2026-08-10 - Zoning Board of Appeals

0:03Good evening and welcome to Monday,

0:06April 10th, I mean, excuse me, August

0:0810th. Um, welcome to Monday, August

0:1110th, 2026 meeting of the city of

0:13Worcester Zoning Board of Appeals. My

0:15name is Jordan Burke Powers and I will

0:16chair tonight's meeting. This meeting of

0:19the Worcester zoning board of appeals

0:20will be conducted in a hybrid manner

0:23with both inperson and remote

0:24participation. As a preliminary matter

0:27to tonight's meeting, I would like to

0:28confirm the board members and staff who

0:30are present. Board members, when I call

0:32your name, please um respond in the

0:35affirmative. Board member Mormy

0:37>> present.

0:38>> Board member Barnhagen

0:39>> here.

0:40>> Board member Tono

0:42>> here.

0:43>> Board member Sacko

0:45>> here.

0:46>> And is board member Cortez not here yet?

0:48Okay. Um and uh city staff Michelle

0:52Smith

0:53>> present. Amy Bethlehe

0:56>> present.

0:57>> Uh David Horn

0:58>> here. All right.

1:01Tonight's meeting is being livereamed

1:03from the city of Worcester website and

1:05the recording will be available for

1:06rebroadcast. This is a public meeting

1:09which means both that it is being

1:10recorded and that will be taken and

1:13published at a later date. The public

1:16may participate remotely by calling

1:2016669254

1:245252.

1:27Again, that number is 1 16669

1:322545252

1:37with the access code

1:40164564634.

1:46Again, that's access code

1:49164564634

1:56or using the link shown on the screen.

1:58Once an item is called, there will be a

2:01brief presentation of the item, followed

2:03by any additional comments and

2:05clarifications from members of the city

2:07staff, then an opportunity from anyone

2:09from the public to speak on that item

2:12before we proceed to board discussion

2:15and action. To manage remote

2:17participation during our hybrid meetings

2:20and prevent disruptions, all

2:22participants are automatically blocked

2:23from unmuting themselves, turning on

2:26their video, or sending chat messages.

2:28For remote participants who would like

2:30to comment on an item on our agenda, we

2:33ask that you use the raised hand feature

2:35in Zoom during the discussion on that

2:37item. If you're joined by phone, you can

2:40raise your hand by pressing star9.

2:44Again, if you're joined by phone, you

2:46can raise your hand by pressing star9.

2:49Staff will then call on members of the

2:51public one at a time and give them

2:53permission to unmute themselves. If you

2:55are joined by phone, you will then be

2:58able to unmute yourself by pressing star

3:01six. Again, it's star six to unmute. So,

3:05you'd press star 9 to raise your hand

3:07and star six to unmute. Please note that

3:10board appreciates brevity in your

3:12comments. To help with this process, we

3:15ask all speakers participating in person

3:17to use a microphone to please clearly

3:20identify yourselves each time you speak.

3:22And the first time you speak, please

3:25state your city of town of residents for

3:27the record. To help maintain an orderly

3:29meeting, please address all comments and

3:32questions through the chair, that's me,

3:34rather than directly to any of the other

3:36speakers or applicants.

3:39Applicants should be aware that

3:41approvals are genuinely are generally

3:43conditional. Decisions are typically

3:45signed by the board at the next meeting

3:47and filed with the city clerk the

3:48following day beginning the spee. It is

3:52the applicant's responsibility to

3:53address any conditions of approval and

3:55lack of doing so may result in delays or

3:58enforcement. Please contact the planning

4:00division with any questions. Any party

4:03agrieved by a decision of this board has

4:05the right of appeal under Mass General

4:08Laws chapter 4A section 17. There are a

4:12number of items on our agenda being

4:13continued or postponed tonight which I

4:16will read through shortly. If you are

4:18here on one of those items, please note

4:20that no additional notice will be sent

4:22to you before the next meeting. The best

4:25thing to do is call the planning

4:26division the day prior to our next

4:28meeting to confirm if the item will be

4:30heard or postponed. that night. And it

4:32is not uncommon for items to be

4:34postponed multiple times before they're

4:36heard by this board. I'll suggest for

4:40the purposes of streamlining our uh

4:42meeting that board member Barnhagen

4:44offer to make any motions. Um and that

4:47for um all purposes, board member Mormy

4:49will second any such motion. Um and we

4:52might we'll figure out what to do if

4:54you're making a motion. In the event

4:56after either member prefers not to do

4:58so, I simply ask that you identify

5:00another member to do so. Okay. So, right

5:03now

5:05um

5:08>> he's

5:10>> okay.

5:11Uh let me just also

5:18I'm going to do the thing that I just

5:20told you all to do, which is silence my

5:21own phone. Okay. So, um, [clears throat]

5:24we have one item for a continuence, 149

5:28Plantation Street, there's a special

5:30permit. Um, and for this, uh, uh, board

5:33member Sacko, while, um, while while

5:36board member Cortez is logging on, I'll

5:38ask that you and board member Barton

5:39Hagen vote, um, on the motion for 149

5:42Plantation Street, a special per uh,

5:44continuence, a request to continue the

5:47hearing to August 31st, 2026, and extend

5:49the constructive grant deadline to

5:51September 29th, 2026. Is there a motion?

5:54like to make a motion to continue item

5:56number 149 Plantation Street to the

5:59dates as stated by the chair.

6:00>> Is there a second?

6:02>> Second.

6:03>> On the motion, board member Mormmy,

6:07>> yes.

6:08>> Board member Barnhagen,

6:09>> yes.

6:09>> Board member Tono,

6:11>> yes. Board member Sacko.

6:16Board member Sacko.

6:26I can't hear him.

6:37Remember Sacko? Looks like you're still

6:39on mute if you haven't unmuted.

6:42We're gonna try again.

6:49>> Board member Sacko, you're still on

6:51mute.

6:55>> Okay. Well,

6:59>> yeah, my vote is yes. I mean, I'll move

7:02we'll move it forward. The problem is

7:03that we need five people to vote and we

7:04don't currently have five people online.

7:07So, we need to we need to wait a second

7:09to see if we can get one of them to

7:10respond. Uh, board member Sacko or board

7:14member Cortez, we need a fifth person

7:16voting at this moment.

7:20>> Hey, can you hear me?

7:21>> Yes, I can hear you now.

7:22>> Sorry, guys.

7:24>> All right. [laughter]

7:26So, if you are here for item number one,

7:29149 Plantation Street, please talk to

7:31the planning division um and they can

7:33let you know when it will be heard. So,

7:36um, as of right now, if I'm correct,

7:39voting on this one is board member

7:41Barnhagen and voted and board member

7:43Sacko.

7:45Is that correct?

7:48City staff

7:50>> through the chair. We have George. We

7:52just need to make him a co-host. So,

7:53give us a sec.

7:54>> Okay. Yep. I'll give you a second.

8:08All right, Mr. Cortez, looks like you're

8:10unmuted. You want to confirm we've got

8:12you?

8:13>> Okay. This is George Cortez. Uh, can you

8:16hear me now?

8:17>> We can hear you. All right. Um,

8:19>> excellent.

8:20>> Voting on the first one will be board

8:22member Barton Hagen and then, um, uh,

8:25board member Sacko, you'll vote on, um,

8:27number three. And in the meantime, uh we

8:30will always encourage everyone's

8:32participation. Okay, if you are here for

8:3569 Orient Street, sorry for all the uh

8:38having to make a manage, but please come

8:41forward. Or if you're online, um raise

8:43your hand.

8:47Just state your name and city of town of

8:49residence for the record, please.

8:58>> [snorts]

9:01>> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board.

9:03Uh, my name is Mike Sawerta. I'm an

9:05attorney here in Worcester. I live at 32

9:08Barber Jean Street in Grafton,

9:10Massachusetts. Uh, my office is at 1

9:12Merkantile Street um, here in the city.

9:15I am here representing ML Realy. Um, the

9:18two principles, Helios Michael and Andy

9:23Loce. I hear um for questions. They have

9:26done some projects in the city and um

9:28are anxious to see if they can do

9:30another one um if granted the relief. Um

9:34our petition asked for three uh pieces

9:37of relief for 69 Orient Street. Um the

9:41first was a variance for frontage, the

9:44second was a variance for area. Um and

9:47third, a special permit um with regard

9:50to modification of the driveway and

9:52parking. Um I was advised by planning

9:55that there were two requests for waiver

9:57that we should also make orally um

9:59regarding um the lot percentage and the

10:02distance to adjacent buildings. Um so

10:05that would also be um

10:08uh at this point as you can see from um

10:10the plans that we filed um right now

10:13there is a one two family home that sits

10:16on the extreme left side of the lot if

10:18you look at it from Orient Street. Um

10:21the uh the hope is that we will get

10:23relief to um allow a division of this

10:2611,000 square foot lot which has right

10:29now 110 ft of frontage and divide so

10:33that the um current house lot will be um

10:37have 50 ft of frontage and um 5,000

10:41square feet which we would do variances

10:43for the thousand square feet and also

10:45five feet for the frontage. and um that

10:48the other lot be the other portions of

10:51the lot be split into two lots each of

10:533,000 square ft² which would allow us to

10:56build a duplex semi- detached single

10:58family home. Um the um the existing lot

11:02right now does have 11,000 square ft um

11:06in the frontage. Um,

11:09interestingly, if the building were not

11:11on the lot right now, we would actually

11:13have sufficient frontage and square

11:15footage to actually put four units on

11:17the lot if the building weren't there.

11:18And that's sort of our um topographic um

11:22issue with the variance that the house

11:24is there and it's on the extreme side of

11:26the um of the lot. Um, as far as um its

11:32location and its consistency with the

11:34neighborhood, um, most of the houses on

11:37that section of Orient Street are multif

11:39family. There are very few single

11:41families and it would seem appropriate

11:43that we have a duplex put in in the area

11:46which actually has um, uh, a lot of

11:50multif family homes. Um secondly, uh for

11:54again consistency in the neighborhood,

11:56we did some research as to how many

11:58square feet each lot in the area has

12:02with regard to a single unit. And um the

12:06multifamilies in the in the uh area on

12:09Orient currently average about 2,55

12:13square feet of land per unit and our

12:16project will have an average of 2750

12:19square feet. So, we're actually

12:21having a larger lot than what most of

12:23the uh the project there currently has.

12:26Um, as far as uh the new standards that

12:29we have with regard to practical um

12:32practical difficulty, um they've said we

12:35would be able if the land were vacant

12:38today, we would be able to build. Um

12:40secondly, from the petitioner's end, as

12:42far as um the benefits to this the the

12:45city they'll be producing, we'd be

12:47increasing housing stock with the extra

12:49two units. Um excellent location for

12:53those two units is because there are WTA

12:56bus routes, two of them that come to the

12:58southern end of Orient Street. Um so

13:01access to the core city would be

13:03available. Um the new units will

13:06certainly also increase the uh the value

13:09of the adjacent homes in the area

13:11because right now with that portion of

13:12the lot is kind of bladed um and paved.

13:15Um

13:17as far as the difficulties again

13:19relating to you know conditions of

13:20structures I've addressed that um in the

13:23fact that the it's the fact that the

13:25house is actually on on the lot right

13:27now. Um and um if as far as the hardship

13:33u the full value of the large lot if we

13:36cannot divide it up we really had a

13:38benefit of four lots if there was

13:40nothing there right now or four units

13:41we'd only have three units which would

13:43be a hardship. Uh there's really no

13:45other way for us to address this other

13:48than for the two variances in this

13:49special permit. And uh it was certainly

13:52not a self-created hardship because the

13:54house that's on there now was built for

13:56the assessor's records in 1870. Um so it

13:59was well before even zoning came in uh

14:01came into shape. Um regarding our

14:04special permit

14:06um the um we are not affecting any

14:11setbacks as far as the abuing neighbors.

14:14The setback squeeze that we have with

14:16regard to the driveways etc is between

14:19our two lots that we're setting up. So

14:20nobody is going to be inconvenienced

14:22that's in the neighborhood already. Um

14:26I'll turn it over. Gentlemen, anything

14:28you would like to like to add?

14:30>> We're eager to work with the city to get

14:33>> You just got to stay. It's on. You just

14:34got to state your name.

14:35>> My name is Helios Marco. I'm one of the

14:37owners of ML Realy and we're just

14:40excited to um hopefully get this process

14:43on the way and uh possibly be build the

14:45two family there. Yeah.

14:48>> Okay.

14:49>> Thanks. questions for the board.

14:50>> Uh, city staff first.

14:52>> Okay.

14:53>> Sure. Through the chair, Michelle Smith

14:54in the city's planning division. So, in

14:56front of you this evening, as you heard,

14:57two variances. One related to lot area,

15:001,000 ft of relief from the 6,000 square

15:02foot minimum requirement, and then 5T of

15:05uh relief for frontage, which is a 55-

15:07ft requirement. And then you've got a

15:09special permit to modify parking and

15:10loading, which you see quite often. We

15:12have recommendations for conditions of

15:13approval on page six of your memo. Um,

15:17in terms of byite alternatives, you

15:18heard the applicant summarize that

15:20essentially they could build a single

15:21family with an ADU. Um, they could also

15:24adjust the allocation of frontage and

15:26would be able to build uh the two units

15:28u by right. Um, the lot would be

15:30deficient with respect to lot area

15:33still. Um, but those are sort of the the

15:35options that the applicant would have.

15:37So similar density with an ADU. Um, in

15:39terms of the comments that we had,

15:41mostly just related to questions about

15:43tree plantings and storm water

15:45management, the application will be

15:46required to go in front of the planning

15:48board for both site plan review due the

15:50steep slopes on the lot as well as a

15:51frontage subdivision to reconfigure the

15:53lot lines, a glorified ANR. And the

15:56properties located in a background or

15:58baseline growth area in the long range

16:00plan. Um, I want to clarify just with

16:05respect to the landscape buffer

16:07requirements that they're seeking for

16:08the parking and loading. As you heard,

16:10that was along the kind of interior lot

16:12line between the two lots. Um, they are

16:15providing less about a half a foot um

16:18between the the parking area and that

16:20property line. And it's varies whether

16:22it's 5 feet or 3 feet where it is sort

16:24of a parking facility where you kind of

16:26have the um parking stalls located

16:29versus where you have the driveway just

16:30leading to that area. So it's 3T for the

16:32driveway and 5T for that rear kind of

16:34parking area. Um that varies. I'm happy

16:37to answer any questions that the board

16:39has. Thank you.

16:41>> Is anybody here for um is anybody here

16:44for 69 Orient Street?

16:48Is anybody online?

16:50Use the raise your hand feature or press

16:53um star nine.

16:57>> Right.

16:59>> We do have someone online.

17:01>> Okay. Just state your name for city um

17:04and city of town of residence, please.

17:08>> Sorry, I muted him by accident.

17:18Oh my god.

17:20>> My fault. [snorts]

17:22>> Oh my god.

17:24>> I think we're just having an issue

17:25unmuting. There you go. You should be on

17:27mute.

17:30>> Go ahead.

17:31>> It's Yumi here, the designer of uh the

17:34dublex.

17:35>> Okay.

17:42Anything else to add?

17:49>> Did you want to say anything else?

17:52>> Um uh working uh working on the project

17:56and uh uh putting the the design

17:58together.

17:59>> Can you hear Can you hear me properly?

18:01>> Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead.

18:03>> So, working on this project and putting

18:05the design together. Um, this is going

18:07to be a great uh a great structural

18:09addition to the to the area

18:12>> and uh it's going to uh it it it is

18:16going to work uh uh uh perfectly with

18:19the surrounding uh the way we put

18:21everything together. The uh in the

18:24architectural um uh context and the

18:27design language, it flows perfectly fine

18:29with the uh uh with the with the

18:32surroundings. So, this is going to be

18:34great for the um for that for that lot.

18:36I see a good good project.

18:40>> Okay. Thank you very much.

18:44Uh okay, not seeing anybody else. Uh

18:46>> there was one other person that had

18:48their hand raised. I'm not sure. Chris,

18:50did you want to be unmuted? If you did,

18:52please raise your hand again.

19:01>> Chris, go ahead.

19:02Uh, hi. Uh, my name is Chris Peretti.

19:05Uh, I'm representing Land Design

19:07Collaborative, uh, project engineer, uh,

19:09for this project. Uh, I had nothing to

19:11add. I just wanted to make sure I, uh,

19:13was available.

19:15>> All right. Okay.

19:17>> Chris Chris's um, organization, they'll

19:19be handling the the planning board uh,

19:2115% grade.

19:24>> Great. Um, okay. Uh, not seeing anybody

19:27else come forward. Um, I'll just say

19:30really quickly for myself, um, this is,

19:33uh, pretty straightforward. Um, it's not

19:35far from my house. Uh, and, um, I think

19:40you're going to be adding some parking,

19:42which is going to be helpful for folks,

19:44um, for the house that's already there.

19:46Um, as well as having underneath parking

19:49and a duplex there will be fine. um this

19:52is a relatively

19:54um and all things being considered small

19:57uh um variance and special permit. So

20:00from my perspective, I'm happy to move

20:02this forward. Um and I look forward to

20:05other board members thoughts. Um uh

20:08board member um I guess I'll start with

20:10board member Barthagen

20:13>> to the chair. I guess I just want to

20:15just make sure the applicant um you're

20:19okay with all of the conditions of

20:21approval that the staff put on page six

20:23of nine of the memo. You don't have any

20:24issues with any of those. You're okay

20:26accepting those as part of your permit?

20:28>> Uh I know there was we're supposed to be

20:30adding a tree in the back.

20:36>> What was that?

20:37>> Go ahead.

20:38um a tray in the back and we do have to

20:41handle um runoff um which is something

20:43that we we need to you know certainly

20:46take care of and would have that ready

20:48for the planning board meeting that

20:50>> we got coming up.

20:51>> Okay. Yeah. Just want to make sure

20:52because sometimes applicants take issue

20:54with one or two of these and they want

20:55to discuss them but if you're okay with

20:56these that's fine.

20:57>> Yeah. Planning has been great to work

20:59with. Okay.

21:00>> Um so and they've been very helpful. So

21:02I appreciate the the cooperation that

21:04they've given.

21:05>> Then I agree with the chair. I think

21:06this is pretty straightforward. It's a

21:07minimal relief they're requesting. It'll

21:08be a good addition to the street and um

21:11I'm I'm happy to move it forward.

21:13>> Uh board member Rammy.

21:16>> Um I also support this project. It's a

21:18really nice design and an addition to

21:20the neighborhood. Um and I would just

21:23like to ask one question for cur

21:25curiosity. I was wondering if the two

21:28driveways to the garage, are they going

21:30to be separated or combined like in the

21:33picture?

21:34Just looking at the side plan and I see

21:37some planting to the drive between the

21:39driveways.

21:40>> We've actually adjusted that from where

21:42we actually started. Um in this case

21:45there will be um separate driveways. Um

21:48>> understood

21:48>> the the cur the turns to bring it into

21:50the middle. We weren't going to make a

21:52little some of the

21:53>> okay

21:54>> the basics.

21:55>> Great. Thank you. So no other comments

21:58besides that.

22:00>> Great. Uh, board member Cortez.

22:05>> Uh, the chair. Um, yes, I agree that

22:09this is uh sort of a straightforward

22:11good project uh and the provision of

22:15housing uh and actually I think it's an

22:18improvement for the uh neighborhood the

22:20area because that lot the empty lot that

22:23the way it is right now is it's not a

22:26good looking the way it is. So it is I

22:29uh I I I do support uh the approval. Uh

22:33just couple of questions. Um

22:38since the entrance uh since you have a

22:42steps uh no first of all let me let me

22:45ask I'm sorry is this is they is is it

22:48the intent to rent uh the units or or or

22:53is it a plan to sell uh those those

22:56houses? Uh those two units, those two

22:59houses,

23:01>> they're going to I think both be be sold

23:04um as individual units.

23:05>> Family home attachments.

23:07>> Did you hear that? Go ahead.

23:08>> The intent is to build a cell.

23:12>> Yes, they it's a built to sell.

23:16>> Uh I see. Um yeah, the the the reason I

23:20asked the reason I asked that is because

23:23um looking at the steps uh if they are

23:27individuals

23:29uh with disabilities

23:31uh looking to get into the house, they

23:35probably would have to use the garage to

23:37go in if at the end of the of the garage

23:41there is an easy way to get into the

23:43apartments. uh otherwise uh it would be

23:48not not accessibility uh at all the way

23:52it is right now but that's you know that

23:55that that would be up to the people who

23:57wants to buy it and and and if there are

24:01individuals with disability wanted to

24:03buy uh basically they would not have a

24:06chance so that that's just a point that

24:08I I make um it's not that that I have

24:14the priv to stop the project because of

24:17that.

24:19>> M Mr. Chairman, I said,

24:20>> could I comment?

24:22>> Sure. Yeah. Go ahead.

24:23>> Um part of it part of the problem is

24:26because of the sloping in the back of

24:27the lot, um it it the grade goes down.

24:30So the ability to to have um you know

24:34some um flatter axis in the back is

24:36compromised by the the lot shape and

24:38topography.

24:42>> Uh through the chair, this is why You

24:44know it does happen and individuals with

24:48disabilities they can enter through the

24:50garage when they need it but but then

24:53has to be

24:55access from the garage into the

24:57apartment. So

25:00>> so

25:02I I can imagine that there might be a

25:04step uh steps or from the garage into

25:08the into the house itself. Is that is

25:11that correct?

25:14you want to comment.

25:16>> So, so if you're if you're speaking

25:18regarding the garage, if you you should

25:20have access from the garage to the unit.

25:23So, once you park the car into the

25:24garage.

25:26>> Okay, that was solved. Thank you. Uh

25:30let's move forward. I uh I'm for the uh

25:33project. Um Mr. Chairman,

25:36>> yes, and thank you for raising that.

25:38That's a really good point. I just want

25:39to echo that when possible um it's not a

25:43requirement but we certainly look

25:44favorably when taking into consideration

25:47people's accessibility needs. So um

25:49thank you uh board member Cortez for

25:51raising that

25:52>> uh board member Tarono

26:06Board

26:13member,

26:15sorry, technical difficulties. Board

26:18member Tota, when you get a chance.

26:29Yeah, Erica, it looks like you're still

26:31muted if you're trying to unmute.

26:41Now you unmute me. I was put on mute by

26:44[laughter] the host.

26:46>> Go ahead.

26:47>> I have no comment.

26:52>> Board member Sacko, any comment?

26:55>> Project chair. Um, no additional

26:57comment. Thanks.

26:59>> Okay. In that case, I will take a motion

27:01on 69 Orient Street.

27:04like to make a motion to close on 69

27:06Orient Street.

27:07>> Is there a second on the motion to

27:08close?

27:10>> Second.

27:11>> On the motion to close, uh, board member

27:13Cortez,

27:14>> yes.

27:15>> Board member Mammy,

27:17>> yes.

27:18>> Board member Tono,

27:19>> yes.

27:20>> Board member Barnhagen,

27:21>> yes.

27:22>> My votes, yes. Is there a motion on 69

27:24Orient Street? Uh, I'd like to make a

27:26motion on 69 Ori Orient Street for

27:28approval of variance for relief of 1,000

27:31square feet from the 6,000 foot minimum

27:33lot area requirements for a two family

27:35dwelling in an RG5 zone. Approval of a

27:37variance for relief of 5T from the 55 ft

27:40minimum frontage requirements for a two

27:41family dwelling in an RG5 zone. and

27:43approval of a special permit to modify

27:46the parking dimensional layout and or

27:47landscaping requirements, loading

27:49requirements, and or the number of

27:50required parking spaces subject to the

27:53conditions as set out in the staff memo

27:55on page six of nine and the waiverss as

27:58requested by the applicant.

27:59>> Is there a second?

28:01>> Second

28:02>> on the motion. Board member Cortez,

28:05>> yes.

28:06>> Board member Mormmy,

28:07>> yes.

28:08>> Board member Tono,

28:09>> yes.

28:10>> Board member Bartagen,

28:11>> yes.

28:12>> My votes, yes. Thank you very much.

28:14>> Thank you very much for your time. Thank

28:15you.

28:16>> All right. Next up is 6 Wurn Street. Six

28:20Wurn Street. If the applicant could

28:22please come forward and state your name

28:23and city of town of residence, please.

28:30>> Hi, Mr. Chairman. I'm James Tetro from

28:32Expedited Engineering out in South

28:34Burough here representing Marcela Berto

28:36who is the owner of the property at 6

28:38Wurn Street and he is also the

28:40applicant. Um he has before you a

28:43proposal to construct a small uh uh

28:47structure to house his headquarter his

28:49business. He's been running his fire

28:51extinguisher business for over 20 years

28:54and right now is working as out of a

28:57headquarters if you will maybe a little

28:59grandiose

29:00uh out of Quinsey

29:02>> uh Charleston.

29:03>> Charletown, excuse me. I knew it was

29:04right next to Boston. Um and wants to

29:08establish uh his headquarters much

29:09closer to home. He's actually a resident

29:11off Randall Street. And so the uh parcel

29:15of land that you have before you at six

29:17Warurn Street is essentially mostly a

29:19meadow

29:20um between a parking lot and and on one

29:23side and condominiums on the other side.

29:26Uh it's just over 9,000 square feet.

29:28It's 180 ft deep by 50 feet at the far

29:32end away from the street and 51 and

29:34change feet along the street. Um that

29:38relatively small dimension is really the

29:41foundation of the difficulties which

29:44require us to be before you uh asking

29:46for uh variances from floor to area

29:49ratio

29:51uh and setback only for even just a

29:54fraction of a foot. Um and we're also

29:57seeking uh special permits in regard to

30:00squeezing in the parking uh per the city

30:02standards. Um, this lot again is, uh,

30:099230 square feet. Um, as I say, it's on

30:13the north side of Warurn Street between

30:16Mount even evenly between Mount A and

30:19and Rockdale. Um, it is in the MG0.5

30:24district, also borders, uh, one of the

30:27residential districts. Um the applicant

30:31would propose to construct a 30 by 80

30:33building with two levels inside. Um it

30:37would have an access of a man door and

30:40an overhead door at the front at lower

30:42level would have uh some additional

30:45doors at uh upper level uh on the left

30:48side. Um we did uh soil testing there to

30:53show that we actually had had pretty

30:55good stuff. We designed a proposed

30:57infiltration for all the roof and

30:59parking lot surface runup to come in. Uh

31:02city staff asked us actually to also

31:04provide uh a diagram showing that it

31:07because we have a relatively narrow

31:08driveway that folks somebody could turn

31:11in. We looked at Mr. Berto's uh actually

31:13fairly large van as the vehicle uh

31:16though um so it it had a good test.

31:18There again is the uh the architectural

31:20plan and then that's a good

31:22representation of what you see lower

31:24level entrance from the front. Um I

31:28guess I will just uh leave it at that.

31:30I'll just note that we are proposing a

31:32few retaining walls but in all cases uh

31:35not more than four feet high. Um it's

31:39varying from two to four feet on on uh

31:41on most of them. And uh I'll just try

31:44and answer any questions. I will just

31:45say we reviewed staff uh comments and

31:48suggested conditions. We have no

31:50objection to them. Um they included uh

31:52changing a couple trees uh adding some

31:55arborvite uh uh plantings, adding fence.

31:58Uh we've discussed that. We have no

31:59objection. I'll try and take uh any

32:01questions.

32:02>> And uh you have one waiver. Are you

32:04requesting the waiver?

32:06>> Oh yeah. I forget which.

32:07>> Six of 10.

32:09>> Yeah.

32:10>> It's percentage of lot covered by

32:12principal accessory dwellings.

32:13>> Oh correct. Correct.

32:14>> Do you ex do you do you request the

32:16waiver?

32:17>> Um, yes. Thank you. All right. City

32:19staff.

32:20>> Sorry. Yeah. There was there was a

32:22little bit of uncertainty even with the

32:23staff as to exactly which uh which

32:26variances or waiverss we had to ask for.

32:28>> Yeah. No worries.

32:30>> Yeah. Through the chair. And just to to

32:31clarify on that, Michelle Smith and the

32:33planning division. So, uh, as Mr.

32:36Teacher highlighted, um, there are

32:38actually two different variances related

32:41to floor area ratio here. And so through

32:43our discussions, we identified after

32:46advertisement that that we had actually

32:47only advertised one of the two different

32:50floor area ratio uh variances that are

32:52needed because there is a note in the

32:54dimensional table that modifies sort of

32:56the standard floor area ratio for a

32:58portion of the lot. Um, so the

33:01applicants in front of you for three

33:02different variance requests, two related

33:04to floor area ratio, um, which is for,

33:08if we could go to the site plan, there's

33:10a sliver of the lot on the right hand

33:12side, like 1.57 ft that is located

33:15outside of a 50-ft buffer that the

33:17ordinance provides uh, which reduces the

33:20intensity of development adjacent to

33:23residential districts. And so basically

33:25if you imagine from the west property

33:28line heading over and eclipsing the

33:30majority of the building um there is

33:32this buffer and in that area it reduces

33:34the standard floor area ratio in half.

33:36So it's a 0.5 floor area ratio. So this

33:39reduces it to a 0.25. So we had a

33:41conversation with the applicant about

33:42it. We think that the nature and

33:44description of the project were adequate

33:46to provide notice. Ultimately the

33:48applicant's decision as to if they wish

33:51to proceed. they indicated they did, but

33:52just to put it out there for the record

33:54and have them confirm on the record that

33:56they would like to proceed.

33:57>> We would like to proceed. Yes.

33:59>> Great. Thank you. So, the the other

34:01forms of relief that the applicant is

34:03seeking to request relate to the

34:04sideyard setback for the west side uh

34:06because of the proximity to the

34:08residential zoning district. This also

34:10um takes the more uh conservative

34:13buffers for the residential district and

34:15applies them to the manufacturing

34:17structure even though the we're in a

34:19manufacturing zone here. So some of the

34:21nuances to provide some additional

34:22separation. Um so that's a 20 foot

34:24setback and the applicant is proposing

34:26um just shy of that. They're looking for

34:292 ft of relief from that requirement. Um

34:32and then they are also seeking a special

34:34permit with respect to the uh various

34:37parking layout requirements along the

34:40west side of the driveway. You can see

34:42the driveway is more or less along the

34:44property line given the narrow shape of

34:46the lot. Um so staff have asked for

34:49screening in that location in the form

34:50of a fence just given the the width of

34:53that. Um that is a variable width. Um

34:56it's generally speaking about a a foot

34:59uh and and a half. Um but in some places

35:03it does reduce down to about half a

35:04foot. So um that that is an adjustment

35:07kind of depending on where you are on

35:09that lot line. But the five foot setback

35:11is what's required for a driveway. Um,

35:13similarly on the opposite side, the east

35:16side, there's a similar five- foot

35:18setback requirement and the applicant

35:20has two feet. It's required to be fully

35:22permeable. There's a retaining wall as

35:23Mr. Tedro noted in that location as well

35:26as others um resulting in that not being

35:28permeable. Um, so they're seeking relief

35:30from that form. There's also two shade

35:32trees that are required uh on the

35:34western side in the location abuing the

35:37parking area in the rear which the

35:38applicant is not able to provide given

35:40the location of the wall. So they're

35:42seeking to relieve that requirement. And

35:44finally, uh the requirement for the

35:46driveway to be 20 feet wide for two

35:48directional circulation. They have an 18

35:50foot wide driveway. So those are the the

35:53various forms of relief that they're in

35:54front of you for. Um by right options

35:56would be obviously to build a smaller

35:58building. This is 4,800 ft, so it's

36:00relatively small to begin with. Um so

36:02they would have to to reduce that in

36:04size further. Um, they could also

36:07reconfigure the layout and design, most

36:09likely shifting the building to the

36:10back, but it would require substantial

36:12redesign and reconfiguration of the

36:13building, giving they're trying to use

36:15the sort of slope to their advantage to

36:17have sort of a ble access to the

36:19structure. Um, and it would likely

36:22result in um other changes, but that

36:25could potentially result in the parking

36:27being compliant um with the requirements

36:29in terms of setback consolidating the

36:31driveways. So there are potentially some

36:33other options um but they would likely

36:35you know be challenging for the

36:36operational component of of the

36:38building. Um we had a number of

36:42questions that the applicant has

36:43responded to. We do have um all the

36:45comments that we have conditioned

36:46adequately. The applicant was amendable

36:48to those. Um they will be in front of

36:51the uh planning board given the slopes

36:53on the site for site plan review and the

36:57locations in in a managed growth area in

36:59the city. This is north of Ararat

37:00Street. Um, west of Rockdale and uh to

37:04the north we have mostly residential

37:05neighborhood, but along Rockdale and

37:07further kind of to the east you have

37:10more u manufacturing and commercial

37:11uses. This transitional area obviously

37:15um based on the zoning district uh line

37:17that we've been talking about and how

37:18that's affected the relief for the

37:20project. Um the applicant did indicate

37:22they're planning to operate um 8 to 5

37:25Monday through I believe Saturday as

37:27potential um hours. Um, not that you're

37:29conditioning the special permit, but

37:31just for a little bit of context about

37:32how they're intending to operate. Um,

37:34with essentially everything located in

37:36the building, including trash, they're

37:38not proposing to have a dumpster at this

37:40point. Um, again, happy to answer any

37:42questions. Thanks. [snorts]

37:45>> Okay. Is anybody here for six Wilburn

37:47Street?

37:49>> Yes, please come forward. Just state

37:51your uh name and city of town of

37:53residence, please.

38:03Hi,

38:05Carlos Cordero

38:07and I live in 18 Montavis

38:10and uh this parcel this gentleman's

38:14build is to the right of my backyard.

38:16I'm just more curious because the

38:18picture looks really nice.

38:21It's when it's built how what is it

38:23going to look like? You know that street

38:26is on an incline, not flat like that.

38:30That's misleading.

38:33Well, go ahead, laugh. But that's the

38:34truth.

38:36And uh I just don't know how you can fit

38:42three pair of shoes in one box.

38:48And behind that there's a three d uh

38:50three apartments

38:52>> that doesn't show none of the pictures.

38:54I'd like to see a more blown picture

38:56that shows the apartments and the

38:59surrounding areas

39:01because I didn't know that Wuburn Street

39:03I've been there since the streets were

39:05dirt. That's how long I am I've been

39:08around. And oh, now the the picture

39:12shows and uh

39:16the guy that built those three

39:17apartments

39:19paved the street, but Wuburn Street was

39:21never a business side that things

39:25Rockdale is. And the parking lot in

39:28front of that his parcel is

39:32belongs to the school in front. So, I

39:34don't know.

39:37I'm just curious.

39:40Thank you.

39:42>> Yeah. Um, I'll let the applicant answer

39:44your question directly, but I think

39:46having been out there, you're right,

39:47it's very steep. Um, I remember, uh,

39:50and, um, Wurn uh, you know, getting

39:53paved. And so, um, the un the the way to

39:56think about it is that it's a it's

39:58actually a transition portion. So the

40:00parking lot is in a manufacturing

40:02district and the and

40:03>> which belongs to the school across the

40:05street

40:05>> and and and the up the street is the

40:08residential and so they are triggered

40:11because it's like a transition piece of

40:13lot but it's technically in the

40:15>> but the the parking lot doesn't belong

40:17to his land anymore. No belongs to the

40:20school.

40:20>> Yeah. Yeah. But the the way street,

40:22>> right? But the way to think about it for

40:24our laws is it's it's it's considered

40:27manufacturing.

40:29>> Yes. Well, that's what I'm governed by.

40:31So, so that so the way that the city

40:33thinks about it is that it's a

40:35manufacturing area even though obviously

40:37it's a school and a parking lot. And so

40:39what we're do so what it does is it

40:41transitions into the into the

40:43residential and he has to meet the

40:45criteria of the slope that you're

40:47talking about that gets extra look at

40:49from the from the planning board and he

40:52has to build it to look something like

40:55what he's giving us.

40:55>> If I'm the owner of the parking lot and

40:57I go in there and put a fence

41:00>> you would you could do it if you have

41:02some rules. There's some rules around

41:03it. You could have just do it. But yeah,

41:07>> but yes, but so if you wanted to if you

41:09wanted to do if you wanted to do

41:11something like depend that gets more

41:13complicated I'd tell you to get to the

41:14planning board. But essentially um if

41:17they wanted to make changes to the

41:18parking lot they'd probably have to come

41:20before us as well. And similarly because

41:22of what he's doing to build the thing

41:24the build a building there even though

41:26it's in the manufacturing district

41:27because it's transitioning into the

41:29residential he has special oversight.

41:31And so some of the things you're

41:32concerned about, the slope, the look,

41:35the making sure that it actually

41:37functions, those are both what we look

41:39at with our and the city staff and also

41:41the next board should we pass it. The

41:43planning board will also look at those

41:44questions and make sure that it looks

41:46like what he's proposing.

41:46>> My other question, what is it going to

41:48be a built?

41:50>> It's a business for I think fire

41:52extinguishers.

41:53>> Fire extinguisher company.

41:54>> Yeah, it might be the safest building in

41:55the city.

41:56>> Mr. BTO's business uh through the chair

41:58is is he he provides fire extinguisher

42:02extinguishers to various businesses.

42:03>> Okay.

42:04>> Fire extinguishers. Yeah. Yeah. Um so

42:07does that answer your question?

42:08>> My question?

42:09>> No. Well, I want one at a time. Yeah. I

42:11want to make sure I get his question.

42:11I'll get your question.

42:13>> I chose a driveway over there in

42:16>> through the chair. If you could just

42:16talk into the microphone.

42:18>> Oh, yeah. You got to talk in the

42:19microphone.

42:19>> The microphone.

42:20>> Sorry. It's for public record.

42:21>> Thought it was loud enough.

42:23>> You don't know. Yeah. So that's in front

42:25that driveway is in front of the

42:28building.

42:29>> And so what's behind it?

42:30>> The parking lot.

42:31>> The parking lot. The parking goes the

42:33parking lot to the the length of it.

42:34>> So you're going to have to

42:37>> just make sure you talk to me, please.

42:39>> And over here there's a three buildings,

42:42right?

42:44>> So what are you going to to retain that

42:47wall?

42:48What are you going to put there?

42:51You're looking at me like I'm talking

42:53from another world.

42:54>> You got to talk to

42:55>> You said what do we How are we going to

42:56retain that wall?

42:57>> Correct.

42:58>> Well, I don't know. That's an

42:59interesting phrasing. You use the

43:00retaining wall to hold back the earth.

43:03>> Yeah, there's going to be a wall.

43:04>> It's a pretty

43:05>> It's right. So, it's going to be

43:07>> six feet tall.

43:08>> So, the the the wall at its height will

43:09be no more than four feet to hold back

43:13the the whatever is going to be down

43:14there.

43:15>> Is that what you heard?

43:17>> Well, that's the rules. If it is more

43:18than that, then they'll get in trouble.

43:20Four feet.

43:21>> Four feet.

43:22>> Yeah. If they try to do more than that,

43:24then it'll get it. Again, you have to

43:25talk into the microphone, but if you if

43:28you if there's if there's any trouble,

43:30like if you're worried about the height,

43:31you can always call the city and they do

43:33to get a to get a permit for this, they

43:36have to meet the what they've told us,

43:37right? There's rules on what they can

43:39and can't do.

43:41>> Yeah. Go ahead. Come forward. Just state

43:42your name and city of town residence,

43:44please.

43:44>> Maria Corddiero at Montav right behind

43:47it. Also, my question is, is

43:49>> can you just talk a little bit more to

43:50the

43:50>> I'm sorry. Is it going to be an office

43:52or is they going to be building

43:54manufacturing things there?

43:55>> I don't believe they're going to be

43:56manufacturing things, but I'll let the

43:58applicant answer that question.

43:59>> It's an it's an office.

44:00>> Yes, that's correct.

44:01>> Okay. No, behind the building.

44:04>> Yeah.

44:05>> Right. Is there going to be trees?

44:07Because to be honest with you, I'm right

44:09behind I'm my Here's a three decker.

44:14Here's my house right here. I I can look

44:17down and see it. And to be honest with

44:19you, last thing I want to look is that a

44:22building like that is there going to be

44:25trees behind

44:27where

44:28>> Yeah. Let the applicant answer the

44:30question.

44:30>> Just just quickly, Mr. Chairman, uh, one

44:33of the conditions of approval to which

44:34we have no objection which is suggested

44:36by city staff was uh, planning arbravite

44:38along the west left side as you're

44:41standing in the road and nor and uh,

44:43north the far side away from the road

44:45boundaries and we have no objection.

44:47>> The short answer to your question is

44:48yes, there will be trees in your view.

44:52>> There will be trees.

44:53>> Yes, they have to place them

44:54>> this way and this way cuz when I look

44:57>> Yes, in that corner. Yes, in your exact

44:59corner. So my other question is

45:01>> can you just talk into the microphone

45:02again please? No

45:03>> my other question is now the building is

45:06it being built where the grass is?

45:09>> Yes.

45:10>> Okay. Right where the grass is.

45:12>> Yes, that's correct.

45:13>> Okay. I'm not only concerned for myself

45:16with the trees but I don't think there's

45:18nobody here from those three decas. I

45:20mean

45:21>> I feel bad for them. I really do. I know

45:24they have children. They play, you know,

45:27that's they ride their little bikes

45:29there and they play there. That's like

45:31the, you know, I do feel bad because

45:34they have little ones. I mean, I don't,

45:36but

45:37>> Okay. So, there's trees at some point,

45:39we're not going to see this building.

45:41>> You might still see the building through

45:42the trees, but there'll be trees there.

45:44>> But there will be trees.

45:45>> That's correct.

45:45>> Okay. And how many people are they're

45:48employing? How many people are going to

45:50be employed there?

45:52>> Uh, from now it's just me and my son.

45:55Okay,

45:56>> just state your name.

45:57>> And the trees that are there right now,

45:59>> state your name.

46:00>> Yeah, my name is Marcelo. I'm sorry. I'm

46:02the owner of the property. And the trees

46:05that are there right now, they're going

46:06to remain. And if we have, you know, as

46:09was proposed, we're going to, you know,

46:11put the trees and a fence up if you need

46:14it. You know, there

46:15>> we're not going to try to, you know,

46:17change drastically anything. It's just

46:20>> we want you to run your business

46:22successfully. You know, we just wanted

46:24to have it look nice.

46:25>> Yeah.

46:25>> Talk to me, please.

46:26>> Oh. Oh, sorry.

46:28>> It's okay. It's okay. No worries at all.

46:30No worries at all. It's a formal formal

46:32process.

46:33>> Okay. It was my first time. I'm nervous.

46:34>> You should not be nervous. Go ahead.

46:36You're asking great questions. Go ahead.

46:37>> Okay. Well, that was it.

46:39>> Okay. Great.

46:39>> And Okay. And when you planning on

46:41building?

46:42>> So, they will have to go through the

46:44planning. If if it gets passed here, it

46:46has to go to the planning board. And if

46:47you have any questions on their

46:49timeline, you can always contact the

46:50city and they're happy to give you any

46:52information you need.

46:53>> Okay. Thank you so much.

46:54>> Thank you so much. No problem at all.

46:56Thank you.

46:56>> And through the chair just minutia, but

46:59just want to clarify the trees are

47:01arborvite, not trees. So they're like

47:03evergreen shrubs. I just want to clarify

47:05just because of the location with the

47:06retaining wall.

47:08>> So they would be like six foot tall, six

47:11foot tall um when they're planted and

47:13they grow fast. So they'll continue to

47:15grow into like a hedge and extend

47:17taller. Uh but because of the location

47:19of the wall, I don't believe that there

47:20was uh adequate room particularly on the

47:23west side to have anything beyond that.

47:25So I just I just want to clarify um that

47:27they're not like big shade trees,

47:29>> right? So they're not Does that make

47:30sense? They're like they're they're

47:32basically meant for like big hedge.

47:34They're about six feet to block some of

47:35the view, but they're not like a big oak

47:37or or shade tree.

47:39>> They're six feet. They'll grow a little

47:41bit to over six feet. There'll be above

47:42the There'll also be a wall there as

47:45well. Yep. Okay. Um, anybody else? Okay.

47:50Uh, anybody online?

47:53Okay. So, going to board comment. Um,

47:57I'll just say really quickly, this is a

48:00small request. Um, literally in the

48:03point zeros. Uh, and, um, I think u, I

48:08think this will I actually think this

48:09will be nice. I was out there. Um it

48:12looks like a fine thing and as I joked

48:14it'll be the safest building in the city

48:16of Worcester um with fire extinguishers.

48:18So um uh I'm happy to move it forward.

48:22Um

48:23and you got all the other questions. Uh

48:27board member uh um board member uh oh

48:30sorry voting on this is going to be

48:32board member uh Sacko as the alternate

48:35on this one. Um and with that I'll go to

48:38the room first. uh board member Barhagen

48:40>> uh through the chair. Yeah, I don't have

48:42too much to say. I mean, yeah, because

48:44the requests for relief are minuscule

48:46here. So, this is almost

48:50complying with every u uh zoning rule we

48:54have except just slightly off. So, I

48:57tend to give the benefit of the doubt to

48:59those types of applications. Plus, I

49:01think I think I agree with the chair

49:02that this looks like a really good

49:04building. it'd be nice for you to have

49:06your business be closer to where you

49:08live. Um I also feel a little bit um

49:11it's, you know, unfortunate that this is

49:14right next to that condo building. Um

49:17but

49:19I think it's it's relatively minor in my

49:21mind. I think this is in the

49:23manufacturing district district. Um and

49:26this would be a good use for that

49:28manufacturing acreage. So uh I have no

49:32problem with it.

49:34Okay. Uh, board member Remy. [snorts]

49:37>> Um, I agree with your comments and I

49:39have no additional comments except I

49:41support this as well.

49:43>> Uh, board member Cortez.

49:54>> Board member Cortez, you are muted.

49:57>> Yeah. Just uh just to get ready.

50:01>> Sorry. Sorry about that through the

50:02chair.

50:03>> Um uh I don't have any uh any problems

50:07with the uh uh proposed uh building the

50:10way it is and everything else. I just

50:12have uh a question. Um

50:17it is uh there is a basement and and in

50:22and the first floor, correct?

50:25>> Yes. the the the the

50:27entrance off that's closer to Wurn

50:30Street uh will be one level below uh

50:33some doors on the uh left side of the

50:35building off the driveway.

50:37>> Okay. So, with that on the bridges, I do

50:40see windows on top of the first floor.

50:45Is that something

50:48is is that just for uh light that goes

50:52through?

50:53>> Yes. uh or or or or is it something that

50:56is is another uh kind of a level type in

50:59there like a attic or something for

51:02storage or what is it?

51:03>> It it as you've first guessed it is just

51:05for light. It's because that's the south

51:07face of the building. It's to to bring a

51:09little a little light in that won't

51:10otherwise be there.

51:12>> Okay. Uh thanks. Other than that, uh I'm

51:15fall

51:17for it.

51:18>> Okay. Uh, board member Tono,

51:27>> no comment.

51:29>> Board member Sacko,

51:30>> no comment. Thank

51:33>> Okay. Um,

51:34>> to the chair.

51:35>> Yes.

51:36>> Uh, this is George uh Cortez again. Uh,

51:40I I missed another question and and

51:43that's in regard to the uh the retaining

51:45wall. Um

51:48and and that retaining wall is basically

51:52should be low, no more than 4 ft. And

51:56and so is there a fence to be placed on

52:01top of that retaining wall? What is

52:04behind the retaining wall? Um

52:09and

52:10just for purposes of say safety or

52:13anything like that um I kind of I always

52:17ask you know retaining walls if there's

52:19going to be some type of a fence on top

52:23>> and to the chair uh one of the other uh

52:26staff uh recommended comments was the

52:29installation of fencing which would in

52:31in much of the case be either on top of

52:34or immediately beside that retaining

52:36wall or those retaining walls I should

52:38say

52:39>> either way. So that's that's an option

52:41retaining wall. So that answers my

52:43question. Uh thank you and let's move

52:46forward.

52:48>> Okay.

52:49Um so uh we will need um board member

52:53Cortez, we'll need you to second on

52:55these motions upcoming. So on that um I

52:58will entertain a motion to close.

53:01>> I'd like to make a motion to close for

53:03six Wuburn Street.

53:05>> Second.

53:05>> No. Yeah. So moved.

53:07>> So moved. Sorry.

53:08>> Uh is there a second?

53:10>> I do second the motion.

53:11>> On the motion to close. Uh board member

53:14uh board member Cortez.

53:16>> Yes.

53:17>> Board member Mormmy.

53:18>> Yes.

53:19>> Board member Tono.

53:20>> Yes.

53:21>> Board member Sacko.

53:23>> Yes.

53:24>> My votes yes. Is there a motion on six

53:26Wilurn Street?

53:27>> I'd like to make a motion on Six Wuburn

53:28Street for approval of a variance for

53:30relief of 0.2 2 ft from the 20 foot

53:32minimum sideyard setback requirement for

53:35a non-residential use in an MG0.5 zone.

53:38Uh approval of a variance for relief of

53:400.02 from the 0.5 to1 maximum

53:43dimensional floor to area ratio in the

53:46MG0.5 zone. A variance for a relief of

53:490.27 from the 0.25 to1 maximum

53:52dimensional floor to area ratio in an

53:54MG0.5 zone. and for approval of a

53:56special permit to modify the parking

53:58dimensional layout and/or landscaping

54:00requirements, loading requirements,

54:01and/or the number of required parking

54:03spaces subject to the uh conditions set

54:07forth in the staff memo on page six of

54:1010 and the waiver is requested by the

54:12applicant.

54:16>> So moved.

54:16>> Is there a second?

54:18>> I do second the motion.

54:20>> On the motion, board member Cortez,

54:23>> yes.

54:23>> Board member Mammy,

54:24>> yes. Board member Tono,

54:27>> yes.

54:28>> Board member Sacko,

54:30>> yes.

54:30>> My votes, yes. Thank you very much.

54:33>> Thank you all for your time and uh thank

54:34you staff especially for making what was

54:36a very uh confusing uh uh situation a

54:39little more clear. Thank you.

54:42>> Thank you. Have a good night.

54:44>> Do you guys mind make a motion real

54:45quick for recess? Um hold on one second.

54:49Like to make a motion for a fivem minute

54:51recess.

54:52>> Uh do you second it? Second.

54:55>> All right. All in favor? I. Okay. Uh

54:58we'll be back at 6:41. Thanks.

55:01>> Cool.

59:43Uh before we get started, we need to

59:45confirm um the board members online are

59:48available. Uh board member Cortez

59:51here.

59:52>> Board member Tokono

59:54here. Board member Sacko,

1:00:03just a second. Is this better? Can you

1:00:05hear me? Okay.

1:00:07>> Can you hear him?

1:00:08>> Can you hear me? Okay. Okay, great.

1:00:12>> Board member Sacko.

1:00:34He's there.

1:00:36>> Board member Sacko, if you could unmute.

1:00:40>> Oh, there we go. Great. All right. Next

1:00:43up is 232 Stra uh Stafford Street. If

1:00:46the applicant could please come forward,

1:00:47state your name. City of town of

1:00:48residence.

1:00:49>> Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the

1:00:50board. For the record, Mark Borenstein.

1:00:52and I'm an attorney here in Worcester at

1:00:53Prince Lebell representing the

1:00:55applicant. Um before you this evening um

1:00:59are applications um in connection with a

1:01:01residential community at 232 Safford

1:01:03Street um for variances for relief for

1:01:05the maximum height and um and also for

1:01:09frontage and also a special permit to

1:01:11modify parking layout requirements. We

1:01:13have a short video presentation for you.

1:01:15After that, we'll turn over to staff and

1:01:17um to need to introduce other members of

1:01:19the team that will speak to any

1:01:20questions that the board may have.

1:01:22>> So, we'll do the video. Thank you.

1:01:24>> Okay. There's gonna be a video

1:01:29>> hopefully.

1:01:34232 Stafford LLC is pleased to present

1:01:37its proposed residential community at

1:01:39232 Stafford Street in Worcester. The

1:01:41property consists of an approximately

1:01:4336.7 acres and is currently occupied by

1:01:46the Worcester Academyy's New Balance

1:01:48Athletic Fields. While the site has

1:01:50approximately 588.8 ft of frontage along

1:01:53Stafford Street, it extends

1:01:54significantly to the west, creating a

1:01:56large, irregularly shaped parcel with

1:01:59unique environmental features. The

1:02:00property is surrounded by a diverse mix

1:02:03of uses. The property is bordered by

1:02:05established single family homes along

1:02:06Lello Street to the east, commercial

1:02:08development along Stafford Street to the

1:02:10south, residential neighborhoods in the

1:02:12town of Leicester to the west, and the

1:02:14Greater Worester Land Trust Kettlebrook

1:02:16Conservation Area and Trail Network to

1:02:18the north. A defining feature of the

1:02:19site is Kettlebrook, a perennial stream

1:02:22that runs through the property, placing

1:02:23portions of the site within the flood

1:02:25plane. Together with the site's varied

1:02:27topography, these natural features

1:02:29create constraints which have guided the

1:02:31project's design from the very

1:02:32beginning. In February 2026, the

1:02:35Worcester City Council reszoned the

1:02:36property to the Residents General RG5

1:02:38zoning district to facilitate

1:02:40residential development at the property.

1:02:42The proposed project has been designed

1:02:44to implement that vision while

1:02:46respecting the site's natural resources

1:02:47and the surrounding neighborhood. The

1:02:49project will create a residential

1:02:51community with a total of 207

1:02:53residential units. It includes a

1:02:54four-story multif family building

1:02:56containing approximately 57 apartments

1:02:58and surface parking with approximately

1:03:00152 spaces. The project will also

1:03:02include 150 town home rental units

1:03:05located within 26 single family attached

1:03:07buildings. Variations in exterior wall

1:03:10materials, depth, and detailing will

1:03:12provide a rich texture and break down

1:03:13the scale of the proposed buildings.

1:03:15Each town home includes an attached

1:03:17garage and private driveway parking. In

1:03:19total, the development will provide 452

1:03:22parking spaces, satisfying the city's

1:03:24off- streetet parking requirements and

1:03:26ensuring ample parking for residents and

1:03:28visitors. The layout of the project has

1:03:30been carefully planned to place the

1:03:32majority of the development away from

1:03:33Kettlebrook and the flood plane while

1:03:35preserving substantial open space and

1:03:37existing wooded areas along the western

1:03:39portion of the property. Those preserved

1:03:41areas will continue to provide natural

1:03:43habitat, protect water resources, and

1:03:45create a vegetative buffer between the

1:03:48residential development and the

1:03:49surrounding properties. The residential

1:03:51community is organized around an

1:03:52interconnected internal driveway system.

1:03:54There will be a primary driveway off of

1:03:56Stafford Street to the south and an

1:03:58emergency access driveway off of Hyatt

1:04:00Street to the north. The internal

1:04:01roadway network has been designed to

1:04:03provide safe and efficient circulation

1:04:05for residents, visitors, service

1:04:07vehicles, and emergency responders. For

1:04:09example, the primary entrance is located

1:04:11in an elevated portion of the site and

1:04:13the emergency access driveway is located

1:04:15entirely outside of the flood plane.

1:04:17Furthermore, a comprehensive traffic

1:04:18analysis concluded that the surrounding

1:04:21roadway network can safely accommodate

1:04:22the projected traffic generated by the

1:04:24development without creating significant

1:04:26congestion or adverse impacts to nearby

1:04:29intersections. The project also includes

1:04:31landscaped open spaces, amenity space

1:04:33along Stafford Street, pedestrian

1:04:34walkways, bicycle parking, storm water

1:04:37management facilities, and extensive new

1:04:38landscaping throughout the site. New

1:04:40trees and plantings have been selected

1:04:42for their long-term sustainability and

1:04:44resilience with all tree species being

1:04:46Asian longhorn beetle and emerald borer

1:04:48ash resistant. The project will require

1:04:50relief from the drive aisle width,

1:04:52frontage, and building height

1:04:53requirements. Certain drive alises will

1:04:55be as narrow as 20 ft, requiring 4 ft of

1:04:58relief through the requested special

1:04:59permit. The 150 townhouse units would

1:05:02generally require 3,000 ft of frontage,

1:05:04while the property has approximately

1:05:06588.8 ft of frontage along Stafford

1:05:08Street. The project therefore requires

1:05:10approximately 2,411 ft of frontage

1:05:13relief through a variance. Certain

1:05:15townhouse buildings will be elevated

1:05:17above the flood plane, resulting in

1:05:18additional height, while other buildings

1:05:20are designed to follow the property's

1:05:21natural topography and minimize grading.

1:05:23These townhouse buildings that will

1:05:25exceed the maximum height requirements

1:05:26will require relief through a variance.

1:05:28Importantly though, these buildings will

1:05:30be set below and away from the existing

1:05:32Lello Street homes. Moreover, the

1:05:35tallest structure, the multif family

1:05:36building, will comply with the RG5

1:05:39maximum height requirement and will also

1:05:40be set below and away from the existing

1:05:42homes. Overall, the proposed development

1:05:45reflects a balanced and thoughtful

1:05:46approach to residential growth. By

1:05:48responding to the property's unique

1:05:49natural features, preserving substantial

1:05:51open space, and providing a diverse mix

1:05:54of housing opportunities, the project

1:05:56creates a well-designed neighborhood

1:05:57that complements the surrounding

1:05:58community while helping to meet

1:06:00Worcester's growing need for housing.

1:06:08Thanks, Amy Beth. Uh, Mr. Chair, if I

1:06:11may, just a couple additional points.

1:06:13Um,

1:06:13>> yeah, if you could just talk into the

1:06:14microphone a little bit more.

1:06:15>> Yes, certainly. Is this is this good?

1:06:18>> Can you hear me?

1:06:19>> Barely.

1:06:20>> Barely. Okay. I'm going to really I'm

1:06:23going to really um not shout, but I'm

1:06:25I'm going to try to be as clear as I can

1:06:26and as loud as I can. So, just a couple

1:06:29additional pieces of information um just

1:06:31to supplement the video presentation. Um

1:06:34as the team has been refining the uh

1:06:36floor plans for the multif family

1:06:38building, they've decided to modify such

1:06:41that there will be 59 units instead of

1:06:4357 units. So, we're now proposing 209

1:06:46units total versus 207 units, which are

1:06:49reflected in the in the um the findings

1:06:53uh that we submitted to staff. But I

1:06:54just wanted to make that clear for for

1:06:56the public and for staff and the board.

1:06:58Um in addition, um I just would like to

1:07:01talk through some of the ongoing

1:07:03processes that have have taken place and

1:07:05I'm sure um staff will also comment. Uh

1:07:08once we receive once we submitted the

1:07:09applications, we received some initial

1:07:11feedback from um the fire department and

1:07:14emergency mana management with respect

1:07:15to the flood plane and they asked for

1:07:17certain modifications. We had previously

1:07:19proposed um a an an additional emergency

1:07:22exit off to off of Stafford Street, not

1:07:24off of Hyatt Street. The fire department

1:07:26determined that they would like a second

1:07:28means of access um from Hyatt Street.

1:07:31So, we have we've added that to the

1:07:34plan. So, you might see in in the staff

1:07:35memorandum that we submitted the plans

1:07:37on August 3rd. That was in response to

1:07:39that particular comment. Other than

1:07:41that, the the layout of the site has not

1:07:43changed. In addition, um we've been

1:07:45working with DTM to address any

1:07:47questions they have regarding um traffic

1:07:49counts. We've submitted that memorandum.

1:07:51Uh we were requested, I think on

1:07:53Thursday or Friday, and we immediately

1:07:54submitted that report. Um certainly a

1:07:57lot of these additional um items while

1:07:59while partially within the purview of

1:08:01the of the ZBA will also be addressed

1:08:02through the planning board approval

1:08:04process. Um I would also like to just

1:08:06highlight one aspect um of the the

1:08:09relief globally is you'll see that the

1:08:12relief associated with frontage and

1:08:14height pertain to the town houses and

1:08:17that's because town houses usually

1:08:19contemplate ownership units and there's

1:08:21no cap on the required amount of

1:08:23frontage for town houses. Um as staff I

1:08:26think references in the materials if we

1:08:28had built subdivision roads and had

1:08:30separate ownership we wouldn't need

1:08:31relief. Um, similarly, as referenced in

1:08:34the staff memorandum, if we were

1:08:36proposing only multif family housing,

1:08:38large multif family housing, I believe

1:08:40we can build over 2100 units by right on

1:08:42the property, uh, without need for

1:08:45relief or frontage or height. Um, so it

1:08:48it it I just want to make it clear to

1:08:50the board while we're seeking relief

1:08:51associated with the project, it's not

1:08:53because the project is overly dense or

1:08:56that we are somehow trying to um, find

1:09:00accommodations. It's because the

1:09:02developer is proposing a very unique

1:09:04type of housing option which is single

1:09:07family rentals. And so because they're

1:09:10all on one lot, we have to seek relief

1:09:12associated with frontage. And similarly,

1:09:14because there's internal driveways

1:09:16instead of streets, we have to seek

1:09:17relief associated with the frontage. So

1:09:19I just want to make sure that's clear.

1:09:20As we're evaluating the criteria, we're

1:09:23evaluating the relief. this site could

1:09:25be significantly more dense than the

1:09:27developer is proposing, but they want to

1:09:29provide a more attractive neighborhood

1:09:31for residents. Um, and and the other

1:09:34piece that I want to speak to, which I

1:09:36think is important in terms of the

1:09:37overall development is, and it's one of

1:09:39the conditions of approval, the

1:09:40development team has been actively um

1:09:43speaking with Greater Worester Land

1:09:44Trust to come up with some method to

1:09:47preserve the westerly portion and the

1:09:49norly portion of the site. So uh so

1:09:52globally we're going to have a less

1:09:54dense site than what's permitted by

1:09:56Wright if we were to do multif family

1:09:57housing and we're going to have a

1:09:59portion of the site that's going to be

1:10:00either conveyed or or uh there will be a

1:10:03conservation restriction that will

1:10:04restrict development on that Wesley

1:10:06portion going forward. Um I I know that

1:10:09in the staff memorandum staff has has

1:10:11highlighted that they would appreciate

1:10:13additional time to review this this this

1:10:16application and these plans. We

1:10:17certainly understand that and we

1:10:19certainly welcome that ongoing dialogue

1:10:20with the with the planning staff. Uh we

1:10:22would just respectfully request that

1:10:24after we've go through the conditions of

1:10:26approval that to the extent that the

1:10:27board would like to move forward with

1:10:28with a vote, we would ask for that for

1:10:30purposes of of moving the project

1:10:33timeline forward that that the applicant

1:10:35is not the owner of the property. They

1:10:37have not submitted any planning board

1:10:39applications and they don't want to do

1:10:40so until they're they they have the

1:10:42necessary relief to the extent that the

1:10:43board is willing to grant it. So, we

1:10:45recognize the staff um has evaluated the

1:10:47plans. Uh but I just want to highlight

1:10:49for the board that, you know, we are

1:10:51continue we are committed to continue to

1:10:52work with staff, all the departments to

1:10:54ensure a safe development. Um um and

1:10:58with that, I'm happy to turn it over to

1:10:59staff. Uh we've talked through some of

1:11:00the conditions of approval. They're

1:11:01generally all acceptable. Um we would

1:11:04respectfully request the waiverss

1:11:05recommended by staff. Um but happy to

1:11:07answer any questions after staff has has

1:11:09weighed in on the project. Thank you.

1:11:13>> Okay. city staff

1:11:15>> through the chair Michelle Smith again

1:11:16in the city's planning division. Um so

1:11:18again in front of you this evening an

1:11:20application for two variances and a

1:11:23special permit. Um we're in an RG5

1:11:25zoning district. You heard that the

1:11:26property was recently reszoned by the

1:11:28city council. Um so this was a

1:11:31relatively recent change and the sort of

1:11:34general character of the neighborhood. I

1:11:36think there was a slide that we had that

1:11:37showed the kind of land use

1:11:38classifications. So basically to the

1:11:40northeast you have a lot of lower

1:11:42density residential uses and then along

1:11:44Stafford Street itself you have a

1:11:45variety of different uses including

1:11:48manufacturing uses directly off of of

1:11:50where the driveway is proposed across

1:11:52the street. Um so in terms of the the

1:11:56project they are proposing to build 26

1:11:58different structures for attached or

1:12:00townhouse style single family dwellings.

1:12:04Um, so these are are units that have to

1:12:05have a minimum of three units in each

1:12:08building to qualify for that under our

1:12:10zoning. Um, so that equates to 26

1:12:13buildings with a total of 150 dwelling

1:12:16units within those buildings. Um, there

1:12:19are 300 parking spaces associated with

1:12:21those units related to the garage spaces

1:12:24and the surface spaces that are being

1:12:25provided. And then with respect to the

1:12:28larger building that you see on the

1:12:30site, this is a multif family uh

1:12:32building, a high-rise building

1:12:34technically speaking, which is four

1:12:35stories. Um and that building itself um

1:12:39is proposed to have not 57 as was

1:12:41advertised, but in fact 59. Um the

1:12:44applicant has uh changed that with their

1:12:47updated findings as of today. So we're

1:12:49first just matter of business confirming

1:12:51that the applicant is comfortable

1:12:52proceeding.

1:12:53>> Great. Um, so, uh, the plan the plans

1:12:56that the board members have do not

1:12:57reflect that change in unit count, just

1:12:59to be clear. So, if if you're wondering,

1:13:01it's just two units, but just the

1:13:03materials don't include that that change

1:13:04that was recent. So, and then as part of

1:13:07uh the multif family area of the site,

1:13:09there are 152 parking spaces. So

1:13:13basically this breaks down to 209

1:13:15dwelling units and 452 parking spaces

1:13:18that are proposed on the overall site in

1:13:20the configuration of multif family and

1:13:22the single family attached townhouse

1:13:24style dwellings. So just to to re

1:13:27reiterate um so the reason that the

1:13:29application is in front of the board is

1:13:31because the law is lacking the minimum

1:13:33frontage. So there's 3,000 ft as you

1:13:36heard required by our ordinance. Um the

1:13:38multif family uses have a cap that

1:13:40actually limits frontage at 100 ft. Um

1:13:44we have that it's satisfied but

1:13:46unfortunately the townhouse style

1:13:47dwellings do not have a similar cap. Uh

1:13:50they're contemplated in a different way

1:13:52and so that note that we have limiting

1:13:54for multif family density does not apply

1:13:56to the townhouse style units. So that is

1:13:58really what's driving the relief that's

1:13:59in front of the board this evening. Um

1:14:02so they're seeking relief from that. It

1:14:04is 2411.2

1:14:062 feet about 80% of what the requirement

1:14:08would be for that. And then similarly

1:14:11for the attached style dwellings they

1:14:14are in excess of the 35 ft height

1:14:17limitation. Uh they comply with the

1:14:19number of stories we believe. Uh but

1:14:21it's just the overall height um as

1:14:23measured on the the facade that has the

1:14:25main entry is basically how we measure

1:14:27that from the grade to the roof line.

1:14:29And so they're seeking relief of 10 ft

1:14:31in order to be able to provide a 40 foot

1:14:3345 foot tall um structure. And that's

1:14:36for all the different building types

1:14:37they have. I believe there are four

1:14:38different typologies for that style of

1:14:41of house. So, four different variations

1:14:43of that depending on where it is

1:14:44throughout the site based on grading,

1:14:45location of the flood plane, and what

1:14:47have you. Um, they're also seeking a

1:14:50special permit related to the parking

1:14:52loading landscaping requirements,

1:14:54specifically to have drive a width that

1:14:56are not 24 ft as we require, but instead

1:14:59a variable width of 20 to 22 feet in

1:15:02locations that they are not 24 feet. So,

1:15:04the kind of main corridor is 24 feet,

1:15:07but as you kind of get into the more

1:15:08peripheral, if you will, neighborhood

1:15:10network, um those driveways reduce and

1:15:13are a mix of uh 20 and 22 feet uh

1:15:16respectively. Um so, the applicant is

1:15:19seeking relief in in those three

1:15:20respects. That's really what's in front

1:15:22of the board. The application will

1:15:23require site plan review where the

1:15:25planning board reviews kind of means

1:15:27methods of construction, understands

1:15:29phasing, sequencing, grading, looks at

1:15:31lighting, landscaping, and all of the

1:15:33other details. So, what has been

1:15:35submitted to the board at this point is

1:15:37sort of this more conceptual plan that

1:15:39the board has up on the screen here.

1:15:41There's no phototric plan um that was

1:15:43included. So some of those details have

1:15:45not been progressed um as part of of the

1:15:48process at this stage but will be

1:15:50required to be progressed at a site plan

1:15:52review level um where the application to

1:15:54move forward um from the zoning board of

1:15:57appeals because of the location of the

1:15:59property both in the flood plane as well

1:16:02as within proximity to Kettlebrook. Uh

1:16:04there will also be a filing with the

1:16:06conservation commission. We call it a

1:16:07notice of intent application, but

1:16:09basically a permit with the conservation

1:16:11commission to make sure that the

1:16:12wetlands and the flood plane are

1:16:13protected throughout construction and

1:16:15that the proposal doesn't have an

1:16:16adverse impact on the natural

1:16:18environment resulting from storm water

1:16:20and the construction activities

1:16:21themselves. So, just a little bit about

1:16:23other permits that are going to be

1:16:24needed. Um, we also require because of

1:16:27the number of residential buildings that

1:16:29are proposed and that they are proposed

1:16:30on one lot that they obtain a more than

1:16:33one building on a lot permit from the

1:16:35planning board which essentially is a

1:16:37review for compliance of the driveways

1:16:40and the site with the subdivision

1:16:41regulations that we have here in the

1:16:42city. Um, so there'll be another

1:16:44opportunity for uh the planning board to

1:16:46review related to making sure that the

1:16:49driveway network is safe and

1:16:50satisfactory um for all all um that it

1:16:54serves and that we'll be using it. And

1:16:56finally, the emergency interconnection

1:16:58that you heard about um that is located

1:17:00plan north or top of the screen which

1:17:02will interconnect with Hyatt Street. Um,

1:17:05in that location, there'll be likely two

1:17:08different approvals that will be needed

1:17:09with the planning board because a

1:17:10portion of a street is going to be

1:17:12opened and a portion of a street is

1:17:13going to be upgraded and those are

1:17:15private streets. So, the planning board

1:17:17has a role in reviewing the changes to

1:17:19that. Um, unlike public streets where

1:17:21city council makes that decision. Um, so

1:17:23the planning board will have that and

1:17:24that's that's our best guess based on

1:17:26the information that's been provided.

1:17:27Um, as the applicants council indicated,

1:17:30um, there have been a number of concerns

1:17:32expressed by different departments. The

1:17:34applicant has been exceptionally

1:17:35responsive um to trying to address

1:17:37those, but unfortunately time is just

1:17:39something we cannot create more of. Um

1:17:41so uh the applicant did provide a

1:17:43response to uh concerns that the fire

1:17:45department and emergency management had

1:17:47expressed. Originally, as you heard,

1:17:49there was one driveway proposed from

1:17:51Stafford Street. Um, and the applicant

1:17:54proposed a secondary emergency access

1:17:56with a redundant driveway, I'll call it,

1:17:58also along Stafford Street to which the

1:18:00fire department and emergency management

1:18:02still had concerns about that not

1:18:03meaningfully providing access and

1:18:05wanting to ensure you know that all of

1:18:07these families are safe were there to be

1:18:09a flood. Um, so the applicants revised

1:18:11the plans to provide this

1:18:12interconnection to the north. So in

1:18:14response to that, we still have

1:18:15additional comments. There are some

1:18:16conditions that have been included

1:18:18related to ensuring that that emergency

1:18:20interconnection ends up being adequately

1:18:22improved to the satisfaction of the fire

1:18:25department as well as DPW um and the

1:18:28department of transportation and

1:18:29mobility and then that will happen

1:18:30through the planning board process. But

1:18:32you don't have plans that show exactly

1:18:34what is proposed there either. So I'll

1:18:36just caveat again something that is um

1:18:38to be developed or has yet to be

1:18:40developed um at this stage in the

1:18:43process. Um, and I'm calling it an

1:18:45emergency interconnected

1:18:46interconnection. But I just I will

1:18:48clarify um that at this point there's

1:18:50only a draft traffic study that the

1:18:52applicant submitted u on Friday in

1:18:54response to the the concerns that um the

1:18:56Department of Transportation and

1:18:57Mobility raised. Um so they were able to

1:19:00review that in in its draft form, but

1:19:02it's not essentially a complete traffic

1:19:03study. That'll be required uh for the

1:19:06site plan review with the planning

1:19:08board. Um, but at this point, um, they

1:19:10have issued preliminary comments which

1:19:12are included for the board members in

1:19:14your packet. They were just issued

1:19:15today, so I'm not sure folks had a

1:19:17chance to look through them all. Um, but

1:19:18those are included there. Um, I don't

1:19:21believe we have included those as

1:19:24conditions. Um, it's really more of like

1:19:26a narrative comment for the applicant

1:19:28and something that they're looking for

1:19:29as part of the site plan. Should you

1:19:31feel any of those are important to

1:19:33include, you could certainly do so. Um,

1:19:35but that's not the way that the memo for

1:19:37planning anyways has been structured.

1:19:39Um, so just again calling attention to

1:19:41that. Um, and I again get back to the

1:19:44the calling it emergency. It is possible

1:19:47that through the results of the traffic

1:19:48study and conversations with DTM that

1:19:50perhaps that isn't an emergency. I don't

1:19:53know. I don't think that that is

1:19:54intention or desire at this point, but

1:19:56it's hard to say because the traffic

1:19:58study is is not fully complete and

1:20:00obviously we haven't had a chance to to

1:20:02completely weigh in in that regard. Um

1:20:05so that's a little bit about the the

1:20:08other permitting. Um just again

1:20:10recapping related to the the specific

1:20:13relief and what the buy alternatives are

1:20:15or alternatives without this board's

1:20:18permission that would just go to the

1:20:20planning board for site plan review. Um

1:20:22that would be building multif family

1:20:24units at a a much greater potential

1:20:26density. Um as was referenced um of

1:20:29high-rise. of something that is uh four

1:20:32stories or up to eight stories. In fact,

1:20:35um could be constructed by right at this

1:20:37location. Uh and based on the area

1:20:40that's available, that is in the order

1:20:41of magnitude of about 2100 potential

1:20:44units. Um because the lot area becomes

1:20:46the limiting factor for that density. Um

1:20:50there are a variety of other pieces as

1:20:52well. Um [snorts] in terms of the uh

1:20:56relief on the driveways, they could

1:20:58easily accommodate a 24 ft drive aisle.

1:21:00Um that would result in more impervious

1:21:02surface and would likely start to

1:21:04encroach on some of the structures

1:21:05closer to some of the resource areas and

1:21:08the buffers that the city and the state

1:21:10have related to that. Um which while not

1:21:13impossible in terms of the site design,

1:21:15uh would in kind of infringe on those

1:21:16natural resource areas and make

1:21:19construction potentially more

1:21:20challenging as well. Um,

1:21:23and the al other alternative that I

1:21:25neglected to mention. So, while there

1:21:27isn't enough frontage on Stafford

1:21:29Street, the applicant could lay out a

1:21:31subdivision. And in laying out a

1:21:32subdivision, you create the frontage

1:21:34that's needed. Um, so the applicant

1:21:36could essentially create a new road and

1:21:38create the frontage through that

1:21:39process. Um, we would look in a

1:21:41situation like that for an

1:21:42interconnection as well to an adjacent

1:21:44street like Hyatt Street. Um and there

1:21:46may be other uh challenges in designing

1:21:49a road that meets the city standards. Um

1:21:51so the applicant has chosen not to do

1:21:53that and instead they're in front of you

1:21:54for this particular uh form of relief.

1:21:57And then again with respect to the

1:21:58height requirements, the applicant could

1:22:00reduce the height for the proposed

1:22:02structures by 10 ft um and comply with

1:22:04the zoning requirements. Um so just

1:22:06emphasizing some of the unique features

1:22:08of this were in the flood plane overlay

1:22:10district. You know, not every property

1:22:12is located in this area. So the the

1:22:14property is located in the 1% often

1:22:16referred to as a 100redy year, but I

1:22:18don't want you to get caught up on that

1:22:19because it doesn't necessarily happen

1:22:21every hundred years. Um 1% theoretical

1:22:24flood event um special flood hazard

1:22:26area. Basically in that theoretical

1:22:28event portions of the site saw the kind

1:22:30of red, yellow, green map that was

1:22:33included in one of the graphics shows

1:22:35kind of the intensity of um flooding

1:22:37that would be on the site with the depth

1:22:39of flood flooding modeled based on the

1:22:42theoretical study that FEMA had

1:22:44conducted um in this area um

1:22:46representing you know again what that

1:22:48would look like. So the the driveway

1:22:49does get um eclipsed by the the flooding

1:22:53in that location on Stafford Street. So

1:22:55the the purpose of Hyatt being to

1:22:57provide an uninated area to provide

1:23:00access to those units. There are I

1:23:04believe three of the buildings that are

1:23:06fully located within the flood plane.

1:23:07The town houses that you see kind of

1:23:09horizontal to the bottom of the screen.

1:23:11Um those units and the team should

1:23:13correct me if I've got that wrong, but

1:23:15um those are are located um in that

1:23:18area. A series of parking areas

1:23:20including the main parking area and the

1:23:21driveway like I mentioned also being

1:23:23within the flood plane. Um so all of

1:23:25those will have to comply with building

1:23:26code requirements for construction in

1:23:28the flood plane as well as the

1:23:29conservation commission requirements

1:23:31preventing any flooding from occurring

1:23:33um and affecting neighboring properties.

1:23:35So if there's any fill there has to be a

1:23:37commensurate cut. Um

1:23:40in terms of uh the layout itself uh the

1:23:43it's relatively suburban as you can see

1:23:45in terms of its orientation sighting.

1:23:47Some of that's being driven by the flood

1:23:49plane. Part of that's also just being

1:23:51driven by the design type and kind of

1:23:53the market that the applicant is seeking

1:23:55to to fill. Um the applicant is

1:23:58providing 2.2 parking spaces per unit.

1:24:01So that's in excess of our high require

1:24:03rents for parking which are two spaces

1:24:05typically. Um so there's excess parking

1:24:08than is required by the zoning

1:24:09ordinance. Um we have um encouraged the

1:24:12applicant to from from the outside of

1:24:14their project to work with WRTA to

1:24:17consider an extension of the bus line

1:24:19down to accommodate potential future

1:24:22users from the development given the

1:24:23intensity of the development um to

1:24:25provide other convenient opportunities

1:24:27and help potentially um reduce trip

1:24:29generation from the site and in single

1:24:32occupant um vehicle trips. Um so we have

1:24:35um encouraged them to do that. So that's

1:24:37something that we've provided in our

1:24:38comments, not a requirement, just

1:24:39something that we're encouraging them to

1:24:40do and making sure that as part of the

1:24:42traffic study that that includes a

1:24:44transportation demand management plan.

1:24:46Um talking about how they will be trying

1:24:48to address the increases in truck

1:24:50generation from the project. We've also

1:24:52requested that they include both

1:24:54interior and exterior bike storage um

1:24:57for maybe families with kids that want

1:24:59to have their scooters and scoot over

1:25:01and go swimming in the pool just within

1:25:03the project. Um or guests that might be

1:25:04coming to visit uh for convenience or

1:25:06residents that live within the buildings

1:25:08and don't want to shle their bike up to

1:25:10their unit. Um so some of those a bit

1:25:12more sight planning but related to

1:25:14specifically the density and and trying

1:25:16to make sure that those accommodations

1:25:17are there. Um, you'll see on the bottom

1:25:20right there's a pale green area. This is

1:25:23noted as an amenity area. The specific

1:25:25programming, if you will, for the space

1:25:27has not been developed. There is

1:25:29currently a parking lot in that

1:25:30location. So, we have requested that the

1:25:33applicant maintain at least a portion of

1:25:34that parking lot available for public

1:25:37parking because the applicant is working

1:25:39with the greater interest on

1:25:40conservation of the area that's

1:25:42essentially not shown in green here. Um,

1:25:44so really the river and everything to

1:25:46the west of it and potentially some

1:25:48things to the east um to be determined

1:25:51at a later date. We do have a a

1:25:53condition in the recommendations which

1:25:55would include a requirement that prior

1:25:57to occupancy of their first unit that

1:25:59they have to show us that that property

1:26:02has been perpetually preserved um

1:26:04through conservation restriction

1:26:06basically being subjected to the state's

1:26:08protections for open space which is

1:26:10article 97. Um so we have condition in

1:26:13here to address that um to help with

1:26:16help with that. Um but we are looking

1:26:18for additional information about how

1:26:19kind of the public versus kind of

1:26:21private common space amenities and

1:26:23connection from the larger site to the

1:26:26amenity area would be provided without

1:26:28folks having to kind of make a trip in

1:26:30their vehicle to the amenity area to try

1:26:32to minimize again some of those trip

1:26:34generation um activities that might

1:26:36otherwise occur within the site just

1:26:38because of the scale of the project. Um

1:26:41and uh let's see anything else otherwise

1:26:45we are still in the process of obviously

1:26:48it's a large scale project so we're

1:26:49still in the process of reviewing all of

1:26:51the details of what's been provided. So

1:26:52really the review that we've done at

1:26:53this point is related just to the relief

1:26:56that the board's seeking. A lot of times

1:26:57our review is a bit more comprehensive

1:26:59in nature um just given some of the time

1:27:01limitations and the progression of the

1:27:02different plans. We haven't fully had

1:27:04the opportunity to do that. So you do

1:27:06see in our recommendation a note related

1:27:08to continuence. Ultimately, it's a

1:27:10discretion of the board as to, you know,

1:27:12if if you're comfortable with the

1:27:13information that's been provided, um,

1:27:15you know, there while the changes from

1:27:17the plans last week were relatively

1:27:20minimal, there are changes not just to

1:27:21the emergency access, but also to the

1:27:23main driveway. You know, again, some of

1:27:24these things that that staff are are

1:27:26still in the process of reviewing. Um

1:27:28but again the Department of

1:27:29Transportation and Mobility didn't feel

1:27:31necessarily strongly one way or the

1:27:33other um related to uh having that prior

1:27:37to the ZBA considering this. Um in terms

1:27:40of where we are in the city, we are over

1:27:42by a Cherry Valley in the good old town

1:27:44of Leicester here on the left. Um and we

1:27:48have this area indicated as a kind of

1:27:51background or baseline growth area in

1:27:53the city. Um although it it's near uh

1:27:56walking distance to transit along

1:27:58Stafford Street. Um and I think I hit

1:28:02all of the other approvals that will be

1:28:04needed. So with that um I just want to

1:28:06call out some conditions uh that we have

1:28:10discussed modifications to with the

1:28:12applicant. So, specifically on page

1:28:14seven of your memo, um the applicant is

1:28:16looking to adjust 1D where it says um

1:28:20reflect the use of brick throughout the

1:28:21first story of the front and left

1:28:23elevations of building one. So, this is

1:28:25the multif family building. They would

1:28:26like to change front and left to south

1:28:28and west. We have no problem with that.

1:28:31Um and then related to

1:28:36the condition number four, the second

1:28:39sentence indicates mitigation measures

1:28:42shall they would like to change shall to

1:28:44may. Um those are just examples and I

1:28:47will call attention that these

1:28:48conditions three, four and five were

1:28:50provided specifically by the um

1:28:52department of emergency management in

1:28:54response to the unique consideration

1:28:56that the property is located with the

1:28:57flood plane. So these are intended to

1:28:58make sure all occupants remain safe in

1:29:01the event of a flood. Um so including

1:29:03information about how to subscribe to

1:29:05alert Worcester emergency contacts,

1:29:08evacuation routes, things like that that

1:29:09might uniquely affect the property as

1:29:11compared to a traditional um development

1:29:13that the board's used to seeing. So

1:29:16mitigation around sort of warning

1:29:19signage areas that would be flooded so

1:29:21that folks visually have a way to

1:29:22identify, you know, that if there's

1:29:23flooding, there's signs that are saying

1:29:25it's, you know, don't don't go through.

1:29:27um turn around don't drown as we say and

1:29:29then they are looking to strike

1:29:31condition five uh from our perspective.

1:29:34Um this is something that can be worked

1:29:36out through the provisions with the

1:29:38flood plane overlay district in our

1:29:40zoning code. Um and through the site

1:29:42plan process um so we're amendable to

1:29:44that uh just something that was specific

1:29:46to showing flood depth markers in areas

1:29:50that are subject to inundation.

1:29:52And then finally on condition seven,

1:29:55they're looking to strike the language

1:29:57that refers to incompensatory storage

1:29:59facilities, flood planes, uh, which we

1:30:02have no problem eliminating. Um, we'll

1:30:04deal with this at the site plan level.

1:30:07Um, the applicant already requested the

1:30:09two waiverss. And with that, I'm happy

1:30:11to answer any questions the board

1:30:12members have. Thank you.

1:30:18[clears throat]

1:30:18>> Okay. So just to clarify um you're

1:30:21requesting the waiverss.

1:30:22>> Yes, sir.

1:30:23>> Um okay. So

1:30:26and [clears throat]

1:30:27um I want to make sure that that I heard

1:30:30that correctly um that the buy right if

1:30:33they did multif family units keeping in

1:30:35mind um that there are other things that

1:30:38might come into play with the planning

1:30:39division and other pieces. Um but

1:30:43essentially they could do 2,100

1:30:45units through the multi of

1:30:47multifamilies. Um, and they're proposing

1:30:50209.

1:30:51>> Correct.

1:30:52>> Okay. Um, [clears throat]

1:30:54uh, and with that, um, I'm sure there's

1:30:57extensive public comment. So, um, I will

1:31:00ask, uh, that people, um, state their

1:31:03name and city of town of residence and

1:31:05just address, um, all comments to me

1:31:08directly. Okay. Please come forward.

1:31:12>> And I'll just note too that we do have

1:31:13written public comment as well that came

1:31:15in today.

1:31:15>> Yeah. Yes. Uh, for board members. Oh, I

1:31:18should say that before we get to this.

1:31:20Uh, for board members, there is written

1:31:21comment in our packets. Um, and for

1:31:24voting on this one, although obviously,

1:31:26um, we always encourage conversation.

1:31:28Board member Barton Hagen will be the

1:31:30alternate and, um, this one. Okay. Uh,

1:31:34state your name, city, town of

1:31:35residence, please.

1:31:36>> Uh, Nathan Worcester. First of all, I

1:31:40have no horse in this game, but as a

1:31:44Worcester resident

1:31:47um lifetime, Mr. Chair, I just want to

1:31:51uh make you a couple of points here. Uh

1:31:53Worcester Academy has owned this

1:31:55property for 16 years.

1:31:58I I think they're actually um as the

1:32:02developers, they're actually getting a

1:32:04pretty good deal.

1:32:06uh paying four and a half million

1:32:07dollars for six for 36 point uh seven

1:32:11acres of

1:32:13basically open land.

1:32:16Uh my question would be is uh can we

1:32:19assume now it doesn't really uh pertain

1:32:23here but uh but just curious all these

1:32:26years it's probably been tax exempt

1:32:30which will now become taxable property

1:32:33now and um

1:32:37uh let's face it Worcester needs housing

1:32:40housing housing housing. Oh, by the way,

1:32:44they need more housing. So, however they

1:32:49go about it, however we find the land to

1:32:52build, there's going to be more housing

1:32:54built. Uh, these are things that are

1:32:58inevitable.

1:33:00Uh the only thing that I don't know if

1:33:02they can do it,

1:33:04but it would be a very nice gesture of

1:33:07these developers

1:33:09if they can put some sort of track of

1:33:12land on there that still have a very

1:33:15small play field for, you know, the

1:33:20people that might be living there. They

1:33:21might have kids and they might have

1:33:23grandkids. He might I don't know if it's

1:33:25possible, but it would be nice.

1:33:30Uh

1:33:33that's it.

1:33:35>> Okay. Thank you so much. I guess I can

1:33:37answer the one and then I'll let the

1:33:38applicant answer the other. Um I think

1:33:41my understanding is that's correct that

1:33:42it was not taxable and this would turn

1:33:44this into taxable property. Um, I know

1:33:47that there are plans, there's

1:33:48requirements for there to be publicly

1:33:51for residents to have access to area um

1:33:55to to play or to have recreation and so

1:33:58there's a requirement that this will be

1:34:00meeting. Um, so if the applicant could

1:34:02just speak a little bit to that as as

1:34:04knowing that the plans are not finalized

1:34:06at this point for the zoning, but um in

1:34:08compliance with that.

1:34:10>> Yeah. So certainly so um we haven't

1:34:13programmed the amenity space yet. Um,

1:34:16but certainly there's going to be some

1:34:18type of recreational active space there.

1:34:20And as I referenced in my early remarks,

1:34:23the intention is to ensure that ongoing

1:34:26connection with the Greater Wister Land

1:34:28Trust um, recreational trails. So

1:34:31whether or not there's going to be

1:34:32soccer fields, probably not, but there

1:34:35still will be opportunities for folks in

1:34:37the community to enjoy recreation in

1:34:39this particular area. um as in the staff

1:34:42uh recommended conditions approval,

1:34:44there'll be a trail head, some type of

1:34:45parking. There's going to be some

1:34:47ongoing um efforts to to ensure those

1:34:50those areas are maintained. So, um and I

1:34:52would also note that um it's my

1:34:54understanding that the fields currently

1:34:55aren't open to the public. Uh when I

1:34:57went there, they seem to be locked up.

1:34:59So, um to the extent that people are

1:35:01playing on these fields, I don't know if

1:35:02that's actually the case or lawful. So,

1:35:04I would just point that out as well.

1:35:07>> Okay, go ahead. Next person like to come

1:35:09up. Just state your name and city of

1:35:11town of residence, please.

1:35:15>> My My name is Greg Buto from to Merrick

1:35:19Street in Cherry Valley. I I live about

1:35:23500 ft from the edge of the border and I

1:35:26appreciate you allowing us to comment.

1:35:29And although I've submitted written

1:35:31comments, I uh I think you have a button

1:35:35to release me to the downstairs floor if

1:35:37I go through the six pages of written

1:35:40comments. So, I'll try to give you the

1:35:42cliff's notes version as fast as I can

1:35:46and I'm asking my wife to assist me. I

1:35:48have a personal problem. I have a hard

1:35:51hearing time. I I would appreciate the

1:35:53developer if he could show one of the

1:35:55first pictures that shows the roads. Uh,

1:35:58could you do that? I mean, I

1:36:00>> He doesn't have control, so it's

1:36:01actually the city the city staff

1:36:02controls it. So, you'll have to ask.

1:36:05>> Yeah. So, you're looking for the roads.

1:36:08Um,

1:36:09>> the street staff street and uh

1:36:11>> Yep.

1:36:12>> Whatever. And I'll walk over there.

1:36:15>> You You have to You have to use the

1:36:16microphone.

1:36:17>> It's got to take the microphone.

1:36:23>> Thought I could be loud enough. My wife

1:36:24says I'm loud enough at home. So, I

1:36:26figured that

1:36:26>> Well, you got to pick it up for the city

1:36:28for the standard.

1:36:29>> Is this the one you're looking for?

1:36:31>> Huh?

1:36:32>> Is this the Is this the one you're

1:36:33looking for?

1:36:34>> Yeah. Okay. So, uh and I'll try not to

1:36:37have my back to you. Okay. Uh but in

1:36:42terms of the entrance, uh right right

1:36:45here is

1:36:46>> that's the entrance is a little bit

1:36:48higher. It's a little bit higher.

1:36:50>> So, that's the that's the kettle book

1:36:52stream. That's the brook.

1:36:54>> Oh, the brook. Oh, the entrance here.

1:36:56>> Yep, that's correct.

1:36:57>> Okay. From there, there's Lello Street.

1:37:01But even before Lello Street, there

1:37:04shows a count right there of around uh

1:37:07it's in your packet around 6,100

1:37:11cars per day. This is from Mass Dot's

1:37:14Whiteside 2025.

1:37:18Further up, there's the intersection of

1:37:20Bloodlo Street that shows a count of

1:37:24around 9300 cars.

1:37:28And lastly, which is not shown, if it

1:37:31was a different further up, the

1:37:33intersection of Stafford [snorts] Street

1:37:37and uh uh James Street, it shows uh 12

1:37:4112,300.

1:37:43And it's important to recognize the area

1:37:46because it's very congested. It's very

1:37:49congested a such a and and the those

1:37:54traffic counts to give you a feel is up

1:37:58on the further end on the other artery

1:38:01as such uh a count around Route 9 is

1:38:0515,200.

1:38:07So when I'm talking about 12,200,

1:38:11that's a lot of cars in very simple

1:38:13language. Okay. So the before you come

1:38:18down to the opening

1:38:21>> on the west side, you're coming down an

1:38:25incline about 10% slope average. That's

1:38:30has a name dead horse hill. And I'll let

1:38:34you use your logic that the dead horse

1:38:36was the horses died going up the hill.

1:38:40So there is currently a very

1:38:46uh strong problem with just traffic.

1:38:50It's a nightmare to get out there during

1:38:53uh peak travel hours particularly in the

1:38:56morning and that be becomes aggravated

1:39:00when uh there's inclement weather like

1:39:03winter whatever

1:39:05uh the uh other thing I wanted to reveal

1:39:09to you uh up here at the intersection of

1:39:14Stafford Street and James Street they

1:39:18had crash data on the police uh website

1:39:22and it showed 30 crashes in five years.

1:39:26It also said that that uh travel way has

1:39:30a 67%

1:39:32uh increased crash rate over other

1:39:36secondary roads in the com commonwealth.

1:39:40I don't have and I have a request in to

1:39:42get the crash rate of Lello and uh

1:39:46Stafford Street, but my wife and I and

1:39:49maybe other people here have seen many a

1:39:51crash. They're not a f vender. The

1:39:54reason I bring this up is if you uh my

1:39:57comments were structured along what the

1:40:00uh developer submitted and what he he

1:40:04said was that there was minimal impact.

1:40:08uh they uh they will not result in

1:40:11significant increases in traffic volumes

1:40:14or traffic delays. I I respectfully very

1:40:18strongly disagree with that because

1:40:21there's already an existing problem. You

1:40:24can go out there and it's backed up. In

1:40:28wintertime it gets real treacherous

1:40:31because that dead horse hill if you ever

1:40:34sat in a car on a hill with uh ice or

1:40:38snow is it's it's not it's a hazardous

1:40:42condition. So as submitted I disagree

1:40:46with that. I said I did Mr. Chairman I

1:40:49promised I'd give you the cliffstone

1:40:51version. I'm going to go to the last

1:40:53page. One of the other comments I had

1:40:57and it has to do with I'm sorry it has

1:41:00to do with hardship. Uh that respect to

1:41:04the relief may be granted without

1:41:06detriment to the public ill. uh uh I I I

1:41:10say the existing problem with travel

1:41:14with traffic will be only exasperated by

1:41:17this project and that use of the road by

1:41:20me or you or anybody is a public good.

1:41:24So it becomes a balancing of hey we have

1:41:27something a road which should we all be

1:41:29used and yes there's a need for housing.

1:41:32I I don't disagree with that but this

1:41:35would exaggerate the situ this the the

1:41:39uh situation. The other point in the in

1:41:43the developers presentation he refers to

1:41:47the Salisbury green project way up on

1:41:50Salisbury Road as hey you gave relief

1:41:53for uh frontage requirements. Uh yeah,

1:41:57that's agreed. But I don't know if

1:41:59you've ever been there is the traffic

1:42:02isn't that uh bad. In fact, if you look

1:42:05at the traffic count there, it's around

1:42:083,800. I left that in the package. And

1:42:11the point I'm trying to make make is

1:42:14it's 12,000 down there or 12,000 or plus

1:42:18down near there. It's order of

1:42:20magnitudes low as such. So it's an

1:42:24incomplete analysis. doesn't tell you

1:42:27what the city may have granted and if

1:42:29you ever go up Salary Street near that

1:42:31end. Yeah. No, if you had a 5% increase,

1:42:35it wouldn't be that bad. I I really

1:42:37appreciate your time. I appreciate your

1:42:40p patience and your understanding my

1:42:43limitation and I thank you for not

1:42:45dropping me through the door.

1:42:47>> Thank you very much. And we did um just

1:42:49for the board, we did get your comments

1:42:51uh your full six pages of comments.

1:42:53Although that wasn't six pages full of

1:42:55just yours. You were commenting on other

1:42:57folks. Um so thank you very much. Uh

1:43:02other public comment

1:43:05>> you absolutely can just state your name

1:43:07and city of town of residence, please.

1:43:08>> Okay. Beatress Buto. I live in Cherry

1:43:11Valley and um the gentleman and her

1:43:15talked a little too fast for me and I'm

1:43:18a little bit confused about um the the

1:43:22two access points for emergency or

1:43:25something or other I think you said and

1:43:27one of them that was mentioned was Hyatt

1:43:29Street.

1:43:30>> Is that still

1:43:33proposed Hyatt Street as one of the

1:43:35entrances exits?

1:43:37>> Yes. So I can I can answer real quickly.

1:43:40So this so the um the fire department

1:43:43requested of the developer um they had

1:43:47two access points on Stafford Street for

1:43:50this property and they requested that

1:43:52one of them be um above the flight of um

1:43:55the flood plane which would be so they

1:43:57requested that it go to Hyatt Street.

1:43:59The details of that they are still

1:44:02working out. So we don't have those full

1:44:04details. that would be something should

1:44:06this progress to the planning board that

1:44:08they would work out with the city. But

1:44:10that was a relatively recent request of

1:44:14the fire department to change the

1:44:16emergency uh emergency access.

1:44:19>> Had I known about that, I would have

1:44:21brought photographs of Hyatt Street.

1:44:25It's quite impossible for me to imagine

1:44:29emergency trucks trying to enter or

1:44:32access there and and Highest Street's

1:44:35relation to Route 9 and the traffic that

1:44:40Route 9 absorbs for the airport is

1:44:43unbelievable.

1:44:45>> Yeah. So the the proposal would be that

1:44:47there would have to be some updates to

1:44:48Hyatt Street to facilitate that. And

1:44:51again, because it was a relatively

1:44:52recent development from the city to the

1:44:55developer, those details about how they

1:44:57would upgrade Hyatt to accommodate that

1:44:59would be something that they would still

1:45:01have to work out.

1:45:04Thank you. Yes. Uh other public comment,

1:45:07please.

1:45:11Okay. um online,

1:45:14please use you can use your raise your

1:45:15hand function um by pressing use the

1:45:18raise your hand feature or pressing

1:45:20star9.

1:45:27Okay. Um I really appreciate the

1:45:29thoughtful I want to say thank you. I

1:45:31thought your letter was very good um and

1:45:34thoughtful and um I and similar the um

1:45:38some of the comments I will note are

1:45:40some of the things that DTM is also

1:45:43working to so the things that you

1:45:45pointed out for the traffic are some

1:45:47things that the department of

1:45:48transportation and mobility have also

1:45:51have questions about that they're asking

1:45:53to go through when they go through the

1:45:55planning part of the process. So the

1:45:58other boards that would see this should

1:45:59this move forward are the conservation

1:46:02commission which would look at how this

1:46:04would be affecting the water flow for

1:46:07the brook and the other would be the

1:46:09planning division which looks at a lot

1:46:11of the questions about how will this

1:46:13look how will this be put how will this

1:46:16actually be built like what's the

1:46:17sequencing additionally they will look

1:46:20at um the uh more detail about the

1:46:23traffic study about the driveway aisles

1:46:26about um the uh the emergency exit what

1:46:30that would look like for Hyatt Street.

1:46:32So some of the questions about um the

1:46:35actual like how this fits into the city

1:46:38are the questions of planning division

1:46:40generally we do we do cover them a

1:46:42little but they are also very much a

1:46:44part of the planning and so should this

1:46:46move forward the planning would also

1:46:48look at those questions that you have um

1:46:50to answer some of them. So, um, just

1:46:53going to board comment for for us, the

1:46:56other thing that I want the board to

1:46:57consider, um, that I think is important

1:46:59for that the applicant made is that

1:47:02because the focus of the housing that's

1:47:06being built is to be rentals, that's the

1:47:10reason for the frontage. So if they were

1:47:13to build a subdivision, which this site

1:47:17could for sure contain, that request for

1:47:21variance would go away. Which means if

1:47:23they were to make them sort of um for

1:47:26like higher profit uh subdivisions to

1:47:30buy, they wouldn't need the frontage.

1:47:32The frontage is coming because they're

1:47:34focusing on making this rentals. And the

1:47:38height is in response in some of the in

1:47:40some of the cases to the flood plane and

1:47:43the desire to build up from the flood

1:47:45plane. So to be in in congruence with

1:47:48the fact that it may flood at some point

1:47:50and if it does there would be some

1:47:52protection for the homeowners by being

1:47:53higher up and so therefore they're

1:47:55hitting the um the height the the height

1:47:57requirement. Um, speaking for myself,

1:48:00um, I I think, um,

1:48:04uh, you know, we're always trying to

1:48:08tackle the question of, um, there's no

1:48:12question that if something gets built

1:48:13here, there will be more cars. There

1:48:16will be more cars, that'll cause more

1:48:18traffic. Um, and so, um, we're always

1:48:21trying to balance those things, but I

1:48:23think the need for more housing,

1:48:25especially in a place where there is

1:48:28there will be there should be housing

1:48:29here, like we should be putting housing.

1:48:32And there is just so much space here and

1:48:35there's such a need for housing that

1:48:36some sort of housing should go here. And

1:48:40so then the question is for me is not

1:48:42should there be housing because housing

1:48:44will cause cars, cars will cause

1:48:46traffic. So the question isn't is

1:48:48traffic going to increase. Some form of

1:48:51traffic is going to increase if we are

1:48:53ever going to get the housing we need.

1:48:55So I think we need housing and I think

1:48:58that means that we're going to have more

1:49:00traffic. So then the question is are

1:49:03they doing it in a responsible way? And

1:49:05from my perspective and other board

1:49:07members get to have a say. they could be

1:49:09trying to a lot of developers come in

1:49:11and they try to get as many units as

1:49:13possible and sort of just try to do

1:49:16whatever they can and they're actually

1:49:19doing about a tenth of the possible

1:49:22units. So, not only are they not

1:49:24maximizing it, there's just a far fewer

1:49:26housing requests than is possible. So

1:49:30because of the sort of like the the um

1:49:34the because of the um

1:49:37uh the the sort of that we need housing,

1:49:40I think some housing will go here and

1:49:42there's a need for something. This is a

1:49:44relatively small request actually for us

1:49:47considering how big this project is. Um

1:49:49this is actually I actually thought when

1:49:51um when I heard that there was going to

1:49:52be something I actually thought there'd

1:49:53be more requests for variances and

1:49:55there's actually very few considering.

1:49:58So from my perspective, I'm I'm I want I

1:50:01think this project um is a good project

1:50:04to move forward. It generally will get

1:50:06my vote. I'm cur I'm as well as other U

1:50:09board members thoughts on this project.

1:50:11I'm curious what board members think

1:50:13about the sort of DTM does have some

1:50:16good questions about sort of um the uh

1:50:21the neat like figuring out like does the

1:50:24flow of traffic they have some questions

1:50:26about that. Um, we have we have two more

1:50:29units that weren't proposed. I'm a

1:50:31little bit more comfortable for that

1:50:32since it's internal to a building that

1:50:34we're roughly not really seeing. So,

1:50:36it's not like you've added new buildings

1:50:38per se. You've just changed the inside

1:50:41of a building, which isn't particularly

1:50:43in this case, um, the thing that's most

1:50:46pressing before us.

1:50:48>> So, I feel I feel more comfortable

1:50:50moving forward um, knowing that. Um but

1:50:54I am but I think the other board members

1:50:56um I'm curious your thoughts about

1:50:57moving forward based on those things. So

1:50:59um I'm I'm prepared in this moment to

1:51:02move it forward um to the other boards

1:51:04for oversight. Um I think that there are

1:51:07some really good questions like I think

1:51:08the question about the city does need to

1:51:11figure out what to do about Stafford

1:51:12Street. Stafford Street has a lot of

1:51:15traffic. It is not that safe at the

1:51:16moment. the flow onto Lello and the flow

1:51:20onto those things. Those are real

1:51:21questions that I also have that the city

1:51:24needs to address. And the other thing

1:51:26that happens with a lot of these

1:51:27projects is that developers get pinged

1:51:30for the problems that the city has. So

1:51:32the city has a traffic the city needs to

1:51:35figure out how to manage traffic on

1:51:36Stafford Street and we need housing.

1:51:40That feels like something the city

1:51:41should do to step in to make sure that

1:51:43this is safer because I agree with the

1:51:46um with the comments and the very

1:51:47thoughtful letter we got. The current

1:51:50plan the current what's currently

1:51:51ongoing on Lello Street and Stafford

1:51:54need something to mitigate what's

1:51:57happening. Um I'm not sure I'm not in a

1:52:00position where I feel like that's my

1:52:02purview as a zoning board member. It's

1:52:04certainly my purview as a member of

1:52:07Worcester who can call my city

1:52:08councelor, but I don't I don't feel like

1:52:10that's my purview as a zoning board

1:52:12member. So, that's my perspective on it.

1:52:14Um, we'll go around the board to get

1:52:16other people's thoughts. Um, and uh,

1:52:18thanks everyone. Okay, so um, let's

1:52:21start with in the room and then we'll go

1:52:22to the online folks. So, online folks,

1:52:24prepare yourselves to be unmuted. Um,

1:52:27and we'll start with, uh, board member

1:52:28Barthagen.

1:52:30>> Uh, through the chair. Um yeah, I share

1:52:33a lot of of almost everything you just

1:52:36said I think I agree with. Um I have

1:52:40some serious concerns and so there it's

1:52:43a the way this application has been

1:52:46presented to us but I have to balance

1:52:48normally I would like to have the

1:52:49answers to these even if they're

1:52:51technically a little bit beyond our

1:52:52purview. I have I'm a little

1:52:54uncomfortable just kind of punting it.

1:52:57It feels like a punt uh not being able

1:52:59to see a lot of the things that I would

1:53:01want to see

1:53:03before I approve something. Uh I would

1:53:05want to see how they're going to uh

1:53:06ameliate the traffic situation on

1:53:09Stafford Street, which is difficult. You

1:53:11when you're there and I was, you know, I

1:53:13was pulling in, I guess got to the same

1:53:14gate you did, uh turn around and then

1:53:17you're trying to leave and it wasn't

1:53:19easy. Um the cars go fast down that

1:53:22street and there's a dip and it goes

1:53:24back up and you're right next to Lello

1:53:26Street, which is another major street.

1:53:27So if there's no lighting at the

1:53:30intersection of Stafford and Leler,

1:53:31which there isn't right now, you have a

1:53:33a a problem accessing the road. But if

1:53:36you have a light there, as I saw in the

1:53:37DTM report, well, that would cause

1:53:39traffic backup and then you would have a

1:53:41a different problem of trying to get

1:53:42onto Stafford Street. I'm very concerned

1:53:45about Hyatt. I actually drove drove up

1:53:48Hyatt. Um, and it's it's needs a lot of

1:53:51improvement if that's going to be a

1:53:52secondary emergency access for big um

1:53:55trucks. And I know the the promise is,

1:53:57oh, we'll figure all that out at the

1:53:59planning board and that that will have

1:54:01to happen. It's it's so but but I'm not

1:54:04going to be able to see that before I

1:54:06approve it. So, it's I hear what the

1:54:09chair is saying and these things do need

1:54:11to be addressed and I am comforted

1:54:13somewhat by the fact that the planning

1:54:14board and the conservation commission

1:54:15will be addressing these things. um you

1:54:18know the access to the to the um area

1:54:20for recreation

1:54:22uh you're right there's no direct access

1:54:25at least on this plan because it's

1:54:27preliminary between that area over the

1:54:29brook to the development and so right

1:54:32now it seems like if in order to access

1:54:34that area you'd have to get in your car

1:54:36drive out and on a staffer street and

1:54:37access it. I'm sure that's not going to

1:54:38be the way it's going to be but it's you

1:54:40know it's right now that's all we've

1:54:42got. So,

1:54:44um,

1:54:46on the other hand, this I agree with

1:54:48everything else you said about how this

1:54:50is a much less dense development than it

1:54:53could otherwise have been. I don't want

1:54:55to hold this up because I think it's a

1:54:57very good development. I think the pros

1:54:59and cons between the housing, as you

1:55:02say, any housing at all will cause an

1:55:05increase in traffic. Um, the developer

1:55:07isn't responsible for the bottleneck and

1:55:09the speed that's happening right now on

1:55:10Stafford Street. Um it's something that

1:55:13they're going to have to address um with

1:55:16the city further down the line. But and

1:55:19I but I like this development. I think

1:55:21it's a you know it's a it's a definitely

1:55:25a lot lower density than could be put

1:55:26there. We need housing. Uh and housing

1:55:28causes more cars. There's just no way

1:55:30around it. Um

1:55:32so I think I'm leaning towards moving it

1:55:35forward to the next stage with the

1:55:37understanding that you know the planning

1:55:38board is going to take a close look at

1:55:40this. Um I I guess that's where I stand.

1:55:43Um and I'm okay, by the way. Um all of

1:55:45the the if we do get to the point where

1:55:47we're approving this with these staff

1:55:49recommendations, I'm fine with all the

1:55:51proposed changes that um that Miss Smith

1:55:55went through.

1:55:58>> Oh, I just wanted to note for the board

1:56:00um some of the comments. Uh there is

1:56:02currently a pedestrian bridge that

1:56:04connects um the field to that amenity

1:56:06space. has to be evaluated for

1:56:08accessibility purposes, but all of that

1:56:10will be designed and engineered as part

1:56:12of the final plan set. So, it kind of

1:56:14gets back to my earlier point, which is

1:56:16VHB is ready to go to fully design, you

1:56:19know, Hyatt Street, what's the width

1:56:20going to be, what brush needs to be

1:56:22removed, but it's kind of we're at we're

1:56:24at the stage right now where is the

1:56:25relief going to be granted and then we

1:56:26can move forward with the more

1:56:28comprehensive review. Well,

1:56:29>> I mean, a lot of work is going to have

1:56:30to be done on Hyatt Street for

1:56:31>> Certainly. Yeah.

1:56:34Uh, board member Remy.

1:56:38>> Um, well, this is a great proposal and

1:56:41from my perspective, I think it is well

1:56:44integrated within the site and I

1:56:47understand all the traffic concerns and

1:56:49I'm hoping that will be addressed later

1:56:52with the city. And as far as the Hyatt

1:56:54Street connection, I'm not sure if there

1:56:56could be another connection to like the

1:56:58the shape of the Hyatt Street area, but

1:57:01I know that's necessary because my

1:57:02initial concern was are there going to

1:57:05be two means of egress for this very

1:57:07large site. So with that being said, I

1:57:11know there is some factors that are

1:57:12being changed. I do support this

1:57:15project. Um, I like the overall design

1:57:19and I think it is very well integrated.

1:57:23Um, so that's that's what I think so

1:57:27far. Yeah. Thank you.

1:57:28>> Thank you, board member Cortez.

1:57:31>> Uh, through the chair, I echo um most of

1:57:36the comments made by you, Mr. Chair, and

1:57:39Mr.

1:57:40uh um when my colleague u uh on the site

1:57:46um also they you know uh all the

1:57:49comments I I agree with that and I

1:57:53understand that the there's some

1:57:56particular parts that they need to be

1:57:57addressed by the sonic board. So, uh

1:58:01there's not not much I could, you know,

1:58:04uh oppose or comment on it since they're

1:58:07going to be addressed uh by other uh

1:58:10sources. Um

1:58:13one question, um I in in regarding

1:58:16traffic, regarding traffic, yes, I I'm

1:58:19not sure if uh um members of, you know,

1:58:22the the developers uh you know, can seek

1:58:26help. uh and when you're talking about

1:58:28the city uh the city council for that

1:58:31particular district uh should be uh

1:58:35aware and I'm sure it is aware uh of

1:58:39what's going what's going on in here and

1:58:41what the traffic situation uh may be

1:58:44affected by and and and so the the city

1:58:48councelor from that particular district

1:58:50could be help to you know to to to bring

1:58:54it up uh uh with the uh traffic

1:58:58department um similar to what happened

1:59:02on Mill Street Mill Street in Worcester

1:59:05uh you know city council had to be

1:59:07involved in you know and and talk about

1:59:10you know the resolving traffic issues

1:59:12there so I'm I'm just mentioning you

1:59:15know when you talk about the city may

1:59:17not be only the traffic department but

1:59:20but but the the c the city councelor

1:59:22from that district can be approached by

1:59:27by the people or by the uh project uh

1:59:31proposals here. Now um in regards I I

1:59:35had a question um is are those most most

1:59:40of these apartment one one and two

1:59:43bedrooms.

1:59:46>> So through the chair um it varies by the

1:59:49building type. Um the multif family

1:59:52buildings will be one to two bedrooms.

1:59:54The town houses will be two to three

1:59:56bedrooms

1:59:58>> and uh in accordance with applicable

1:59:59code in case um Mr. Cortez would like to

2:00:02know um 5% of the units will be

2:00:05accessible. So approximately 11

2:00:07accessible units will be added.

2:00:09>> Great. Great. those those I like to hear

2:00:11those both answers and I I was I was

2:00:13waiting for uh uh the threebedroom spot

2:00:17which you're uh we're building again

2:00:19we're building a lot of uh one and two

2:00:22bedrooms on on most of the projects and

2:00:24you know I don't know where uh families

2:00:27with we at least two children would be

2:00:29living so I'm glad to hear you know it's

2:00:32going to be some three bedrooms there

2:00:34too so that's another positive um

2:00:37another another question I had or or one

2:00:41of the questions was the rec

2:00:43recreational area which uh is being sort

2:00:46of a uh uh answer that yes it's going to

2:00:50be some recreational areas. Uh I was

2:00:53looking at at the uh um you know where

2:00:58where where is the recreational area

2:01:00maybe located uh you know accessible

2:01:04with you know to to the res building the

2:01:08to the buildings um you know I I I you

2:01:11know and it's not that I'm you know

2:01:16mandate or request what type of a

2:01:18facilities can be there I just put as an

2:01:20example uh some areas There can be a

2:01:23kiosk uh where families can gather and

2:01:27celebrate birthdays around the kiosk and

2:01:29so forth. Another uh another idea is

2:01:31like the the the Green Hill Green Hill

2:01:35Park uh sort of um uh is like it's it's

2:01:42a recreational uh house or patio album

2:01:46cover you know

2:01:49if you're familiar with the greedy old

2:01:51park you know there there is a house

2:01:54there where people get together for

2:01:56celebrate and so forth. So, so some of

2:01:58the couple ideas I'd like to mention and

2:02:01where where can that be located uh I I I

2:02:06I don't know but I'm I'm sure that can

2:02:08be worked out since there are several

2:02:10issues or or points that still need to

2:02:13work with the staff. Um so I hope that

2:02:16they they work out uh some sort of a

2:02:20good recreational area for the residents

2:02:23there. Um

2:02:26now I'm in agreement to uh to go along

2:02:33with the request uh the request made by

2:02:35the developer regarding uh on item on

2:02:39questions four, five and seven. I have

2:02:41no problem with those requests made by

2:02:44by the developer. Um

2:02:48the uh affordability

2:02:51at this

2:02:54Those are rentals. So is there uh are we

2:02:59provided some uh uh affordability

2:03:03uh number of units affordable?

2:03:07So through the chair the the proponent

2:03:09is um going to be doing the fee and loo.

2:03:13So, no affordable units are proposed as

2:03:15part of the project, but a uh 3% of all

2:03:18of the construction costs will be paid

2:03:20into the affordable housing trust fund,

2:03:21which will allow for the creation of

2:03:23additional affordable units in the city.

2:03:27>> Hopefully,

2:03:29we're looking at that because again, we

2:03:31again and I said that again and again.

2:03:34Uh

2:03:36housing, yes, we need housing, housing,

2:03:39housing. But you know it it it just

2:03:42there that there is shortage of housing

2:03:45and and again I said again there's no

2:03:46there's no shortage of housing and

2:03:48wisdom that the shortage is the

2:03:50affordable affordable housing. That's

2:03:52what is that's what the shortage is. So

2:03:55hopefully there could be work out of

2:03:57along along the line. Um

2:04:01and this this is pretty much my you know

2:04:04my comments. Hopefully some of them been

2:04:07uh you know have some attention to it.

2:04:10Um but um that's it to the chair.

2:04:14>> Thank you. I want to highlight one of uh

2:04:16board member Cortez's questions which um

2:04:19it looks like there's a pool being

2:04:22proposed and is there like a kiosk or

2:04:24some sort of area around it because it

2:04:26looks like there's a building next to it

2:04:28as well. Do you guys I mean if you don't

2:04:30have plans for that yet I guess that's

2:04:31not technically on our perview but

2:04:32>> yeah I think it's um like a guest house

2:04:35maybe Evan Miller from VHB could comment

2:04:37on that.

2:04:37>> Evan Miller VHB our office is on Front

2:04:40Street right over here. Um yeah the

2:04:42intent is to have uh a pool area for

2:04:45active recreation as well as a pool

2:04:47house clubhouse for any other assorted

2:04:50activities that go along with that.

2:04:52>> So possibly something.

2:04:54>> Yeah. And then the first floor of that

2:04:56area will have active area for residents

2:04:59within the space as well.

2:05:01>> Okay, thank you. Um, okay, board member

2:05:05Tono.

2:05:12>> Well, enough has been said about this

2:05:14project [clears throat]

2:05:16um by you, the chair, and my other board

2:05:20members, and I have nothing more to say.

2:05:22uh um you've said discussed all the

2:05:25issues concerning the traffic that it

2:05:28won't pose but at the same time we still

2:05:29need housing and I don't think we have

2:05:32enough housing in that place. My concern

2:05:34is Lord Lord Street and that's up to the

2:05:36city. So but I'm for the project and I

2:05:39don't have any negative comments and I

2:05:41don't have anything to say bad against

2:05:43it. I would like to move it forward and

2:05:45I will vote for it.

2:05:48>> Okay. Thank you very much. Uh board

2:05:50member Sako to the chair. I agree with

2:05:53board member Tarpono where there's not

2:05:55much new um comments I can really add

2:05:57here. Everything you know through the

2:05:59board has been pretty well said so far

2:06:00and I am fully on board to move forward.

2:06:02I don't think I'm voting but I would

2:06:04move forward if I was. Thanks.

2:06:08>> Okay. Through the chair just Yeah,

2:06:09please. Um, can I ask this the city

2:06:12staff? Uh, earlier on in the

2:06:14presentation, you mentioned that if we

2:06:15were going to move this forward, we

2:06:16should perhaps consider incorporating

2:06:18some comments you we'd received from

2:06:20DTM. Do you have a suggestion as to what

2:06:23the that might be or is it already

2:06:24covered by what's in the recommendations

2:06:26already or?

2:06:27>> Yeah, through the chair. Um, so none of

2:06:29the comments are really, you'll note the

2:06:31comment letter, which is dated today's

2:06:32date, August 10th, is really more of a

2:06:35narrative than it is a condition list,

2:06:37which you're kind of typically used to

2:06:39seeing. So really this is more just

2:06:40specifying for the applicant some of the

2:06:42minimum requirements that they're going

2:06:44to anticipate standards for the traffic

2:06:47study. Um just call attention to

2:06:50specific issues. So I don't feel that

2:06:51you need to include that. Um ultimately

2:06:54your discretion if you wanted to you

2:06:55certainly could. I can propose something

2:06:57if that's the direction you'd like to

2:06:58go.

2:06:59>> Well it sounds like the planning board

2:07:00is going to be dealing with that. That's

2:07:02correct.

2:07:02>> Okay. So I don't I don't think in my

2:07:04view at least uh we don't need to do

2:07:05that.

2:07:06>> Okay.

2:07:08Um, okay.

2:07:10>> Yes. Sorry,

2:07:11>> one last question.

2:07:12>> No, please. You could keep asking. Yes.

2:07:14Go ahead.

2:07:14>> Okay. No, I just wanted to confirm for

2:07:16that uh previous northern secondary

2:07:19access. Is that entirely removed from

2:07:21the scope due to doing it on the north

2:07:24side over here?

2:07:28So, so I'm looking sorry at a previous

2:07:30site plan where we had the

2:07:33the emergency secondary access on top of

2:07:36>> that that's removed

2:07:37>> removed entirely. Okay, great. Thank

2:07:39you.

2:07:39>> Y

2:07:40>> that's all.

2:07:42>> Okay, any last questions?

2:07:45Okay, great. Um Okay. Uh

2:07:50>> sorry through the chair. I did have a

2:07:51hand raised. I just saw it when I turned

2:07:53over. Okay. Um, I'm not sure. Britney,

2:07:56if you wanted to speak, could you raise

2:07:58your hand one more time?

2:08:02>> I think we're Is it Britney Gnner?

2:08:03>> Oh, maybe.

2:08:04>> I think I think we're good then.

2:08:05>> Okay.

2:08:06>> Yeah, she's part of the team.

2:08:07>> Okay. In that case, I will take a motion

2:08:10to close.

2:08:11>> All right. I'd like to make a motion to

2:08:12close on 232 Stafford Street.

2:08:14>> Is there a second?

2:08:15>> Second.

2:08:16>> Second.

2:08:17>> On the motion to close, board member

2:08:19Cortez?

2:08:20>> Yes.

2:08:20>> Board member Mormmy?

2:08:23>> Yes. Board member Tarono,

2:08:26>> yes.

2:08:27>> Board member Barnhagen,

2:08:28>> yes.

2:08:29>> My votes yes. Is there a motion on 232

2:08:32Stafford Street?

2:08:33>> I'd like to make a motion for 232

2:08:35Stafford Street for a variance approval

2:08:38of a variance for relief of 2,411.2

2:08:41ft from the 3000 ft minimum frontage

2:08:43requirements for a single family

2:08:44attached dwelling in an RG5 zone. for

2:08:46approval of a variance for relief of 10

2:08:48feet from the 35 foot maximum height

2:08:50requirements for a single family

2:08:52attached dwelling in an RG5 zone and for

2:08:54approval of a special permit to modify

2:08:57the parking dimensional layout and or

2:08:58landscaping requirements, loading

2:09:00requirements and or the number of

2:09:01required parking spaces subject to the

2:09:04conditions of approval set out in the

2:09:05staff memo on pages 7 to 8 um with the

2:09:08amendments to 1D

2:09:104, the removal of five and the amendment

2:09:13to seven and the waiverss as requested

2:09:16by the applicant. Is there a second?

2:09:19>> Second.

2:09:20>> On the motion, board member Cortez,

2:09:23>> yes.

2:09:24>> Board member Mori,

2:09:25>> yes.

2:09:26>> Board member Tono,

2:09:28>> yes.

2:09:28>> Board member Barnhagen,

2:09:29>> yes.

2:09:30>> And my votes, yes. Thank you very much.

2:09:32>> Thank you.

2:09:32>> So to um the Mr. BTO, I want to say that

2:09:35you have a really thoughtful letter here

2:09:39that a lot of the questions that you

2:09:41have still need to be answered by a um

2:09:45by the planning board and a um and a

2:09:47traffic study. So, please get the

2:09:49contact info for the planning division

2:09:51because I want to say that like we can't

2:09:53answer your questions, but they should

2:09:55get answered. And I just wanted to thank

2:09:56you for your thoughtfulness.

2:09:58>> Does that make sense? So, please just

2:10:00get the the the card for the planning

2:10:03division.

2:10:06get information from them on how to

2:10:08contact.

2:10:11>> Okay, thank you.

2:10:12>> Um, next up is 79 Pullman Street.

2:10:24>> Yeah, of course.

2:10:25>> Um, uh, we actually need, uh, you got to

2:10:28stay here for a second. We got, we got

2:10:29make motion for motion for a fivem

2:10:30minute break.

2:10:31>> For a fiveminute break. Can I get a

2:10:32second? Second.

2:10:34>> All right. All in favor? I All right.

2:10:36We'll be back at 7:56.

2:16:06Hello. Great. The folks online, um, we

2:16:09just need to confirm you're back. Board

2:16:11member Cortez,

2:16:13>> I'm here.

2:16:15>> Board member, uh, board member Tarono or

2:16:18board member Cortez.

2:16:23>> I'm here.

2:16:25>> All right. Board member Cortez.

2:16:37>> Yeah. Board member Cortez.

2:16:44>> He's not back yet.

2:17:00What?

2:17:02>> It's been six minutes.

2:17:05>> Yeah. Yeah.

2:17:07>> Well, we we could technically start, but

2:17:09then he's not voting, so that's why we

2:17:11want to give him a chance.

2:17:19board member Cortez.

2:17:27>> Yeah.

2:17:28>> Awesome. All right.

2:17:32Next up is 79 Pullman Street. Uh if the

2:17:34applicant could please come forward,

2:17:36state your name and city of town of

2:17:37residence.

2:17:37>> Uh good evening. Um my name is Patrick

2:17:40Doherty. I'm a professional engineer

2:17:41with Midpoint Engineering and

2:17:42Consulting. Uh office address is 37

2:17:45Sutton Road in Webster, Massachusetts.

2:17:49>> Great. Tell us tell us about the

2:17:51project.

2:17:51>> Sure. So, I'm here presenting um 79

2:17:55Pullman Street uh for Charter Foods, who

2:17:57is the applicant. Charter Foods proposes

2:18:00to construct a Taco Bell um on the

2:18:03property. The existing site is uh 68

2:18:06acres. Prior use of the site was the

2:18:09Silven Learning Center. Um it had a 2400

2:18:13foot building on it and 26 parking lots

2:18:16um and a driveway on Pullman Street.

2:18:20That building's been raised. Um parking

2:18:22lot remains.

2:18:24Um site is frontage on three streets, uh

2:18:27Pullman Street, uh West Mountain Street,

2:18:29and Brook Street.

2:18:31Uh the applicant proposes to um remove

2:18:35all the remainder of the site

2:18:37improvements and construct a a new Taco

2:18:39Bell restaurant. uh with drive-thru.

2:18:42That store would be 22 um 50 square

2:18:46feet. Um may have a drive-thru, single

2:18:49drive-through lane and an escape lane.

2:18:51That um requirement for for um

2:18:56drive-thru and escape lanes in the city

2:18:57are 240 ft. Um so we'd be looking for a

2:19:01special permit to um modify the

2:19:04dimensional requirements. Also, uh,

2:19:06drive-thru with food service with

2:19:09drive-thru is a special permit use. Um,

2:19:12some of you may recall me being here a

2:19:14couple of years ago. Um, and we had

2:19:16proposed similar site plan. Um, that

2:19:19tenant was going to be at Chipotle.

2:19:22Buildings about the same size, parking

2:19:24lots about the same size. The difference

2:19:25is that Chipotle is a pickup only um,

2:19:30drive drive lane. um where this would be

2:19:33um a full service traditional uh

2:19:35drive-thru.

2:19:37We've modified the site from that

2:19:39approved plan slightly. Um we've moved

2:19:42the drive-thru lanes um to the far east

2:19:46side of the site. Um it it allowed us to

2:19:48get a little additional length for the

2:19:51for the queue and also separate the

2:19:53parking um so that there was no conflict

2:19:55with the escape lane.

2:19:59Um along with the building here, we'd be

2:20:01proposing um a we originally proposed a

2:20:0529 um space parking lot which was

2:20:07similar to the Chipoti. As you'll hear

2:20:09during staff comments, um there's a

2:20:12request to reddes designated what we had

2:20:15considered the front yard. Um in the

2:20:18zoning code, when you have frontage

2:20:19along more than one street, um one side

2:20:22becomes the front front yard and the

2:20:24other two become sideyard. So um in in

2:20:28doing so, two of parking spaces would be

2:20:31in the front yard. Um and we've

2:20:33conferred with the client and they say

2:20:34they can they can operate effectively

2:20:36with the 27 parking spaces. Um we've

2:20:39provided a a traffic report um that

2:20:43addresses the queue.

2:20:45[clears throat] That traffic report was

2:20:47done using it generated trip rates. Um

2:20:51and what we found is is the general

2:20:54consensus for fast food with drive-thru

2:20:56um generates a little bit more traffic

2:20:58than a than a traditional Taco Bell. Um

2:21:01we've provided in the traffic report

2:21:03sales data for another uh Taco Bell

2:21:06restaurant in um Worcester that's

2:21:09operated by the same same by the

2:21:12applicant. Um and it basically says that

2:21:15that Taco Bell is about you know roughly

2:21:1870 or 80% of what a what the IAT

2:21:22trip generation would would um would um

2:21:26generate. They also provided some data

2:21:29um on on the the types of transactions.

2:21:34Um since COVID and and with modern turn

2:21:37technology, these fast food um operators

2:21:40operate a little bit differently. Um

2:21:42they're projecting about 30% of the

2:21:44traffic coming to the Taco Bell would be

2:21:46going through the drive-through lane.

2:21:48About 60% would be done via uh mobile

2:21:51apps. Um and most of that 60% is picked

2:21:55up by a Door Dash driver or some other

2:21:57delivery service. Um only about 10% of

2:22:00the transactions are people who come

2:22:02into the restaurant and sit down um and

2:22:04eat their meal. Um

2:22:07>> so with that the the queue um that that

2:22:09is required by the city is is more than

2:22:12is going to be needed here. Um we

2:22:14project about five to seven spaces or

2:22:16five to seven vehicles would be in

2:22:18queue. Um and that's what they

2:22:20experience with their other restaurants

2:22:22um in the area. Um five to seven

2:22:25vehicles translates to about 140 feet of

2:22:28queue length um where we're proposing

2:22:31214 ft. Um we did receive the staff memo

2:22:35uh today and um had had chance to

2:22:39discuss u the the recommendations.

2:22:43Um our our feeling is that most of the

2:22:46recommendations that are provided by

2:22:48staff we could accommodate. There are um

2:22:51three items that that um we'd like to

2:22:53discuss with the board. One of those

2:22:55comments was the provision to it's

2:22:58actually um recommendation 1A which is a

2:23:01recommendation to provide six additional

2:23:03shade trees along the Southerntherly

2:23:05property line. So that would be the the

2:23:08true side lot line between our property

2:23:11and in an addition commercial property.

2:23:14Um we don't feel it's appropriate there.

2:23:16Um the distance from our property line

2:23:18to that building is about 9 ft. They've

2:23:21got mechanical equipment on the side of

2:23:22the building. Um it's not a zoning

2:23:26requirement per se. Um and we we feel I

2:23:29think we we're providing 15 um new trees

2:23:33on this this you know roughly 610 of a

2:23:37of a of an acre um and feel that um that

2:23:41we we should not be required to do that.

2:23:44Um secondly uh staff has recommended

2:23:48providing 25% compact car spacing. Um

2:23:52again in in this case um with only

2:23:55having the required amount of parking

2:23:57that zoning notes um we we'd rather have

2:24:01standardized spaces with the high

2:24:03turnover parking lots, people coming in

2:24:05and out opening up doors. Um the

2:24:08additional room from a standard space we

2:24:10feel is is necessary.

2:24:13Um third comment is is is um just a

2:24:17comment to reflect that the rooftop

2:24:19units would be screened. Um while we

2:24:22don't have a problem with that, we uh we

2:24:24did um submit architectural

2:24:27um elevation plans. Um the building will

2:24:31have a 4ft minimum parapit along the

2:24:33entire perimeter and then there's some

2:24:35tower sections that extend up higher.

2:24:37You can see the elevation plans here.

2:24:39the two gray areas um that you can see

2:24:42popping up a little bit higher than the

2:24:44the parapit that that's showing what you

2:24:47would see of the rooftop unit if you

2:24:50were at roof level. Um the building wall

2:24:52is about 18 ft high. Um the the rooftop

2:24:56units are centered in about the middle

2:24:58of the the roof area and with that 4ft

2:25:01parapit in most vantage points you won't

2:25:04see them. I'm sure that there's maybe a

2:25:06spot on Brook Street or somewhere where

2:25:08you may see the top portion of the

2:25:10rooftop unit, but we we feel that that

2:25:12it's adequately screened and we would

2:25:14hope that that the commission would u

2:25:16would agree with us.

2:25:18Um that that's um kind of in essence on

2:25:21on the site plan if there's there's any

2:25:23questions um from the board.

2:25:26>> Uh do you request the waiverss on as

2:25:29stated on page 40 of eight?

2:25:30>> Yes. So, um staff actually also put

2:25:34together a list of waiverss um the

2:25:36owner's names of abuing properties we'd

2:25:38request to be waved from the plan, the

2:25:40distances to all the adjacent buildings.

2:25:42Um and the percentage of the lot covered

2:25:45by principal and accessory buildings. I

2:25:46I believe that we did have that, but um

2:25:49I'd have to check the site plan in the

2:25:51existing and proposed topography.

2:25:53>> Great. Um, city staff

2:25:56>> through the chair. Uh, this proposal at

2:25:5979 Pullman Street, uh, as stated, the

2:26:04presently on premise is a partially

2:26:06paved vacant lot, and the applicant is

2:26:09seeking to remove all existing

2:26:10improvements and construct a 2,250

2:26:14ft food service use with a drive-thru,

2:26:1729 parking spaces. Now, we'll get to

2:26:19amended 27 parking spaces and other

2:26:22assorted site improvements. And we're

2:26:25here because they are requiring Oh,

2:26:28sorry, back up the truck. Uh, this is a

2:26:30splitzoned lot um between the ML0.5

2:26:34and the MG0.5

2:26:37zoning districts. And so, we're here

2:26:39because the applicant requires two

2:26:40special permits. one to allow the food

2:26:43service use with the drivethru in the

2:26:46ML0.5

2:26:49um and also a special permit to modify

2:26:52the parking and dimensional requirements

2:26:54layout andor landscaping requirements

2:26:56for the drive-thru lane and escape lane

2:26:59length as required by the ordinance to

2:27:02be 240

2:27:04ft. And so for staff comments, there was

2:27:09um a question about the length of the

2:27:11drive-through lane and the escape lane.

2:27:13And the applicant is um going to clearly

2:27:16mark the plans and submit plans that

2:27:19have those clearly demarked so that we

2:27:21can make sure that we indicate the exact

2:27:23length of the

2:27:26lanes, which um the applicant has said

2:27:30is for the drive-thru lane is 214 ft.

2:27:34and for the ES esc es escape lane

2:27:37actually does comply at 242 feet.

2:27:42Um the applicate indicated that the

2:27:44hours of operation will be 9:00 a.m. to

2:27:474 a.m. 7 days a week and will employ 20

2:27:50to 30 employees working 4 to 8 hours per

2:27:53shift. The restaurant will serve

2:27:55breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Um, and

2:27:58because they're not opening until 9:00

2:28:00a.m., uh, feel that the least amount of

2:28:03traffic will be during the morning

2:28:04breakfast time. Um, and the anticipated

2:28:09peak traffic times are lunch and then

2:28:12evening time. Um, one of our questions

2:28:16was confirming

2:28:18that the cues proposed for the end user

2:28:22were like during peak service at similar

2:28:24locations. Um, the traffic study does

2:28:27indicate that the queue can hold nine

2:28:31cars, I believe. I think that's correct.

2:28:34Um,

2:28:39so the project requires 27 parking

2:28:42spaces and the applicant has proposed

2:28:4429. Um, two of which would be ADA and

2:28:48six of which will be EV ready. Um, so

2:28:52the applicant's surplus of two spaces,

2:28:55again, it was confirmed with

2:28:58inspectional services that Brooks

2:29:01Street, I'm sorry, Pullman Street would

2:29:03be the front of the

2:29:07um would be considered the frontage for

2:29:10the building. And so therefore, these

2:29:12two first spaces would be considered in

2:29:16the front yard. So they should be

2:29:17removed. And so as stated, the applicant

2:29:20has agreed to do so. Um

2:29:26and then

2:29:29um wow meth

2:29:33trees are required every 25 ft on center

2:29:36along the perimeter and the applicant

2:29:38has um provided a landscape plan which

2:29:40does show trees around the perimeter. Um

2:29:44it does seem that one tree is missing

2:29:47from the entry area. Um the traffic

2:29:51study does indicate that it is

2:29:54recommended that the tree not be planted

2:29:56there for sighteline reasons. And so

2:29:59that would be an additional piece of

2:30:01relief under the parking loading

2:30:03landscaping special permit to vary or to

2:30:07not vary to um seek relief for not

2:30:10meeting that requirement. So we can add

2:30:13that to the special permit if the

2:30:15applicant um wants to confirm that

2:30:17piece.

2:30:20Um [clears throat]

2:30:23we also are looking to understand again

2:30:27the applicant and I and I have had

2:30:28conversations so I know the answers but

2:30:31they're not in the in the um materials.

2:30:34So, I'm uh we're looking for the

2:30:36applicant to clarify what materials are

2:30:39proposed for the island that's

2:30:43separating the drive-thru and the

2:30:45northern parking lot. Um staff would

2:30:47ideally like to see a landscaped island

2:30:50separating the drive-through aisle from

2:30:51the parking area. Um to extend the idea

2:30:55that cars would cut a cut cut across

2:30:58from the entrance into the parking area.

2:31:01Um

2:31:03also because of the size of the parking

2:31:05lot, staff is recommending providing 25%

2:31:08compact spaces which the applicant has

2:31:10explained um is not

2:31:14uh amendable. So staff that was our you

2:31:18know request because of the size of the

2:31:20parking lot. So if that's stricken

2:31:21that's that is fine with us. Um

2:31:26and again the shade trees along the

2:31:28southern property line was to shade some

2:31:31of the parking lot because this is a

2:31:33again a large parking lot. Um again as

2:31:36stated it is not a zoning requirement.

2:31:37So that is completely up to the board

2:31:39whether or not you keep or strike that

2:31:40condition.

2:31:45And the only other thing that we're

2:31:46looking for is that there was we're

2:31:48looking for the applicant to confirm the

2:31:50gate materials using for the proposed

2:31:52dumpster enclosure. Um, DTM is

2:31:56requesting a queuing analysis from the

2:31:59traffic report. Um, the applicant and I

2:32:02did have a conversation uh about that

2:32:05request. So,

2:32:08this item does also have to go to the

2:32:12planning board for a parking plan. So,

2:32:14that could also be something that is

2:32:17discussed at that time. If this board

2:32:19decides that they

2:32:21don't see a need or want to strike that

2:32:24condition for for this um this will be

2:32:26reviewed again. Um

2:32:30and the rooftop equipment I leave that

2:32:33to the board and then I can answer any

2:32:36other questions. So, this uh property is

2:32:38in the transformative growth area in the

2:32:40citywide long range plan and encourages

2:32:42significant reinvestment and physical

2:32:44transformation in areas with unmet

2:32:47potential for high walkability and

2:32:49transit access.

2:32:52So, I can answer any questions if

2:32:54needed.

2:32:57>> So, I guess I I have a [clears throat] I

2:32:58have a question to city staff. So 3A it

2:33:02sounds like that if they provide it in

2:33:05between now and like they don't need to

2:33:07provide it for they would just need to

2:33:09provide it before the planning board. Is

2:33:10that correct to be satisfied?

2:33:12>> Yeah, it's just to review just so DTM

2:33:14can review.

2:33:15>> Okay. Um Okay. Well, there's no one here

2:33:18I believe for this. Uh is anybody online

2:33:21for um 79 Pullman Street?

2:33:28I'm going to guess no. Um, I'm happy to

2:33:31move this forward. I think, uh, this is

2:33:34pretty straightforward. Um, I am okay

2:33:38cutting 1A. I'm okay cutting one H. I'm

2:33:42okay cutting one I. Um, for 3A, which is

2:33:47the parking thing. So, you verbally told

2:33:49us if you just like write it down, I

2:33:51think that suffices.

2:33:53>> So,

2:33:53>> okay.

2:33:54>> I don't know if that sounds okay to you.

2:33:56>> Sure.

2:33:57>> Okay. Yep. uh because you verbally gave

2:33:59it to gave it to us. So um those are all

2:34:02the things. So I think those are

2:34:06um those are all the conditions.

2:34:09Um

2:34:10uh so I'm happy to move this forward. Uh

2:34:13board member um we'll go in person here

2:34:15and then we'll go online. So online

2:34:17folks and voting is uh board member

2:34:19Sacko. Um uh so board member Barhagen

2:34:24>> uh through the chair. Um, I'm fine

2:34:26moving this forward too. I think it's

2:34:28pretty straightforward and I'm fine with

2:34:30moving A and H. I just have a question

2:34:32about I because I

2:34:34um

2:34:36I don't see uh I seems more like

2:34:40suggestive than mandatory. It just maybe

2:34:43the first sentence because it the second

2:34:44sentence or the second and third

2:34:46sentences just says any rooftop

2:34:47equipment that may be visible shall be

2:34:49set back and screened to minimize the

2:34:51appearance. um provided a plan detail

2:34:54for the screening materials. So, but

2:34:56you're you want to just get rid of I

2:34:58altogether. Is that right?

2:34:59>> I I mean that that would just be

2:35:01clearer. Um I think that you know if

2:35:04planning

2:35:06I I would imagine the planning would

2:35:08agree that the screening that's provided

2:35:09with the parapit would

2:35:11>> would be sufficed. The architectural

2:35:13plans didn't show the rooftop pipe is

2:35:15probably what why there was some

2:35:16confusion.

2:35:17>> Okay. All right. All right. I'm fine

2:35:18with I being removed as well. Okay.

2:35:21Thank you.

2:35:22Uh, board member Brammy,

2:35:24>> no comments.

2:35:25>> Board member Cortez.

2:35:27>> Uh, true the chair. Uh, I'm pretty much

2:35:31in general in fa in favor of uh uh the

2:35:35approval of uh this uh uh project. Um

2:35:40uh and

2:35:43besides uh you know my uh leading to

2:35:47approval, I'm fine with uh the three uh

2:35:53parts that the project uh wants to uh

2:35:57strike out. One a uh the one regarding

2:36:01uh the 27 uh compact cars and the

2:36:05rooftop. So, uh I'm in favor of uh um

2:36:11going along with the request by the

2:36:13project uh personnel. Uh, regarding the

2:36:19the drive-thru,

2:36:21uh, my, uh, my understanding is that,

2:36:25uh, uh, it'll be open from 9 to 4 a.m.

2:36:30And my question is, uh, is that

2:36:34is that operational or open those hours

2:36:38also for inside services only the

2:36:41drive-thru?

2:36:43Um, I'm not sure what time it cuts off,

2:36:46but the overnight hours are are are

2:36:48drive-thru only.

2:36:50>> I don't know if it's at 11 o'clock or

2:36:52midnight or or 1, but

2:36:54>> So, the the the inside uh services, what

2:36:58are the hours again?

2:37:01>> It's it's 9:00 to 4:00 a.m. Uh, the

2:37:04applicant wasn't sure when they turn

2:37:05over to no longer accepting inside, but

2:37:08they do close the inside at night.

2:37:13So it so that is that is open depending

2:37:18on on a number of clientele it's not

2:37:20something that has been regulated here

2:37:22>> we don't regulate it now

2:37:24>> no no I mean the the inside the the

2:37:27hours of services inside

2:37:30so

2:37:31>> yeah we don't regulate that

2:37:33>> okay so that was just a question just to

2:37:37make sure you know if the difference

2:37:39between the inside services and outside

2:37:41So basically the the the four the 9 to4

2:37:45applies to both of them. Uh no further

2:37:47questions. I'm in favor of moving

2:37:49forward with this project. Uh good luck

2:37:53to all.

2:37:55>> Okay. Board member Tarono.

2:37:58>> Um I have no comment.

2:38:01>> Board member Sacko.

2:38:03>> No additional comment. Thank you.

2:38:05>> All right. I'll take a motion to close.

2:38:07Um, I'd like to make a motion to close

2:38:09on 79 Pullman Street.

2:38:12>> So moved.

2:38:13>> Is there a second?

2:38:15>> I do second.

2:38:16>> On the motion to close, board member

2:38:18Cortez,

2:38:20>> yes.

2:38:20>> Board member Mormmy,

2:38:22>> yes.

2:38:23>> Board member Tono,

2:38:29>> yes.

2:38:30>> Board member Sacko,

2:38:31>> yes.

2:38:32>> My votes yes. Is there a motion on 79

2:38:35Pullman Street? like to make a motion

2:38:36for 79 Pullman Street for approval of a

2:38:38special permit to allow food service

2:38:40drive-thru use in an ML0.5 and MG0.5

2:38:44zone and for approval of a special

2:38:46permit to modify the parking dimensional

2:38:48layout and/or landscaping requirements,

2:38:50loading requirements, andor the number

2:38:52of required parking spaces subject to

2:38:55the conditions set forth in the staff

2:38:57memo on pages three and four, excluding

2:39:00and striking from those conditions 1A,

2:39:031H, and one I and the waivers is

2:39:06requested by the applicant.

2:39:11>> So moved.

2:39:12>> Is there a second?

2:39:14>> Second.

2:39:15>> On the motion, board member Cortez,

2:39:18>> yes.

2:39:18>> Board member Mammy,

2:39:20>> yes.

2:39:20>> Board member Tono,

2:39:22>> yes.

2:39:22>> Board member Sacko,

2:39:25>> yes.

2:39:26>> My votes yes. Thank you very much.

2:39:27>> Thank you.

2:39:28>> All right. Next up is 27 to 29 and 31

2:39:32Camp Street.

2:39:35through the chair. The applicant is

2:39:36online and I have asked him to unmute.

2:39:38Hopefully I did that correctly.

2:39:40>> Okay.

2:39:47>> Change the screen.

2:39:49>> Extension of time.

2:39:52>> Good evening.

2:39:54>> Yes. Go ahead. We can hear you.

2:39:56>> Great. Uh good evening, M Mr. Chair,

2:39:59members of the board. For the record, my

2:40:00name is Matt Eckle. I am an attorney

2:40:02with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the

2:40:04applicant. And for the record, I reside

2:40:06in Burlington, Massachusetts. Uh we're

2:40:08here tonight to respectfully request a

2:40:11six-month extension in connection to the

2:40:13special permit and variances previously

2:40:15granted by this board back on June 23rd

2:40:18of last year relating to the proposed

2:40:20project at 31 Camp Street as well as

2:40:2327-29

2:40:24Camp Street. By way of very brief

2:40:27background, I know it's been a long

2:40:28night already, so I'll be brief. The

2:40:30applicant received an approval from this

2:40:32board for a new two family building at

2:40:3431 Camp Street along with parking and

2:40:36site improvements.

2:40:38Uh for this portion of the project, the

2:40:40applicant received variances from the

2:40:42board relating to the lot area,

2:40:43frontage, and height of the proposed

2:40:45building. Uh the companion case, which

2:40:47was filed under 27-29 Camp Street, also

2:40:50received relief uh despite no changes

2:40:53actually being proposed to that portion

2:40:54of the lot. Uh however, since they had

2:40:56been considered merged uh for zoning, uh

2:40:59we did need to seek relief for that

2:41:01portion of the lot as well. And

2:41:03specifically, we received relief in the

2:41:05form of variance for lot area and a

2:41:07special permit relating to the parking

2:41:09setback requirements and drive aisles

2:41:11with parking and loading requirements.

2:41:14The applicant still remains committed to

2:41:16commencing this project uh as soon as

2:41:18possible and bringing muchneeded

2:41:19residential housing units to the city

2:41:22and currently no changes are proposed to

2:41:24the previously approved project. Uh we

2:41:27just need a little bit more time and

2:41:28therefore we are respectfully requesting

2:41:31your approval uh for a six-month

2:41:33extension. Uh, with that I'll I'll

2:41:35happily pause and take any questions you

2:41:36may have

2:41:40>> through the chair Amy Bethle for the

2:41:42planning division. Uh, everything the

2:41:44applicant said. Um, I will one point of

2:41:48clarification though. I think and I'm

2:41:51going to look to my colleague Miss Smith

2:41:53just to shake her head for me. Um, the

2:41:55variances can have a sixmonth extension.

2:41:58I'm fairly certain that the special

2:42:00permit can get a year.

2:42:04Um, and also the special permits can be

2:42:08administratively

2:42:10approved through for an extension

2:42:12through inspectional services

2:42:15if that needs to happen in the future if

2:42:18if that's a thing. So, just one point of

2:42:21clarification. Um but for the new um

2:42:25deadlines just for the board um the

2:42:27variance deadline would be January 15,

2:42:302027 and the special permit uh would be

2:42:34July 15, 2027.

2:42:37Thank you.

2:42:38>> Okay.

2:42:40Um is there any comment? [snorts]

2:42:44>> Great. Uh sounds good to me. I'm happy

2:42:47to move it forward. Um board member

2:42:49Barton Hagen voting on this. Board

2:42:50member Barthagen. No comment.

2:42:52>> Board member Mory,

2:42:55>> no comments.

2:42:56>> Board member Cortez,

2:42:58>> no comment.

2:42:59>> Board member Tono,

2:43:01>> no comment.

2:43:02>> Board member Sacko,

2:43:03>> no comment.

2:43:04>> All right, I'll take a motion to close.

2:43:06>> I'd like to make a motion to close on

2:43:072729 and 31 Camp Street.

2:43:10>> Is there a second?

2:43:11>> Second.

2:43:12>> On the on the motion to close, uh, board

2:43:14member Cortez,

2:43:15>> yes.

2:43:16>> Board member Remy,

2:43:17>> yes.

2:43:18>> Board member Tarono,

2:43:20>> yes. Board member Barthagen.

2:43:21>> Yes.

2:43:22>> My votes yes. Is there a motion?

2:43:24>> Uh I'd like to make a motion for 27 to

2:43:2629 and 31 Camp Street for an extension

2:43:29of time. The extension for the variance

2:43:31would would be extended to January 15,

2:43:332027 and the extension of the previously

2:43:35approved special permit would be through

2:43:37July 15, 2027.

2:43:39>> Is there a second?

2:43:41>> Second.

2:43:42>> On the motion, board member Cortez,

2:43:45>> yes.

2:43:46>> Board member Mammy,

2:43:47>> yes.

2:43:47>> Board member Tarono,

2:43:49>> yes. Yes. Board member Bartagen.

2:43:50>> Yes.

2:43:51>> My votes yes. All right. Next up.

2:43:53>> Thank you very much.

2:43:54>> Next up is 30 Lraange Street.

2:44:02>> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of

2:44:03the board. Um, for the record, my name

2:44:05is Donald O'Neal. I'm a lawyer here in

2:44:08Worcester.

2:44:09Uh, here this evening, um, on behalf of

2:44:12Worcester Oz Fund 2 LLC.

2:44:17Um, and this is a request that we filed

2:44:21to allow for the expansion or alteration

2:44:24of a pre-existing non-conforming uh

2:44:26parking use. Um, this is a use which is

2:44:31allowed in the underlying zone. Uh,

2:44:34however, because it is also in this CCOD

2:44:39um overlay district uh does not allow

2:44:42for um non-accessory parking. Um the

2:44:46property itself has a history going back

2:44:5030 plus years of uh being used for

2:44:53parking for

2:44:56uh parcels in this case primarily for

2:44:58something that was in the other side of

2:45:00the grain street. Um and what we're

2:45:02looking to do is utilize this parking.

2:45:05Uh my clients are also involved in the

2:45:09property at 98 Beacon Street, uh which

2:45:13is a former industrial mill building

2:45:16that has been uh approved for up to 58

2:45:22apartments. Uh the situation there is

2:45:25that the parking that goes with that

2:45:28parcel is 8 to 10 spaces. Um and

2:45:32although there is no parking requirement

2:45:33in the CCOD overlay district, uh there

2:45:37is still a need for parking for um

2:45:40tenants. Um and because the property is

2:45:47not directly across the street, but

2:45:48pretty close. Um but um there's no

2:45:52ability to they would have to be on the

2:45:54side same side of the street and

2:45:57adjacent to each other to be considered

2:45:59accessory parking which would be

2:46:01permitted. um staff has um gone through

2:46:06and I should say also that the parking

2:46:10plan that we had submitted to you um was

2:46:14originally developed when this parking

2:46:16area was part of the other development

2:46:19on that side of the street. So it's it's

2:46:23um

2:46:24and that is the location that we are

2:46:27proposing

2:46:28uh has been cut out of the other parcel

2:46:31with portions of 30 LR street and 42 LR

2:46:34street. Um and

2:46:38>> um our purpose really in terms of coming

2:46:41forward tonight is to

2:46:44uh get the board's permission to um

2:46:48proceed with an alteration or expansion

2:46:50of the existing parking lot. the actual

2:46:53there may be a few things that change on

2:46:55this um but that would all be done so

2:46:58that um it would fit within the ANR lot

2:47:02that was created to establish this lot.

2:47:05Uh so some of the issues that for

2:47:07example the U parking lot setback

2:47:10requirement

2:47:12um is 3 feet but if there's a a a

2:47:16property line it's 5T.

2:47:19Um, so [snorts] there's going to be a

2:47:20little bit of work that needs to be done

2:47:22there. And it's entirely possible that

2:47:25if we need some kind of relief for that,

2:47:29that we would be back uh before you once

2:47:32the plan is

2:47:34further refined. I should also say that

2:47:37because it's in the overlay district, it

2:47:39will require uh site plan approval and a

2:47:42parking plan.

2:47:44Um but uh we didn't want to go to

2:47:50uh the effort of redesigning

2:47:54the parking lot. Um and this is this is

2:47:58like 90% or 95% of what we would be

2:48:01coming back with. But uh we wanted to

2:48:04confirm the use first. So, uh I have

2:48:07looked at the comments from a staff um

2:48:11and th those were similar to the

2:48:14comments that

2:48:15um were generated when the project was

2:48:20initially looked at by the planning

2:48:22board. Um so for our purposes we're

2:48:25comfortable proceeding with those

2:48:27recommendations with likely

2:48:30understanding that um you know we may be

2:48:33back before you at some point. Um, the

2:48:37other thing I would say is that [snorts]

2:48:39one of the comments which we're fine

2:48:41with is that the

2:48:43parking expansion that we're proposing

2:48:46that this lot be sort of dedicated to

2:48:49the property at 100 Beacon Street so

2:48:52that it doesn't become um, you know, um,

2:48:55ballpark parking or something of that

2:48:58nature, but but it is just going to be

2:49:00the residential parking component for

2:49:02the across the street. Uh, I would

2:49:06request the waiver which is on page five

2:49:08of 10 and happy to answer any questions

2:49:12you might have.

2:49:14>> Great. City staff

2:49:17>> through the chair Michelle Smith and the

2:49:18city's planning division. Um, in front

2:49:20of you again this evening a request in

2:49:23this case to expand alter change any

2:49:25pre-existing non-conforming use. Um, in

2:49:28this case, we are located in the BG6 or

2:49:31the downtown district with the

2:49:33commercial corridors overlay district,

2:49:34the CCOD.

2:49:36Uh, we don't like parking lots in this

2:49:38area. So, the zoning code prohibits them

2:49:41um when they're not accessory to

2:49:42something else. Um, so as you heard the

2:49:45the applicants uh council describe,

2:49:48basically prior iterations of this uh

2:49:52redevelopment of the larger campus area,

2:49:54if you will, um, to support housing

2:49:58development did envision continuously

2:50:01this location as parking in the form

2:50:03that you essentially see on the plans

2:50:05here, which were plans previously

2:50:06submitted um, to the planning board for

2:50:08consideration.

2:50:10they were approved for uh a special

2:50:12permit to exceed the maximum

2:50:14requirements for parking um that we have

2:50:17in that that district uh to be able to

2:50:20facilitate the construction of this

2:50:22amount of parking. Subsequent to that,

2:50:24based on the financing and my

2:50:26understanding of just kind of the

2:50:27different players and and how things

2:50:29worked out, essentially they've had to

2:50:30carve this lot off onto its own lot um

2:50:34for financing purposes. And so the

2:50:36applicant is now uh different than what

2:50:39it was originally. Uh and so this this

2:50:42proposal is really associated with the

2:50:44former 98 now 100 Beacon location which

2:50:47is on the corner of Beacon and Lraange.

2:50:49You see top right corner here um that is

2:50:51going to be converted into believe it's

2:50:5458 um residential units. So that

2:50:56historic building converted. So this

2:50:59parking lot is in support of that not

2:51:01because of zoning. Um zoning has no

2:51:02parking requirements. So, this is not

2:51:04needed from a zoning perspective. I

2:51:06think it's an important thing for folks

2:51:08to be thinking about, especially as we

2:51:09start talking about changing zoning

2:51:10requirements for parking. Um, just

2:51:12because we don't require parking doesn't

2:51:14mean people don't build it. Case in

2:51:16point. Um, so, so really the use itself

2:51:20is not allowed. Non-accessory surface

2:51:22parking lots are not allowed. We allow

2:51:24garages um and we allow parking to be

2:51:27accessory to something else. So, in

2:51:28terms of the applicant's options by

2:51:30right, um they have the ability to

2:51:33construct a garage similar or larger.

2:51:35Obviously, there's cost associated with

2:51:37a parking garage. Um they could

2:51:38construct a small building or a large

2:51:40building and have parking associated

2:51:42with that. Um they could not provide

2:51:44parking and instead provide some dense

2:51:46housing development on the lot. Um

2:51:48hopefully that will come in the future.

2:51:49Um and it won't need parking, but at

2:51:51this moment in time, um that is is what

2:51:53they're hoping to be able to do. So if

2:51:55if you look at or drove by the site or

2:51:57looked at any of the aerial imagery and

2:51:59the documentation provided, you can see

2:52:00that there's a lengthy history of the

2:52:03property being used for parking of

2:52:05vehicles um most recently in association

2:52:07with a property across the street and

2:52:09sort of a quonet hut area um that was an

2:52:12auto body shop and they were parking

2:52:14cars over here. And so the applicant

2:52:15provided a basically a tested statement

2:52:18from the prior uh owner about the

2:52:21history of the use of that for the last

2:52:24um 30 years or so indicating that they

2:52:27had uh not a lease but an informal

2:52:30arrangement where basically someone was

2:52:32using that property for parking. So they

2:52:34are looking to reconstruct, demolish all

2:52:36of that, reconstruct something that is

2:52:38much larger um but in more modern form

2:52:41than the reg grinds and uh gravel and

2:52:45spots of pavement that are out there

2:52:47today if you went by. U so what we do

2:52:50have as attorney O'Neal mentioned is a

2:52:52plan that is likely to change based on

2:52:55the the nature of what the site was at

2:52:58the time this proposal was put forward.

2:53:00You can see there are stairwells that

2:53:02interconnect with the adjacent lots.

2:53:04Don't believe that those are likely to

2:53:05be proposed any longer. There's a

2:53:06transformer. I'm not sure if the

2:53:07transformer will still be necessary. So,

2:53:09some of our comments, you know, we

2:53:10really kind of regurgitated for the most

2:53:12part the comments we' previously issued

2:53:14on this concept um and pulled those

2:53:17forward as conditions that you have

2:53:19here. Essentially, the applicant will

2:53:21either be back in front of you for an

2:53:22amendment to this and possibly

2:53:24additional relief if they can't comply

2:53:26with those requirements because they

2:53:27reconfigured the lots to create this on

2:53:30its own lot. And in in doing that, um

2:53:32there are likely some issues with the

2:53:34setbacks for the parking area that

2:53:36they've created. Um the plans don't

2:53:38expressly clearly show that on a survey

2:53:41that has been provided. So, that's

2:53:42something we're looking to get so that

2:53:44we can kind of confirm that. Without

2:53:45that, we're not able to verify zoning

2:53:47compliance. So again, in kind of a

2:53:49couple projects tonight where there's a

2:53:50little bit of caveats on these where we

2:53:52just we don't have that level of

2:53:53information to review. As was stated,

2:53:56planning board will need to review this

2:53:57for a full parking plan review. So that

2:53:59will be something that will be necessary

2:54:02[snorts] for the board to move this

2:54:03forward. But really the applicants here

2:54:04to have you consider the existing use,

2:54:08its privilege, and hopefully see that

2:54:10this what they're proposing is an

2:54:11upgrade from what is there and has

2:54:14historically been there as this

2:54:16neighborhood continues to transform and

2:54:17change away from relic manufacturing

2:54:19uses and move forward into housing and

2:54:22hopefully a vibrant a continued vibrant

2:54:25neighborhood. Um, so I can go into more

2:54:29detail, but basically 41 spaces is

2:54:31what's shown on the plan that you have

2:54:34had the opportunity to review and the

2:54:37the applicant does have a zone change

2:54:39pending as sort of a plan B, if you

2:54:41will, or the board not to to grant this.

2:54:43Um, that went in front of the planning

2:54:44board was not favorably recommended from

2:54:46planning board um and was sent back to

2:54:49uh city council for economic development

2:54:50committee. So just a little context on

2:54:52other things, other moving pieces um to

2:54:54facilitate this project. Um we were able

2:54:57to identify this as a potential pathway

2:54:58with a shorter timeline and the

2:55:00applicant has as you're seeing this

2:55:01evening pursued that. Um so I don't need

2:55:05to go over really any of the comments

2:55:07that I have. I think the applicant's

2:55:08agreeable to all the conditions. This is

2:55:10an area just contextually for now next

2:55:13um that is sort of at the transitional

2:55:15fringe of a managed growth area and a

2:55:18transformational growth area and artisan

2:55:20growth area associated with those mill

2:55:21buildings didn't include this side of

2:55:23the street and then the infill corridor

2:55:25of Main Street. Um all very walkable to

2:55:27transit. Um happy to answer any

2:55:30questions. Thank you.

2:55:32>> Is anybody here for

2:55:3430 lb

2:55:37online?

2:55:40All this to keep a parking lot parking

2:55:41lot. Um I'm happy to move this forward.

2:55:44Uh board member um we'll go so voting on

2:55:47this it will be board member um who just

2:55:50voted?

2:55:51>> Board member Sacko. Um and uh uh but

2:55:55we'll start in the room. Um board member

2:55:56Bartagen.

2:55:58>> Yeah, I I don't have any additional

2:56:00comments to make.

2:56:01>> Board member Rammy.

2:56:02>> No other comments.

2:56:04>> Uh board member Cortez. Moving through.

2:56:08>> No comments.

2:56:09>> Board member Tono.

2:56:12>> I'm good. No comment.

2:56:14>> Board member Sacko.

2:56:16>> No comment.

2:56:17>> All right. I'll take a motion to close.

2:56:20>> Uh, I'd like to make a motion to close

2:56:21on 30 of the Grain Street and a portion

2:56:23of 42 L of the Grain Street.

2:56:25>> So moved.

2:56:26>> So moved.

2:56:26>> Is there a second?

2:56:28>> Second.

2:56:29>> On the motion, board member Cortez.

2:56:32>> Yes.

2:56:32>> Board member Mormy.

2:56:34>> Yes. Board member Tono.

2:56:41>> Board member Tono.

2:56:44>> Yes.

2:56:44>> Board member Sacko.

2:56:46>> Yes.

2:56:47>> My votes. Yes. Is there a motion on 30

2:56:50Lraange Street? I'd like to make a

2:56:51motion on 30 Lraange Street and a

2:56:53portion of 42 Lraange Street for

2:56:55approval of a special permit to extend,

2:56:57alter, or change a privilege

2:56:58pre-existing non-conforming structure

2:57:00and/or use subject to the conditions of

2:57:02approval set forth on pages four to five

2:57:05of the staff memo and the waiver is

2:57:07requested by the applicant.

2:57:09>> So moved.

2:57:12>> Excuse me. Is there a second?

2:57:14>> I do second the motion.

2:57:15>> On the motion, board member Cortez,

2:57:18>> yes. Board member Mori,

2:57:20>> yes.

2:57:20>> Board member Tono,

2:57:22>> yes.

2:57:22>> Board member Sacko,

2:57:24>> yes.

2:57:24>> My votes, yes. Thank you very much.

2:57:26>> Thank you very much.

2:57:27>> All right. Um, it does not appear that

2:57:30we have any communications. Uh, so um

2:57:33and I don't think did we have

2:57:36>> Okay. I was like, I didn't see any. So,

2:57:38make sure in that case I'll take a

2:57:40motion to adjurnn.

2:57:41>> Motion to adjurnn.

2:57:42>> Is there a second?

2:57:44>> Second.

2:57:44>> Second.

2:57:45>> All in favor? Hi.

2:57:47>> Hi.

2:57:48>> Good night.

2:57:48>> Thanks everyone.

2:57:51>> Bye-bye.