:34standalone mechanical requirements will

2:20:35be minimal.

2:20:37Uh we will have electrical panels, and

2:20:39these plans are in a schematic design

2:20:42level,

2:20:43but that will all be worked out with the

2:20:45MEP engineers.

2:20:48Thank you.

2:20:49>> Thank you.

2:20:52>> Just one more thing through the chair.

2:20:53As we did talk about earlier this

2:20:55evening, this the only relief sought by

2:20:57the applicant is a variance, so there

2:20:59are no conditions of approval,

2:21:01um but there are two waivers. Just

2:21:04wanted to point that out for the

2:21:06applicant.

2:21:08>> Yeah, which I think you've already asked

2:21:09for, if I recall correctly.

2:21:10>> I think I did, but if I didn't, I I am

2:21:12asking now.

2:21:14>> Yeah.

2:21:15Um

2:21:16uh okay.

2:21:17Is anybody here for 1 Jackson Street?

2:21:22Is anybody online?

2:21:24Okay, so just again to reiterate what

2:21:26was just stated for that we under the

2:21:28new regulations, we have to vote for

2:21:30this up or down. Um

2:21:32if there are other considerations, um we

2:21:35don't have the power to sort of enforce

2:21:37them. So,

2:21:39we um so, we are voting up and down, and

2:21:41then because uh board member Bart Hagen

2:21:44voted as the alternate in the last one,

2:21:46uh board member Sacco, you are going to

2:21:48be voting on this one for 1 Jackson

2:21:51Street.

2:21:52Um but of course we welcome everybody's

2:21:54input. Um

2:21:56Okay, so from

2:21:57uh from my perspective um this is a city

2:22:00building in a city location um with an

2:22:03old which is actually a beautiful

2:22:05building. It's like a really beautiful

2:22:06building. Um clearly the brick work and

2:22:08other work um that takes up the entirety

2:22:11of the of the lot. So, there is in fact

2:22:14no practical way to have parking in a

2:22:17space that's made to be an old-fashioned

2:22:19city building in a city where no parking

2:22:22um and people would just have to figure

2:22:23it out. So, for that reason um currently

2:22:26it's abandoned and its real beauty is

2:22:29not being used. Um and it should be

2:22:32lived in. Uh it would be a shame for us

2:22:34to not move it for And from my

2:22:36perspective, it would be a shame for us

2:22:38to not move it forward. Um it's just a

2:22:40beautiful building. So, I'd like to see

2:22:42it come alive with people. Um and to do

2:22:44so, we need to grant a parking waiver

2:22:47cuz there's no there will will will

2:22:48never be an opportunity for parking on

2:22:50this location. So, um I'm happy to move

2:22:53it forward. I think um having it be

2:22:55affordable is also um I'm glad that the

2:22:57city has leverage points to uh move that

2:23:00as a part of this process. That's also

2:23:02be great for this. So, I'm happy to vote

2:23:04yes. Uh Board Member Bravos.

2:23:06>> Uh I agree and um also happy to vote

2:23:09yes.

2:23:11>> Uh

2:23:12Board Member

2:23:13>> Actually I lost my list.

2:23:17>> Um

2:23:19Board Member Remy.

2:23:20>> Um

2:23:22I have no further comment.

2:23:23>> it?

2:23:24>> [laughter]

2:23:27>> I was like somebody took my list. Just

2:23:29hand it to me.

2:23:31>> [laughter]

2:23:32>> Thank you.

2:23:35Thank you. Board Member Remy.

2:23:37>> I have no further comments except for I

2:23:39think we're making the best use of this

2:23:41building. So, I also would vote yes.

2:23:44>> Board Member Torcollo.

2:23:46>> I'm

2:23:48glad

2:23:49somebody is making use of this building.

2:23:52I drive by it all the time.

2:23:54And I agree we cannot get enough parking

2:23:57in the city.

2:23:59It's a city building so

2:24:01I think we'll welcome it.

2:24:04>> What about

2:24:04>> I like it.

2:24:05>> Oh, excuse me. I apologize.

2:24:08Uh, Board Member Barhagan.

2:24:09>> Uh, through the chair I agree with

2:24:10everything everyone has said. It'd be a

2:24:14shame to

2:24:16uh,

2:24:17get in the way of turning this building

2:24:18into a vibrant, you know, a housing

2:24:21development. And I think

2:24:24you know, right now the the City Council

2:24:25is considering changing the parking

2:24:28uh, limitations.

2:24:29And to make to make it easier

2:24:32uh, and require less parking. I you

2:24:33know, that I know that's in progress but

2:24:35I think people will self-select.

2:24:38And they will move in here if they need

2:24:41uh,

2:24:42many cars to be parked. I think

2:24:45uh, buildings like this in city centers

2:24:47don't need that as many parking. I know

2:24:48this is a drastic reduction to zero but

2:24:51I think it's okay. So.

2:24:53>> Board Member Sacco.

2:25:03You dropped.

2:25:05Okay.

2:25:06Board Member Barhagan, you're not

2:25:07voting. You're on.

2:25:08Okay.

2:25:10Uh, that happens.

2:25:11When you're online. All right. Um, in

2:25:13that case I will take

2:25:15Yeah, I'll close. I'll take a motion to

2:25:17close.

2:25:18>> So moved.

2:25:19>> Is there a second?

2:25:20>> Second.

2:25:20>> On the motion to close, Board Member

2:25:22Abramoff.

2:25:23>> Yes.

2:25:23>> Board Member Marame.

2:25:24>> Yes.

2:25:25>> Board Member Tarcono.

2:25:27>> Yes.

2:25:27>> Board Member Barhagan.

2:25:28>> Yes.

2:25:29>> And my vote is yes. Is there a motion on

2:25:311 Jackson Street?

2:25:33>> Uh, I'll make a motion for 1 Jackson

2:25:35Street. That's it for the granting of a

2:25:36variance for a relief of 20 parking

2:25:38spaces from the 36 space minimum parking

2:25:41requirements for a multi-family dwelling

2:25:44with the waivers as requested by the

2:25:45applicant.

2:25:46>> Is there a second?

2:25:47>> Second.

2:25:48>> On the motion, board member Bramson?

2:25:50>> Yes.

2:25:50>> Board member Maremi?

2:25:51>> Yes.

2:25:52>> Board member Turkena?

2:25:56>> Yes.

2:25:57>> Board member Bartegan?

2:25:58>> Yes.

2:25:59>> My vote's yes. Thank you very much.

2:26:00>> Thank you very much.

2:26:01>> Next up is 610 Lincoln Street. The

2:26:04applicant please come forward.

2:26:14Without my little script, I'm like lost.

2:26:20>> Play with puppets.

2:26:23>> Just state your name and city of town of

2:26:24residence for the record, please.

2:26:26>> My name is Hassan Elmola, Worcester,

2:26:28Massachusetts.

2:26:30Good morning, members of the board. My

2:26:32name is Hassan Elmola and I am here with

2:26:34my team tonight to request a special

2:26:36permit to operate a 12-vehicle used car

2:26:39dealership at 610 Lincoln Street.

2:26:42Our goal is to bring a clean,

2:26:43professional, and low-impact business to

2:26:45the area.

2:26:47Um can you go to slide

2:26:51We will operate as a sales-only

2:26:53dealership. There will be absolutely no

2:26:56mechanical repairs, oil changes, or body

2:26:58work done on site.

2:27:00This completely eliminates the noise,

2:27:02tools, and hazardous fluids typically

2:27:04associated with automotive uses.

2:27:07Can you do slide three?

2:27:10As you can see on the site plan, our

2:27:13layout was carefully mapped out. All 12

2:27:15inventory vehicles fit comfortably

2:27:18within the designated property lines. We

2:27:21also have assigned customer spaces,

2:27:23ensuring that our business will never

2:27:24cause overflow parking onto public

2:27:27streets or neighboring properties.

2:27:30Slide four.

2:27:32Because we only carry 12 cars, our

2:27:34customer volume is naturally naturally

2:27:37very low. We plan to operate largely by

2:27:39appointment which spreads out visitors

2:27:41and prevents traffic concentration.

2:27:44Furthermore, any vehicle deliveries will

2:27:47happen entirely off-street keeping the

2:27:49main road safe and clear.

2:27:51Also, we will operate during business

2:27:54hours Monday to Saturday 9:00 a.m. to

2:27:566:00 p.m.

2:28:02We are committed not to bring any

2:28:04negative impact to the neighborhood.

2:28:05There will be no broken-down cars, loose

2:28:07parts, or tires stored outside. Our

2:28:09lighting will face downwards to protect

2:28:11neighboring properties.

2:28:14Also, no loud noises will be present on

2:28:16the site.

2:28:23Um this is a photo of our office

2:28:26and like the vehicle display area like

2:28:29showing everything

2:28:30and where the cars will be parked.

2:28:35Um in conclusion, the special permit

2:28:37allows us to run a quiet, highly

2:28:39regulated, and visually clean business

2:28:41that generates local tax revenue without

2:28:43putting a strain on city infrastructure.

2:28:46Thank you for your time and

2:28:46consideration. We are happy to answer

2:28:48any questions the board may have.

2:28:51>> City staff.

2:28:53>> Through the chair, this is Amy Beth

2:28:54Leith for the planning division. I'm

2:28:56just going to put it back on this slide

2:28:57that shows the

2:28:59um layout so we can talk through that.

2:29:01So, this is an application for 610

2:29:04Lincoln Street. They're um applying for

2:29:07two different special permits. One is

2:29:09the special permit to allow the motor

2:29:11vehicle trailer boat sales and rentals

2:29:14for in a BL-1 zone. So, the special

2:29:17permit to operate and then a special

2:29:19permit to modify the parking and

2:29:20dimensional layouts and or landscaping

2:29:22requirements, loading requirements, and

2:29:24or the number of required parking

2:29:26spaces.

2:29:28So,

2:29:29um

2:29:30to speak to the use.

2:29:35Um this

2:29:36parcel was used as a restaurant um

2:29:40until about 2017,

2:29:42I think.

2:29:44Um

2:29:45and then at some point in time after

2:29:47that, there was an automobile automobile

2:29:51sales use that was operating without a

2:29:54special permit from the zoning board,

2:29:57um which then ceased operation. And

2:29:59that's when the current applicant then

2:30:01leased the parcel understanding that the

2:30:05use previous to them was also a used car

2:30:09dealer, and they thought that it was

2:30:11approved and found out it was not.

2:30:15And here we are.

2:30:16Um so, in working with the applicant,

2:30:20the business The one thing they didn't

2:30:22uh I don't think he said that they're

2:30:24going to have two employees. They gave

2:30:26their hours of operation. Um they are

2:30:28not proposing any changes to what

2:30:30currently exists on site in terms of

2:30:33what the pavement is, what the curb cuts

2:30:36are. So, we're going to work with them

2:30:40to kind of um come to an agreement on

2:30:43where we can be in compliance with what

2:30:46zoning regulates. So, with that being

2:30:49said, the special permit to modify the

2:30:51parking and dimensional layouts and

2:30:53landscaping, et cetera,

2:30:55um they need relief from the landscape

2:30:57buffers because the pavement goes all

2:30:59the way to the edge of the property um

2:31:02where a 5-ft setback is required by

2:31:04zoning. And then they need relief from

2:31:07the driveway design standards um

2:31:10because the driveway should have a

2:31:14uh minimum width of 12 ft for one-way

2:31:17driveways or 20 ft for two-way

2:31:19driveways. Um and the curb cut on the

2:31:23western side of the property is 36.8 ft

2:31:28where the where it's a 30-ft maximum and

2:31:33the applicant is not proposing any

2:31:34changes. So, where we have been working

2:31:37with the applicant in terms of how they

2:31:39can design the property to be more in

2:31:42line with zoning is

2:31:45they

2:31:46have agreed to and they'll see this in

2:31:49the conditions of approval to close the

2:31:54eastern most like

2:31:57entry to the property.

2:32:00And then also because the curbing goes

2:32:02right from the property through the

2:32:04sidewalk

2:32:06to create a barrier, a physical barrier,

2:32:09and also a painted barrier on the ground

2:32:12to show that folks can't park

2:32:15in front of Where's my cursor? In front

2:32:19of the painted

2:32:21Where's my cursor?

2:32:24There there is.

2:32:25In front of the painted parking spaces.

2:32:28So, from this parking space to where the

2:32:31sidewalk lives, they would

2:32:34kind of hash out where nobody could park

2:32:36there. And then also

2:32:39on this side. So,

2:32:41our one question we had talked through

2:32:43putting up some kind of physical barrier

2:32:46in front of this curb cut so that nobody

2:32:49could enter or exit and then this curb

2:32:52cut without changing would become the

2:32:54two-way traffic entrance to the

2:32:57property. Um because the parking spaces

2:33:00are on this side of the property,

2:33:02because their office is located on this

2:33:04side of the property, and then this the

2:33:06rest of the property is really their

2:33:07display area.

2:33:09Um so, our one question outstanding to

2:33:13the applicant and I don't know that

2:33:15they've had time to digest or even kind

2:33:17of contemplate, but if they've had any

2:33:19thought to how they would

2:33:23indicate that that curb cut would be

2:33:25blocked off if that could be a point of

2:33:28conversation. Just want to bring that up

2:33:31for the board.

2:33:32Um

2:33:34in this neighborhood, just everybody so

2:33:37everybody is aware, there it's it's

2:33:38located right on Lincoln Street. This is

2:33:40a very um commercial area.

2:33:44Um the nearest bus stop is 130 ft away.

2:33:47It's in the managed growth area for the

2:33:49Worcester now next. Um

2:33:54I think

2:33:58I think that's it and I can answer any

2:33:59questions if anybody has any additional.

2:34:02>> Okay.

2:34:03Um

2:34:04the uh so the the city asked if you have

2:34:06any plans

2:34:07on how to sort of indicate to people

2:34:09that it's closed off um from the curb

2:34:12cut which is obviously just open which

2:34:13is likely to get drive up. Um I don't

2:34:15know if you all have thought of anything

2:34:18um to to put there. Yeah, go ahead.

2:34:20>> Um we have thought of putting large

2:34:21plants or like putting like something to

2:34:24like close it off so nobody could go in

2:34:27and out. And that's maybe plants like

2:34:31large plant. I don't know.

2:34:32>> Yep, that's what I was thinking like

2:34:33some big um containers that just with

2:34:36some plants on them so people see it.

2:34:38That's what I was thinking for this.

2:34:39That I think that'd be fine. At least

2:34:40from my perspective. I'll let the other

2:34:42I'll let other city uh

2:34:44board members weigh in but that sounds

2:34:45right to me.

2:34:47Is anybody here for 610 Lincoln Street?

2:34:50Yes, please come forward. Just state

2:34:52your name and city of town residence. If

2:34:54you could just move over and get make

2:34:55space for

2:34:56person. Just put uh

2:34:58questions to me.

2:34:59>> Hey, good evening. Uh good evening.

2:35:01Nathan Hicks, property owner, 608

2:35:03Lincoln Street.

2:35:04Um

2:35:06so looking at this, right? I got a few

2:35:09issues with the plan as it's laid out,

2:35:11right? Uh right there

2:35:15in the center back hand side next to the

2:35:18well, I think it's parking space number

2:35:1912. Uh that's a three-tier

2:35:22um

2:35:24uh staircase that's part of an easement

2:35:26to 608 Lincoln Street. That provides uh

2:35:29direct emergency access to our property.

2:35:32Um

2:35:34blocking off any

2:35:37uh

2:35:38entryway into that area, I think it's

2:35:41going to cause a distress um

2:35:43to my family in the event of a medical

2:35:46emergency of anything like that. Um

2:35:50So, I'm not

2:35:51I'm not for blocking off any of the

2:35:54parking lots like like the entries in

2:35:57and out of there. Uh the right-hand side

2:36:00uh

2:36:01Well, both of them, they're

2:36:03they're both pretty narrow, right? Um

2:36:05so, making it a one-way or a two-way out

2:36:08of one little area, um it's kind of hard

2:36:11to fit cars down there as it is, right?

2:36:14When they were illegally running a car

2:36:16dealership for the last year, uh

2:36:19I had several issues with them blocking

2:36:21everything. I understand this new team

2:36:24is uh here to do the right thing. Um

2:36:27but, there's a little bit of an issue

2:36:28with that, right? Uh also, on the

2:36:30right-hand side of this uh screen right

2:36:33there, if you see where they're planning

2:36:35to put parking spaces, uh that's a

2:36:37mechanic shop right there. Uh there are

2:36:40um

2:36:41uh metal pipings over there, right? Uh

2:36:44that have something to do with the

2:36:46workings of that uh location.

2:36:49Probably not a good idea to put car

2:36:51space

2:36:52there as well. If you scroll in there on

2:36:54the right, there's a whole bunch of

2:36:56pipes.

2:36:57A little bit more over right there. Uh

2:36:59so, that's some stuff that's right

2:37:01there, right? Uh

2:37:03Not a good idea to put parking spots in

2:37:04front of that for whatever that is

2:37:06there.

2:37:06Um

2:37:08What I would request is because 608

2:37:11Lincoln Street is in a BL1 zone, but it

2:37:15is grandfathered as a RS7 zone, I would

2:37:20request, right, that that easement be

2:37:23afforded the same

2:37:25uh

2:37:26protections as a residential property.

2:37:30All right? And I also request that

2:37:32emergency services have the ability to

2:37:35have uninhibited access uh to that

2:37:38staircase in the event of an emergency.

2:37:43Thank you.

2:37:45>> Thank you very much.

2:37:47Um

2:37:52Okay.

2:37:52>> Can I have a moment to vote?

2:37:54>> Uh you need to make sure it's green and

2:37:57then you can say your name say your name

2:37:59and city of town of residence.

2:38:00>> My name is Silvana Gergi from Worcester,

2:38:03Mass.

2:38:04Um

2:38:06about the first concern that um our

2:38:09respected neighbor have,

2:38:12um we

2:38:15say to provide planters on the

2:38:19where now is the entrance, but if he's

2:38:23not comfortable with this, we can do

2:38:26chain, so we can open and close when we

2:38:30need it.

2:38:32If this is

2:38:34uh something that you might

2:38:38um suggest to.

2:38:41Um also,

2:38:45about the the pipes and everything that

2:38:49uh are close to the mechanic shop, the

2:38:52first parking lot is not um

2:38:56projected to be on the pipes. It starts

2:39:00after that that space and that area over

2:39:03there.

2:39:05So, this was the second concern, and

2:39:07then about um I understand that uh he

2:39:11previously had a dealership over there

2:39:13operating

2:39:15for about 2 years without having a

2:39:18special permit, and I don't know how he

2:39:20did things he did.

2:39:22And I totally understand him, and I I

2:39:26agree with him that he needs to

2:39:30uh have access to his stairs uh for

2:39:34emergency vehicles like um

2:39:37firefighting or something.

2:39:39Um

2:39:43I am like I am pretty sure if we see to

2:39:47the photos, too, that the area is much

2:39:51bigger than like from the

2:39:54number 12 parking spots.

2:39:58There is plenty of space for having

2:40:01access to emergency vehicles.

2:40:04So,

2:40:05>> Okay.

2:40:05>> like um

2:40:07what I have in mind, and I think that

2:40:11the whole team

2:40:13um agree is that we do not want to cause

2:40:17any

2:40:18uh disturbance or anything that uh might

2:40:22cause him

2:40:24nothing wrong. So, we are very willing

2:40:27to collaborate to find the best ways how

2:40:30to do things right this time.

2:40:34>> And my understanding is that the city is

2:40:36requesting to close the curb cut, and

2:40:38the curb cut seat might it it is

2:40:41certainly um it is certainly when you're

2:40:43on Lake Street um

2:40:45has the appearance of being small, but

2:40:46in terms of the city standards, it's

2:40:48actually much larger than the city

2:40:50standards. Um and so, the city is

2:40:52requesting that the applicant close at

2:40:54the applicant is in

2:40:56was it didn't ask to close it. We're

2:40:58requesting to close it to be in line

2:41:00with our rules. So, we set rules on how

2:41:03big the curb cut is and that curb cut is

2:41:05I think twice as big as is allowed in

2:41:08most places. So, that's where it's

2:41:10coming from, just to be clear. It's not

2:41:11the applicant, it's actually the city

2:41:13that does that. Um the the second thing

2:41:15I think is a good thing for the I would

2:41:17love for the city to weigh in on in

2:41:20terms of insurance.

2:41:23Um

2:41:24in terms of

2:41:30Okay. Uh in terms of in terms of making

2:41:33sure there's enough space

2:41:34um because that's also I think that's we

2:41:37have the same concern. So,

2:41:39um if the I don't know if we I I just

2:41:41don't know what the like what the

2:41:42regulations are from the city on how

2:41:44much space is needed there, but

2:41:46certainly um it appeared like that got

2:41:48at least in the consideration and so I'd

2:41:50love some clarification from the city

2:41:52staff on that.

2:41:55>> Uh through the chair, I if I'm

2:41:56understanding your question was about

2:41:58the utility infrastructure along the

2:41:59side of the building that's not shown on

2:42:01the plan. Um you could certainly request

2:42:03that the applicant shift the parking

2:42:04stalls. You can see so our drive aisle

2:42:07width that typical width that we require

2:42:09is 24 ft. You can see this parking lot

2:42:12provides 56.7 ft instead of 24 ft.

2:42:15Obviously, these are display cars that

2:42:18are parked in one place, so they are

2:42:19controlled by the applicant who controls

2:42:22access to the property, so they could

2:42:24likely schedule times for showings in a

2:42:27way that would allow them to maneuver

2:42:28them out, but you could to address that

2:42:30I think you could specifically request

2:42:31that they shift all of those parking

2:42:33stalls to the

2:42:35west or southwest

2:42:38by a certain specified distance to and

2:42:40stripe an area along that that extent to

2:42:43prevent them from conflicting. We don't

2:42:45have regulations that require that. All

2:42:48I can say is they're not shown on the

2:42:49survey.

2:42:50So, in terms of of the comments that

2:42:52were provided, they're not shown on the

2:42:54plan, so they were not included in the

2:42:55comments.

2:42:57>> The I mean the stairway is is there,

2:42:59right? But not in terms of like our

2:43:02access.

2:43:03>> Are you you're referring so I was

2:43:04referring to the utilities. Your

2:43:05question is about the stairs?

2:43:06>> Oh, my question is about the stairs.

2:43:08Yeah, I mean I from my perspective

2:43:10whether or not someone parks in front of

2:43:12something that might damage their cars

2:43:13is not our problem. It's the applicant's

2:43:15problem. Like if they want to damage the

2:43:17cars they're trying to sell.

2:43:19I think more I'm thinking about making

2:43:20sure that the that the residents at 608

2:43:24have have safe access

2:43:26to to for which they're clearly

2:43:29grandfathered in. You can see on the map

2:43:30on the

2:43:31plans. There's sort of the stairwell

2:43:33there. And it's a beautiful feature. I

2:43:36was I was wondering what that was when I

2:43:37was out there. I was like, what is this?

2:43:39So that answers that question.

2:43:41>> So we're trying to reconstruct a history

2:43:44of recollection on this. At some point

2:43:46in time my recollection is that these

2:43:48properties were held in common

2:43:49ownership. They were divided at that

2:43:51time as you see on this plan and as was

2:43:53on the plan where it was endorsed by the

2:43:55planning board, although

2:43:57ultimately couldn't be not endorsed on

2:43:59the basis of this. There that deck area

2:44:02was shown is is technically was created

2:44:05as an encroachment.

2:44:07And it was shown as to be removed and it

2:44:09was never removed. My colleague and I

2:44:11were trying to review and see what what

2:44:13exactly was supposed to happen there. So

2:44:15I think you're opening up a bit of a can

2:44:17of worms that relates to other potential

2:44:19zoning violations of both properties. So

2:44:22I would say I think that ultimately

2:44:23that's really a separate matter. If you

2:44:25feel like you'd like to resolve that,

2:44:26I'd recommend you continue this so we

2:44:28can get you an answer. There is an

2:44:30easement. Interestingly, the surveyor

2:44:31did not show it on the plan,

2:44:34but it I did just quickly look at the

2:44:35registry. It does look like there is an

2:44:37easement in effect. It's unusual for

2:44:39that not to be shown on a plan that's

2:44:40sealed by a surveyor.

2:44:42So I don't know what the issue might be

2:44:44there.

2:44:45So there's something unusual happening,

2:44:48but this easement seems to I'm quickly

2:44:50looking through it here. It seems to

2:44:52refer specifically to the stairs. Um

2:44:55>> Yeah.

2:44:55>> And then the the deck area, which again

2:44:58is not necessarily the the specific

2:45:00question that you asked. Um but again,

2:45:02we're looking at this. At the end of the

2:45:03day, that's a

2:45:04ultimately a private matter between the

2:45:06parties that benefits. You know, the

2:45:07city doesn't get involved in an

2:45:09enforcing others' easement rights

2:45:11typically. Um as it relates to does that

2:45:14create some zoning violation? It

2:45:16probably does. Um was that resolved? I

2:45:18don't recall it coming before this

2:45:19board.

2:45:20Um I I don't know if there are other

2:45:23orders that have been issued relative to

2:45:25it. I would have to dig back. I do

2:45:26recall council reaching out for one of

2:45:29the property owners at one point in

2:45:31time. Um but again, our office doesn't

2:45:33typically enforce those, so likely we

2:45:35had referred it to inspectional

2:45:36services. Um and and like we were

2:45:38saying, we were just recalling um and

2:45:41trying to put together the history of of

2:45:42where that stood. Um

2:45:44and so that's my quick recollection,

2:45:47which may not be comprehensive or

2:45:49entirely accurate. Um but since you

2:45:51asked,

2:45:52>> Yeah. Yeah.

2:45:52>> I think as much as I can explain about

2:45:55the stairs at this point.

2:45:56>> stairs may or may not be related to some

2:46:00form of safety, but they are for sure

2:46:03involved in an easement.

2:46:05And to the extent that the city is that

2:46:09we as a board are allowed to be

2:46:11concerned about them, and it's it's just

2:46:13in terms of whether or not they're like

2:46:16this application is in compliance with

2:46:18that easement, and that's it. Is that

2:46:20sort of the summation?

2:46:23>> Potentially, but

2:46:24I The plan does not show any easement.

2:46:26>> Right. Right.

2:46:27>> So I get My my point is if you're

2:46:29concerned about it, I don't think you

2:46:30have the information you need. If you're

2:46:32Generally, it's a private easement, so

2:46:34if if what's proposed

2:46:35>> It's not a city to do it for for protect

2:46:38for for like safety.

2:46:40>> Correct. Yeah, I can keep I can see it

2:46:42refers to a plan. I haven't pulled the

2:46:44plan up cuz I'm looking at the easement

2:46:46document.

2:46:46>> Thank you. That's helpful. Okay.

2:46:48>> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a comment

2:46:50if I can.

2:46:50>> Yes, please. Yeah.

2:46:51>> So, this property has another means of

2:46:53egress off of Lincoln Street that's been

2:46:54boarded off for a long time. I know

2:46:57there's been some problems we've had in

2:46:59with ISD in terms of getting this

2:47:01squared away previously.

2:47:03Um

2:47:07and we're going to review the situation

2:47:08again and get back to the owner

2:47:10that's in the audience

2:47:12with that property with regard to the

2:47:13current stairway that's blocked. I think

2:47:16we need to revisit that again and

2:47:18revisit what we had was to be removed a

2:47:22number of years ago and it still

2:47:23remains. So, we've got some work to do

2:47:25with that.

2:47:27>> Okay.

2:47:28I'm definitely

2:47:30Sorry. If you If you'd like to talk, no

2:47:31problem, but just please come forward

2:47:32for the record. Thank you very much.

2:47:37>> Uh

2:47:37yes, again, so I've been going back and

2:47:40forth with the city since I purchased

2:47:41this house

2:47:43what three three four years ago, right?

2:47:46All about the interjoinings

2:47:49of the two, right? At one point my tax

2:47:52bill was for 610 Lincoln Street when in

2:47:54actuality it should have been 608

2:47:56Lincoln Street, right? Big difference.

2:47:58Utility issues, all of that stuff,

2:48:00right? Those are things that are being

2:48:01worked out. However, right? As recorded,

2:48:05those easements were legal at the time

2:48:08of the purchase and sale of that house.

2:48:10That's the strict reason why we

2:48:12purchased that house with the easements.

2:48:14I do understand uh

2:48:17you're talking about other means of

2:48:18egress, right? Uh

2:48:22possibly, right? They'll have to be some

2:48:24configurations, but we're not here to

2:48:26talk about 608 Lincoln Street, we're

2:48:28here to talk about 610 Lincoln Street. I

2:48:30will tell you that I talked with

2:48:32these guys earlier this afternoon,

2:48:35right? And what my really big concern

2:48:37was having access to the stairway,

2:48:40right? For allowing

2:48:42like our packages to come and emergency

2:48:45services to be able to have access,

2:48:47right? One of the things that we talked

2:48:49about, which was for the safety of his

2:48:52vehicles,

2:48:53was about putting up a gate across the

2:48:55whole front part of Lincoln Street.

2:48:58Not sure if that's allowed or even

2:49:00advisable,

2:49:01but that would solidify

2:49:03some bigger concerns. We discussed

2:49:05having access or whatnot.

2:49:08Maybe that goes a little bit further

2:49:10with the fire department having access

2:49:11into those things, la-di-da, right?

2:49:15But there is definitely some issues.

2:49:17I've been going back and forth with the

2:49:19city, and the city tells me that it's a

2:49:21civil matter. It is not in the hands of

2:49:24the city, right? I understand that the

2:49:27property owner that's in the audience,

2:49:29right, has been going back and forth and

2:49:31was trying to take legal action against

2:49:33the people that sold it, right? I

2:49:36I got a feeling they lost that aspect

2:49:38because the staircase is still there,

2:49:40right? I can go further to say that the

2:49:43property owner, right, has had his

2:49:45contractor come to that staircase

2:49:48and start taking pieces off from the

2:49:50staircase, right? When you start taking

2:49:52pieces off the staircase, it violates

2:49:54the safety of that staircase, right?

2:49:56When that happens, me, right, who holds

2:49:59the easement, is not liable for the

2:50:01damages or repairs and upkeep of that,

2:50:05right? So there are a lot of things that

2:50:06go back and forth.

2:50:08I do think that the city needs to step

2:50:10in, right, and go and uphold what was

2:50:15just what was there, right?

2:50:17And again, that area, just the other

2:50:20thing that I want to go and note is that

2:50:22where that decking is laid

2:50:23[clears throat] out right there, all

2:50:24right,

2:50:26that is like my property at 608 Lincoln

2:50:30Street is about 15 ft off the street.

2:50:34It's that high. So you've been out

2:50:35there, you've seen the rock wall, right?

2:50:37And that rock wall abuts that building

2:50:41that's at 610 Lincoln Street. That rock

2:50:43wall, right, also abuts all the way down

2:50:48to on the back left-hand corner of 610,

2:50:52that rock wall that's about 40 ft up

2:50:54right there, going back to the other

2:50:56side, that goes all the way up to

2:51:01the back of the building. Right? If you

2:51:03go see where it starts getting gray up

2:51:05there, right where you can see right

2:51:06there in the middle, there's some light,

2:51:08that's the height of that rock wall.

2:51:10That rock wall goes all the way over.

2:51:12All right? So, there's nothing that they

2:51:14can they can build or do anything. What

2:51:18ultimately happens is that the trees

2:51:19that you guys love get to stay there

2:51:22with that

2:51:24decking that is in that easement. Right?

2:51:28So,

2:51:29there's there's a lot of different stuff

2:51:30there.

2:51:32Uh

2:51:34Again, I'm not opposed

2:51:36to the car dealership as long as safety

2:51:40considerations are made. All right.

2:51:44>> Thank you. That makes very That's very

2:51:45clear. Okay. So,

2:51:48going to

2:51:50going to board comment on this.

2:51:54Um

2:51:55as best as I can So, there seems to be a

2:51:57problem with

2:51:59So, I guess from my perspective, and

2:52:02I'll open it up to the city, don't think

2:52:05the city would like to have a chain like

2:52:07France on 6 on Lincoln Street. I don't I

2:52:10don't think we want that. We want to

2:52:12have some sort of decorative closing of

2:52:15the

2:52:16of the

2:52:17of the sort of very wide

2:52:21sort of

2:52:22entrances and exits.

2:52:24And so, I think what you're proposing to

2:52:26do that makes a lot of sense, and that

2:52:28is

2:52:29that seems to be like in line with what

2:52:32the city would like. Um in terms of the

2:52:35access to the stairwell, um that it

2:52:38appears to be a private matter, which is

2:52:41outside of our purview. I think if you

2:52:44if somebody is

2:52:45um in terms of disputes with neighbors,

2:52:48in terms of like taking property, stuff

2:52:49like that. I've actually had this in my

2:52:50property, um and it

2:52:53it sticks. I was going to say something

2:52:55else, and I was like, what's the PG

2:52:57version of that? Um it sticks. And so,

2:53:00um

2:53:01I like you should definitely talk to the

2:53:03city and figure out the best course of

2:53:05thing to have your easement um properly

2:53:09protected as is your right. Um and so, I

2:53:12think it seems like the applicant, who

2:53:15in this case is the business trying to

2:53:17move in, um they're at they're willing

2:53:19to work with you in terms of trying to

2:53:20figure out to make sure the stairwell is

2:53:22accessible, which is the only piece that

2:53:24we can sort of somewhat have some say in

2:53:27it over. So, I think from that

2:53:29perspective, um this plan seems to be

2:53:32headed in that direction, and I think

2:53:34you should talk to us virtual services

2:53:36about ensuring that your easement stays

2:53:39in um

2:53:40in accordance with the law. So, um

2:53:43that's my perspective on this. Um I um

2:53:47know a little bit about this. Uh

2:53:49I had a bad run-in with actually the

2:53:51people who owned this before, so I'm

2:53:53happy to have somebody trying to legally

2:53:55work through the system to make this

2:53:57work. Um and I don't want to like make

2:53:59light of um

2:54:00the frustration of having your um you

2:54:03buy something, you go through the

2:54:04proper, you do all the right things, and

2:54:06the city and other people are messing it

2:54:07around. So, um please do continue to

2:54:09work with the city um on that piece.

2:54:12So, okay. So, from my perspective, um I

2:54:15think I'm a yes on this. I think some of

2:54:18the things that they're trying to do to

2:54:20make it work makes sense. I think

2:54:22continue to work with the city to um to

2:54:25move those things um to move an

2:54:27appliance with their request.

2:54:31And I actually don't see any waivers.

2:54:35>> There are?

2:54:37>> Through the chair, the waiver there are

2:54:38four waivers on page three of four.

2:54:41>> Do you request the waivers?

2:54:45>> Yes.

2:54:46>> Great. Okay.

2:54:48Board member Bramoff.

2:54:49>> Yeah, I don't have any problem with

2:54:51this.

2:54:51>> Okay.

2:54:53Board member Marini.

2:54:55>> No problem, no comments.

2:54:57>> Board member Torcono.

2:55:01>> I'll let it pass.

2:55:03>> I'll let it pass.

2:55:05Okay.

2:55:06Board member Barhagan.

2:55:07>> Through the chair, I have no problem

2:55:10with this. I just want to reiterate that

2:55:12if there is a a safety issue with that

2:55:14easement, that's something that's

2:55:16between you're going to have to deal the

2:55:18two of you together

2:55:21and cooperate. I am encouraged by what

2:55:24I'm hearing about the neighbors trying

2:55:26to work together with this cuz that's

2:55:27always turns out better than the

2:55:29opposite.

2:55:31But that's not something that this board

2:55:33can dictate.

2:55:35You have an easement that you have to

2:55:37protect and if

2:55:39if you if you set this up the way you've

2:55:41proposed it and it somehow isn't

2:55:43fulfilling your requirement to make sure

2:55:46that your neighbor has emergency and

2:55:48other access to that easement, then he

2:55:50has a right to complain to you and if

2:55:53worst case scenario sue you that saying

2:55:56you're not complying with what the

2:55:58easement is requiring of you, but that's

2:56:00between him and you.

2:56:02So for us, I'm happy with the way it is.

2:56:06>> Okay. Is board member Saco back with us?

2:56:12No, okay.

2:56:14In that case, I will take a motion to

2:56:16close.

2:56:18>> I'd like to make a motion to close on

2:56:19610 Lincoln Street.

2:56:20>> Is there a second?

2:56:21>> Second.

2:56:22>> On the motion to close, board member

2:56:24Bramoff?

2:56:24>> Yes.

2:56:25>> Board member uh Maremi?

2:56:26>> Yes.

2:56:27>> Board member Torcado?

2:56:29>> My vote is yes.

2:56:30>> Board member Bartegan?

2:56:32>> Yes.

2:56:32>> And my vote's yes. Is there a motion on

2:56:34610 Lincoln Street?

2:56:35>> I'd like to make a motion on 610 Lincoln

2:56:37Street for approval of a special permit

2:56:39to allow motor vehicle trailer boat

2:56:41sales rental use in an BL-1 zone and

2:56:43approval of a special permit to modify

2:56:45the parking dimensional layout and/or

2:56:48landscaping requirements, loading

2:56:49requirements, and/or the number of

2:56:51acquired parking spaces subject to the

2:56:54conditions of approval set out on page

2:56:56304 of the staff memo and the waivers as

2:56:59requested by the applicant.

2:57:01>> Is there a second?

2:57:02>> Second.

2:57:04>> On the motion, board member Bramoff?

2:57:05>> Yes.

2:57:06>> Board member Maremi?

2:57:07>> Yes.

2:57:08>> Board member Torcado?

2:57:09>> Yes.

2:57:10>> Board member Bartegan?

2:57:11>> Yes.

2:57:12>> My vote's yes. Okay, thank you. Um

2:57:14please do get the information for the

2:57:16city, so if you have any trouble, you

2:57:17can contact them directly, so you don't

2:57:19have to go through other people. Um

2:57:21Michelle is fantastic. They will work

2:57:22with you on it. You all have some work

2:57:24to do. Just talk to Amy Beth Wirth about

2:57:26any of those questions, but

2:57:27congratulations, you have the what you

2:57:29need to move forward.

2:57:29>> All right, thank you so much.

2:57:30>> Thank you very much.

2:57:32>> All right, next up is three Man Street.

2:57:35Um

2:57:36Larry is going to go to the other side

2:57:38of the

2:57:40Yeah, which actually complicates

2:57:43this.

2:57:46Is Is Is Board member Sacko back?

2:57:53>> What's that?

2:57:54>> Okay. So, we need to

2:57:59Yep. Yep, I'm going to let him know.

2:58:07So, I'll I'll explain out loud. Okay, we

2:58:09currently only have a four-member board.

2:58:12So,

2:58:14yeah, you can we can postpone if you

2:58:16want, or you can move forward. Um Um

2:58:19obviously, if you feel like you want to

2:58:21continue with what we're going, you can

2:58:23also do that, but I do want to give you

2:58:25full

2:58:27like clarity on that.

2:58:27>> Yeah. Can I Can I just check with

2:58:29>> Yes, we just found this out ourselves.

2:58:30>> Just take a second.

2:58:31>> Just take a second. Yes.

2:58:38He owns property next to it. He's an

2:58:40abutter.

2:58:42And in this case, he's allowed to be in

2:58:43a interested, so he can comment on it.

2:58:47As an interested party.

2:58:52>> [laughter]

2:59:06>> Yeah.

2:59:12She's on it.

2:59:32I don't think he can do that. He needs

2:59:33to be able to see it. Yeah, we're for

2:59:36sure four-people board.

2:59:38Okay. Yeah.

2:59:39>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. We'll go ahead

2:59:40tonight.

2:59:41>> Okay.

2:59:42Yeah, and as I said,

2:59:44the Mullins rule can be in effect if

2:59:46something comes up where you want us to

2:59:47move forward. So, just to clarify, if at

2:59:50some point it feels like you would like

2:59:53a five-member board, you can ask for a

2:59:54continuance, and that would give the

2:59:56opportunity for board member Saco or

2:59:58board member Cortez to in a future

3:00:00meeting, if they would like, to fill out

3:00:02the Mullins

3:00:04rule, which allows board members who

3:00:06aren't present to review the video and

3:00:08assign an affidavit accordingly.

3:00:10>> Yes. Well, that that that makes uh

3:00:13>> So, we'll we'll go cautiously forward.

3:00:16>> uh

3:00:16and if uh

3:00:18hopefully we won't need to go there, but

3:00:20if we do, then that's that would be

3:00:23um

3:00:23uh it's it's a good resolution for the

3:00:26applicant.

3:00:26>> Okay, great.

3:00:27>> So, uh for the record, my name is Donald

3:00:29O'Neal. I'm a lawyer here in Worcester

3:00:31and here this evening on behalf of uh

3:00:33Daniel Remika,

3:00:35um who's the owner of the property and

3:00:38also um

3:00:40tonight with me as well as Olivia uh

3:00:42Caden,

3:00:43uh who is um an engineer from um

3:00:48Graves Engineering and and she would be

3:00:51uh speaking to um

3:00:53any issues that you might have related

3:00:55to the engineering or the way that the

3:00:58lots are laid out. Um

3:01:00we are seeking

3:01:02uh relief um for this location.

3:01:06Uh the lot has 18,993

3:01:10sq ft of uh land area,

3:01:14uh which is well in excess of the 5,000

3:01:17sq ft minimum that's required in the BL

3:01:19zone.

3:01:20It's also a split lot with the rear

3:01:23portion of the lot

3:01:25uh zone BG4.

3:01:27The other uh interesting thing about

3:01:30this property is that it it is also

3:01:32within

3:01:33um

3:01:35the flood zone,

3:01:36uh which is that uh primarily located at

3:01:39the rear of the property.

3:01:41So, the um the BG land is actually um

3:01:45and covered by the by the flood plain as

3:01:47well. So,

3:01:48uh the area that we're proposing

3:01:52uh for the new two-family dwelling is

3:01:55outside the flood

3:01:59area.

3:02:00Uh however, because we're doing work um

3:02:04within the flood zone, it, will require

3:02:06a filing with the Conservation

3:02:08Commission

3:02:09uh for their approval.

3:02:11It's also going to require uh definitive

3:02:13frontage subdivision approval from the

3:02:15Planning Board, which we've already

3:02:17filed for.

3:02:18Uh

3:02:19in any event in in this case

3:02:21uh we've got a

3:02:23existing four-unit building.

3:02:25Um

3:02:27the

3:02:29uh which actually occupies the

3:02:32um

3:02:33really only a portion of the land that's

3:02:34available uh currently for development.

3:02:38Um

3:02:39there are two curb cuts, one on the left

3:02:41and one on the right.

3:02:43Uh

3:02:43and what we're proposing to do basically

3:02:45is to utilize the curb cut on the right

3:02:49or lower portion looking at the plan

3:02:51before you

3:02:52to provide parking uh

3:02:55for the um

3:02:57existing four-unit building that's

3:02:59located on the property.

3:03:01We are providing uh required parking and

3:03:05have not requested or need any relief

3:03:08for parking in this location on this for

3:03:10this building or for the building

3:03:13proposed

3:03:15um

3:03:16new building, two-family building that's

3:03:18proposed for the northerly I think it's

3:03:20north of as shown on the plan.

3:03:24Um

3:03:25the relief is necessitated basically by

3:03:28the

3:03:29um

3:03:31fact that it's in a BL zone, which

3:03:33requires 40 ft of frontage. We do have

3:03:36140 ft of frontage available.

3:03:39We are seeking

3:03:41um

3:03:41uh

3:03:4220.2 ft of relief from the 80-ft minimum

3:03:45for the new building

3:03:47uh

3:03:48with no additional re- relief required

3:03:51in terms of uh setback or dimensional

3:03:53relief of any nature uh and we'll be

3:03:57utilizing

3:03:58the existing curb cut um that's already

3:04:02there to provide access to this

3:04:04building. So, there's there's really no

3:04:06change in terms of the

3:04:08uh access onto the street. It's just a

3:04:10division between the two with

3:04:13uh

3:04:13the parking

3:04:15for the two-family proposed to be um

3:04:18interior garage space.

3:04:21Uh

3:04:21and we also did provide um the driveway

3:04:25access with a um turnaround capacity.

3:04:29Uh it was suggested in the staff memo

3:04:32that we

3:04:34consider uh eliminating the turnaround

3:04:38uh to allow for cars backing out onto

3:04:40the street,

3:04:41uh

3:04:41which would um

3:04:44uh

3:04:46allow for the adjustment of the property

3:04:48line, which could mitigate the um side

3:04:50yard setback relief that's requested.

3:04:53Uh

3:04:54we feel that the uh um

3:04:57that the turnaround actually

3:04:59uh

3:05:00serves a purpose and that's preferable

3:05:02to um

3:05:05continue on with what we propose and in

3:05:07and in this situation,

3:05:09it's a portion of the building is a

3:05:11little bit it could be, you know, 5 ft

3:05:13or so further away from the driveway.

3:05:15So, I I don't think it's a um

3:05:19the proximity to the property line is

3:05:21not one where you have uh

3:05:23you're not looking out your window

3:05:25directly into the house next door, you

3:05:27know, uh

3:05:285 and 1/2 ft off the property line.

3:05:30You're going to be looking at a

3:05:31driveway.

3:05:32Uh so, we would um

3:05:35respectfully um

3:05:39uh

3:05:40reject that recommendation and proceed

3:05:42with what's been presented.

3:05:44Um the

3:05:47hardship in this case, we believe or the

3:05:49practical

3:05:51uh

3:05:52difficulty

3:05:53um

3:05:55relates to the um

3:05:57shape of the lot.

3:05:59Um and some of these I've I've got to

3:06:01got to use

3:06:03to the

3:06:04requirements on that have now been

3:06:06required on this

3:06:08um

3:06:09process since the change in the statute.

3:06:12Um

3:06:14and that the

3:06:17question for the for the chairman, do

3:06:19you want to go through the other three

3:06:21first and

3:06:21>> real quick. Yeah, so that so for the

3:06:24record again on um Three Man Street, how

3:06:27strict enforcement of the provision of

3:06:29the city of Worcester zoning ordinance

3:06:30would result in practical difficulty. A

3:06:33strict enforcement of the provision of

3:06:34the zoning ordinance would result in a

3:06:36practical difficulty by limiting the

3:06:37number of units that can be placed on

3:06:39the property without regard to the lot

3:06:41area available to accommodate the units

3:06:43proposed and or the owner's ability to

3:06:45provide safe access to and from the site

3:06:47from the proposed additional units in so

3:06:48doing resulting in the underutilization

3:06:51of the parcel's residential development

3:06:52capacity. How the grant of relief um

3:06:55from practical benefits the petitioner

3:06:58and public interest including the

3:06:59support of public production of housing.

3:07:02The granting of the request relief

3:07:03sought will allow for the provision of

3:07:04additional housing on a developed site

3:07:07without the construction of new road

3:07:08frontage by utilizing existing

3:07:10infrastructure. How the grant of relief

3:07:12from the practical difficulty will not

3:07:15be detrimental to public health and

3:07:16safety and welfare in the neighborhood.

3:07:18The access to and from the site from the

3:07:20proposed additional housing has been

3:07:21reviewed by the city staff and has been

3:07:23found to be satisfactory for safe the

3:07:25access purposes with no detriment to

3:07:27public good from the proposed use being

3:07:30presented by the project which will

3:07:32enhance the appearance of the property

3:07:34and overall and so doing benefit the

3:07:35surrounding neighborhood property

3:07:37properties generally and then um four

3:07:40four five six and seven.

3:07:42>> Okay.

3:07:43Um and I would say that the practical

3:07:45difficulty in this case relates to the

3:07:48irregular shape of the lot and the

3:07:50placement of the building, um,

3:07:53thereon.

3:07:55Uh,

3:07:55and that is strict enforcement of the

3:07:57provisions of the zoning ordinance would

3:08:00impose a financial hardship on the

3:08:01applicant by denying the applicant the

3:08:04ability to effectively utilize the

3:08:06excess of available land on site for

3:08:10productive purposes.

3:08:12Uh,

3:08:12I am not, uh, don't believe that there

3:08:14is an alternative,

3:08:16uh, where this, uh, could be achieved

3:08:19that would allow for the construction of

3:08:20an additional,

3:08:21uh, duplex, uh,

3:08:23or single-family semi-detached,

3:08:26uh, structure on this property.

3:08:28Um, and I would say that the practical

3:08:32difficulty was not,

3:08:34uh, created by the applicant who

3:08:35purchased this property in 2023, um,

3:08:38with the existing configuration, and

3:08:40that the

3:08:41lot itself, um, is, um,

3:08:45contains area well in excess of the

3:08:48minimum requirements.

3:08:50Uh,

3:08:51I would also, now that the screen is up,

3:08:53would point out to the board that this

3:08:55is, um,

3:08:57kind of an, um,

3:08:59interesting to see something other than

3:09:00the standard, uh, two-family, uh, that

3:09:03you might see.

3:09:04Uh,

3:09:05I think it's, uh,

3:09:06um, interesting-looking

3:09:08building,

3:09:10um,

3:09:10think that it would, um,

3:09:13uh, be a good addition to the

3:09:15neighborhood, uh, property, and, um,

3:09:18it's, um,

3:09:20kind of refreshing to see, um,

3:09:23something other than the standard, um,

3:09:25two-family

3:09:26plans that, um,

3:09:29you frequently, uh, come before you.

3:09:31Uh, so, I think we've we've got, um,

3:09:35and everything is self-contained within

3:09:36the building. The The

3:09:38basement,

3:09:40there will be no basement, you know,

3:09:41again, because of flood plain,

3:09:43uh, but also the

3:09:45parking is under the building, uh,

3:09:47in

3:09:48that location and then there are three

3:09:50stories above which, uh, provide for,

3:09:53uh, two three unit, um,

3:09:57apartments.

3:09:59And, uh,

3:10:01if you

3:10:04would also request the waivers, there

3:10:06are two waivers

3:10:08that are listed on page three of six and

3:10:12would be happy to answer any questions

3:10:13you might have.

3:10:15>> Great. City staff.

3:10:19>> Through the chair, this is Michelle

3:10:20Smith in the city's planning division.

3:10:22Um, so again, an application in front of

3:10:24you this evening for three variances

3:10:26this time. The applicant seeking to

3:10:28divide this existing property into two.

3:10:31Um, and in doing so, they intend to

3:10:32construct a two-family on the new lot

3:10:34that they would be creating.

3:10:36Um, as part of that, they are seeking

3:10:39relief for the minimum frontage

3:10:40requirement for that use, uh, which is

3:10:44um, 80 ft, uh, for that particular lot.

3:10:48Um, it's 40 ft per unit. Um, so that's

3:10:51where that's coming from. So they're

3:10:53seeking 20 ft of relief, which is about

3:10:54a quarter of the requirement. And then

3:10:56for the remnant existing lot, um, or

3:10:59existing structure on the new lot that

3:11:01would be proposed, um, similarly seeking

3:11:03relief from the frontage requirement.

3:11:05160 ft would be required, um,

3:11:08on the property,

3:11:10um, with the configuration that the

3:11:11applicant is proposing, there's just

3:11:13under 80 ft that's provided, which is

3:11:15about half of of what's necessary. Um,

3:11:19and then, finally, the applicant is

3:11:21seeking a variance from the side yard

3:11:23setback for, again, the the proposed lot

3:11:26associated with the existing structure,

3:11:28um, which if we kind of zoom in really

3:11:30relates to the,

3:11:32um, rearmost portion of the building

3:11:34where the proposed lot line, um, comes

3:11:37into. You can kind of see that kind of

3:11:38zigzag there where it goes around,

3:11:41um, that proposed,

3:11:42uh, that existing structure to

3:11:44accommodate a required buffer to the

3:11:47parking area that's shown on lot two. Um

3:11:52So, in terms of the staff comments, it's

3:11:54correct staff had um recommended that in

3:11:56that particular location the applicant

3:11:58look at shifting the lot line

3:12:00um just basically 5 ft

3:12:03um to accommodate that. The request for

3:12:05relief is 5.7 ft. So, if they shift that

3:12:07lot line 5.7 ft to the um west, that

3:12:11would make that compliant. And so, we

3:12:13had just commented and I um related to

3:12:16the feasibility of doing that. There's a

3:12:18uh five or so foot hammer and a three or

3:12:22so foot buffer that appears to be

3:12:23provided. So, it looked like there was

3:12:25ample room to do that not to necessarily

3:12:27eliminate that um but to reduce that

3:12:29hammer uh to provide that flexibility to

3:12:32provide both amenities or even for them

3:12:35to explore like a cross easement um

3:12:37to to deal with that particular driveway

3:12:40encroachment but could resolve the the

3:12:42issue relative to that side lot line. Um

3:12:46There is from a frontage perspective no

3:12:48by right alternative. Um the applicant

3:12:51could install one accessory dwelling

3:12:53unit that could be in a detached

3:12:55structure essentially with the same

3:12:56footprint of what is proposed uh but

3:12:59just with one unit and it would max out

3:13:02at 900 sq ft um for habitable space um

3:13:05or within the existing structure. So,

3:13:07that would be the by right option

3:13:08essentially one unit. And then with that

3:13:11also

3:13:12consider other commercial

3:13:14non-residential uses which would be

3:13:16allowed in the zoning district by right

3:13:18um in the the BL1 zone. So, something

3:13:20like a bank um would be allowed by

3:13:22right. So, they could have that um in

3:13:24addition. So, it's very different but

3:13:26doesn't mean that it still couldn't

3:13:27happen. So, just contextually um there

3:13:30are other uses that could be layered on

3:13:32to the existing residential use in

3:13:34addition to something like an ADU.

3:13:36Um

3:13:37Otherwise, uh we made some comments here

3:13:39for the applicant just uh for awareness,

3:13:42um specifically that uh they'll need a

3:13:4424-ft drive aisle on the uh property to

3:13:47the south where the parking area is

3:13:48proposed um to comply with zoning

3:13:50requirements. They did not seek that

3:13:52relief, so just a a note to them that

3:13:54before they're able um to proceed and as

3:13:56part of the ConCom review process as

3:13:58well as the frontage subdivision

3:13:59process, we will be looking to see them

3:14:01address that and shift the parking 2 ft

3:14:03to the north to accommodate that or they

3:14:05can request a special permit separately

3:14:08um from this board to consider the same,

3:14:09but that was not part of the suite of

3:14:11relief that was requested um ahead of

3:14:13tonight's meeting. So, just a a note for

3:14:15them about dealing with that separately.

3:14:17The those requirements are independent

3:14:19of the variance and still have to be met

3:14:21unless the applicant comes back to this

3:14:23board at a future time. So, um making

3:14:25note otherwise the FYI about the future

3:14:27address that we're assigning. Um in

3:14:29terms of this area, it's a managed

3:14:30growth area in the long-range plan, so

3:14:33walk shed to transit again located along

3:14:35Chandler Street uh with the nearest bus

3:14:37stop just about 250 ft away. Uh the

3:14:40corridor is a mixed-use corridor with a

3:14:42variety of different uses, um retail,

3:14:44food service, uh multi-family,

3:14:46automotive, all in the immediate

3:14:48vicinity. And the property abuts the

3:14:50U-center and the um

3:14:53the park.

3:14:55Again, noted uh by the applicant's

3:14:57counsel that they need a frontage

3:14:58subdivision plan and a notice of intent

3:15:00with the Conservation Commission. So,

3:15:01those are other approvals that will be

3:15:03needed. Um happy to answer questions

3:15:06that the board might have. Thank you.

3:15:09>> Is anybody here for 3 Main Street?

3:15:13Anybody online?

3:15:16Okay.

3:15:17Um so, just remembering just reminding

3:15:19everybody for the board, um the two

3:15:22things is that we need to consider this

3:15:24up or down um and that um there are four

3:15:28people currently voting. So, if you are

3:15:31planning to not vote for this, please

3:15:34indicate that

3:15:35um sooner rather than later so that the

3:15:37applicant can take that into

3:15:39consideration. Um so, if you're

3:15:41thinking, "I'm not sure about this." If

3:15:43you have other questions, um let me know

3:15:46so that we can address

3:15:48um the best course forward. Okay.

3:15:51Um

3:15:52with that being said, uh while um

3:15:56we can consider what is before us.

3:15:59Um and uh we might have the No matter

3:16:02what, there would have to be before us

3:16:04for a variance

3:16:05um in terms of the um

3:16:07in terms of the frontage needs, in terms

3:16:09of the

3:16:10um side yard setback. We maybe you could

3:16:13move it, but at the end of the day you'd

3:16:14still need to be up for frontage. Um so,

3:16:17I'm I'm feeling uh like no matter what,

3:16:20it would have to move forward. Um it

3:16:21would have to come before us, and I'm

3:16:22happy to move forward this. I think

3:16:24that's a good use of land, and as per

3:16:27the new ordinance, I think um the desire

3:16:30for more housing and the fact that

3:16:32there's enough lot area to put it um

3:16:35outweighs the other concerns, and so I

3:16:37um am happy to vote for it. Um board

3:16:40member Muremi.

3:16:43>> I have no further comments, but I do

3:16:45like this project a lot and how cohesive

3:16:48the two buildings are with each other

3:16:50and how they're connected. So, I would

3:16:52go for yes for this.

3:16:53>> Okay.

3:16:54Board member Turkeno.

3:17:02>> Why is the people in the population

3:17:04>> Yes.

3:17:06>> I'm not voting.

3:17:07>> Okay. You'll vote yes?

3:17:09>> I'm not voting.

3:17:10Don't call me out, Brian.

3:17:13>> I guess so.

3:17:14Okay. Thanks.

3:17:16Uh board member Parhegan.

3:17:18>> Uh

3:17:19future

3:17:21I don't think I have any problems with

3:17:22this. When I when I drove by the the

3:17:26site uh on the weekend there are a lot

3:17:29of cars parked where your new building

3:17:31is going to go. I'm assuming now with

3:17:33this solution those those are the are

3:17:35those the occupants of the current

3:17:36building?

3:17:36>> Yes. And they'll be moved to the other

3:17:37side.

3:17:38>> They'll be moved to the other side and

3:17:39that'll be extended um you know

3:17:42much further back than the currently the

3:17:44parking

3:17:46There's a little bit of area for parking

3:17:47over there, but that'll be the base of

3:17:48the new parking area for the existing

3:17:50building.

3:17:51>> Okay.

3:17:51>> No, I I don't have any problem with

3:17:53this. Thanks.

3:17:54>> Okay. Um I like the new design. Looks

3:17:56good. It's nice to see something that's

3:17:58interesting.

3:17:59Uh

3:18:00>> Agreed. Yeah.

3:18:04>> Can I get a second to make a motion?

3:18:06Sorry.

3:18:06>> It's okay.

3:18:08Yes. Yes. Sorry, I did I did indicate

3:18:10it. I thought you had a question. I

3:18:11apologize.

3:18:12We'll we'll get you in a second.

3:18:14Uh is there a motion to close?

3:18:17>> I'd like to make a motion to close on 3

3:18:18Man Street.

3:18:19>> Is there a second?

3:18:20>> Yes.

3:18:22>> On the motion to close, board member

3:18:24Marame.

3:18:25>> Yes.

3:18:26>> Board member Turcotte.

3:18:27>> Yes.

3:18:28>> Board member Bartegan.

3:18:29>> Yes.

3:18:30>> My vote is yes. Is there a motion on 3

3:18:32Man Street?

3:18:33>> I'd like to make a motion on 3 Man

3:18:35Street for lot 1 for approval of

3:18:38variance for relief of 79.8 ft from the

3:18:41160-ft minimum frontage requirement for

3:18:43a residential use in a BL1 zone. For lot

3:18:461 a variance for relief of 5.7 ft from

3:18:49the 10-ft minimum side yard setback

3:18:51requirement for a residential use in a

3:18:54BL1 zone. And for lot 2 a variance for

3:18:58relief of 20.2 ft from the 80-ft minimum

3:19:01frontage requirement for a residential

3:19:02use in a BL1 zone with the waivers as

3:19:05requested by the applicant.

3:19:08>> Is there a second?

3:19:10>> Yes.

3:19:11>> On the motion, board member Abramoff.

3:19:14No. Sorry.

3:19:17>> [laughter]

3:19:18>> Board member Marame.

3:19:20>> My vote is yes.

3:19:21>> Board member Dakota?

3:19:22>> Yes.

3:19:23>> Board member Braithagen?

3:19:24>> Yes.

3:19:24>> My vote is yes. Thank you very much.

3:19:26Sorry.

3:19:27All right.

3:19:28>> Thank you.

3:19:28>> Next up is 23 um 37 Boylston Street.

3:19:48>> All right, we almost done?

3:19:50>> We have five more.

3:19:53>> We're not close We're not almost done.

3:19:57Nine uh yeah, go ahead.

3:20:00>> Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the

3:20:02board. Uh for the record, my name is

3:20:03Matt Eckelman, an attorney with Fletcher

3:20:05Tilton on behalf of the applicant. Uh

3:20:07with me is Mr. Michael Armani.

3:20:10Um

3:20:10despite a lot of words on the agenda

3:20:13related to our project, it is very

3:20:15straightforward and I will do my best to

3:20:17keep it brief to keep this moving along.

3:20:19Um but what we're seeking to do is to

3:20:21divide the existing uh 42,000 square

3:20:24foot lot into eight new lots, which will

3:20:27allow the existing structures to become

3:20:29uh eight semi-attached single-family

3:20:32homes on their own separate and distinct

3:20:34lots. So, you can see here, this is I

3:20:36think the only visual we have to share.

3:20:38Uh you can see the uh darker lines kind

3:20:41of bifurcating each of the four

3:20:42structures uh signifies from, you know,

3:20:45page top to bottom, the eight different

3:20:47lots.

3:20:48Uh as mentioned, the total lot size is

3:20:5042,000 square feet. This is currently

3:20:52viewed as one contiguous lot with the

3:20:55four structures on it, all containing

3:20:57two units each. So, currently there are

3:20:59eight rental units. Uh no They are all

3:21:02vacant at this time. None of them are

3:21:03occupied.

3:21:04Uh this is in a BL1 zoning district with

3:21:07a little sliver in the rear uh in an

3:21:09RS7. However, that's really not affected

3:21:12by anything we're proposing.

3:21:14Uh as mentioned, there's four

3:21:15two-and-a-half-story structures, each of

3:21:17which has the two residential units.

3:21:20Each structure, so we'll call it four

3:21:22structures, four curb cuts, provides

3:21:24access to approximately four parking

3:21:26spaces. So, we will maintain two parking

3:21:29spaces per each of the new units or

3:21:32single family homes

3:21:34as proposed.

3:21:36The area itself across Boylston Street

3:21:38and actually on our side as well is

3:21:40mostly commercial, but it is

3:21:43historically single family residential

3:21:45uses to the rear

3:21:47where that zoning district transfers

3:21:50into the RS7. So, the single family

3:21:53use is common in this neighborhood.

3:21:57Um

3:21:58we're not proposing any changes to the

3:22:00structures. We're really not proposing

3:22:02any changes to the access or the

3:22:04driveways.

3:22:05Again, as you can see the proposed

3:22:07property lines essentially, well, do

3:22:09bifurcate the buildings and essentially

3:22:11bifurcate the access and the curb cuts.

3:22:14So, there there will be cross easements

3:22:16to get off the street and then each

3:22:18single family home will have their two

3:22:20parking spaces on their own on their own

3:22:22lot.

3:22:24In terms of relief requested, again, it

3:22:26takes up a whole page of the agenda, but

3:22:28it's because it's eight individual

3:22:31frontage variances we're requesting, one

3:22:33for each lot. You're required to have 40

3:22:35ft.

3:22:36In total right now, we have 300 ft of

3:22:38frontage. So, dividing that, we are

3:22:40proposing 37 and a half feet for each

3:22:43lot as opposed to the 40 that's

3:22:45required. So, we're deficient two and a

3:22:47half feet. And then the two properties

3:22:50or proposed properties at the top of the

3:22:52page,

3:22:53which are 35 and 37 Boylston Street, are

3:22:57both slightly short of the 5,000 sq ft

3:22:59that's required. They're both in the

3:23:00range of 4,600 sq ft. This is really, as

3:23:04you can see, if you kind of move away

3:23:05from the street to the back of the

3:23:07property, how the property line angles

3:23:09kind of towards the street. So, even

3:23:11though all the other six lots have over

3:23:135,000 sq ft and comply with lot size,

3:23:16because of the angle of the lot there in

3:23:17the rear, uh those two lots are slightly

3:23:19deficient, again, about

3:23:21uh 400 sq ft or so short of the 5,000

3:23:24that's required.

3:23:25Um this project's being undertaken,

3:23:27really, uh to create desirable

3:23:29single-family homes uh on new lots,

3:23:32which will promote homeownership

3:23:34opportunities. Uh as mentioned, it does

3:23:36not propose any new structures or really

3:23:38any functional change other than they'd

3:23:40be uh individual lots as opposed to one

3:23:42contiguous, and would provide

3:23:44homeownership opportunities as opposed

3:23:46to uh rental units. Uh we did see

3:23:49staff's memo and uh scrambled along with

3:23:52the the rest of uh everyone here

3:23:54tonight, and um

3:23:56uh we have some potential findings, uh

3:23:59which I'm happy to go through at the

3:24:00appropriate time, but other than that,

3:24:01we don't have any concerns or or

3:24:03questions from the memo. So, I'll pause

3:24:05now, and uh either take any questions or

3:24:07we can uh go through the findings if the

3:24:09board desires.

3:24:11>> Okay. Uh city staff.

3:24:15>> Through the chair, Michelle Smith again

3:24:16in the planning division.

3:24:18So, as the applicant stated, they're in

3:24:20front of you for eight requests for

3:24:22frontage variances, and two requests for

3:24:24lot area variances here in a BL1 zoning

3:24:27district. Part of the properties, uh a

3:24:30few of the lots that they are proposing

3:24:32are split-zoned, with the rear portion

3:24:33being the part that's in a RS7 zone. Uh

3:24:36the whole property itself is located in

3:24:38our water resource protection overlay

3:24:39district. Um so, they are looking to go

3:24:41from having uh multiple two-families on

3:24:44one lot to having each be its own side

3:24:47of a duplex on its own lot. So, we're

3:24:49going from four uh to eight lots, uh

3:24:53sorry, four structures on one lot to

3:24:55eight uh lots with half a structure on

3:24:58each. Um

3:25:00The frontage requirement is the same for

3:25:02each of the lots, so specifically,

3:25:03that's 2 and 1/2 ft of relief from the

3:25:0540-ft requirement, which is about 6.25%

3:25:08that's what's requested for each of the

3:25:10lots lot 1A and B, 2A and B, 3A and B as

3:25:14well 4A and B for lot 4 which is the

3:25:16furthest to the plan north um

3:25:19that specifically those two lots for

3:25:224A and 4B both have requests for lot

3:25:24area. So for 4A that's a request for 422

3:25:27square feet of relief from the 5,000

3:25:29square foot minimum lot area requirement

3:25:31and for

3:25:33lot 4B that request is for 452 square

3:25:37feet about 9% of the 5,000 square foot

3:25:40requirement.

3:25:41Fire rate development alternatives would

3:25:43include maintaining the structures as

3:25:45they exist today

3:25:47or alternatively for reduction and

3:25:49relief they could look at reconfiguring

3:25:51the lot area for

3:25:53lots 4A and B to try to jog the lot

3:25:56lines in a way to get additional lot

3:25:58area.

3:25:59The applicants indicated you know it's

3:26:00not feasible to do that without

3:26:01potentially creating other zoning

3:26:03violations I believe in their response

3:26:05to staff comments. We have made some

3:26:07notes here about other conditions to

3:26:08expect related to the subsequent

3:26:10processes that are necessary which

3:26:12include a frontage subdivision process

3:26:14with the planning board were this board

3:26:16to approve the relief. We did make note

3:26:18that this is in a managed growth area in

3:26:20now next due to the

3:26:22um

3:26:23Boylston Street corridor here

3:26:26specifically within about 250 feet of a

3:26:29bus stop and the area to the north is

3:26:31mostly single family dwellings but the

3:26:34the corridor itself has a variety of of

3:26:36different uses in this particular area

3:26:38kind of across the street includes

3:26:39actually some more commercial and

3:26:41manufacturing relic manufacturing uses

3:26:44while this this section of street

3:26:45generally trends to be residential with

3:26:47some more mixed use components including

3:26:50the neighboring property to the south.

3:26:52Um

3:26:53happy to answer questions we identified

3:26:54no waivers but again variance here so

3:26:57would recommend that you go through the

3:26:58updated findings the applicant did

3:27:00provide those

3:27:02and those are incorporated in this

3:27:03particular memo. So, you have those

3:27:05within the staff memo um

3:27:08that have been included. Um so, you

3:27:09don't have that as a separate sheet. So,

3:27:11just calling that that is embedded. It's

3:27:13on pages uh three and four of the staff

3:27:15comments.

3:27:17>> Okay.

3:27:17>> Thank you.

3:27:18>> So, yep. Is anybody here for 23 or 37

3:27:21Boylston Street? Through 23 through 37

3:27:25Boylston Street.

3:27:26Anybody online?

3:27:28Okay. Um let's handle I have a couple

3:27:30thoughts. Uh the first is that this is

3:27:31pretty straightforward. These are um

3:27:33this is things that have already been

3:27:35built and they're just trying to divide

3:27:37it so they can sell it. Easy peasy.

3:27:39Happy to do that. Um for the um for the

3:27:43board, we have been given um answers to

3:27:47the new finding of facts um based on the

3:27:50variances since these are all variances.

3:27:52This is very long and detailed. I did

3:27:54have a chance to read it. Um if the

3:27:56board feels like they have not had

3:27:58enough time to consider it, um I think

3:28:00we can ask the applicant to read it into

3:28:02the record, but considering how um this

3:28:05is straightforward and that we um that

3:28:08uh we have had time to look at it since

3:28:10then. Um I feel comfortable moving

3:28:12forward without reading it into the

3:28:14record since it is

3:28:15given to us and we've had time. If you

3:28:17feel otherwise, please state so. Um

3:28:20okay. So, I'm happy to vote yes. I think

3:28:22it's straightforward, but um if you feel

3:28:24like you want the statement of facts

3:28:25based on the new zoning requirements for

3:28:27variance, please let me know. Um board

3:28:29member Bromas.

3:28:30>> Uh I agree um and I've had a chance to

3:28:33peruse the uh

3:28:34the new uh findings of facts and I'm

3:28:37okay not uh reading it out loud.

3:28:40>> Board member Morame.

3:28:42>> Um same with me. Um no further comments

3:28:45and I'll I'll be okay to approve.

3:28:47>> Board member Tarcona.

3:28:49>> I'm good.

3:28:51>> Board member Bart Hagan.

3:28:52>> Through the chair, I've also had a

3:28:53chance to read the new um standards and

3:28:57I'm I'm happy to um

3:29:00move forward with this

3:29:02um as is.

3:29:04>> Okay. In that case, I'll take a motion

3:29:06to close.

3:29:08>> I'd like to make a motion to close on 23

3:29:10through 37 Boylston Street.

3:29:12>> Second.

3:29:13>> On the motion to close, Board member

3:29:14Abramov?

3:29:15>> Yes.

3:29:15>> Board member Morelli?

3:29:16>> Yes.

3:29:17>> Board member Turkana?

3:29:19>> Yes.

3:29:20>> Board member Bart Hagan?

3:29:21>> Yes.

3:29:21>> My vote's yes. Is there a motion on Is

3:29:23there a lot of motions?

3:29:25>> [laughter]

3:29:25>> I think I can do this.

3:29:27Uh

3:29:28I like to make a motion on 23 through 37

3:29:30Boylston Street for approval of a

3:29:33variance for 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35,

3:29:38and 37 all have the same variance, which

3:29:41was for relief of 2.5 ft from the 40-ft

3:29:43minimum frontage requirement for a

3:29:45single-family semi-detached dwelling use

3:29:47in a BL-1 zone.

3:29:49And in addition, for 35 Boylston Street

3:29:52specifically, a variance for relief of

3:29:54422 sq ft from the 5,000 sq ft minimum

3:29:58lot area requirement for a single-family

3:30:00semi-detached dwelling use in a BL-1

3:30:02zone. And for 37 Boylston Street

3:30:05specifically, another variance for

3:30:07relief of 452 sq ft from the 5,000 sq ft

3:30:11minimum lot area requirement for a

3:30:12single-family semi-detached dwelling use

3:30:15in a BL-1 zone, and there are no

3:30:16waivers.

3:30:17>> Is there a second?

3:30:18>> Second.

3:30:19>> On the motion, Board member Abramov?

3:30:21>> Yes.

3:30:21>> Board member Morelli?

3:30:22>> Yes.

3:30:23>> Board member Turkana?

3:30:25>> Yes.

3:30:25>> Board member Bart Hagan?

3:30:26>> Yes.

3:30:27>> My vote's yes.

3:30:27>> Thank you very much.

3:30:28>> Thank you very much.

3:30:30>> All right. Next up is 15 Westboro

3:30:32Street.

3:30:37>> So, through the chair, um I do not see

3:30:40the applicant here for this item.

3:30:43>> Okay.

3:30:44>> Um

3:30:45I'd refer to Michelle Smith on protocol,

3:30:48but I think we can

3:30:49>> 15 Westboro Street.

3:30:51>> We will skip it and the people chance

3:30:54>> I wouldn't know why no honey.

3:30:57>> We'll get people a chance to

3:31:00make their way here.

3:31:02And if not, we'll just continue it.

3:31:06Unless we should just continue it

3:31:07because it's late.

3:31:07>> Through the chair, so it's a request for

3:31:09an extension of time. So if you don't

3:31:10act on it, the approval will lapse. Um

3:31:12>> Okay, well the the the city the they

3:31:15don't have to be here to do a statement

3:31:16of fact. We can

3:31:17>> state Well, given it's just an

3:31:18extension, you're not even voting on the

3:31:20findings. You're just deciding whether

3:31:21or not you give them 6 months. So I I

3:31:23think if you're I think the applicant

3:31:26would prefer for you to take it up than

3:31:27have their approval lapse.

3:31:28>> The city staff.

3:31:30>> All right, perfect. So this is an

3:31:31extension of time

3:31:33um from a for 15 Westboro Street.

3:31:39Um

3:31:40This is a

3:31:42an existing

3:31:45Well, presently on premise is a

3:31:46pre-existing non-conforming two-family

3:31:48dwelling with a detached garage.

3:31:52It looks like this.

3:31:53Um and the applicant had sought relief

3:31:55to divide the property into two lots and

3:31:57construct a single-family dwelling with

3:31:59an accessory dwelling unit and

3:32:01associated parking on the newly created

3:32:04lot.

3:32:06Like this.

3:32:07Um the original relief was granted on

3:32:11June 2nd, 2025 and certified with the

3:32:14clerk's office on June 24th of 2025.

3:32:18Um so the extension into of time Oh,

3:32:22sorry. I apologize. It the relief was

3:32:25for the existing lot was a variance for

3:32:27relief of 16 ft from the 20-ft uh

3:32:30minimum side yard setback requirements

3:32:32for a two-family dwelling in an RS7, a

3:32:35variance for relief of two parking

3:32:37spaces from the minimum four-space

3:32:40parking requirements for a two-family

3:32:42dwelling, and a special permit to modify

3:32:44the parking and dimensional layout and

3:32:46or landscaping or loading requirements

3:32:48and our number of required parking

3:32:50spaces, which was for the parking

3:32:53setback.

3:32:54Um

3:32:57which was for the buffer between the

3:33:00existing parcel and the neighbor's

3:33:02parcel to plan north. Um and then there

3:33:05was one variance for the proposed lot

3:33:07for relief of 679 square feet from the

3:33:11minimum 7,000 square foot lot area. Um

3:33:16this

3:33:19parcel was also never officially divided

3:33:22through the planning board. Um so once

3:33:25they get this extension of time, their

3:33:27next step would be to officially divide

3:33:29the parcel also through the A&R process.

3:33:33Um so for the new expiration dates, oh

3:33:36the other

3:33:37Sorry, one more thing I forgot is that

3:33:39the special permit could have been

3:33:42administratively extended through

3:33:44inspectional services and I don't

3:33:46believe that that was requested. Um so

3:33:49we will make sure that the applicant is

3:33:51aware that moving forward, should they

3:33:52choose to extend further if needed, they

3:33:56should be seeking that approval first

3:33:58through inspectional services before

3:34:00asking for the extension of time through

3:34:02the zoning board.

3:34:03Um so now new expiration dates for the

3:34:06special permit would be a year, which

3:34:08would be June 24th, 2027 and for the

3:34:11variance would be 6 months, which would

3:34:13be December 24th, 2026.

3:34:18>> Uh

3:34:19is anybody here for 15 Westboro Street?

3:34:22Guess that was the problem. Anybody

3:34:24online?

3:34:25Okay. Um I'm happy to move it forward.

3:34:29Is anybody else? Uh board member

3:34:30Bramhall?

3:34:31>> Um

3:34:32I agree.

3:34:33>> Board member Bramhall?

3:34:34>> Yes.

3:34:35>> Board member uh Bart Hegan?

3:34:37>> Agree.

3:34:38>> Board member Turkena?

3:34:39>> Agree.

3:34:41>> Great, I'll take a motion to close.

3:34:42>> Uh I'd like to make a motion to close on

3:34:4415 Westboro Street.

3:34:46>> Second.

3:34:47>> On the motion to close, board member

3:34:48Bramow?

3:34:48>> Yes.

3:34:49>> Board member Marame?

3:34:50>> Yes.

3:34:50>> Board member Turcotte?

3:34:52>> Yes.

3:34:53>> Board member Bartigan?

3:34:54>> Yes.

3:34:54>> My vote's yes. Is there a motion?

3:34:56>> I'd like to make a motion on 15 Westboro

3:34:58Street for an extension of time such

3:35:00that the new expiration date on all

3:35:02special permit for all these special

3:35:03permit um will be extended to June 24th,

3:35:062027. That's 1 year. And for the

3:35:09variances as were earlier requested for

3:35:116 months with a new expiration date of

3:35:13December 24th, 2026.

3:35:15>> Second.

3:35:17>> On the motion, board member Bramow?

3:35:18>> Yes.

3:35:19>> Board member Marame?

3:35:20>> Yes.

3:35:20>> Board member Turcotte?

3:35:22>> Yes.

3:35:22>> My uh board member Bartigan?

3:35:24>> Yes.

3:35:24>> My vote's yes. Thank you very much.

3:35:26Next up is number 11, 104 Eastern

3:35:29Avenue. If the applicant please come

3:35:30forward, state your name and city of

3:35:32town of residence.

3:35:33>> Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the

3:35:34board. For the record, Mark Borenstein,

3:35:35I'm an attorney at the law firm of

3:35:36Princevalle here in Worcester

3:35:37representing the applicant, Excellent

3:35:39Investments Corp. Uh we have a simple

3:35:41application before you this evening

3:35:42which is a special permit to modify um

3:35:45certain parking requirements associated

3:35:47with parking within the front boundary

3:35:50and to exceed the maximum um

3:35:52impervious surface in the front yard

3:35:54associated with the proposed

3:35:55three-family at 104 Eastern Ave.

3:35:59Um we do have some modifications to

3:36:00staff's recommended conditions of

3:36:01approval which I'm sure staff will

3:36:03review.

3:36:04Uh through those modifications, we would

3:36:05also include a request to add to the

3:36:09suite of relief to provide relief for

3:36:11the landscaping requirements. Um we

3:36:14would respectfully request the waiver as

3:36:15recommended by staff. Thanks.

3:36:18>> City staff.

3:36:19>> Through the chair, Michelle Smatt again

3:36:20in the city's planning division. So, the

3:36:22applicant's in front of you for a

3:36:23request for a special permit to modify

3:36:25parking loading layout requirements as

3:36:27well as landscaping requirements. This

3:36:29is an RG-5 zoning district. Um they are

3:36:31looking to construct a three-family

3:36:33dwelling with six spaces on what is

3:36:35presently a partially paved lot. Um

3:36:38they are um

3:36:41We We do have conditions of approval

3:36:42that are outlined on page four, which I

3:36:44have some suggested modifications to

3:36:47um

3:36:48in terms of the specifics of the special

3:36:50permit. Uh the request is to allow two

3:36:53parking spaces within the first 25 ft.

3:36:55Um so we basically don't allow parking

3:36:57within the first 25 ft in residential

3:36:59areas. Um they're looking to have two

3:37:01parking spaces extended to that area. So

3:37:03they're seeking your relief from that

3:37:04department. They're also looking to

3:37:06exceed the 50% maximum impervious

3:37:08threshold for an RG5 zone. They're

3:37:10proposing what is about 62.2%

3:37:14impervious. Um

3:37:16And then finally, the applicant has

3:37:17verbally requested in addition to

3:37:19include the southern side lot line um in

3:37:23the requirement specifically to strictly

3:37:24comply with the landscape requirements

3:37:26for that location including trees

3:37:28um along that setback. They have the

3:37:305-ft buffer, but there is not the

3:37:32required landscaping located in that

3:37:34area. Um so they're asking for that in

3:37:37addition. I just called attention cuz

3:37:38that is not included in the comments

3:37:40that staff provided. Um given um

3:37:44the location, there are a variety of um

3:37:46multi-family uses, two-family uses,

3:37:48single-family uses within that vicinity.

3:37:51Uh this is also within a managed growth

3:37:52area and within walk shed to transit

3:37:54about uh just under a quarter mile uh

3:37:57walk. The project does need site plan

3:37:59review from the planning board given the

3:38:00slope and the steepness of the property.

3:38:03Um

3:38:04and we do have conditions of approval,

3:38:06like I said, that are recommended on

3:38:08page four. Um we are asking for the

3:38:10applicant to comply with the landscape

3:38:12requirements related to shrubs. Um so

3:38:15we've talked a bit and would like to

3:38:16make adjustments to condition A to say

3:38:18provide shrubs um along the southern and

3:38:23northern side of the proposed parking

3:38:25facility. Uh I'll let the applicant

3:38:27comment on their rationale for that. Um

3:38:30the requirement would be otherwise

3:38:31strictly to have trees every 25 ft on

3:38:33center, which equates to three

3:38:35additional trees on the southern lot

3:38:37lines. They'd be looking to deviate from

3:38:39that requirement. Um and we have also

3:38:41requested some uh one additional shade

3:38:43tree basically to help screen the two

3:38:45additional parking spaces that are being

3:38:47proposed in the front yard. So, another

3:38:49uh tree to help screen that from the

3:38:51street. Um

3:38:53that aligns with our our subdivision

3:38:55regulations in terms of the size. Uh I

3:38:57know the applicant's preference would be

3:38:58to not do that. Um and I'll let them

3:39:01speak to that. Um but staff would

3:39:02recommend that you keep that uh given

3:39:04that there are already three other trees

3:39:06that would be required um and uh are not

3:39:09being provided

3:39:10on the lot. Um and then otherwise we're

3:39:13asking them to adjust some of the

3:39:14materials um

3:39:16for their walkway to be different from

3:39:18the surfacing and material of the

3:39:20driveway

3:39:21um and reconcile some of the other

3:39:23pieces in the plan. They're proposing to

3:39:24remove the chain link fence. Um and

3:39:27otherwise those are standard conditions.

3:39:28There are two waivers that we identified

3:39:31um on on the plans that would need to be

3:39:33granted.

3:39:35Happy to answer questions. Thanks.

3:39:37>> So, Mr. Chair, if I may just uh

3:39:39elaborate on Ms. Smith's comments with

3:39:41respect to 1A, we are amenable to her

3:39:43requested um suggested change, which

3:39:46would provide uh provide shrubs along

3:39:49the southern side of the proposed

3:39:50parking facility and provide shrubs on

3:39:52the northern side of the parking

3:39:53facility. We'd strike the remaining

3:39:56portion of that

3:39:57um cuz we're not providing trees on um

3:40:00the southerly portion anymore. Um

3:40:02specifically, the concern is there's a

3:40:05there's limited uh width in between the

3:40:07property line and the existing um

3:40:10residential building at 100 Eastern Ave.

3:40:12So, there's concerns about putting trees

3:40:14adjacent to that building. In addition,

3:40:15there's a proposed retaining wall. So,

3:40:17we don't want roots built uh growing

3:40:19into the into the retaining wall that

3:40:20could cause an issue in the future. So,

3:40:22that's the proposed modification of 1A.

3:40:24With respect to 1B,

3:40:26uh we would prefer not to include an

3:40:28additional shade tree where recommended

3:40:30by staff simply because there is a

3:40:32limited amount of space for snow storage

3:40:33on site. It's

3:40:35a six

3:40:36car parking facility and so we do

3:40:39require that that area for snow storage.

3:40:42So what we are suggesting in the

3:40:44alternative is reflect one additional

3:40:46shade tree

3:40:47um

3:40:50along the southerly boundary of the

3:40:53proposed parking facility. So you'll see

3:40:54that there's a parking there's a one

3:40:56tree in the southeasterly corner of the

3:40:59site. We propose a tree just next next

3:41:01door to that tree right there in lieu of

3:41:03the one recommended by staff in the

3:41:05middle of our snow storage facility.

3:41:07Um

3:41:09and happy to answer any questions the

3:41:10board may have. Thank you.

3:41:12>> Is anybody here for 104 Eastern Avenue?

3:41:15Okay, is anybody online?

3:41:19All right. Um

3:41:20I am I'm actually really excited about

3:41:22this. I think this is a good place for

3:41:24some housing so I don't want to lose the

3:41:26forest through the trees so to speak and

3:41:28um say that I think this is a good

3:41:30project. It's a really good place for

3:41:32it.

3:41:33Um and so I'm excited that there's going

3:41:34to be housing here.

3:41:36Um and uh that being said for the reason

3:41:39I'm I'm amenable to the applicant's

3:41:42requests for changes on 1A and um to

3:41:47make sure we get the tree and so to make

3:41:49the change on the location for 1B. Um

3:41:52but I'm open to the board pushing back

3:41:54and um your thoughts about that. Um but

3:41:57as a overall I think this is a great

3:41:58project. I'm happy to help move forward.

3:42:01>> Board member Bramhall.

3:42:02>> Yeah, I don't have any problem with

3:42:03this. Just to be clear um 1A is to

3:42:06change to provide um shrubs along the

3:42:09southern and northerly side of the

3:42:11proposed parking area and um 1B is

3:42:15reflect one additional shade tree along

3:42:17the southerly boundary. Is that correct?

3:42:20>> Correct.

3:42:21>> I have no problem with this.

3:42:23>> Okay.

3:42:24Uh

3:42:24board member Marame

3:42:26>> No further comments.

3:42:28>> Uh board member Torcano

3:42:37>> I have no comment.

3:42:40>> Board member Bartegan

3:42:42>> Through the chair, I just want to

3:42:43acknowledge that there has been a

3:42:45neighbor comment that is in the and I

3:42:49appreciate the concern. The thing I like

3:42:52about this is the it won't the parking

3:42:54is provided for. So um while you know,

3:42:59there will be an increase in some

3:43:01density because it's not being used now

3:43:03for anything and but you know, and I do

3:43:06acknowledge that the Bell Hill area some

3:43:08of those streets are extremely narrow. I

3:43:10had to wait for a garbage truck to go by

3:43:13when I was looking at it. But I don't

3:43:15think

3:43:16I mean unless we're going to let this

3:43:18lay fallow, this is the kind of thing

3:43:19that we need to

3:43:21encourage. And if this was something

3:43:23different where there would be where you

3:43:25would be requiring the residents to have

3:43:26off-street parking, that would be

3:43:27something different. But that's I just

3:43:29wanted to make that comment with this.

3:43:31Otherwise, I'm fine.

3:43:33>> Okay. I I totally agree by the way as

3:43:35well. Yeah, I think that's right. It's

3:43:37parking's on site. There's a lot of

3:43:39great place. It's otherwise not being

3:43:41used. It's a really good usage of the

3:43:43land. Totally agree.

3:43:45Um okay, in that case, I will take a

3:43:47motion to close.

3:43:49>> I'd like to make a motion to close on

3:43:50104 Eastern Avenue.

3:43:52>> Second.

3:43:53>> On the motion to close, board member

3:43:54Abramoff

3:43:55>> Yes.

3:43:56>> Board member Marame

3:43:57>> Yes.

3:43:57>> Board member Torcano

3:43:59>> Yes.

3:44:00>> Board member Bartegan

3:44:01>> Yes.

3:44:01>> My vote's yes. Is there a motion on 104

3:44:03Eastern Avenue?

3:44:04>> I'd like to make a motion on 104 Eastern

3:44:06Avenue for approval of a special permit

3:44:08to modify the parking dimensional layout

3:44:10and or landscaping requirements, loading

3:44:12requirements, and of the number of

3:44:13required parking spaces subject to the

3:44:17uh of approval set out on page four of

3:44:19seven of the staff memo with uh

3:44:21conditions 1A and 1B modified as

3:44:24previously stated and the waivers as

3:44:26requested by the applicant.

3:44:28>> Is there a second?

3:44:30>> Second.

3:44:31>> On the motion, board member Bramoff?

3:44:33>> Yes.

3:44:34>> Board member Many?

3:44:34>> Yes.

3:44:35>> Board member Turco?

3:44:37>> Yes.

3:44:37>> Board member Bartigan?

3:44:38>> Yes.

3:44:39>> My vote's yes. Thank you very much.

3:44:42Um next up is 27 and 35 Chandler Street

3:44:46and 47 through 53 Urban Street.

3:44:50>> If the applicant could please come

3:44:50forward, state your name and city or

3:44:52town of residence.

3:44:56>> Good evening.

3:44:57Um my name is Sam Elfradi. I'm with Sole

3:44:59Engineering. I'm a civil engineer in the

3:45:00Commonwealth.

3:45:02Um

3:45:03I'm here um with the applicant Tom

3:45:04Corbett with Go Venture Capital Group.

3:45:07Um they're a local Worcester developer.

3:45:09Um

3:45:10So, we're here before you for

3:45:12a 74-unit um

3:45:15five-story um development on the corner

3:45:18of Chandler and Irving Street. Um

3:45:20and we're here specifically um for a

3:45:22front yard setback variance

3:45:24um request. So, it's it's just under a

3:45:260.4-acre lot. We're in the business

3:45:28general 6.0 um zoning district. We are

3:45:31also in the commercial um area

3:45:33revitalization revitalization district

3:45:36and the CCOD

3:45:38um downtown area district.

3:45:43So, the the site plan before you um so,

3:45:47the reason why

3:45:48the district actually doesn't have a

3:45:50front setback, but we are proposing

3:45:52residential units on the first on the

3:45:53ground level um and that triggers that

3:45:555-ft front setback. So, we are proposing

3:45:58a 1-ft um setback along Chandler Street

3:46:01and then a 1.5-ft setback along Irving

3:46:03Street. Um

3:46:05and we did provide um responses to the

3:46:08updated findings of fact this afternoon,

3:46:11um which I can go through them when the

3:46:12time comes. Um

3:46:15but that's that's generally um

3:46:19the proposal here. We do have the floor

3:46:21plans and elevations as well as some

3:46:23renderings that we can go through.

3:46:25Um

3:46:26happy to answer any questions you might

3:46:28have or or

3:46:30um

3:46:30go into the findings of fact, too.

3:46:32>> Okay. Uh city staff?

3:46:34>> Through the chair, Michelle Smith again

3:46:35in city's planning division. In front of

3:46:37you a request for a variance for 4 ft of

3:46:39relief from the 5-ft minimum front yard

3:46:41setback for a building with a ground

3:46:43floor residential use in the CCD.

3:46:46Uh the board's familiar with this

3:46:47requirement where we have uh ground

3:46:49floor residential, we're trying to

3:46:50create a a setback for privacy through

3:46:53the regulations. Um the board has seen

3:46:55this a number of times for existing

3:46:56buildings and proposed buildings. So,

3:46:58the applicant's seeking relief in that

3:47:00regard. In terms of by right options,

3:47:01they could eliminate the 10 dwelling

3:47:03units that they have on the ground floor

3:47:05and reconfigure those either distribute

3:47:07them on the upper stories or eliminate

3:47:08them entirely, and then they would be

3:47:10able to um proceed with a 0-ft setback.

3:47:12Similarly, they could um accommodate

3:47:15those elsewhere and increase the size of

3:47:16the building to get additional space for

3:47:19those units to be shifted um or adjust

3:47:21the footprint of the building to meet

3:47:23that 5-ft requirement. Um

3:47:25this is a variance, so we have no

3:47:26recommendations as to conditions. Um the

3:47:29applicant did provide uh revised

3:47:31findings which are included in the staff

3:47:33memo in this case. Uh we did not

3:47:35identify any waivers that are necessary.

3:47:37The applicant will require site plan

3:47:39review. The property's located in a

3:47:41transformative growth area within the

3:47:43kind of fringe of the downtown and along

3:47:45the Chandler Street corridor. Um

3:47:48this is a mixed-use vision uh which is

3:47:50in line with a lot of the character of

3:47:51the existing area in terms of uh the

3:47:55various different uh mixed uses that you

3:47:57see along the the area. Uh further to

3:47:59the northwest, uh you have the Crown

3:48:02Hill local historic district which you

3:48:03can see on some of the maps that we've

3:48:05provided here where things transition to

3:48:07be a bit more residential in nature. Um

3:48:10This is very walkable in the urban core.

3:48:13Um less than 1/4 mile walk to bus stops

3:48:16and well served on a variety of

3:48:17different youths

3:48:19routes, excuse me.

3:48:21Um we have some comments that we gave

3:48:22the applicant just a heads up as part of

3:48:24the site plan review process. Um but

3:48:26beyond that, um they're not proposing

3:48:28any parking or loading not required by

3:48:30the ordinance because of the location in

3:48:32the the downtown, uh where we don't have

3:48:34parking requirements in the city.

3:48:36Um ultimately the alignment we think is

3:48:38in um character with the surrounding uh

3:48:40area. Uh there were previously

3:48:42structures on the property that were

3:48:44essentially up to a zero or similar

3:48:46setback, including a a building with

3:48:48similar massing, which unfortunately has

3:48:50been demolished. Which was a former

3:48:51laundry historic building um that has

3:48:54been lost. The historic commission

3:48:55denied authorization of demolition, but

3:48:57it was subsequently demolished. Um as

3:48:59well as that single story building that

3:49:01if you looked at the images you'll see

3:49:02on the the ground floor. Um so certainly

3:49:05keeps in line with the design guidelines

3:49:06in terms of establishing and continuing

3:49:08the street wall along this particular

3:49:11section of Chandler Street. Um happy to

3:49:14answer any questions the board members

3:49:16have. Um thank you.

3:49:20>> Uh is anybody here

3:49:22for 27-35 Chandler Street and 47-53

3:49:25Armory Street?

3:49:27Is anybody online?

3:49:29Okay. Um I'm I'm uh this is uh I think

3:49:34putting a building

3:49:36um in line with the rest of the

3:49:39buildings makes sense to me. Um

3:49:42I think this is uh going to be This is a

3:49:45place in need of something. Um and so

3:49:48putting some housing there and

3:49:49revitalizing some of that area will be

3:49:52great. I especially like

3:49:54putting housing here. Um and I think the

3:49:56building looks in line with um it looks

3:49:59like a classic building, which I'm

3:50:00actually really excited about.

3:50:02So, I'm happy to vote for this

3:50:04considering

3:50:06all of those. Just as a reminder for

3:50:09the board, this is a variance, so we

3:50:13either have to vote for it up or down.

3:50:15And I have had time to look at the that

3:50:18is included in the staff memo, the new

3:50:20requirements and consideration for for

3:50:24the zoning relief. If you need us to

3:50:26read it into the record, please let me

3:50:28know when we go through the or comments,

3:50:30but I'm happy to see the responses. And

3:50:34I'll just say really quickly

3:50:36the overarching need for housing. I

3:50:39think

3:50:40definitely is met by this unit by this

3:50:43building. I think it meets and so

3:50:45requiring allowing is zoning variance

3:50:49based on that makes a lot of sense for

3:50:51me to bring this otherwise abandoned

3:50:53property into into usage. Additionally,

3:50:57it's currently a place

3:50:59where there is

3:51:02like dumping and other things that

3:51:03aren't great for the neighborhood. And

3:51:05this is actually going to really improve

3:51:06the safety and public health of the

3:51:08neighborhood because it's going to take

3:51:09up

3:51:11a place where people are dumping and and

3:51:13other sorts of things that aren't great

3:51:14for this for the neighborhood, which I'm

3:51:16not far away. I drive by here every day

3:51:18and bring it into having lived people

3:51:21living with it. And it really matches

3:51:23also what's happening on Chandler Street

3:51:24a little bit up. We've revitalized two

3:51:26other older buildings. So, I think it'll

3:51:28be nice. So, I think that meets the

3:51:30variance, but again, if you want to read

3:51:32into the record, please let me know. And

3:51:34with that, board member Avermouth.

3:51:35>> Yeah, thank you through the chair. I'm

3:51:37happy not reading that into the record.

3:51:40I reviewed it.

3:51:42And I agree with you and support this

3:51:44project.

3:51:46>> Board member Remi.

3:51:48>> I agree as well. I think it's a

3:51:49beautiful project and a beautiful

3:51:51addition to the neighborhood, so I would

3:51:53say yes.

3:51:55>> Board member Board member Turco.

3:51:58>> I love it

3:51:59>> and I'm for it.

3:52:02>> Board member, um, board member Hagen.

3:52:04>> Through the chair, yeah, I've also read

3:52:06through the new factors for decision and

3:52:09I I agree that it meets them. This is

3:52:12going to be a great project. This

3:52:13neighborhood surely needs something like

3:52:15this. Um, and it it's a perfect use for

3:52:20what is now not being used at all. So, I

3:52:22think it does like like the chair was

3:52:23saying it it it meets these factors

3:52:25because it improves the health, welfare

3:52:27and safety of the neighborhood and it it

3:52:29adds much needed housing in this area.

3:52:31So.

3:52:33>> In that case, I will take a motion to

3:52:35close.

3:52:37>> I'd like to make a motion to close on 27

3:52:39to 35 Chandler Street and 47 to 53

3:52:42Irving Street.

3:52:43>> Second.

3:52:44>> On the motion to close, board member

3:52:45Abramov.

3:52:47>> My vote is yes.

3:52:48>> Board member Mereminsky.

3:52:49>> Yes.

3:52:49>> Board member Turcona.

3:52:51>> Yes.

3:52:52>> Board member Barhagan.

3:52:52>> Yes.

3:52:53>> My vote's yes.

3:52:54Is there a motion on 27-35

3:52:57Chandler Street and 47 to 53 Irving

3:52:59Street?

3:53:00>> I'd like to make a motion for 27-35

3:53:03Chandler Street and 43-47 to 53 Irving

3:53:05Street for approval of a variance for

3:53:07relief of 4 ft from the 5-ft minimum

3:53:10front yard setback requirement for a

3:53:12building with ground floor residential

3:53:13units in the CCOD.

3:53:16There are no waivers.

3:53:18>> Is there a second?

3:53:19>> Second.

3:53:20>> On the motion, board [clears throat]

3:53:21member Abramov.

3:53:22>> Yes.

3:53:23>> Board member Mereminsky.

3:53:24>> Yes.

3:53:24>> Board member Turcona.

3:53:27>> Yes.

3:53:27>> Board member Barhagan.

3:53:28>> Yes.

3:53:29>> My vote's yes. Thank you very much.

3:53:31>> Thank you.

3:53:32>> Thank you very much.

3:53:33>> I like the design.

3:53:34>> Yeah. Yeah, it's a really great design.

3:53:36Thank you.

3:53:36>> city.

3:53:38>> Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I'm actually excited.

3:53:40We get a lot of terrible designs. So,

3:53:41this one's actually I was like generally

3:53:44excited about it.

3:53:47>> I like the display between the two

3:53:49streets.

3:53:50>> Yeah.

3:53:50>> It's a very

3:53:51>> building.

3:53:51>> It does look like a nice corner. Yeah.

3:53:53>> Last but not least.

3:53:56>> Um next up is number 1 Frederick Street.

3:53:58Um if the applicant please come forward,

3:54:00say your name and state your attendance

3:54:01present for the record.

3:54:03>> Uh

3:54:04for the record, Donald O'Neal. I'm the

3:54:06lawyer here in Worcester. I'm here this

3:54:07evening on behalf of Tiffany Nguyen.

3:54:10Uh to request an extension of the relief

3:54:14granted uh

3:54:16last year

3:54:17uh for uh frontage relief um

3:54:22parking relief and a special permit for

3:54:24parking relief as well.

3:54:27This is lot has actually frontage on

3:54:30Frederick Street and Henchman Street.

3:54:33Previously, it's a sort of a

3:54:35reconfiguration. There's it at least two

3:54:37and possibly three

3:54:39lots that went into that configuration.

3:54:42Uh but basically, it provides for the

3:54:44parking

3:54:45on Henchman Street uh

3:54:47and entrance and then sort of the middle

3:54:51of the parcel and with frontage of the

3:54:53building on uh Frederick Street. So,

3:54:55just here to

3:54:57get a uh both

3:54:59this work is going to require an

3:55:00extension of the sewers in

3:55:05uh

3:55:06Henchman Street and Frederick Street, I

3:55:07believe, so that the

3:55:09uh additional time is needed to get um

3:55:13the approval for the extension of um

3:55:15the sewers.

3:55:17>> Okay.

3:55:19City staff?

3:55:20>> As stated, this is an extension of time.

3:55:22Uh

3:55:24this is presently on premise, it's a

3:55:28there's a foundation poured in order to

3:55:30construct a three-family dwelling, and

3:55:32the applicant seeks to modify the

3:55:33three-family design to create eight

3:55:35total units in order to convert the

3:55:37structure to multi-family high-rise

3:55:39dwelling.

3:55:40Uh it's located in the RG-5 zone. Uh the

3:55:43relief that was granted was a variance

3:55:46for relief of 24 feet from the 85-foot

3:55:49minimum fronted requirements for the

3:55:51multi-family dwelling high-rise in the

3:55:52RG5, a variance for relief of six

3:55:55parking spaces from the 16-space minimum

3:55:58requirement for a multi-family dwelling,

3:56:01and to modify parking dimensional layout

3:56:04and or landscaping, loading

3:56:05requirements, and or the number of

3:56:07parking spaces, and under that special

3:56:09permit, it was the parking location and

3:56:13layout as the parking facilities uh

3:56:19were not set back 5 feet. Um at the

3:56:22narrowest point, the applicant proposed

3:56:24a 2.6-foot

3:56:26wide buffer from the driveway to the

3:56:28property line.

3:56:30And the provided buffer area was also

3:56:34not landscaped in accordance in

3:56:36accordance with the zoning requirements.

3:56:39Um

3:56:40also the parking location and

3:56:41dimensional requirements that drive

3:56:43aisles where there's 90° parking shall

3:56:47be 24 feet, and the applicant is

3:56:49providing 22 feet.

3:56:51And then for the driveway width, uh

3:56:55the applicant is proposing an 18-foot

3:56:58curb cut, and then the

3:57:00and then the driveway narrows to 16.8

3:57:03feet

3:57:04um past the parallel spaces before

3:57:06widening to the 24-foot

3:57:10preferred

3:57:12width.

3:57:13Um this

3:57:15This relief was also granted on the June

3:57:172nd, 2025 meeting and filed with the

3:57:20clerk on June 24th. So, as

3:57:24again, same as our last case for the

3:57:27special permit that can or could have

3:57:30been administratively extended through

3:57:32Inspectional Services. We don't believe

3:57:33that was requested, so for future

3:57:37extensions, the applicant should first

3:57:41ask for the extension through

3:57:42Inspectional Services before coming

3:57:44through to us. Um

3:57:47and for those new deadlines for the

3:57:50special permit to be extended a year,

3:57:52the year would be June 24th, 2027.

3:57:55And for the variances,

3:57:57uh there would be a 6-month extension

3:57:59and that is December 24th, 2026.

3:58:03>> Um as there's no one else here for 1

3:58:05Frederick Street, is there anybody

3:58:07online?

3:58:09Okay. Um I'm happy to move this forward.

3:58:11Um

3:58:12is there any board comment?

3:58:15>> No comment.

3:58:16>> Uh board member Torcono?

3:58:20>> No comment.

3:58:21>> Okay. In that case, I'll take a motion

3:58:23to close.

3:58:23>> I'd like to make a motion to close on 1

3:58:25Frederick Street.

3:58:26>> Second.

3:58:26>> On the motion to close, board member

3:58:28Abramoff?

3:58:28>> Yes.

3:58:29>> Board member Maremi?

3:58:30>> Yes.

3:58:30>> Board member Torcono?

3:58:32>> Yes.

3:58:33>> Board member Bartegan?

3:58:33>> Yes.

3:58:34>> My vote's yes. Is there a motion?

3:58:36>> I'd like to make a motion on 1 Frederick

3:58:37Street for an extension of time for

3:58:39previously granted special permit for a

3:58:41period of 1 year to June 24th, 2027 and

3:58:44extension of time to the previously

3:58:46granted variances for 6 months until

3:58:50December 24th, 2026.

3:58:52>> Second.

3:58:53>> On the motion, board member Abramoff?

3:58:55>> Yes.

3:58:56>> Board member Maremi?

3:58:57>> Yes.

3:58:58>> Board member Torcono?

3:58:59>> Yes.

3:59:00>> Board member Bartegan?

3:59:01>> Yes.

3:59:01>> My vote's yes.

3:59:03All right. Next up is a scrivener's

3:59:06error decision. Um Amy Beth, what do we

3:59:08need to do? I forgot what we need to do

3:59:10for that.

3:59:11>> Yep, so I can explain the scrivener's

3:59:13error that occurred. Um if you all will

3:59:17then vote that you agree that it was a

3:59:19scrivener's error, um I will send the

3:59:25scrivener's decision through DocuSign to

3:59:27you all tomorrow and you can sign off on

3:59:29that. Um and then we can file this

3:59:33decision, the scrivener's decision, with

3:59:35the original decision with the clerk to

3:59:37understand that it was a

3:59:39an error. So, for the scrivener's error,

3:59:43um

3:59:44the one piece of relief that was in

3:59:46error was read actually correctly

3:59:50um by the board at the meeting and then

3:59:53transcribed incorrectly by yours truly

3:59:55when she wrote the decision.

3:59:57Um so, the actual

4:00:00uh the actual relief that should have

4:00:03been granted was 5,000 for relief of

4:00:065,500 sq ft from the 19,000 sq ft

4:00:10minimum lot area requirement for a

4:00:12multi-family low-rise dwelling in an

4:00:14RL-7 zone.

4:00:16Um what the decision read was for relief

4:00:19of 5,000 sq ft from the 18,000 sq ft

4:00:22minimum. Um

4:00:24so, that's the first error. The second

4:00:27error was that if you'll recall this

4:00:30um

4:00:32this item came to you as an eight-unit

4:00:36building,

4:00:37um and you all through the course of

4:00:39discussion,

4:00:40um the applicant agreed to reduce the

4:00:42number of units to seven units. And so,

4:00:45in their findings and under the special

4:00:47permit,

4:00:49um

4:00:49to modify the parking and dimensional

4:00:51layout, the findings indicated that they

4:00:54were seeking relief of three parking

4:00:57spaces,

4:00:59um but because we

4:01:02uh they agreed to reduce the number of

4:01:03units, because that reduced the number

4:01:07of required parking spaces, I didn't

4:01:09reduce the number in the findings, so it

4:01:13should it originally read that they were

4:01:17um

4:01:18uh

4:01:19requesting the relief of three spaces,

4:01:22um but because the number was reduced,

4:01:25therefore reducing the number by two

4:01:26parking spaces, they're only seeking

4:01:28relief of one parking space. So, I had a

4:01:32we should update the findings. That's

4:01:34the second error in the decision.

4:01:38>> Does everyone agree that that's a

4:01:39scrivener's error?

4:01:41>> Yes.

4:01:41>> Yes.

4:01:42>> All right. Is there a motion?

4:01:44>> So moved.

4:01:45>> Is there a second?

4:01:46>> Second.

4:01:47>> On the motion, board member Bramson?

4:01:48>> Yes.

4:01:49>> Board member Marame?

4:01:50>> Yes.

4:01:50>> Board member Tarcona?

4:01:52>> Yes.

4:01:53>> Board member Bartigan?

4:01:54>> Yes.

4:01:55>> Five votes, yes.

4:01:56>> All right. We'll issue that corrective

4:01:58decision as a result of that.

4:01:59>> We don't have any minutes I recall

4:02:01correctly. So, I'll take and we will

4:02:03discuss at another time

4:02:06the things cuz it's very late. So, I'll

4:02:07take a motion to adjourn.

4:02:08>> So moved.

4:02:09>> Second.

4:02:10>> Second.

4:02:10>> All in favor.

4:02:11>> Yeah.

4:02:11>> Aye.

4:02:12>> Yes.

4:02:14>> [snorts]

4:02:15[laughter]