2026-08-26 - Planning Board

0:00Uh, great. Good evening and welcome to

0:03the Wednesday, August 26th, 2026 meeting

0:07of the city of Worcester Planning Board.

0:09My name is Albert Lvali. I'm going to

0:10chair tonight's meeting. Before we

0:12begin, a couple of brief announcements

0:15concerning how our meeting is going to

0:16run tonight. First is like all our

0:19meetings, this meeting is in a hybrid

0:21format. Uh, you can participate both in

0:24person here at city hall or by going

0:26online to wormath.zoomv.com.

0:28zoomggov.comj1617314979

0:36or by calling in at 669-254-5252

0:41and entering access code 161-731-4979

0:45followed by the pound sign. Uh to manage

0:48remote participation during our hybrid

0:49meetings and prevent disruptions, all

0:51participants are automatically blocked

0:52from unmuting themselves, turning on

0:54their video, or sending chat messages.

0:57For those participants who would like to

0:59comment on an item on our agenda, we ask

1:01that you use the raise your hand feature

1:03in Zoom during that discussion on that

1:05item. Uh if you're joined by phone, you

1:07can raise your hand by pressing star9.

1:09Um staff will call on the members of the

1:12public one by one uh when we get to that

1:14time and give them permission to unmute

1:16themselves. If you're joined by phone,

1:17you can do that by pressing star six. Uh

1:19for folks in the room, we typically take

1:21public comment from you first and uh

1:24just sort of raise your hand and come up

1:25to the microphone.

1:27Um, next I note this is a public meeting

1:29which is both being broadcast and

1:31recorded. Minutes will also be published

1:33at a later date. To help with that

1:34process, we ask all speakers

1:36participating in person to please use a

1:38microphone uh to please clearly identify

1:41yourself each time you speak. In the

1:42first time you speak, please also state

1:44your city or town of residence for the

1:46record. to help maintain an orderly

1:48meeting. Please address all comments and

1:49questions through the chair, that's me,

1:51rather than speaking directly to any of

1:53the applicants or other um commenters.

1:57Uh there are a couple items on our

1:59agenda that are going to be postponed

2:00tonight. I'm going to read through those

2:02shortly. If you're here on one of those

2:03items, please note that no additional

2:05notice will be sent to you prior to the

2:07next meeting. Best thing to do is call

2:09the planning department the day of the

2:10next meeting as it is not uncommon for

2:13items to be uh postponed multiple times

2:15before they're heard by this board.

2:19Once an item is called, there will be a

2:20brief presentation of that item followed

2:22by any additional comments or

2:23clarifications from members of the city

2:25staff. Uh then comes the opportunity for

2:28anyone from the public who wants to

2:29speak about that item um to do so first

2:32here in the room and then uh for those

2:35folks who are participating remotely. Uh

2:37lastly, all applicants should be aware

2:39that approvals are generally

2:40conditional. Decisions are generally

2:41signed by the board at the next meeting

2:43and where appropriate filed with the

2:44city clerk the following day, which is

2:46what begins any of the appeals periods.

2:48Decisions are typically not released to

2:50the applicant until all conditions of

2:51approval have been satisfactorily

2:53addressed. Is the applicant's

2:54responsibility to address conditions of

2:56approval and a lack of doing so may

2:58result in delays or enforcement.

3:00Applicants with questions on that are

3:01asked to call the planning department.

3:04Uh so moving into postponements

3:07tonight, item number five, 114 Lincoln

3:10Street, a definitive site plan. The

3:11request is to postpone the public

3:13hearing to September 1626 and extend the

3:15constructive grant deadline to October

3:17826. Item six, 256 and 262 Sunderland

3:21Road. A definitive site plan request to

3:23postpone the public hearing to September

3:251626 and extend the constructive grant

3:27deadline to October 826.

3:30And item number two, which is 24 through

3:3328 Chaquestit Road and 029 Dominion

3:36Road, a definitive site plan in MGL81G,

3:40private street improvement. They request

3:42uh to withdraw without prejudice. Is

3:45there a motion on the postponements and

3:47the request to leave?

3:50>> Make a mo uh a motion to um postpone

3:53items five and six and to withdraw

3:55without prejudice item two.

3:58>> Second. On the motion, Mr. McCormack,

4:01>> yes.

4:02>> Mr. King,

4:03>> yes.

4:04>> Mr. Delera,

4:05>> yes.

4:05>> Mr. Tumi,

4:07>> yes.

4:07>> I vote yes as well. That motion passes

4:09five to zero.

4:10>> This is I'm sorry to interrupt. This is

4:11Steve Kerry in the planning division. We

4:12also have the matter of the fee refund

4:15uh fee waiver request for Chesset Road.

4:18>> Uh thank you, Mr. Kerry. To my

4:19colleagues, um the applicant for

4:22Chquesset Road has requested a fee

4:24waiver. Uh my understanding is staff

4:26took a pretty significant amount of time

4:27reviewing this. Um, and it's this

4:29board's policy not to grant those except

4:31in extreme cases, but if anybody feels

4:34otherwise, uh, speak now.

4:41Hearing no one, do we need a motion on

4:42that, Mr. Kerry?

4:45Sure. Um, motion um to not grant the fee

4:49waiver for uh the 81G and site plan

4:52approval for Chickas Road.

4:55>> I would make that motion.

4:58Second

4:59>> on the motion. Mr. McCormick,

5:01>> yes.

5:01>> Mr. King,

5:02>> yes.

5:03>> Mr. Delera,

5:04>> yes.

5:04>> Mr. Tumi,

5:05>> yes.

5:06>> I vote yes. That motion passes 5 to

5:08zero.

5:09Uh, and into our agenda.

5:13Um,

5:15am I looking at the right agenda? Hold

5:17on a second.

5:28All right. First item we're going to

5:29hear tonight is item number one, one

5:32Jackson Street. This will be a public

5:33hearing for a special permit

5:36um for relief from minimum off- streetet

5:38parking and or loading requirements,

5:40dimensional requirements,

5:42etc. Mr. O'Neal,

5:50>> is is your microphone on?

5:54Try again. Here we go.

5:57>> Donald O'Neal, um, lawyer here in

5:59Worcester, here this evening on behalf

6:00of the applicant in this case, Jackson

6:02Street Apartments LLC. Also with me is

6:06Michael Oor, who's the manager and

6:08principal of um,

6:12Jackson Street Apartments LLC. uh

6:15available online I believe is Raphael

6:18Hernandez from Acropolis Design who has

6:22uh prepared the architectural plans for

6:25this project and um I believe Victoria

6:29Epstein as well from Kraton Manning

6:31Engineering who did the uh

6:33transportation management plan um and

6:36she is available for any questions that

6:38you may have for her. Um also um

6:43I did um uh speak both of them. There

6:47was a couple of questions that we had

6:48from staff today regarding the

6:49architectural plans which Raphael is

6:51here for and Victoria can address any

6:54questions regarding um the

6:56transportation management plan. Um with

6:59that, uh one of the conditions of

7:01approval that we'll get to is for an

7:03updated plan reflecting, um the uh

7:07change in the percentage of units which

7:09would be um affordable. Um and she can

7:13address uh any questions that you may

7:15have concerning that. Um this property

7:18is it's an existing

7:21old um apartment building eventually

7:24that was converted into uh warehouse use

7:27in we believe 1969.

7:30Uh upon original construction it was um

7:33five apartments, one for each floor. Uh

7:37and then the records indicate that in

7:411912 or 13 it was converted um to 12

7:46apartments

7:47uh and remained uh in that configuration

7:50until 1969.

7:52Um and what we're looking to do um in

7:56this situation now is to convert back to

7:5932 apartments. And the breakdown on

8:01those apartments are nine studio units,

8:0414 one-bedroom units, and nine

8:07two-bedroom units. Um there is no um

8:14parking available on site. Basically,

8:15the building occupies pretty much the

8:18entire lot. Um and um so what we're

8:23seeking from the board is a special

8:26permit for a reduction of 16 parking

8:28spaces. We have already been to the

8:31zoning board and had a reduction uh

8:33through variance of um 20 parking spaces

8:37for that location. Um and uh this would

8:41um special permit that we're requesting

8:44now is available uh to the applicant

8:47because of the inclusionary zoning um

8:50compliance that we um have submitted. Um

8:55the

8:57idea basically is these apartments would

9:00be rented to people without cars. Um

9:02there is no available parking on site.

9:05However, there's a need for apartments

9:08um particularly uh ones with an

9:11affordable component and in fact that

9:14this unit may have a greater percentage

9:17than the formal requirement that we are

9:19needed to request for inclusionary

9:22zoning. Um and that's an it's a a strong

9:26likelihood that the percentage of actual

9:29affordable units would be greater than

9:30that. However, they would not be, you

9:33know, deed restricted restricted for the

9:3530-year um period. Um

9:39people would know going in uh that there

9:41is no parking um or so they wouldn't

9:45rent or they would um make their own

9:47arrangements with respect to parking

9:49offsite uh in a garage or or some other

9:52location. Um we feel that the

9:57uh need is present uh and that um

10:02based on other experience of my client

10:04has similar properties

10:06um and the actual uh number of tenants

10:10who have vehicles is is very low. Um and

10:15um situation would be that if that turns

10:19into a problem then um people won't rent

10:23the apartments. Uh which would um be the

10:27risk that the owner is you know prepared

10:29to take. Um but um we feel this is a

10:34location where it located a couple of

10:38blocks basically north. Um it would be

10:41in the downtown uh overlay district.

10:43There is no parking requirement. Um so

10:47uh if with the board's uh if you would

10:50like I could turn it over to uh Kraton

10:53Manning just to kind of walk you through

10:54the transportation management plan that

10:56they prepared um just to sort of uh and

11:01um address any issues that you might

11:03have as questions after that.

11:06>> Yeah. Uh let's let's do that.

11:11Hello. Uh, can you hear me?

11:15>> Hi, we can hear you. Go ahead.

11:17>> Excellent. Uh, good evening, Chairman

11:19Lavali, members of the board and staff.

11:21Uh, my name is Victoria Epstein. As Mr.

11:23O'Neal mentioned, I'm a traffic engineer

11:25for the application with Kraton Kraton

11:28Manning Engineering affiliated with Ghi

11:31Consultants. Uh and as part of this

11:33application, we did prepare the

11:34transportation management plan and with

11:38uh the change in the affordability uh

11:40ratios, there are just some impacts to

11:42our narrative that we would wanted to

11:44touch on. Um mainly wanted to highlight

11:48that while um you know affordability is

11:51a factor that can contribute

11:53significantly to reduced parking demand,

11:55it is not the only factor that we look

11:57at. There really are several factors. Uh

12:00those being location

12:02uh size of the units provided uh and

12:05affordability which will you know be met

12:07to some degree albeit reduced um all of

12:11which contribute to a reduced parking

12:12rate um and vehicle ownership and are

12:16all u evident at this one Jackson site

12:18uh where we believe that the site would

12:20effectively operate without parking. uh

12:23to just kind of high level touch on some

12:25of these uh topics. You know, location

12:28obviously we are within the uh main

12:30street corridor infield growth area. Um

12:33you know very good connectivity and

12:34walkability to downtown nearby bus

12:37stations Union Station with extensive

12:39public transit opportunities.

12:42um dialing into the size of the units uh

12:45in the development. Um the fact that

12:47there will be majority studio and

12:49one-bedroom units uh plays into reduced

12:52demand per unit compared to a site that

12:54might offer two-bedroom, threebedroom,

12:57fourbedroom units. Um all that combined

13:00with the um affordability and the

13:03affordable units that we provided um

13:05would all create uh an environment that

13:08would really thrive without parking. Um

13:10and it's also noted that there will be

13:12uh indoor and I believe the applicant

13:14will be agreeing to providing additional

13:16exterior bicycle parking which will

13:19provide you know alternative means than

13:20a vehicle to uh be able to travel to and

13:23from the site. Um

13:26and in addition

13:29um you know I just want I do think it's

13:31important to note is from a technical uh

13:33standpoint that we look to publications

13:35such as the Institute of Transportation

13:37Engineers parking generation manual when

13:39we consider these factors. Um and this

13:42generation manual contains you know

13:44several data points which support these

13:47statements. Uh and then as you kind of

13:49start to whittle away at the demand of

13:52say a similar development that would be

13:53in a very suburban area, you know,

13:56doesn't have this accessibility to

13:57public transit to downtown commercial

14:00areas, um you kind of start to see a

14:02reduction in parking. So all of these

14:04combined um would just really farewell

14:06for the site. Um lastly, just to kind of

14:09reiterate what Mr. O'Neal uh said is

14:11that the development would kind of have

14:13its own ability to self- select uh and

14:16work with tenants uh that will you know

14:19look to move into a place that could

14:20meet their transportation needs. Um and

14:23this is also supported by industry data.

14:25There's been research done that suggests

14:27that um future tenants will um you know

14:30look to apartments that um don't provide

14:33parking if they find that it is suitable

14:35to meet their transportation needs. And

14:37on the other side of that coin, if they

14:40do require um you know parking to

14:42support their their needs, then they

14:44will uh you know go look for residents

14:46elsewhere. Um so with all these in mind,

14:49uh we feel confident that the site would

14:51be able to operate uh effectively

14:52without an on- street parking without an

14:54off- streetet rather uh parking supply.

14:56And I'm happy to answer any uh specific

14:58questions if the the board has any. Uh

15:01thank you,

15:02>> Mr. Chairman. I should just add as well

15:04that I did review the recommended

15:06conditions of approval uh suggested by

15:10staff and um we're agreeable to those

15:13conditions.

15:14>> Okay, thank you very much. Uh that said,

15:17additional comments from city staff.

15:20>> Sure. Through the chair, this is

15:21Michelle Smith and the city's planning

15:22division. Can you guys hear me? All

15:24right,

15:24>> we can.

15:25>> Great. Okay, so as you heard, this is a

15:28request for a special permit for

15:29inclusionary zoning incentives for the

15:31property at one Jackson Street. We're in

15:33a BG3 zoning district as well as the

15:36CCOD E overlay. Um, so our commercial

15:40corridors overlay district and one of

15:42our denser business districts, the

15:44existing fivestory building that you see

15:46on the screen here. The intent is to

15:48convert that into a multif family

15:50high-rise with 32 units. Uh the

15:53applicant was previously in front of the

15:55zoning board to seek additional relief

15:57related to parking, the topic of

15:59tonight's conversation uh through

16:01variance for what is essentially an

16:03excess of what the planning board can

16:05authorize through the special permit

16:07that they're seeking from you this

16:08evening. So there are a number of

16:09different density incentives that are

16:12provided for inclusionary projects that

16:15build into their scope, inclusionary

16:18units, if you will, u as part of what we

16:20call eligible developments. And so that

16:22enables them to seek the special permit

16:23that they're seeking from this board

16:25this evening to reduce the requirements

16:27automatically based on the amount of

16:29affordable units. They get some initial

16:32reductions and then some further

16:34reductions by the transportation demand

16:36management plan that you heard um Miss

16:38Epstein speak to just moments ago. And

16:41so after all of those automatic

16:43incentives are taken into consideration,

16:46what they're seeking from you this

16:47evenings really equates to four parking

16:50spaces of relief. While practically

16:52speaking, there are no spaces that are

16:53being provided. Um so some of those

16:56incentives automatically reduce that and

16:57then the zoning board already took care

16:59of the spaces that are above and beyond

17:00what you can grant um this evening. So

17:02that's that's what they're in front of

17:04you for. Um, so we do have a number of

17:07conditions of approval and I think most

17:09of the comments that we've had at this

17:11point have been addressed through

17:12conversation with the applicant um or in

17:14the the comments this evening. I think

17:16just notably that over the course of the

17:17project in the event that some of the

17:19board members maybe saw conflicting

17:20information in the documents provided um

17:23the sort of assumptions about

17:25affordability with a capital A um have

17:28changed. Um and so you you heard

17:30attorney O'Neal mention that um what the

17:32kind of deed commitment will be. It may

17:35be different from the reality of what

17:37the the leasing looks like. Um but we

17:39are looking at the deed commitment when

17:41we're talking about affordability and

17:43and that's kind of what we take into

17:44consideration. So those numbers adjust

17:47um in accordance with that. So we have

17:49recommendations for conditions of

17:51approval. I do want to note just one

17:53change. There's just an inconsistency or

17:55typo within those conditions. So want to

17:57make that suggestion um to the board

18:00members before moving to a vote. So

18:03specifically I believe it is under

18:06condition six. We actually have a

18:09reference to four exterior bikes parking

18:12spaces. We are actually asking the

18:14applicant to install six exterior spaces

18:17which would equate to uh with the 26

18:20spaces that are going to be provided

18:22interior to the building for bike

18:24storage. This would basically bring the

18:26project up to a 1:1 ratio for bike

18:28parking. Uh which we think given the

18:30fact that there is no uh parking that's

18:32being proposed for the project would be

18:34an important amenity. Um so this just

18:37reconciles there's another condition

18:38that already refers to six uh bike racks

18:41being provided. Um but we are just

18:44talking about uh the number of bike

18:46spaces under that condition. So if we

18:48can reconcile that to say six that would

18:50be great. Um and then I will note for

18:53condition two um which is a requirement

18:56to update the transportation demand

18:58management plan to reflect the final

18:59affordability ratios as I was referring

19:02to that kind of change that's happened

19:04over the course of the project. There

19:05are a few comments from the department

19:07of transportation and mobility that

19:09should also be uh referred to in this

19:11item. Um that memo was issued on uh July

19:1517th. So just wanting to ensure that in

19:17addition to those final affordability

19:19ratios, it would include the

19:20recommendations for um from DTM dated

19:23717. Um so those would be the two

19:26modifications that at this point we are

19:29requesting um that you make to the

19:31conditions that are provided in the

19:33memo. Um otherwise the conditions mainly

19:36refer to elements of the building um

19:39that that require them to comply with

19:41that transportation demand management

19:43plan to help moderate for parking. And

19:45they also relate a bit to the commercial

19:47corridor overlayly district and some

19:48reconciliation across um architectural

19:51plans and um the documents that have

19:54been provided from what actually exists

19:56on the site today. There have been some

19:58relatively recent changes to the uh

20:01exterior of the building. Um the

20:03building is in this uh interesting

20:05transitional state uh from a historic

20:07perspective. We're in the process of

20:08listing this um on the city the list

20:12that the city uses to designate uh

20:14properties as historic as part of a

20:16grant that we received from the

20:18Massachusetts Historical Commission

20:20which we expect to conclude at the end

20:21of September. So um any alterations to

20:24the building u once it's listed on

20:27MACRIS will require a demolition delay

20:29waiver. Um and the changes that we have

20:31conditioned uh related to the

20:33architectural plan should reconcile for

20:36what the application the applicant has

20:38indicated they intend to do um and align

20:40with the historic commission's ultimate

20:43objectives assuming that this end up

20:45ends up being listed on MACRIS before

20:46further alterations are are made and

20:49also would potentially open up um if uh

20:52the state agrees uh potential tax credit

20:54doors uh for the applicant. that's to be

20:56determined uh at this point um through

20:59the review process by the state. So,

21:01just wanted to to clarify that as well.

21:04Um I think that is really it as far as

21:07the the questions that we have um this

21:09evening since those have been answered

21:11via email and and via phone with the

21:13applicants council and um design team.

21:16So, happy to to wrap the comments up

21:19there and answer any questions. Thanks,

21:20Mr. Chair.

21:22>> Thank you, Miss Smith. Uh, additional

21:24comments from DPW on this item.

21:28>> This is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. At

21:30this moment, we don't have any comment.

21:32Thank you.

21:33>> Thank you, Miss Rodriguez. Uh, anyone in

21:35the room wishing to comment on this item

21:37tonight?

21:40Seeing none, is there anyone online with

21:42their hand raised?

21:45Steve Caring, the planning division, not

21:46seeing anyone with their hand raised.

21:49>> Okay. Um board members,

21:54Mr. McCormack, can we start with you?

21:56>> Sure. Um yeah, for myself, uh I don't I

22:00don't have any um uh concerns with the

22:03special permit request. It's really just

22:04for four parking spaces. Um it seems

22:08like a great redevelopment of a existing

22:11historic building. Um and I think it's

22:14uh that the request is reasonable and

22:16I'd be happy to support it.

22:18Thank you. Uh, Mr. King,

22:21>> I would echo board member McCormack's

22:22comments. Thank you.

22:24>> Thank you, Mr. Delero.

22:26>> Agree. I I have no uh questions or

22:29comments on this. I support it.

22:32>> Thanks.

22:33>> Thank you, Mr. Tumi.

22:34>> Uh, no additional comments. Thank you.

22:37>> Thank you, Mr. Rosende.

22:38>> No additional comments. Thank you.

22:41>> Um, I also have no comments. This is an

22:43existing infill development reusing a

22:46building. I I don't mind. I I generally

22:48don't believe we need parking

22:50requirements

22:52as a city, which um is particularly true

22:55in the downtown um districts. So, uh I'm

22:58happy to support this. Um Mr. McCormack,

23:01it is a public hearing. Uh if you'd like

23:02to make a motion,

23:04>> make a motion to close the public

23:06hearing.

23:06>> Second.

23:07>> On the motion, Mr. McCormack?

23:09>> Yes.

23:10>> Mr. King?

23:11>> Yes.

23:11>> Mr. Delera?

23:13>> Yes.

23:13>> Uh Mr. Tumi?

23:14>> Yes.

23:15>> I vote yes. 5-0 hearing is closed.

23:19I would make a motion to approve the

23:21definitive or sorry the special permit

23:23for one Jackson Street subject to staff

23:27recommended conditions of approval on

23:29pages

23:30uh two and three of the staff memo uh

23:33with the amendments to condition six uh

23:38regarding the bicycle spaces and to

23:40incorporate the DTM uh memo dated July

23:4417th noted in condition number two.

23:48Second

23:49>> on the motion. Mr. McCormack,

23:52>> yes.

23:52>> Mr. King,

23:54>> yes.

23:54>> Mr. Delera,

23:55>> yes.

23:56>> Mr. Tumi,

23:56>> yes.

23:57>> I vote yes. 5 to zero. That motion

23:58passes.

23:59>> Thank you very much.

24:00>> Thank you.

24:02>> Uh, next item on the agenda will be item

24:04number 3, 25 through 27 Perkins Street.

24:07This is a public meeting for a

24:08definitive site plan and a public

24:09hearing for special permit uh for relief

24:12for minimum off- streetet parking andor

24:14loading requirements related to

24:16inclusionary zoning.

24:21You can sit down if you want.

24:22>> Uh good evening. My name is Jacob

24:24Lemieux with Hancock Associates at 315

24:26Elm Street in Marorrow, Mass. I'm the

24:29civil engineer on the site project. also

24:32um is on the phone today is Acropolis

24:35who is the architect. Um are you able to

24:39pull up the Oh, you've already got that

24:42up. So essentially the petition is the

24:45demolition of the existing three-story

24:483unit building on the construction of a

24:51five unit uh fivetory 23 unit building

24:55um under the inclusionary uh zoning

24:58benefit parking reduction regulations.

25:01Um we're proposing 23 units uh five

25:05affordable units with uh 25

25:10uh uh parking spaces proposed inside the

25:12building. Um there are two sight

25:16driveways. The building is steeply

25:18sloped up as it goes up Perkins Street.

25:20So the building is sort of tiered into

25:23that slope. Yeah. As you can see here,

25:25there are two curb cuts from Perkins

25:28Street that lead to the two levels of

25:30garage. Um,

25:34yeah,

25:36this is good. Can you go to the

25:39um Perkins Street side or Oh, this is

25:42Perkins Street. So, this is the um

25:45looking up towards up Perkins Street. Um

25:48if you want to go to the next slide,

25:51these are the views from Perkins Street

25:54on the bottom lefthand corner. Um from

25:57the abuing house to the north uh on the

26:02bottom right hand corner there's a

26:04external patio area there that is

26:07outside of the building for residents

26:09that sits on top of the parking garage

26:12underneath it. um which helps to bring

26:15the massing of the building back further

26:17away from that property line while

26:18maintaining some structured parking

26:20there. Um if you want to go back to the

26:23site plan.

26:27So we've got a near the main entryway.

26:29We've got a proposed parking bicycle

26:32parking spaces for about 10 bicycles.

26:35We've also got about 15 inside as well.

26:38So that would be about 25 bar bicycle

26:40parking spaces uh inside and outside of

26:44the building. Um if you want to go to

26:46the next slide.

26:49Uh storm water management on site is

26:52just handled by uh three small SC310

26:56chamber systems which are just uh

26:59chambers that are buried under the

27:00ground provide storm water storage. Um

27:03we're providing treatment to the runoff

27:05that we're generating on site and also

27:08reducing or matching the flow rates to m

27:10to the municipal system um to what is

27:14there currently existing. Uh if you want

27:17to go to the next page.

27:19We're also providing a robust planting

27:21plan. Um we've got landscaping all the

27:25way around the structure. Uh we've got a

27:28landscape buffer buffering the patio

27:31area. Uh we've got taller landscape

27:34buffers on the other side to help uh

27:37hide that taller wall section. Uh and

27:40we've also got a uh staircase that goes

27:44to Westminster Street so that there's

27:46some pedestrian tie-in and uh to

27:49Westminster from the entryway. Um if you

27:53want to go to the next sheet or the

27:57This is just the maneuvering plan.

27:58sewing. So, I was hoping you had the

28:01phototric plan.

28:04>> I don't believe the phototric plan made

28:06it into our slide deck.

28:07>> Okay. Okay. Well, that's fine. Just um

28:10photometrics. Uh essentially, we're

28:12providing lighting on three sides of the

28:14building. Uh Parkinson Street, the

28:18northern and the southern or the

28:20Westminster side of the building. Uh

28:23we're only having some area lighting

28:26like some motion sensing lighting on the

28:28rear of the building for security, but

28:30there'll be no permanent lighting on

28:32that side. Uh on the side of the patio,

28:36uh any lighting trespass has been

28:38reduced to less than a half a foot

28:40candle at the property line as was

28:42requested. Um Raphael, I don't know if

28:45you want to go into the architectural

28:47design and the look of the building.

28:51Yes, thank you. Rafael Hernandez,

28:53designer, Acropolis Design. We Western

28:56Worcester, Massachusetts. So, the the

28:59ground level has a stone thin brick

29:03veneer product to kind of ground the

29:06building to the site.

29:08The upper levels are have balconies and

29:12it has a more suburban type of look to

29:15the building since we're a little bit

29:17further away from downtown with the

29:19pitch roofs and the gabled lines. Um the

29:23projecting balconies also include all

29:25the HVAC equipment. Uh the windows and

29:28and doors will be energy efficient. Um

29:33double hung windows and sliding doors.

29:36Um, we haven't decided on the sighting,

29:39but it'll be a lap sighting or shingle

29:41sighting with some panel sighting

29:43included in the building and asphalt

29:45shingle roof. And the garage doors will

29:49be a carriage style garage door. And the

29:52on the upper portion of the site on the

29:56right side of this image, it's going to

29:57be an outdoor uh space for the tenants

30:00of the building.

30:02um that's only accessible by the tenants

30:04and

30:07um inside we have the parking on each

30:10level and a mix of

30:13uh one, two, and three bedrooms. Thank

30:15you very much.

30:18And uh to summarize uh what we're asking

30:21from the board today is the special

30:22permit with the inclusionary zoning

30:24reduction in parking spaces

30:27um to of 32 point 34.5 spaces and then a

30:31waiver for 10 further spaces to for a

30:35total of 25 spaces provided. Um

30:41and yeah I think uh we should open it

30:45up. Okay, thank you. Um, staff comments

30:48on this item.

30:50>> Sure. This is Steve Kerry in the

30:51planning division. Um, this is before

30:54you for both a site plan approval and a

30:56special permit under the inclusionary

30:57zoning uh provisions. Um, the trigger

31:00for the site plan is obviously the the

31:01number of units as well as the slope

31:03that it's on. Um, under the special

31:05permit, they are seeking relief of

31:07essentially five spaces. So, there are

31:0923 units proposed. 46 would be required

31:11if they were not providing any

31:12inclusionary uh units but they are

31:15providing 15% uh affordable units. So

31:17that gets them a red reduction of six

31:19spaces. Um they have provided a

31:21transportation demand management plan um

31:24which gets them a further 25% uh so a

31:27further 10 space reduction. Um and then

31:29they're seeking by special permit a

31:31reduction of five spaces to have a total

31:33of 25 as the applicant noted for 23

31:35dwelling units. Um those spaces are

31:38located underneath the um underneath the

31:40building. Um we had asked the applicant

31:44to request postponement um a higher

31:46prior to the last meeting and and they

31:48did um so they could address um some

31:50issues that we had we had flagged and

31:51they have um addressed those issues in

31:53in the intervening weeks. Um that was to

31:56make sure that the uh garage layout

31:58could just uh accommodate um vehicles

32:00with the locations of the footings and

32:02columns and they have provided an

32:04autoturn analysis for that. at that has

32:06been satisfactory at the Department of

32:07Transportation Mobility. Um we also had

32:10a little bit of concern just about the

32:11location of one of the uh infiltration

32:13units relative to a downslope retaining

32:15wall, but they've they've provided a

32:17impermeable barrier to prevent um you

32:20know any uh water seeping from that

32:21infiltration unit from affecting the um

32:23structural stability of that wall. Um

32:26and then they also have agreed to retain

32:29four of mature trees that are currently

32:31on the site um ups slope separating it

32:34from the butter um on the UPS slope

32:36side. Um

32:39so your uh memo in front of you does uh

32:42have sort of the remaining um conditions

32:44of approval that I think are largely

32:47annotational at this point. Um they have

32:50also just uh today or yesterday

32:51submitted some revised architectural

32:53plans in response to our recommended

32:55conditions of approval. That's

32:56appreciated. Um they've added some

32:57additional fenestration um on sort of on

33:01the left side of the Perkins Street

33:03elevation where my cursor is indicating

33:04right now. Um which we appreciate

33:06because it gives a little more symmetry

33:08to the building. Um and then on the

33:10ground floor they've added a um another

33:13window into the garage on the left side

33:15of the doors. uh the sort of UPS slope

33:18garage doors and then down here. Um

33:22we're glad to see that just because we

33:23want um to sort of be thinking about the

33:26visual impact of this um of this

33:28building on the on the uh Perkins Street

33:31sort of streetscape. Um to that end,

33:33they've also provided some uh details

33:36for the um uh

33:40uh fall protection wall that's going to

33:41be on top of the uh retaining walls as

33:44well as um describe the staircase that's

33:46going to be connecting the site down to

33:48Westminster Street, which will be sort

33:50of um a masonry concrete built into the

33:53built into the slope. Um I think that's

33:56all I have for now. Um I um and yeah,

33:59glad to answer any questions that the

34:00board might have.

34:02Thank you, Mr. Kerry. Uh, any comments

34:04from DPW on this item?

34:07>> This is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We

34:09don't have any comments

34:12at the as at this moment. Thank you.

34:15>> Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Uh, okay.

34:17Folks from the public wishing to speak

34:18on this item. Yeah. The thing to do is

34:20just come up one at a time. You can use

34:22any of the microphones. Just make sure

34:23it's got a little green circle. That

34:26means it's on. And reminder, we just

34:28need to know your name and your city or

34:29town of residence.

34:31Hi, my name is Rhonda White and I live

34:35at 29 Perkins Street, right up slope

34:38from these folks. Um, I'm here on behalf

34:42of my husband, Scott White, and his

34:44mother, Bernard Deette, who own the

34:46building. Uh, and they asked me to read

34:49this document. Okay.

34:52Uh Scott and Bernardon debt white

34:55property owners of 29 to 31 Perkins

34:57Street Easterly upslat up butters of the

35:01proposed build at 2527 Perkins Street

35:04would like to lodge an objection to the

35:06proposed build. Our family has owned 29

35:09to 31 Perkins Street for over 80 years.

35:12My extended family who grew up in this

35:14home includes whites, motherways,

35:17McKanins and Kelly's many of whom have

35:19gone on to become Worcester firefighters

35:21and Worcester police officers. Our

35:24family has deep roots in this community.

35:26Perkins Street in Worcester, Mass is a

35:28historic residential street named for

35:31members of the prominent Payne Sturgis

35:33Perkins family connected to the historic

35:36oats estate. 29 to31 Perkins Street was

35:40constructed in 1890 during the height of

35:43the industrial era and 25 Perkins Street

35:46was built 10 years later. Unlike many

35:48historic homes that underwent modern gut

35:50renovations, 25 Perkins Street retains

35:52its original interior woodwork and

35:55original stained glass windows. It's a

35:57beautiful building that exemplifies the

35:59turn of the century construction of that

36:01era. Homes such as this one are what

36:04give Worcester its abiding charm and

36:05personality. The proposed new build

36:08would not be homogeneous with the

36:09existing structures structures in this

36:12neighborhood. This would result in the

36:14loss of a historic building. The slope

36:17at the site of the proposed build at

36:192527 Perkins Street is considerably

36:21greater than 15%.

36:23And we are concerned about the possible

36:25structural ramifications of this build

36:27to our own home which resides uphill

36:30from the proposed bill.

36:32We would like to know what assurances we

36:34will have regarding the integrity of our

36:36own structure during and after

36:38construction of this new building.

36:40Gravity is a relentless force. Our

36:44building has been standing without any

36:45structural problems for 136 years. If

36:48our structure does sustain damage due to

36:50the various actions involved in the

36:52demolition, site prep, construction, and

36:54settling of the slope in the years

36:56following the proposed build, would we

36:58be compensated by the builder for our

37:00loss? Are there specific actions we must

37:03take to protect our investment in our

37:06home? And if so, what are those

37:08measures?

37:10Will a core sample of the hill be taken

37:12prior to approval of this construction?

37:14Will a retaining wall be installed at

37:16the boundary of our properties where its

37:1827 Perkins Street? If so, what assurance

37:21will we have that is of sufficient depth

37:23and thickness to provide ongoing

37:25stability for the structures above it?

37:28According to the ordinance, plans

37:30involving tall retaining walls adjacent

37:32to property lines undergo intensive

37:34evaluation regarding structural

37:36integrity, proximity to lot lines and

37:39impact on neighboring properties. Will

37:41we be appraised or apprised, excuse me,

37:45of the results of these evaluations as

37:47abutters? Will this ordinance be duly

37:49enforced in this instance? Will a

37:52privacy fence be installed between our

37:54properties? Our concerns also encompass

37:57the immediate imminent loss of privacy

37:59in our sideyard which faces due west as

38:02well as the potential loss of our view

38:04over the city. The loss of the shade

38:06trees although that was addressed. Um

38:12excuse me I lost my place

38:15and the amount of noise a 23 unit

38:18building would generate.

38:20In addition to the foregoing, we are

38:22very concerned about the parking

38:23problems that are bound to occur with

38:24the development of such a large

38:26building. Average American family has

38:28approximately two cars per household

38:30with 23 apartments and only 25 proposed

38:33parking spaces. Where does the planning

38:35board expect the remaining 21 cars to

38:37park? This is especially a problem in

38:40the wintertime due to plowing concerns,

38:42but realistically it'll be an ongoing

38:44problem regardless of the time of year.

38:48Are there sufficient high fire hydrants

38:50to accommodate a project of this size?

38:52Is the capacity of the existing water

38:54and sewer infrastructure sufficient to

38:56cope with the 23 additional units? A

38:58five-story structure in a community of 1

39:00to threetory structures will be

39:01discordant with the existing

39:03architecture. The amount of trash

39:05generated by 23 additional units will be

39:08excessive. Where will the trash be kept

39:10on the property?

39:12In conclusion, we object to any building

39:15code requirements being ra waved to

39:18accommodate this building. Other

39:20property owners in this neighborhood,

39:22without exception, have had to rebuild

39:24following fires. There's been several

39:26buildings that have burned down, and

39:28they've been required to rebuild on

39:30their existing foundations

39:32uh following destruction of their

39:34properties. The applicant seeks to raise

39:37a perfectly fine historic three-story uh

39:40three apartment dwelling in order to

39:41build a five-story 23 apartment

39:44dwelling. We would expect these owners

39:45to be required to abide by the same set

39:48of rules as everyone else in the

39:49neighborhood who's had to rebuild their

39:51properties out of necessity rather than

39:54choice. That's all.

39:56>> Thank you for your comments.

40:00Um come on up.

40:02Well, what we'll do, folks, is we'll

40:04we'll hear from everybody and then uh

40:06give the applicant an opportunity to

40:08address some of the issues that you you

40:10all raise.

40:13>> My name is Allison Leoo. I'm the

40:15homeowner at 26 Perkins Street, directly

40:18across the street from the proposed

40:20construction.

40:22I did submit these comments in written

40:24form to the planning board office uh

40:27about two weeks ago.

40:30I've lived in this home since 1993, 33

40:34years. My residence is a single family

40:37home, as are the homes on either side of

40:40me. My neighbors all around have been

40:44stable residents for decades.

40:47Many of the homes in this part of the

40:49city were built years and years ago and

40:52were the longlasting solid construction

40:55of their era with classic architectural

40:58features adding value to the homes. And

41:01as you heard, I'd like to to applaud my

41:04neighbor Rhonda who explained the

41:06historical value of the neighborhood. I

41:08think that's a very important point for

41:10your consideration.

41:12Other houses in the overall neighborhood

41:16are a combination of older single family

41:19homes and two family homes which have

41:22been in families for a long time. And

41:25the residents of our neighborhood tend

41:28to be stable and committed rather than

41:31transent as would be the case with

41:34apartment complexes where residence

41:36tends to be more of a short-term nature.

41:40In considering the stability of a city,

41:44it is beneficial for the community to

41:47have stability, to have longlasting

41:50residents who are invested in the care

41:55of the city that they have called home.

42:00My objections to the proposed

42:02construction include the following.

42:05Number one, according to the

42:06architectural rendition posted on the

42:09city's website, the entrances and exits

42:11to the underground parking area of the

42:14proposed apartment complex are directly

42:17across from the front of my house. The

42:21constant in-n-out traffic will cause

42:23disruption and congestion in what up to

42:26now has been a relatively quiet

42:29neighborhood with minimal traffic.

42:32Number two, the very large structure of

42:36five stories high is not consistent with

42:39the other homes in the area. The lack of

42:43aesthetical unity, no matter how nicel

42:46lookinging the building may be, would

42:48present a commercialized neighborhood

42:51rather than the residential area it has

42:54historically been.

42:56It would seem likely that this oddity

42:58would decrease property values in the

43:00long term, impacting the longstanding

43:03stable neighborhood residents and

43:06upstanding city of Worcester citizens

43:08who would discourage and it would

43:10discourage stable families from seeking

43:13single family homes from moving into the

43:16area in the future, which is something

43:18that we should all want for a city that

43:21that we care about. This would have

43:23lasting generational impact and that

43:26should be seriously considered. The

43:29proposed structure would be a blight on

43:31the community rather than an an

43:33improvement. Unfortunately,

43:36this will hurt existing families who

43:38have been city residents for many years

43:40and are invested in the community.

43:44Number three, if this demolition and

43:46construction were to move forward, the

43:49process would wreak havoc and create

43:52chaos and frustration for those who now

43:55live on the street and in the immediate

43:57vicinity.

43:59Construction can typically take months

44:01or even years, and this is a

44:03particularly complex, involved process,

44:07especially given that Perkins Street is

44:09an extremely steep hill. One can only

44:12imagine the nightmare of an even mild

44:15winter, never mind a harsh one. The

44:19disruption to lives and families that

44:21would be caused by a major long-term

44:23demolition and construction project

44:26would be serious and damaging, devoid of

44:29any benefit to residents, the

44:31neighborhood, and the city.

44:34Number four, given the tight space

44:37afforded to multi-units in the proposed

44:40building and the limitations of

44:42underground parking, what will be the

44:45parking situation when residents of the

44:47proposed complex have guests? It could

44:50result in a multitude of random cars

44:53being parked all along the street and

44:55the surrounding streets as well.

44:59As you've probably noticed, many drivers

45:01today lack social respect and they would

45:04be parking directly in front of all the

45:06area homeowners front doors and

45:08walkways.

45:09This could cause homeowners to feel

45:11unsafe going from their house to their

45:14car and so forth. It would be an eyesore

45:17for the neighborhood

45:19and deprive neighbors of privacy.

45:23Number five, an apartment house of this

45:26size could attract a transient

45:28demographic.

45:30Single family ho home homes and even two

45:32or three family established homes tend

45:35to attract a more stable population and

45:38a much better community atmosphere.

45:41Short-term dwellers are unlikely to be

45:44invested in care for their city or

45:46neighborhood and could potentially cause

45:48substantial disruption to a currently

45:51peaceful area of the city.

45:54Number six, the large building would

45:57also undermine the beauty of nature and

46:00the obs and obscure the views from

46:02neighbors windows who can currently

46:04enjoy the atmosphere of nearby Greenhill

46:07Park. The existing trees are a buffer to

46:10the busy traffic of Lincoln Street at

46:12the bottom of the hill, giving long-term

46:15residents the benefit of being apart

46:17from the noise of the busy city street

46:20while at the same time living in a

46:22location with convenient access to major

46:24roadways.

46:27Overall, I object to the pro proposed

46:29project as articulated above and

46:32respectfully ask that you reconsider

46:35allowing this to move forward. I'm happy

46:38to provide any additional input or have

46:40further discussion upon your upon

46:42request. Thank you very much for your

46:45consideration.

46:47>> Thank you.

46:49>> Uh additional folks in the room wanting

46:51to comment on this tonight.

46:56>> Not seeing anybody. Is there anyone

46:57online?

47:00>> Not seeing anyone with their hand

47:01raised.

47:03>> Okay, let's move on to board discussion.

47:06Um, Mr. McCormack, are you willing to go

47:08first?

47:10>> Uh, I suppose. Um,

47:13yeah. So, for for myself, u, I do

47:16appreciate the Well, actually, uh,

47:17before board comment, did we want to

47:19give the uh the applicant a chance to

47:22respond to any of those questions?

47:23>> Yeah, actually, thank you, Connor. Um,

47:26go ahead if you'd like to address any of

47:28that.

47:29>> U, yes. Uh so just um some of them are

47:33addressed outright such as there was a

47:35retaining wall previously proposed close

47:38to the uh 29 lot line. That wall has

47:41been removed now. We've got that patio

47:44there at surface level. So uh any all

47:47walls on site are 4T and under um and

47:52which is generally below the threshold

47:54that you would need an individual

47:55building permit for each wall. So um we

47:58don't foresee any issue with that. Um as

48:00far as

48:02the abuing property foundation um I

48:07could say that the construction is about

48:0930 ft from the existing house. Um if

48:14that's something that you're that butter

48:16is concerned with then I would recommend

48:18that they have an inspection done. Um,

48:20and then they can have an inspection

48:22done after the construction has been

48:24completed and then either file a suit

48:27against the builder or the builder's

48:30insurance company, which is generally

48:32standard practice for this sort of

48:33thing. Um,

48:38yeah. Uh, I think

48:41I think you know to speak to some of the

48:44comments about what kind of people that

48:47it'll bring in. You know, I think I

48:50think that the reason that this area is

48:53zoned this way that allows this is

48:56because we we need the units. We need

48:58the units and we need the people. And

49:01the fact that we're providing

49:03above one, we've got one parking space

49:06for each unit and two extra spaces for

49:09visitors um we think is generally

49:12beyond what is provided in these kind of

49:15projects. However, I will say that um it

49:18did work out fairly nicely with the

49:20building layout. Um, in terms of

49:23construction itself,

49:25uh, and noise, um, we're not asking for,

49:28the applicant's not asking for any

49:29waiverss to the to the, uh, noise

49:32ordinance in the city or any relief

49:35other than anybody else would get. So,

49:38there's no noise uh, generation here

49:41that's that will be in excess of

49:44anything that's allowed via the

49:46ordinance. Um,

49:49yeah. I uh I think that's it.

49:54>> Oh, the trash. Yes, there's an uh ref

49:57there's an internal trash room on the if

49:59you go to the second floor

50:03would be in the architectural plan

50:09up up one. Yeah. Right there is a trash

50:14room that will that the trash will be

50:16kept in.

50:19>> Okay. Uh the only other thing I thought

50:21you might want to mention um there's a

50:22question about adequacy of both fire

50:25hydrants and and utility uh

50:27availability. That seems like that's

50:29under your purview.

50:30>> Yeah. And um you know we've we have

50:33adequate flow capacity there. Uh there's

50:36an 8 in water mane which is certainly

50:39sufficient size for a project of this

50:41type. And uh you know we've this

50:44project's been reviewed by the DPW and

50:46uh they're satisfied that the available

50:51utilities will be sufficient for the

50:52project.

50:55>> Okay. Thank thank you for your comments.

50:57Uh all right, Mr. McCormack, back to

51:00you.

51:02>> Okay. Thank you. Um yeah, for myself, um

51:05I do appreciate the uh comments from

51:08debuters that we heard. Uh I I do

51:11understand this is a significant um

51:13development for the neighborhood. It's a

51:15lot larger than a lot of the surrounding

51:17uh buildings or homes. Um however, I

51:20think I'm looking at this uh in kind of

51:22two buckets. Uh and those are the two

51:24approvals that we're looking at tonight.

51:25One is for definitive site plan. Um so

51:28this is largely a byite development. So,

51:30we're we're really uh reviewing the the

51:32site uh itself to make sure it complies

51:35with zoning uh requirements. And then

51:37the special permit request, which is for

51:40uh relief from five parking spaces and I

51:43think one loading space. Um for the

51:46special permit request, I I I would be

51:48willing or amendable to supporting that

51:51request. Um I you know I think as we

51:53kind of discussed the last um with the

51:56last case um you know I

51:59I think there's uh I would agree with

52:02the chair's comments uh previously that

52:04the there there's a lot of um

52:08the minimum parking requirements are are

52:10pretty high anyway and I you know I I

52:12think it's reasonable to uh grant that

52:14request. Um, in terms of the site plan,

52:18um, you know, I I think the applicant

52:21did a fairly good job, um, of of

52:23constructing a site of or building of

52:26the size on the site. Um, I did have

52:28maybe one question. Um, the ground floor

52:32um along,

52:35sorry, what is it? Not Perkins Street.

52:37Um,

52:37>> Westminster.

52:39>> Westminster. What's the material for

52:41that? It kind of looks like a

52:43foundation. Um, and I'm just kind of

52:46curious, you know, what that what that

52:48would feel like along Westminster.

52:50Um, just didn't want to make it look

52:52like a a basement um facing the street.

52:56>> Um, Raphael Hernandez Acropolis design.

53:00Um, yeah, it's a

53:04a stone veneer material and there will

53:07be openings on that facade also for

53:11windows. So, it shouldn't feel too too

53:15much like a essentially like a

53:18a high

53:20barrier wall.

53:22Um,

53:24and it's it' be a natural looking

53:26material. It hasn't been finalized, but

53:28it it's going to be pry boral, which is

53:30a product that you mechanically fasten

53:34to concrete so that we don't have a lot

53:37of exposed foundation and it looks

53:41natural and all tied to the ground

53:43around it and the and the landscaping.

53:47>> Okay. I thank you. I appreciate that.

53:49Yeah, I just had it was a uh just want

53:51to make sure there was a little bit of

53:52fenestration along that um uh frontage

53:56which I I think we're looking at Perkins

53:57Street on the screen right now, but um

53:59was concerned about the Westminster

54:01side. Um but yeah, I think that Okay, so

54:03there are some some windows there. So

54:05yeah, I think that plus the landscaping

54:06um uh satisfies my my concern there. So

54:10otherwise, yeah, I I do appreciate this

54:12is a much larger uh building than what's

54:14typically in the area, but um it does uh

54:17comply with the requirements of the uh

54:19site plan review and I would be willing

54:22to support it.

54:25>> Thank you, Mr. McCormack. Mr. King,

54:30>> not to belver similar points, but I do

54:33feel this aligns with the targets for

54:35the city and what we're looking for in

54:36this area. So, I'd be happy to support

54:38it. Thank you.

54:40Uh, thank you, Mr. Delera.

54:43>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, yes, I echo

54:46my colleagues on this one. Um,

54:50as I understand it,

54:53this site would allow a fairly

54:56substantial structure anyways, even

54:58without a special permit. So, I

55:02appreciate the the abuter's concerns

55:04here. Um, but again, this is something

55:06that meets the requirements and I would

55:09also add that aesthetically it looks

55:11pretty good. It looks better than many

55:12of the other projects that have come our

55:14way and so I'm pleased about that.

55:16>> Thank you.

55:18>> Thank you, Mr. Delo. Mr. Tumi.

55:21>> Yeah. One question relative to the

55:22parking is pretty much one space per

55:25will those be assigned spaces, one per

55:27apartment or is it going to be a first

55:29come, first serve. If someone has two

55:30cars, you'll be rented without without

55:33parking.

55:37U we're indifferent. Uh so I mean it may

55:40be best to assign the spaces that way

55:43everybody knows where they're going in

55:45there and uh the visitor spaces stay

55:47open.

55:49Again, the concern there is pre the

55:51previous person we had, they were

55:53talking that they're renting,

55:54>> right,

55:55>> specifically without other restrictions

55:57and leas is going to be one per

56:00apartment and

56:01>> yeah for that

56:02>> I think that we can we'll be happy to do

56:04that.

56:06>> Other than that other than that I'm

56:08supportive of it.

56:12>> Uh thank you Mr. Tumi. Mr. Rosende

56:15>> no further comment. Thank you.

56:16>> Okay. Just for myself I I thought Mr.

56:18McCormick's point was a a good one about

56:20the um Westminster Street facade. Uh I'm

56:25looking at your um planting plan and I

56:27don't see I see you've got some uh um

56:31some infrastructure there, some utility

56:33infrastructure on that side kind of

56:36below where those windows are that look

56:37into the parking garage that we're

56:39looking at on the screen right now. Um,

56:41I'm I'm wondering

56:43uh

56:45is it possible to add some plantings in

56:48in there to kind of soften that a little

56:50bit on the street level?

56:51>> Could you pull up the planting plan,

56:52please?

56:55>> Oh, you are.

56:56>> Yeah. So, you're talking about between

56:57the sidewalk and the plantings we have

56:59up there. Yeah, I think um we could

57:01definitely there's nothing there besides

57:03some manholes and pipes. So, we could

57:05definitely fit some additional plantings

57:06in there. Maybe some shorter stuff to uh

57:10contrast off the taller arborite in the

57:12back.

57:13>> Yeah, I mean this plan looks like you

57:15you do have some plantings planned for

57:17there. The one that I'm looking at is

57:18the the site plan that's got some

57:20colored bushes on it, but uh is not

57:22this.

57:22>> Yeah, we had modified the site plan per

57:24the uh city's request to get rid of the

57:27smaller shrubs that we had over there

57:29and put some taller um evergreens there

57:32to better cover that tall foundation

57:34section.

57:35>> Okay. Yeah, good to know. Um, then thank

57:39you for answering that. For for myself,

57:40I would say Mr. McCormack laid this out

57:44fairly well where there's there's two

57:45elements to this that fall under the

57:48board's fairly narrow purview. The first

57:50is a special permit where we are uh

57:52considering granting relief to um five

57:56parking spaces. Uh so reducing the

57:59amount they would be required to provide

58:01by five. Uh and the second is a site

58:03plan which is a very um specific review

58:08that falls under this board's purview.

58:11Uh there's a set of I think 14 criteria

58:14that we review things against. Um and uh

58:18you know the this building really would

58:21be allowed uh as of right. Uh so we're

58:24just kind of considering

58:27um

58:28that in a very narrow box and you know

58:31talking about landscaping and what we

58:32can do uh given that it can be put there

58:35um to kind of soften the effects on the

58:37neighbors uh that that you folks came

58:39here tonight to to voice. Uh in that

58:42respect you know I I actually agree with

58:45Mr. Delair. think this is a fairly well

58:47uh designed project given the topography

58:51of the site being um you know sloping so

58:54aggressively downhill. I'm very familiar

58:55with this area. I lived on Shrewsbury

58:57Street for a long time and I'm a runner

58:59so I I ran here constantly and it's one

59:01of the reasons I ask about how tall that

59:04building looks from the Westminster

59:06Street side because it's uh there

59:09there's some buildings in that

59:10neighborhood that are really up close to

59:11the sidewalk and it it does it's not a

59:13great feel um for for for being there.

59:16Uh I also know that the applicant is

59:17going to be replacing the sidewalks uh

59:20as part of this project. I know that's a

59:21condition of approval. Um, and I think

59:23all of those things are are generally

59:25positive. And as I stated a little bit

59:27ago, I'm uh in in favor of generally

59:32reducing parking requirements. So, I'm

59:33I'm inclined to support that as well.

59:36Uh,

59:37data suggests that um far less than two

59:41cars per household uh parking space-

59:44wise is being utilized and in the United

59:46States, we have something like five uh

59:48available spaces per car. So, we're

59:50dramatically overparked. it adds a lot

59:52of expense to the cost of housing. Uh,

59:55and that leads to folks really

59:57struggling to pay the rent. Um, so I'm

59:59I'm in general very supportive of

1:00:02reducing parking minimums. Um, any other

1:00:05comments from board members before we go

1:00:06to a vote?

1:00:10>> This is Steve carrying the planning

1:00:11vision. Uh, we do have one more um

1:00:13condition of approval um just relative

1:00:16to the retaining wall. This is something

1:00:17that we intended to include and just

1:00:19just slipped up. It's a standard uh

1:00:21pre-building permit uh condition of

1:00:23approval when we have retaining walls

1:00:25that um just have some element to them

1:00:27that um make us want to make sure

1:00:29there's just an extra check on their um

1:00:32sort of stability. So the suggested uh

1:00:34pre-building permit condition of

1:00:36approval um is that um the applicant

1:00:38provide uh a copy of a um plan prepared

1:00:42by a professional engineer for the

1:00:43proposed retaining wall um and a PDF of

1:00:46the same to DPRS our division consistent

1:00:48with the approved civil plan. So

1:00:50essentially asking the applicant to

1:00:52provide um just a a stamped engineered

1:00:55plan for those for those walls

1:00:58>> if the applicant is amenable to that.

1:01:00Just to clarify, those are for the the

1:01:02wall with the fall protection on it.

1:01:04>> I think we'd be looking for I think

1:01:06there's three retaining walls. There's

1:01:08one sort of on the north side and then

1:01:11two. Yeah. So, um four for all those

1:01:13walls.

1:01:13>> Okay. Yeah, we can do that.

1:01:15>> Okay. Thank you. Um All right, Mr.

1:01:18McCormack, I think it's to you.

1:01:21>> Okay. Um I would make a motion to close

1:01:23the public hearing.

1:01:25>> Second.

1:01:25>> On the motion, Mr. McCormack.

1:01:28>> Yes.

1:01:28>> Mr. King. Yes.

1:01:30>> Uh, Mr. Delera,

1:01:32>> yes.

1:01:32>> Mr. Tumi,

1:01:33>> yes.

1:01:33>> I vote yes as well. Five to zero. That

1:01:36motion passes. The hearing's closed.

1:01:39>> I would then make a motion to approve

1:01:42the definitive site plan and the special

1:01:44permit for conclusionary zoning parking

1:01:46relief uh for 2527 Perkins Street

1:01:50subject to staff recommended conditions

1:01:52of approval on page 2 through five of

1:01:54the staff memo. um including the

1:01:57additional condition related to a stamp

1:01:59pertaining wall plan outlined by staff.

1:02:03>> Second

1:02:05>> on the motion. Mr. McCormack,

1:02:07>> yes.

1:02:08>> Mr. King,

1:02:09>> yes.

1:02:09>> Mr. Delera,

1:02:11>> yes.

1:02:11>> Mr. Tumi,

1:02:12>> yes.

1:02:12>> I vote yes as well. That motion passes

1:02:14five to zero.

1:02:16>> Thank you very much. You all have a good

1:02:17night.

1:02:17>> Good luck.

1:02:19>> Thank you.

1:02:20>> Sure.

1:02:21Is is there a a process? I know I

1:02:25understand that it meets all the

1:02:27specifications of zoning and so forth

1:02:30and and I understand you're abiding by

1:02:32that. However, is there um an appeal

1:02:35process that neighbors could engage in?

1:02:38What would be the proper protocol to

1:02:40have this reconsidered by the city at

1:02:43some other level or some other board or

1:02:46committee? what other what other

1:02:48entities in the city are involved and

1:02:50how could we make an appeal?

1:02:52>> Uh, I'll defer that question to either

1:02:54Mr. Kerry or to uh to uh the law

1:02:57department um who can give you the real

1:03:00answer.

1:03:02>> Sure. This is Steve Kerry in the

1:03:03planning division. And um for for a

1:03:05special permit like this um typically uh

1:03:08within about a week or so of the meeting

1:03:10um a decision is drafted and filed with

1:03:12the city clerk um that there then begins

1:03:14an appeal period of 20 days at which

1:03:16someone can appeal that that decision.

1:03:18Um so you can appeal the the special

1:03:20permit decision. Uh site plan approvals

1:03:22um also can be appealed. I don't know

1:03:24the specifics of that appeal process.

1:03:25I'd have to defer to the law department,

1:03:27but um it's an administrative approval,

1:03:30so appeals are less less common, but

1:03:32still can be appealed. Um and then, as I

1:03:34said, the special permit is a

1:03:35discretionary approval. There is a

1:03:3720-day appeal period in which an appeal

1:03:38can be filed. Um so, like I said, that

1:03:41decision should be filed with the clerk

1:03:42within the next uh week or so. Um and if

1:03:45you want to reach out to our office, I'd

1:03:46be glad to update you on when that

1:03:47happens.

1:03:48>> Sure.

1:03:49>> Yeah. My my advice to you, by the way,

1:03:50would be to seek legal counsel who can

1:03:53um represent you if you want to do that.

1:03:56>> And what would the law what does the law

1:03:58department have to say? Is there

1:03:59somebody here from the law department

1:04:01that can address that issue?

1:04:03>> Uh we do have uh Kobe from the law

1:04:05department. Um with regards to what

1:04:07would be the question you would have?

1:04:09>> Um how how would we work with the law

1:04:12department to make an appeal?

1:04:15>> Sure. I mean, I think it would be a

1:04:16filing uh w with the clerk. I guess I'd

1:04:18have to defer to to law department.

1:04:23>> The chair Kobe Watson from law

1:04:25department. So are you asking would the

1:04:28law department file on behalf of you or

1:04:31what exactly is the question? The chair

1:04:33>> I I think the she's asking if they

1:04:36wanted to file an appeal, what does that

1:04:37process actually look like? And what I

1:04:39what I was suggesting is you hire a

1:04:40attorney to do it for you. But um I

1:04:44don't I don't I'm not aware that there's

1:04:45a form you can just get

1:04:47>> I'm asking is there an appeal process

1:04:50um to ask the city

1:04:52>> you're the chair. This is Michelle Smith

1:04:54in the planning division. I'm remote so

1:04:55unfortunately I can't hear whatever

1:04:57discussion is occurring. But I would

1:04:59advise that the board simply advise the

1:05:01person who's interested to reach out to

1:05:03our office after the meeting rather than

1:05:05delaying the ongoing proceedings of

1:05:06board meeting this evening and we can

1:05:09answer the question. I I'm just

1:05:14>> Thank you, Michelle. I I I think

1:05:15>> our contact info should be available at

1:05:17the front table and on the agenda.

1:05:19>> So So I should contact the law

1:05:21department.

1:05:22>> No, the planning department. So it if

1:05:24you grab an agenda on the way out the

1:05:25door, uh just on this front page right

1:05:28here, this big blue part, um you'll see

1:05:30a phone number for for these folks. Uh

1:05:32and they can help you.

1:05:34>> Thank you.

1:05:38>> Okay. Uh let's move on to the next item

1:05:40on our agenda, which is item number

1:05:42four, 454 Granite Street. This will be a

1:05:45public meeting for a definitive site

1:05:46plan.

1:05:53>> Good evening.

1:05:54>> My name is Robert Murphy with Murphy

1:05:57Associates Environmental Consultants.

1:05:59I'm here this evening representing Mike

1:06:02Piserella

1:06:03uh for a

1:06:05definitive site plan approval for a

1:06:07single family house 454

1:06:11Granite Street. Uh just to let you know

1:06:14we have been before conservation

1:06:16commission. They had approved the

1:06:18project. However, they had made a

1:06:20request that we uh change the duplex

1:06:25house the original design to a single

1:06:27family house. and we are in agreement

1:06:29with that. And um the application that

1:06:32we have tonight is for a single family

1:06:35house. We will be going back to

1:06:38conservation

1:06:39u and

1:06:42getting an an addendum to the order for

1:06:45a single family house. U a quick

1:06:48description. This is Granite Street off

1:06:51of Route 20 fairly close to the lights

1:06:54near Cliff Street. It is a wooded lot

1:06:59fronting on Granite Street. If you look

1:07:01at the the plan there, you'll see to the

1:07:04rear of the property is a wetland. Uh

1:07:06that has been reviewed and approved by

1:07:08conservation.

1:07:10Uh the forward portion of the house uh

1:07:14would require a septic system. There is

1:07:15no sewer available on the street. Uh

1:07:18there is an 8 in water line. plenty of

1:07:21capacity for the local neighborhood and

1:07:25this additional home.

1:07:27Uh on-site drainage, all drainage from

1:07:31the rooftop goes into uh a a dry well

1:07:36system, storm water management dry well

1:07:38system. As I mentioned earlier, there's

1:07:40a septic system uh approved title five

1:07:43system uh which meets all Title 5

1:07:46requirements. We're essentially here

1:07:49tonight

1:07:50uh requesting site plan approval be

1:07:53because of uh the slopes at the site the

1:07:57rear of the site in order to develop the

1:07:59front and have no impact on the wetlands

1:08:02there's a a significant slope uh in in

1:08:05excess of um

1:08:08uh excess of 8 8% which I believe is the

1:08:12the cut off for that requirement there's

1:08:16erosion controls all along the backside

1:08:19again that has been approved by

1:08:20conservation. Um so with that I will

1:08:24answer any questions that you may have.

1:08:26>> Thank you. U comments from planning

1:08:28staff.

1:08:29>> Sure. This is Steve Car in the planning

1:08:31division. Um this is a um single only

1:08:34house. The trigger for it being being

1:08:36before you is that it's on slopes of

1:08:3815%. Um this had initially been um

1:08:41proposed as a two family dwelling um

1:08:43with two hammerheads. Um the issue was

1:08:46that we couldn't really figure out a

1:08:48way. they didn't want to shift the

1:08:49building back any further given the um

1:08:52the presence of wetlands back there. Um

1:08:54so um there was really no way to have

1:08:56the um have a parking space in the

1:08:59driveway while also being able to use

1:09:00that hammerhead turnaround um is we

1:09:03don't want to see cars backing out onto

1:09:05Granite Street. So the modified design

1:09:07to be a single family house with a

1:09:08twocar garage so both those cars can use

1:09:10that hammerhead design. Um our

1:09:13conditions of approval are just around

1:09:15um requesting a couple additional tree

1:09:17plantings. um such that there are trees

1:09:19every 50 feet along the road in

1:09:21accordance with subdivision standards.

1:09:23Um and then we have a condition of

1:09:25approval that uh when I spoke with the

1:09:27engineering firm we're I think we're

1:09:28looking to have struck with regards to

1:09:30where tow drains will daylight for that

1:09:32rear retaining wall. Sounded like they

1:09:34weren't going to be using tow drains to

1:09:35for for wall drainage. So, if the

1:09:37applicant wouldn't mind just speaking to

1:09:39um what their alternative is just to

1:09:40make sure there isn't any um you know um

1:09:44impact of of of sort of the groundwater

1:09:47on those on those retaining walls.

1:09:48That'd be great for us to to understand.

1:09:50Um and otherwise we don't really have um

1:09:53any any concerns about this one.

1:09:56>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kerry. Uh comments

1:09:58from DPW.

1:10:03This is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. Uh we

1:10:07would like uh for the applicant to

1:10:09proide a plan with all the proposed and

1:10:12existing utility

1:10:16and that would be our comment for now.

1:10:18Thank you.

1:10:20>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Uh is

1:10:22there anyone from the public in the room

1:10:24tonight wishing to speak on this item?

1:10:29>> Uh seeing none. Anyone online with their

1:10:30hand raised?

1:10:32Nobody with their hand raised.

1:10:34>> Okay, moving to board members. Uh, Mr.

1:10:36McCormack.

1:10:38>> Sure. Um, no concerns for myself. Happy

1:10:40to support this one. I just wanted to

1:10:42clarify with uh through the chair to

1:10:43Steve. Was there a change in one of the

1:10:46conditions related to the tow drain just

1:10:47so I can get that right.

1:10:49>> Um, I guess I just would refer to the

1:10:51applicant. Our our suggested condition

1:10:53of approval would be to reflect where

1:10:54tow drains would daylight if those are

1:10:56proposed. My understanding from my last

1:10:58conversation um with with the uh

1:11:00applicants engineer was that um they

1:11:03were not uh proposing um tow drains. So

1:11:05I just was hoping that if we are going

1:11:06to strike that condition um if they can

1:11:08just address um you know any drainage

1:11:10concerns relative to the walls.

1:11:16>> Okay. Thank you. Um

1:11:19anything else, Connor?

1:11:21>> No, I'm all set. Thank you.

1:11:23>> Okay. Uh Mr. King.

1:11:26>> No comments. Thank you.

1:11:28>> Thank you, Mr. Delera.

1:11:30>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I have

1:11:32no comment either. Uh, happy to support

1:11:34this one. Thank you.

1:11:36>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dela. Mr. Tumi.

1:11:38>> Uh, no comments. Thank you.

1:11:40>> Okay. Mr. Rosende,

1:11:42>> no comments. Thank you.

1:11:44>> No comments for myself either. I think

1:11:46we're ready for a motion.

1:11:48>> Sorry, the planning division. Just to

1:11:50clarify, if the applicant could just

1:11:52comment on what they're doing for for

1:11:53drainage for those retaining walls.

1:11:58>> Yeah. The idea is the retaining wall is

1:12:02not a solid concrete wall. It is a

1:12:05pvious wall with gravel in the back. So

1:12:08any water that might get, you know,

1:12:10caught in the back of it can pass

1:12:12through the wall. It's been designed

1:12:13specifically to be a pvious wall. you

1:12:17know, it's fairly sizable blocks, but it

1:12:19does not hold water and especially in

1:12:22the winter, it will not hold ice.

1:12:26>> Mr. Kerry,

1:12:28>> that as long as you know, as if the

1:12:30board is comfortable with that, um I

1:12:32guess I guess I I'd ask is um that mean

1:12:35there's sort of weep holes in the wall

1:12:36that where where the water will be

1:12:39seeping out of.

1:12:42Yeah, I didn't he has a any question of

1:12:45it.

1:12:46>> Mr. Kerry's asking sort of how what

1:12:48you're describing works exactly. He are

1:12:50there we holes like how how how does the

1:12:52water get out of the wall?

1:12:54>> The the blocks themselves are not tight

1:12:57to the effect they have uh it's like a

1:12:59tooththed effect where but they're not

1:13:02watertight. They allow they're wee holes

1:13:05built into the wall. Best way to

1:13:07describe it.

1:13:08>> Okay.

1:13:09It's been designed specifically

1:13:12not to have a search charge of water

1:13:14behind them.

1:13:15>> Okay.

1:13:18>> Okay. I'm I'm satisfied with that. If if

1:13:20the board is

1:13:22um would it be possible I guess I should

1:13:24ask is it possible to reflect the

1:13:26weepholes on the plan where where those

1:13:28are going to be along the wall? We could

1:13:30we could add that to so why don't we

1:13:32modify the condition D to read um

1:13:35reflect um rather than tow drain

1:13:37daylight location uh uh update to say

1:13:41reflect we pole location

1:13:44>> we could have it as a condition we

1:13:46approve as a condition

1:13:48>> perfect yeah that that's what Mr. Car is

1:13:50suggesting sounds like we can do that.

1:13:52Um,

1:13:54also if I could add the title five

1:13:57requirement, especially in the type of

1:13:58soil that we have here, you don't you

1:14:01really don't want to have trees within

1:14:0220 ft of the septic system, specifically

1:14:06the roots get into it and mess it up.

1:14:09So, we would certainly accept

1:14:12your condition as to how the uh the

1:14:16trees are located. We don't have a

1:14:19problem with the number of trees at all.

1:14:21It's just that we're not uh we really

1:14:23don't want to have any trees directly

1:14:25abuing the septic system.

1:14:28>> Understood.

1:14:29>> So that could be a condition on the

1:14:31number of trees, but the location would

1:14:34be determined by title 5.

1:14:36>> Uh Mr. Kerry, is that in conflict with

1:14:38what we have written?

1:14:40>> I think that uh we we would ask for a

1:14:42tree such that there's trees every 50

1:14:44ft. Um, I think there is space uh where

1:14:48the sort of septic system is relative to

1:14:51where I'm imagining the tree to be where

1:14:53you can see my cursor here. I think

1:14:55there probably is 20 ft of space there.

1:14:57Um, we can add a caveat saying unless

1:15:00tree location would uh conflict with

1:15:03title 5 requirements.

1:15:05>> I think that's a good idea.

1:15:08>> Uh, okay. I think we can address that.

1:15:11Um, Mr. King, did you comment on this?

1:15:14I had no further comments on this one.

1:15:16>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Delera.

1:15:18>> No comment. Thank you,

1:15:20>> Mr. Tumi. Uh,

1:15:21>> no comments. Thank you,

1:15:23>> Mr. Rosende.

1:15:24>> No comments. Thank you.

1:15:26>> Uh, I also have no comments. This has

1:15:27been adequately reviewed by staff and

1:15:29conditions. Uh, happy support.

1:15:32Okay, with that, I would make a motion

1:15:34to approve the definitive site plan for

1:15:3745456

1:15:39Granite Street subjects to staff

1:15:41recommended conditions of approval on

1:15:43pages two and three of the memo. Um,

1:15:46with the um adjustments to conditions 1B

1:15:51and 1D as discussed.

1:15:54>> Second.

1:15:55>> On the motion, Mr. McCormack.

1:15:57>> Yes.

1:15:58>> Mr. King,

1:15:59>> yes.

1:15:59>> Mr. Dela.

1:16:01>> Yes.

1:16:01>> Mr. Tumi.

1:16:02>> Yes.

1:16:03>> I vote yes. That motion passes 5 to

1:16:04zero. Good luck.

1:16:07>> Thank you very much.

1:16:09>> Uh, okay. Moving on. Next item is number

1:16:12723 through 37 Boilston Street. A public

1:16:15hearing for a definitive fronted

1:16:17subdivision plan.

1:16:24>> Do we have someone from the applicant

1:16:25online? Maybe.

1:16:26>> Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chair.

1:16:28>> Hi. Go ahead.

1:16:30>> Thank you. Uh, good evening once again,

1:16:31Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name

1:16:33is Matt Eckle. I'm an attorney with

1:16:34Fletcher Tilton. On behalf of the

1:16:36applicant, I'm here before you tonight

1:16:38seeking approval of definitive

1:16:40definitive frontage subdivision plan for

1:16:42the property known as 23-37 Boilston

1:16:45Street. Uh, just for the record, we've

1:16:47been working with the city to readress

1:16:49this because the odd numbers don't make

1:16:51sense on the side of the street. So,

1:16:53going forward, it will be known as 24A

1:16:55through 34B uh Boilston Street. Uh just

1:16:58for the record, uh by way of brief

1:17:00background, this project includes

1:17:03dividing the existing 42,000t lot, which

1:17:06you can see on your screen there, into

1:17:08eight new lots. Uh this will allow the

1:17:10pre-existing structures to become eight

1:17:12semi-attached one family homes on their

1:17:15own distinct lots. Uh previously, this

1:17:18was four two family homes on that

1:17:2042,000t lot. So, this is being done to

1:17:23provide some home ownership

1:17:24opportunities and uh separate these four

1:17:27two families into eight single family

1:17:30semi-attached homes. Um, we did receive

1:17:34relief already from the zoning board of

1:17:36appeal for frontage on all eight

1:17:39proposed lots as well as uh lot area for

1:17:42what was known or still currently known

1:17:44as 35 and 37 Boilson Street, which are

1:17:46the top two on the right. Uh, because

1:17:48you can see that slope kind of towards

1:17:50the rear of the property line. windows

1:17:51had slightly less square footage, but

1:17:52that relief was all granted by the ZBA

1:17:55previously.

1:17:57This project doesn't really include any

1:17:58work at all. There's no uh road

1:18:00construction even though it's under a,

1:18:02you know, subdivision. It's it's a

1:18:03definitive frontage subdivision plan. Uh

1:18:05there is uh no um new structures. Uh but

1:18:10the structures that are existing are

1:18:11ready to be inhabited and occupied as I

1:18:13mentioned as single family dwellings. We

1:18:16reviewed the staff's proposed draft

1:18:17decision and have been working with

1:18:19staff uh for the most part. We have no

1:18:21issues with it as proposed. We did want

1:18:23to at least have a discussion relating

1:18:25to the condition uh for the proposed new

1:18:28trees. We understand there's a

1:18:30subdivision regulation for a tree every

1:18:3250 ft in the front yard and certainly

1:18:35understand the value of having more

1:18:37trees in the city and understand why

1:18:38this is uh a request and is a consistent

1:18:41request. Um but this is a little bit of

1:18:43a unique situation. Uh as mentioned,

1:18:45there's there's no work to be done at

1:18:47all. These are all existing homes,

1:18:48existing driveways, existing landscaping

1:18:50and trees already on site with no

1:18:53proposed changes. Um, this request is

1:18:56really just to take the buildings to

1:18:57eight new home ownership opportunities.

1:19:00Um, as the site's built out, you can not

1:19:02get a great idea maybe from this image

1:19:04on the screen. Um, but there really

1:19:07aren't ideal places to put six trees in

1:19:09the front yard if you It's small on my

1:19:12screen. I don't know if you guys can see

1:19:13it better, but um you know, the

1:19:15driveways are shared between each

1:19:17building. Uh so I'm not even sure the

1:19:19math technically works, and we would

1:19:21only um have spaces for five trees if

1:19:24every uh area had an ideal space for a

1:19:27tree, which I I don't believe there is.

1:19:29On the far right, we're very tight

1:19:31against the abutter with a small strip

1:19:33of what could be landscaping. uh the two

1:19:35of the four two of the middle kind of uh

1:19:39you know vacancies between the homes

1:19:41already have trees and there's also a

1:19:44severe slope uh kind of from like where

1:19:46the front door is all the way down to

1:19:48the street. So we're dealing with some

1:19:50topography here. We're dealing with some

1:19:52areas that are already paved as well as

1:19:54mulched. There is landscaping in front

1:19:56of all all the homes already in the

1:19:58forms of bushes. There is a significant

1:20:01amount of trees either in between the

1:20:02buildings or to the rear. Um, and as

1:20:05this is home ownership opportunities,

1:20:06obviously there might be some personal

1:20:08touches being put on in the near future,

1:20:10kind of, you know, smaller bushes maybe

1:20:12in the front yard. Um, and the smaller

1:20:14bushes, I I should touch upon that as

1:20:16well. Uh obviously we get why the

1:20:19regulation exists, but in this situation

1:20:21where we have the four existing

1:20:22driveways. We think it's a severe hazard

1:20:25to try to place trees anywhere near the

1:20:27street, especially with the slope of the

1:20:28driveway, it it would have a tendency to

1:20:31definitely restrict the line of sight

1:20:33and and cause some issues, you know,

1:20:34with both maybe pedestrians and oncoming

1:20:36traffic on um on the street as you're

1:20:39entering and exiting. So, uh, we're

1:20:42certainly open to discussion with the

1:20:43board and we, uh, you know, respectfully

1:20:45request your consideration, uh, to

1:20:48potentially remove condition E or have

1:20:50some flexibility. I just don't know as

1:20:52it's written if it's even, it's even

1:20:53possible, uh, every 50 ft because of the

1:20:56existing conditions with the driveways,

1:20:58with the slope, and with the exist uh,

1:21:00kind of the setup how it is right now.

1:21:02Um, so happy to talk through that

1:21:03condition more in greater detail and

1:21:05answer any questions the board may have.

1:21:08>> Okay, thank you. Additional comments

1:21:10from city staff on this

1:21:12>> through the chair. This is Olivia Hul in

1:21:14the planning division. Um, so not to

1:21:16repeat too much of what attorney Eckle

1:21:18just provided, but this is a application

1:21:21to divide the property into eight new

1:21:24lots. So the two family dwellings are

1:21:27essentially converted to single family

1:21:29semi- detached duplexes. No site work is

1:21:32proposed with the division of the land.

1:21:34Um, the applicant did receive the

1:21:37appropriate relief needed from the

1:21:39zoning board of appeals in order for

1:21:41these each to sit on their own lot. It's

1:21:43now just up to the planning board to um

1:21:47approve the division of the land

1:21:49regarding condition onee for the

1:21:52placement of trees every 50 feet along

1:21:55the property frontages. Um this is a

1:21:58standard subdivision requirement that we

1:21:59have been consistently providing as part

1:22:02of these frontage subdivision approvals.

1:22:05Um the trees are allowed to be placed

1:22:08back uh 20 ft from the road lines. So it

1:22:12doesn't necessarily have to interfere

1:22:14with the sight lines of the driveway. I

1:22:17do understand that there's a limited

1:22:19amount of space on each of these lots.

1:22:22They do each appear from a street view

1:22:24to have a strip of grass between um each

1:22:27of the four structures. Um so if the

1:22:33applicant feels strongly that they're

1:22:35not able to place all trees at every 50

1:22:38ft, um perhaps the board could uh

1:22:40condition it so it's a little bit more

1:22:42flexible, but ultimately at the

1:22:43discretion of the board what they feel

1:22:45is appropriate for the placement of

1:22:47these trees. Um, as a city, we would

1:22:50prefer to see some trees over none

1:22:52trees. Um, but at at the discretion of

1:22:55the board, uh, happy to answer any

1:22:57further questions.

1:22:58>> Thank you, Miss Hoo. Uh, any comments on

1:23:00this from DPW?

1:23:02>> This is Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We

1:23:05don't have any comments. Thank you.

1:23:07>> Thank you, Miss Rodriguez. Anyone from

1:23:09the public wishing to speak on this

1:23:11tonight?

1:23:12I don't see anyone in the room. Is there

1:23:14anyone online?

1:23:15>> Nobody with their hand raised.

1:23:17Okay, just maybe before we get to board

1:23:19discussion, I'm counting uh three grass

1:23:24areas in between buildings.

1:23:27Um which I recognize is less trees than

1:23:29the city's currently asking for. Uh but

1:23:32I'm just wondering, uh Olivia, would

1:23:35would that be an okay compromise if we

1:23:37could get a tree planted in between each

1:23:40each one of the buildings?

1:23:44uh through the chair. I um think I'd be

1:23:48amendable to that ultimately as long as

1:23:50the board agrees. I think that's a fair

1:23:52compromise.

1:23:54>> Um the only reason I suggest that I I do

1:23:56think planting them close to the road

1:23:58does uh introduce a couple of hazards.

1:24:00One that I think is easily mitigated is

1:24:03the the sighteline issue, but there's

1:24:05also utility poles fairly low hanging

1:24:07directly above that. Uh so I would think

1:24:10that that might be a little a little

1:24:12tricky. Uh but in between the buildings

1:24:15there seems to be more than adequate

1:24:16space. So um for myself to the applicant

1:24:20I would I would just say I I I think

1:24:22we'd be comfortable compromising but I

1:24:24don't think we're we're okay removing

1:24:25all of the uh all of the additional

1:24:27trees. As Miss Hool said this is a we

1:24:30understand these are existing buildings,

1:24:31but this is a not uncommon request uh to

1:24:34this board to apply frontage

1:24:37subdivision. Uh and we we request these

1:24:39trees whenever it comes up.

1:24:43Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, you know, we're

1:24:44certainly open to a compromise as well.

1:24:46And, you know, the the real issue was

1:24:48just having a condition that just became

1:24:50unattainable. So, um, certainly three

1:24:52three trees with a little bit of

1:24:54flexibility, you know, I think is is is

1:24:56reasonable. We just wanted to make sure

1:24:57we can comply with whatever condition

1:24:59gets put on the approval.

1:25:01>> Understood. Thank you. Um, I'd let my

1:25:03colleagues comment if uh if we're headed

1:25:05in the right direction. Mr. McCormack,

1:25:07you do you have any comments on this?

1:25:09>> Um, yeah, I'm happy to support it. That

1:25:11sounds like a reasonable compromise. If

1:25:12the rest of the board and staff are

1:25:13amendable to it, I'm I'm on board and

1:25:16happy to support.

1:25:18>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. McCormack. Mr.

1:25:20King,

1:25:21>> happy to support this one. Thank you.

1:25:23>> Thank you, Mr. Delera.

1:25:25>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I

1:25:27appreciate you articulating that

1:25:28compromise. Um, so I support it.

1:25:33>> Thanks.

1:25:33>> Thank you, Mr. Tumi.

1:25:35Yeah, I was just looking at the overhead

1:25:37on Google Maps and there are three

1:25:40between each of the buildings, but

1:25:41there's also one to the left of the I

1:25:44guess closest to Lincoln Street. You

1:25:46actually get four trees by taking each

1:25:48of the four green spaces.

1:25:50If you look at that, the first one at

1:25:5223, there's a green space that appears

1:25:54to be part of that first one. So,

1:25:57potentially four trees in each one in

1:25:58each of the green spaces.

1:26:02Uh would the applicant be amendable to

1:26:04that?

1:26:11>> I'm just trying apologies. I'm trying to

1:26:13confirm exactly where the the property

1:26:15line is. It certainly looks uh like a

1:26:17smaller area in the plan you're looking

1:26:18at than in than in Google. Uh I know

1:26:20there's a retaining wall. I'm not sure

1:26:22which side of the property that's on. Uh

1:26:24again, if there's just a little bit of

1:26:25flexibility baked in, certainly not

1:26:27opposed to a fourth tree, but maybe

1:26:29there'd be a way to have a little

1:26:30flexibility on if it became uh you know,

1:26:33not not feasible to to do it over there.

1:26:37We' we'd be open to that. I just I don't

1:26:38know how that could be structured, but

1:26:40um just again don't want to commit to

1:26:42something that becomes unrealistic, but

1:26:43I'm not opposed to a fourth tree.

1:26:46>> Understood. It looks feasible, but I

1:26:48maybe we can condition the language. Um

1:26:51Mr. car if you have language but I was

1:26:53thinking uh you know uh a minimum of

1:26:56four trees unless uh it's determined

1:27:00that only three are feasible or

1:27:02something like that.

1:27:04>> Sure. We could say um yeah four trees um

1:27:10as close to the street as practical

1:27:12given utility constraints.

1:27:16Would the applicant be amendable to

1:27:18that?

1:27:22Uh, I would maybe request again where

1:27:25maybe where feasible just because again

1:27:27I'm not not an arborist but the slope

1:27:29gets kind of at its worst right as you

1:27:31right as you approach the street and I'm

1:27:33just not sure the the likelihood of

1:27:34survival if you kind of plant it right

1:27:36into the slope even if you're avoiding

1:27:38the utility wires. I'm not sure if

1:27:40there's a caveat for, you know, it's

1:27:42close to the street just where feasible

1:27:45overall perhaps or I don't want to word

1:27:47smith it too much for you, but um I

1:27:49wouldn't want to get too close to the

1:27:50street and have it die immediately

1:27:51because it's sideways.

1:27:54>> Yeah, I think um we could add uh yeah,

1:27:57where practical given utility

1:27:59constraints um and uh and slope

1:28:04considerations.

1:28:05>> Yeah, utility and grading constraints.

1:28:10All right, we all seem to agree that

1:28:11that will work. Um,

1:28:17did all the board members comment

1:28:18already?

1:28:20>> No, that that was my only comment.

1:28:21>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Mr.

1:28:24Rosende,

1:28:26>> I support that compromise and no further

1:28:28comment.

1:28:29>> Okay. Uh, for myself, I I glad we got

1:28:32here. Um, Mr. McCormack, I think we're

1:28:34ready for a motion. Okay. Hey, I would

1:28:36make a motion to close the public

1:28:37hearing.

1:28:38>> Second.

1:28:39>> On the motion, Mr. McCormack.

1:28:42>> Yes.

1:28:42>> Mr. King,

1:28:43>> yes.

1:28:44>> Mr. Delera,

1:28:45>> yes.

1:28:45>> Mr. Tumi,

1:28:46>> yes.

1:28:46>> I vote yes. 5 to zero. The hearing is

1:28:48closed.

1:28:50>> And then I would make a motion to

1:28:52approve the definitive frontage

1:28:54subdivision plan for 23 to 37 Boilson

1:28:57Street. subject to staff conditions in

1:29:00the draft decision on pages one and two

1:29:03of the staff memo with the amendment to

1:29:06condition onee regarding trees as

1:29:08discussed

1:29:10>> second a motion Mr. McCormack

1:29:14>> yes

1:29:14>> Mr. King

1:29:16>> yes

1:29:16>> Mr. Delera

1:29:17>> yes

1:29:18>> Mr. Tumi.

1:29:19>> Yes.

1:29:19>> I vote yes. 5 to zero. That motion

1:29:21passes. Good luck to that.

1:29:23>> Thank you very much.

1:29:24>> Thank you. Uh moving on to item number

1:29:27eight, which is 11 Cliff Street. This

1:29:29will be a public meeting for a

1:29:30definitive site plan, an amendment to a

1:29:32definitive site plan.

1:29:36>> Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the

1:29:38board. For the record, Mark Borenstein.

1:29:39I'm an attorney at the law firm

1:29:40Principal Bell here in Worcester

1:29:41representing the applicant Lily LLC.

1:29:43This evening, I'm joined by the

1:29:45principal of Lily LLC, Danila Matoss. Uh

1:29:48before you is a minor site plan

1:29:50amendment to um a commercial development

1:29:53at 11 Cliff Street. Uh after the

1:29:56approval was granted, there was some

1:29:57site work done. They determined that

1:29:59there were some large boulders on site.

1:30:01They ultimately used that for uh for

1:30:03portions of the wall. Um special

1:30:05services came out, determined that that

1:30:07required u an amendment. Um, so in terms

1:30:10of modifications to what was previously

1:30:12approved, we have that rip wrap wall,

1:30:14boulder wall, and there is now a septic

1:30:17system proposed on the site. But

1:30:18otherwise, uh, we're not making any

1:30:20other changes to the proposed

1:30:21development. Um, we've reviewed staff's

1:30:23recommended conditions of approval. We

1:30:25do have some questions and comments. So,

1:30:28uh, with that, we're happy to to address

1:30:30that after staff has provided their

1:30:32comment.

1:30:33>> Sure thing. Let's go to staff.

1:30:35>> Sure. Steve Kerry in the planning

1:30:36division. Uh yeah, this is an amendment

1:30:37to a site plan approval. Um there had

1:30:40been on the approved plan um which I'm

1:30:42not sure if we have, but um there had

1:30:45been a sort of tiered wall uh system uh

1:30:48initially approved for this for this

1:30:50side of the building um or the side of

1:30:52the site. Um it's now a um sort of rip

1:30:54wrap slope going down to um a boulder

1:30:57wall. Um we have had a a site inspector

1:31:01was going by and and flag that. Um ISD I

1:31:04know has talked to their structural

1:31:06engineer um and they're they're

1:31:08comfortable with the stability of the

1:31:09slope um just for an abundance of

1:31:11caution. We have added a condition um

1:31:14just prior to issuance of Civo that um

1:31:16that same or a another professional

1:31:18structural engineer basically provide a

1:31:21um a letter just certifying that the

1:31:23slopes remain stable. Um the other

1:31:26change as um attorney Borson uh

1:31:29Bournesty noted is that there's now a

1:31:31septic system that is proposed. Um my

1:31:33understanding is that when this building

1:31:35was initially proposed it was going to

1:31:36be a dry building. Um it's now I believe

1:31:39there must be some sort of bathroom or

1:31:40kitchen in there. They do have a water

1:31:41line connection and now a a septic

1:31:43system. Um ISD also did review that and

1:31:46we heard from them today that they

1:31:48didn't have any uh major concerns with

1:31:50the way the septic system is laid out.

1:31:52Um, with regards to the conditions of

1:31:54approval, um, glad to to talk about, uh,

1:31:56whichever ones the applicants wish to

1:31:58discuss, they are largely just carried

1:32:00over from the prior approval. Um, some I

1:32:03think I was able to just strike just

1:32:05based on what was reflected in sort of

1:32:07the amended plans, but there were a

1:32:09couple that a few that um, uh, had not

1:32:13been satisfied um, by the revised plans

1:32:16and that's why they they remained

1:32:17carried over. Um,

1:32:20and then, uh, DPW Water also, now it

1:32:23being not a dry building anymore, also

1:32:24did issue some some comments. We added

1:32:26those. Um, yeah, but glad to glad to

1:32:29discuss and answer any board questions.

1:32:32>> Uh, great. Thank you, Mr. Kerry. Um,

1:32:34anything from DPW before we get to that.

1:32:37>> Leslie Rodriguez for DPW. We don't have

1:32:39any comment. Thank you.

1:32:41>> Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Right. What do

1:32:43you got,

1:32:43>> Mr. Chair? So uh with respect to

1:32:46condition 1C uh so previously the

1:32:49applicant was proposing a row of

1:32:51arborite along that easterly boundary uh

1:32:54now there's a condition reflect a

1:32:56minimum of 10 trees along the eastern

1:32:58property line. Um we're trying to

1:33:00understand if that is an addition or in

1:33:02lie thereof separately the uh applicant

1:33:07uh applicants uh principal u mentioned

1:33:09to me that there's some invasive species

1:33:11in that particular area. So there will

1:33:12have to be some clearing to uh plant

1:33:15these new trees or shrubs. So we're just

1:33:17looking for some guidance from staff as

1:33:19to what is preferred. We're happy our

1:33:22provide or trees just looking for some

1:33:24direction there as to what is requested.

1:33:27>> Sure. I think um as long as what's

1:33:29proposed I think as long as they're a

1:33:31minimum caliber of um 2.5 in I think is

1:33:34how we had the condition written. Um I

1:33:36think uh as long as that's what's um you

1:33:39know shown there in that plan I think

1:33:40we're uh would be comfortable striking

1:33:43that condition as it is reflect

1:33:44>> that's fine with us. So we'll strike 1 C

1:33:48uh

1:33:50with respect to 1D just to provide some

1:33:52additional information regarding the

1:33:55different wall drains. Um there is some

1:33:58drainage associated with um the that

1:34:02major retaining wall. I say major

1:34:04retaining wall, the non- rip wrap or

1:34:05boulder wall. Um there is an outlet um

1:34:08in the rip wrap swale. Um but in terms

1:34:12of the rip wrap swell itself and the

1:34:13boulders, those are there's they're

1:34:15perforated with with a a filter fabric.

1:34:17So there wouldn't be um an outlet for

1:34:20that. U but we're happy to add the drain

1:34:23outlet with respect to the retaining

1:34:25wall itself. So if that's what staff's

1:34:27requesting, we could just clarify that

1:34:30it's wall drain outlets for retaining

1:34:32wall.

1:34:33>> Sure.

1:34:35>> Great.

1:34:38Um we would respect So in ter terms of

1:34:41one Q, uh there's a request to provide

1:34:44covered bike parking for employees or

1:34:46visitors. Uh we're not anticipating any

1:34:48visitors to the site. This is really a a

1:34:50commercial space for the employees um of

1:34:54the business. uh and and employees

1:34:56certainly can park their their bicycles

1:34:58in the building itself. So we would ask

1:35:00that that be struck as well. Um if

1:35:03acceptable to the board uh with respect

1:35:05to one R uh we added two EV ready

1:35:09parking spaces based on the prior

1:35:11approval. Seems now there's a request

1:35:13for an EV charging space. Um this is

1:35:16really just a dispatch location for this

1:35:19landscaping business. So, we would

1:35:21respectfully request to keep the two EV

1:35:23ready spaces as shown on the plan and

1:35:25strike uh one R. And uh with respect to

1:35:30one V, uh there's a there's a comment

1:35:32from DPW to keep trees at a minimum of

1:35:3510 ft from the waterline location. So,

1:35:38my recollection from the previous

1:35:39approval was that staff requested shrubs

1:35:42and a tree in front of the proper in

1:35:44front of the proposed building. Uh I

1:35:46don't believe there was previously a

1:35:48water line. So that's that's a new

1:35:50addition. We're happy to remove the tree

1:35:52and the shrubs. Uh we defer to the board

1:35:55and DPW as to what they would prefer in

1:35:58terms of removal of the vegetation.

1:36:02So

1:36:04>> sure, I can I can respond. Um I guess

1:36:06with regards to uh one Q with regards to

1:36:10bike parking, I' I'd defer to the board

1:36:12as to whether or not you feel that um

1:36:14bike parking, whether covered or not, uh

1:36:16would be something you'd want to see at

1:36:17a site like this. My understanding is

1:36:18it's a uh storage for for a landscaping

1:36:21business. I think with one R, I think

1:36:24we're comfortable um striking that. Um

1:36:29assuming the board, you know, but would

1:36:31of course defer to the board. And then

1:36:33with regards to 1V, um I imagine that

1:36:36yeah, DPW was, you know, uh reviewing

1:36:38this and hadn't seen our um conditions

1:36:40around um around those trees there which

1:36:43were from a prior iteration of this of

1:36:45this memo back when this is approved

1:36:47back in 2024. Um so I think we'd be okay

1:36:49with um you know uh whatever trees

1:36:53removing the proposed trees just only as

1:36:55necessary to keep them 10 ft from the

1:36:57water line.

1:36:58>> Okay. So, so through the chair then

1:37:01we'll keep the shrubs but lose the tree.

1:37:03Is that what we're proposing or what

1:37:05staff's recommending?

1:37:06>> I guess which tree specifically you're

1:37:08referring to. Is that

1:37:09>> uh I think that's it.

1:37:11>> That's what the engineer flagged for me

1:37:12as within 10 ft.

1:37:13>> Uh can that tree be shifted to be uh 10

1:37:16ft from the water line?

1:37:17>> I think that's fine. We're happy to

1:37:18shift it.

1:37:19>> So then I think then that condition can

1:37:21remain. Uh the shrubs though might be

1:37:24within 10 feet. I don't think shrubs are

1:37:25an issue for DPW, but I defer to DPW.

1:37:28It's usually the trees that are

1:37:30problematic.

1:37:32>> Yeah, I I I would agree. I think it's

1:37:33the root system of the trees that would

1:37:35be the issue. So,

1:37:36>> okay. So, we don't need to do anything

1:37:37with one V then because it's just tree.

1:37:39Oh, actually, can we just get rid of the

1:37:41etc?

1:37:42>> Sure. Just because that's ambiguous.

1:37:45>> Great. So, we'll strike etc.

1:37:49Um, and then I defer to the board with

1:37:50respect to one Q and one R and the other

1:37:54requested changes.

1:37:57Uh I can speak for myself. Um one are

1:38:02I'm I'm fine with you have EV ready

1:38:04there. This condition actually says

1:38:05recommend they consider installing you

1:38:08have um installed EV ready spaces which

1:38:11means conduit. Uh if the demand meets it

1:38:14then you can put in an EV charger. I'm

1:38:17okay with that. Uh as far as interior

1:38:20bike parking is concerned. Um it

1:38:23actually says that on the plan. Uh

1:38:29it seems reasonable to me that they can

1:38:30park their bikes inside the building.

1:38:33Uh unless anybody has an objection to

1:38:35that. So um I guess other board comment

1:38:38on this. Mr. McCormack, do you do you

1:38:40have any issues?

1:38:42>> Uh no, I would agree with your

1:38:44assessment and happy to support.

1:38:47>> Thank you. Uh Mr. King,

1:38:50>> no additional concerns. Thank you.

1:38:52>> Thank you. Uh Mr.

1:38:57Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh to go back

1:38:58to one R. Um could I get clarification?

1:39:02So the EV readiness remains and the

1:39:05request is to strike the requirement the

1:39:07the requested requirement for one online

1:39:11uh charging station.

1:39:14Have I read this correctly?

1:39:16>> Correct.

1:39:17>> Yeah. My understanding is original

1:39:19approval required two EV ready spaces.

1:39:21That's what's been built. Uh, and so I'm

1:39:24not sure how this condition snuck in,

1:39:26but uh, the conditions now saying from

1:39:29from DTM is recommend they consider

1:39:31making one of those fully operational,

1:39:33which uh, is a little bit of a

1:39:36confusingly worded condition if you ask

1:39:38me, but I think what we're saying is EV

1:39:41ready was the original intent and we're

1:39:42fine keeping that in.

1:39:44>> Okay. So, as long as it remains EV

1:39:47ready, I'm happy to support that.

1:39:49>> Yep.

1:39:50>> Thank you.

1:39:53Mr. Tuming,

1:39:54>> this is a location I drive by two to

1:39:56three times a week. I'm impressed by

1:39:58anyone that can ride their bike up and

1:39:59down clutch street.

1:40:00>> That's a fair assessment.

1:40:02>> Yeah. So, no comments and ready to

1:40:03support.

1:40:04>> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Rosende,

1:40:07>> no comment. Thank you.

1:40:09>> Um, okay, Mr. McCormack, I think we're

1:40:11ready for a motion.

1:40:14I would make a motion to approve the

1:40:16definitive site plan amendment for 11

1:40:18Cliff Street subject to staff

1:40:21recommended conditions of approval on

1:40:22pages 2 and three of the staff memo uh

1:40:25with amendments to condition uh to

1:40:27strike condition 1C amend condition 1D

1:40:31and one Q. Did I get that? Um

1:40:36to strike 1 Q, sorry. And one R

1:40:40and to amend one V.

1:40:45Second

1:40:46>> on the motion. Mr. McCormack,

1:40:48>> yes.

1:40:49>> Mr. King,

1:40:50>> yes.

1:40:50>> Mr. Delero,

1:40:51>> yes.

1:40:52>> Mr. Tumi,

1:40:53>> yes.

1:40:53>> I vote yes. Five to zero. That passes.

1:40:55>> Thank you.

1:40:57>> Uh, okay. Next up, we have three

1:40:59separate zoning map amendments. Um, I

1:41:02understand there are some folks in the

1:41:03audience here uh on these items tonight.

1:41:05I just want to kind of give you the

1:41:07overview before we get into each

1:41:08individual one. So, what happens here is

1:41:11that a a applicant proposes that we make

1:41:15a change to the zoning map. They propose

1:41:16that to city council. City council sends

1:41:19it to us. Uh we're um you know, we're

1:41:22the planning board. We're volunteer

1:41:24citizens, not unlike yourselves. They

1:41:26want us to make a recommendation back to

1:41:28them. whatever we say, whether it's we

1:41:31support it, we don't support it, um they

1:41:34in theory consider that uh then they

1:41:36send it to a subcommittee, uh and then

1:41:39it comes back from the subcommittee to

1:41:40the whole council who is ultimately the

1:41:42folks that are going to make a decision

1:41:44on whether or not to to grant the zoning

1:41:47map amendment. So, um appreciate you

1:41:49guys being here. By all means, we'd love

1:41:50to hear your comments. Just want to be

1:41:52clear, whatever vote happens tonight, uh

1:41:55there's still a few steps in the process

1:41:56before anything ultimately happens.

1:41:59Um, so that said, we're going to start

1:42:01with number nine, which is 25

1:42:02Westchester Street, uh, public hearing

1:42:04for a zoning map amendment.

1:42:25>> Thank you for that. uh

1:42:29um overview, Mr. Chair. It's it's

1:42:32helpful, I think, uh to the neighbors in

1:42:34the audience. For the record, my name is

1:42:36Joshua Lee Smith. I'm an attorney with

1:42:38uh law firm of Badage and Dwey and I'm

1:42:41here uh tonight representing my client

1:42:44CMS. Uh to my left is sitting over there

1:42:47is uh Jerry Kavanaaugh. Um he's one of

1:42:49the principles in connection with uh the

1:42:52project that is is contemplated for this

1:42:54site. Um, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair,

1:42:56this is uh this is not a an application

1:42:59for site plan review, nor is it an

1:43:01application for a special permit or

1:43:03variance or any other type of zoning

1:43:04relief. We're here uh to hopefully gain

1:43:07support from this board with respect to

1:43:09a proposed uh zone change um pertaining

1:43:13to this site. So, uh Steve, we've got um

1:43:17a slide deck. Is that is that ready?

1:43:21Yeah. So we've got a really brief slide

1:43:23deck just to give a an overview a little

1:43:25context with respect to the site. Um

1:43:28you neighbors are here and I believe

1:43:30online uh who are have intimate

1:43:32knowledge with respect to the site.

1:43:33Steve if you could uh advance to the

1:43:35next slide.

1:43:37U so this is a 16 approximately 16 plus

1:43:40or minus acre property. I'm sure many

1:43:44folks here are generally familiar with

1:43:46it. Uh this site is the um former

1:43:50formerly most recently occupied uh by

1:43:54Catholic Charities of Worcester County.

1:43:56Uh the property is owned by Catholic

1:43:58Charities of the Dasis of of uh

1:44:01Worcester. And so for those who are

1:44:04familiar with the the property and its

1:44:06former use, the building uh was most

1:44:10recently occupied uh by Catholic

1:44:12Charities um in support of its uh

1:44:14program pertaining to uh helping folks

1:44:17with adults with uh developmental

1:44:19disabilities.

1:44:21Uh they have since moved um I believe

1:44:24they moved to another town and the

1:44:27property the building has sat idle for a

1:44:30very very long time. And for anyone who

1:44:34uh visits the site um you'll see as you

1:44:37come off of Westchester Street as you

1:44:39drive up the driveway you can

1:44:41immediately see that the site has uh

1:44:44been somewhat neglected with respect to

1:44:46maintenance repair. um starting from the

1:44:48driveway, driving all the way up, you

1:44:50hit Inmanav, enter the site. Um the the

1:44:53inter internal driveways uh again are in

1:44:56a state of disrepair. And then you get

1:44:58to the bu I won't even speak to the

1:44:59building, but the building is also um uh

1:45:03not in very good shape. So what my

1:45:06client is looking to do is revive this

1:45:09building. Um they are not looking to

1:45:12tear it down. Number one, I want to make

1:45:13that clear. uh they are looking to

1:45:16retain the building and bring it back to

1:45:18life. Um they are proposing with respect

1:45:22to the existing building to convert the

1:45:25building from the previous use which was

1:45:27a nonprofit

1:45:29uh nonprofit use to uh a an apartment

1:45:34building. It would be a technically in

1:45:35the city of Worcester it would be

1:45:36considered a low-rise multif family

1:45:39building uh with 40 plus or minus units.

1:45:44So that's with respect to the existing

1:45:46building that sits there. Now um they

1:45:49are also contemplating

1:45:51some level of groundup development uh

1:45:55immediately adjoining the where that

1:45:58building is situated there now. And so

1:46:01those would be in the form of townhouse

1:46:04style

1:46:05uh buildings

1:46:07and uh what my client is currently

1:46:10contemplating is between 7 to 10 units

1:46:14with respect to townhouse style units.

1:46:17So again 40 uh units with respect to the

1:46:20conversion of the existing building plus

1:46:23between 7 to 10 townhouse style units

1:46:25again directly adjacent to the existing

1:46:27building.

1:46:29So, as you can see here from this this

1:46:31aerial view, the vast majority of the

1:46:33property actually uh consists of

1:46:36woodlands.

1:46:37So, uh I'll get to the meetings that

1:46:40we've had with the neighbors in a

1:46:41moment, but I do want to underscore the

1:46:44fact that the vast majority of this of

1:46:47of what you see that are that are

1:46:49woodlands will also uh my client is

1:46:52fully intending to retain those

1:46:54woodlands.

1:46:56Um so there'll be a number of other

1:46:59changes um improvements with respect to

1:47:01the site uh which we'll obviously share

1:47:03as we hopefully move forward through

1:47:05this process as as um when and if this

1:47:09this zone change does get approved uh

1:47:11and we'll be submitting full site plans

1:47:13fully engineered drawings um to provide

1:47:16a little more uh details with respect to

1:47:19those designs. But just to give you a a

1:47:21sense Steve if you could advance to the

1:47:24next slide. And this is the existing

1:47:25building. I should have shown this

1:47:27earlier. Um this these images don't do

1:47:30it justice. Again, if you go to the

1:47:32site, uh the building is in quite a

1:47:34quite dilapitated and in a state of

1:47:36disrepair.

1:47:38Uh Steve, if you go to the next slide,

1:47:41again, these are early early

1:47:43conceptuals.

1:47:45um couple of potential

1:47:47uh uh illustrations of of possible

1:47:50designs for the obviously for the for

1:47:52the townhouse portion of the project.

1:47:56Um I'll get to the the real crux of the

1:48:00matter with respect to the actual zone

1:48:01change itself. And Steve, if you could

1:48:03just go back to the zoning map again.

1:48:06Um so I think I may have mentioned this

1:48:09or Mr. Chair, you you may have mentioned

1:48:11this. Um the the property is currently

1:48:14within the RS7 zone. Uh the request here

1:48:17is pretty straightforward. We're looking

1:48:19to um have the entirety of the property

1:48:22uh changed or modified to or replaced

1:48:25with the uh replaced to the um RL7 zone.

1:48:29So, generally speaking, the RS7 zone is

1:48:33the city's uh least restrictive um in

1:48:37terms of it. Basically, it allows for

1:48:39single family dwellings. Um RL7 is a

1:48:44little bit more limited um by

1:48:47definition, by its name, it's called

1:48:48residence limited. So, it is it is not

1:48:51the most in terms of density that's

1:48:54allowed um unlike an RG5, but the RL7

1:48:58does allow for uh the construction of

1:49:02low-rise multif family as well as

1:49:04townhouse style units. And I do want to

1:49:06underscore as well that if this does get

1:49:10approved, if the zone map gets approved,

1:49:12those two types of uses for those two

1:49:15types of dwellings uh would still

1:49:17require a special permit. So this would

1:49:20not but if if this zone map does uh get

1:49:23approved uh to be changed to the RL7,

1:49:26this still would have to go through not

1:49:28only site plan review uh but would also

1:49:30require a special permit process. So in

1:49:33terms of just

1:49:35the the board uh the neighbors having

1:49:38multiple bites of the apple um there's

1:49:41there's certainly going to be a process

1:49:43uh that we'll have to go through in

1:49:44terms of design review and vetting of

1:49:47the project. So this is really uh an

1:49:50early early initial step. I did want to

1:49:53say just really briefly with respect to

1:49:55the the

1:49:57working with the community um my client

1:50:00has had several meetings um both group

1:50:04meetings group um session meetings as

1:50:06well as individual one-on-one meetings

1:50:09with the neighbors. Um, I also want to

1:50:13uh indicate that councelor Economo is

1:50:16here tonight as well. Um, and he has

1:50:18certainly helped facilitate those

1:50:20meetings. Um, so number one, they're

1:50:23they're fully aware of what we're

1:50:25looking to do here. Uh, we've been open

1:50:28and and fully disclosed uh what's

1:50:31potentially contemplated. Um, we

1:50:33received a lot of comments, feedback,

1:50:36um, a lot of comments with respect to

1:50:39not necessarily the the site or the pro

1:50:43potential project itself, but some other

1:50:45neighborhood related issues that the

1:50:47that the neighborhood is has been

1:50:49experiencing um, offsite. Um, some

1:50:52pertaining to the street itself,

1:50:55Westchester Street, which is obviously

1:50:56it's it's got some challenges. it's very

1:50:59narrow in certain certain areas of of

1:51:02that street. Uh there's uh it's very

1:51:05steep in certain areas. So there were

1:51:06comments with respect to the narrowness,

1:51:09the steepness of this of the street, the

1:51:11surrounding streets as well as

1:51:14um uh issues with respect to plowing of

1:51:17snow during the winters and um issues

1:51:19with respect to storm water, those types

1:51:21of things. Some of the comments were

1:51:23on-site related comments and some of the

1:51:25comments were off-site related comments.

1:51:28um a lot of the off-site related

1:51:29comments. I think I it's safe to say

1:51:30that my client and the neighbors are uh

1:51:33have have aligned interests to see that

1:51:36some of those um some of those issues to

1:51:38the extent they can uh can be can be

1:51:41improved.

1:51:43But I did want to just underscore again

1:51:45that we have had several meetings with

1:51:47the with the neighbors. It's an ongoing

1:51:49dialogue and um we're happy to continue

1:51:51to work with them going forward as we

1:51:53progress through this um this uh

1:51:56process.

1:51:57That's all I wanted to say. Thank you,

1:51:58Mr. Chair.

1:52:00>> Thank you. Uh move over to staff

1:52:03comments on this item

1:52:05>> through the chair. This is Olivia Hull

1:52:07in the planning division. Um so I just

1:52:09want to start by noting that this

1:52:11petition was initially submitted to the

1:52:13board to consider establishing the

1:52:15adaptive reuse overlay district. Um it

1:52:18was advertised as that um that way

1:52:22originally.

1:52:23uh after uh going through the

1:52:26advertising process the uh petitioner

1:52:29met with neighbors and it seems that as

1:52:32a result of discussion with neighbors

1:52:34the petition was amended to instead

1:52:36establish the RL7 zone. So just wanted

1:52:38to start with that clarification for

1:52:40anybody here um to go over permitted

1:52:44uses that are in the RS existing RS7

1:52:48zone versus the proposed RL7 zone. The

1:52:51RS zone is uh one of the more

1:52:55restrictive residential zoning districts

1:52:56in the city in that it only allows

1:52:59residential dwellings um and some exempt

1:53:01uses by right. The RL7 zone is less

1:53:05restrictive in that it allows um two

1:53:08family dwellings, uh duplexes by right,

1:53:12and then it also allows three family

1:53:15dwellings and lowrise multi multif

1:53:17family dwell uh structures by special

1:53:20permit. There are also some business and

1:53:26general uses that are allowed by special

1:53:29permit. Um that would include nursing

1:53:32homes, funeral homes, um personal

1:53:35service businesses. Um again, only by

1:53:38special permit, which would not be

1:53:39allowed in the RS7 zone. Um other than

1:53:43that, uh as far as other uses, they're

1:53:46pretty much identical um across all

1:53:49categories.

1:53:50So, as far as dimensional requirements

1:53:53go, uh, single family dwellings in both

1:53:56zones are subject to the same

1:53:58requirements, which is 7,000 square ft

1:54:00of lot area, 65 ft of frontage, and a

1:54:0320ft front and rear yard setback, and an

1:54:068ft sideyard setback. The RL7 zone with

1:54:09its more intense residential uses

1:54:11require greater lot area um and frontage

1:54:15requirements. For the semi- detached um

1:54:19or duplex dwellings as well as the two

1:54:21families, it requires 4,000 square ft of

1:54:23lot area and 35 ft of frontage per unit.

1:54:28um attached townhouse style dwellings as

1:54:30well as three families require 3,000

1:54:33square ft of lot area per unit and 25 ft

1:54:37of frontage per unit. Multif family uses

1:54:40are subject to the 7,000 square ft

1:54:43requirement for the first unit and an

1:54:45additional 2,000 square ft per per unit

1:54:49on top of that first unit. Um, it is

1:54:53also subject to 65 feet of frontage for

1:54:55the first unit and an additional five

1:54:57feet of frontage per every unit on top

1:54:59of that, maxing out at a total of 140 ft

1:55:02of frontage um for multif family use.

1:55:06Uh, as far as height and story

1:55:08limitations, um, the RS and RL7 zones

1:55:13are limited to two stories, um,

1:55:16including an attic or 35 ft in height,

1:55:19um, for single family uses. Two family

1:55:22uses in the RL7

1:55:25um, as well as three in multif family

1:55:28are permitted to be taller up to three

1:55:30stories with an attic or 50 feet in

1:55:32height. Uh and then non-residential uses

1:55:35are limited to 45 feet in height in the

1:55:37RL7 zone.

1:55:40As far as setbacks, we already discussed

1:55:43that single families are um the same

1:55:46subject to the same requirements in both

1:55:48zones. Uh multifamily dwellings require

1:55:50a greater sideyard setback um at 10 ft

1:55:55versus the 8 ft that's otherwise

1:55:56required and then a 20ft front and rear.

1:56:00Um, as far as zoning history for the

1:56:05parcel with the property goes,

1:56:08uh, maps back in 1971 indicate that the

1:56:12property was originally zoned RL7 as

1:56:15well as some of the surrounding area.

1:56:18Um, the 1960s era ordinance also shows

1:56:23that higher density uses were allowed

1:56:25back then. So, uh, low-rise and

1:56:28high-rise multifamilies were permitted

1:56:30back then by special permit, whereas the

1:56:32RL only allows low-rise by special

1:56:34permit today. Uh, then sometime between

1:56:371987 and 91, the area was reszoned or

1:56:42downzoned to the RS7 zone that exists

1:56:45today.

1:56:46Um the neighborhood is primarily

1:56:48characterized by single family dwellings

1:56:51uh to the norththeast and west

1:56:53consistent with RS7 zoning um with some

1:56:56two family dwellings interspersed.

1:56:58There's also some educational and

1:57:00religious uses with um Assumption

1:57:03University existing to the south.

1:57:07Um, the property has historically been

1:57:10used by the church. Um, and historic

1:57:14imagery indicates that it was

1:57:16undeveloped prior to 1960.

1:57:19Upon its development in uh construction

1:57:22in 1960, it appeared to be used by the

1:57:24church from there until um today.

1:57:28That is all I have to go over for this,

1:57:30but I'm happy to answer any questions.

1:57:32>> Okay. Thank you, Miss Hoo. Um, Miss Mr.

1:57:35Chair, can I just add something really

1:57:37quickly? So, um, thank you Olivia for

1:57:40pointing out the initial filing included

1:57:44an A-Rod, um, which is we we agreed to

1:57:47remove again in response to comments

1:57:49that we received from the neighbors. Um,

1:57:51the A-Rod, as we'll get to in a couple

1:57:54the next couple of petitions later in

1:57:56the agenda, um, the A-Rod provides

1:57:58additional flexibility with respect to

1:58:00things like dimensional requirements,

1:58:02parking, etc. Um we want to again

1:58:06working in the spirit of working with

1:58:08the neighbors and and especially from

1:58:10the first big meeting that we had with

1:58:11the neighbors uh there was a lot of

1:58:13concern with respect to density um we

1:58:16underscored the fact that even if we

1:58:18pull out the A- rod and don't have an A-

1:58:20rod which would have allowed for by use

1:58:22for one of those um dwelling types of

1:58:25uses uh that we we wanted to assure the

1:58:29neighbors that we accept the feedback

1:58:32from them with respect to density.

1:58:33Density was clearly one of the uh the um

1:58:38one of the comments from the neighbors

1:58:40uh multiple comments from neighbors with

1:58:41respect to can we provide reasonable

1:58:44density. I do want to point out that um

1:58:47initially as we had expressed it to the

1:58:50neighbors we were proposing a closer to

1:58:52a 70 to 80 total unit uh development for

1:58:56this site. um we agreed again based on a

1:58:59lot of the feedback from the neighbors

1:59:00to dramatically pull that back. So back

1:59:04to what I had initially said at the

1:59:05beginning of this um the beginning of my

1:59:08remarks uh back to uh 40 unit plus

1:59:11around between 7 to 10. So I did want to

1:59:14underscore that fact um that we pulled

1:59:15out we pulled out of our application the

1:59:18A-Rod um and in addition we also agreed

1:59:21based on comments from the neighbors uh

1:59:23to to reduce the density as well. Thank

1:59:26you, Mr. Chair.

1:59:27>> Thank you. Uh, so

1:59:30now that we've heard from staff and

1:59:32we've heard um from the applicant, would

1:59:34love to hear uh from from the neighbors

1:59:36if this is the petition you guys are

1:59:38here on. I see one person, two people,

1:59:41three. Yeah. No rush. Everybody will get

1:59:43a chance to speak, but come on up.

1:59:47>> Yeah. So, the So, the way it works is

1:59:48you you come up kind of one at a time.

1:59:50>> Uh, and when it's your turn, you have to

1:59:52ask me the question, but the applicant

1:59:54can respond. Uh, just that's all.

1:59:58>> My name is Barbara Clifford. I live at

2:00:0046 Westchester Street. That's the corner

2:00:03of Westchester and Barrett. Okay.

2:00:06>> And a very close distance to the Mercy

2:00:09Center, which is the property we're

2:00:11talking about today. Westchester Street

2:00:14is extremely busy already. It has been.

2:00:17We bought our house there 14 years ago,

2:00:20and it's just built and built and built

2:00:23up the traffic. We have um the uh

2:00:26Willows at the one end and Grove Street

2:00:28at the other end. So, it's insanely busy

2:00:31and it's a quite a narrow

2:00:34uh road. So, it is essential for

2:00:38everybody in that area to be able to

2:00:42drive and get places. And with a

2:00:46driveway coming out, the Mercy Center as

2:00:48it existed before had only one in and

2:00:52out and that was right onto Westchester

2:00:55Street. So, it's extremely busy. There's

2:00:58been many accidents on it and um we

2:01:01really really are very very concerned

2:01:04that as well as safety for children

2:01:07buses that you know it's like insanely

2:01:10busy as we'll see tomorrow or next week

2:01:13when the school start. So we we are very

2:01:17concerned. There are many other people

2:01:19that want to discuss how concerned we

2:01:22are as a group and we want safety and

2:01:25this will put approximately close to 200

2:01:29people more coming in and out on

2:01:32Westchester Street. So that is a big

2:01:34concern along with many other concerns

2:01:37that I'm sure others will get to. Thank

2:01:39you.

2:01:40>> Okay. Thank you for your comments.

2:01:43Do you want to come up? Yeah. Um

2:01:45>> I go first. I got I got hope for that

2:01:47time. Yeah.

2:01:50>> So, uh, Mr. Chair, uh, Mark Borenstein,

2:01:5380 Berry Road resident and neighbor of

2:01:55the project. Uh, so I I appreciate the

2:01:58petitioner amending their petition to

2:02:00change from A-Rod to the RL7. That was a

2:02:03concern that I had because it could

2:02:04allow for commercial uses of the

2:02:06property. Uh, I know that Miss Hole

2:02:08referenced some commercial uses, but I

2:02:10believe that they're mostly nursing

2:02:11homes and more institutional uses versus

2:02:15more commercial uses in the sense that I

2:02:17would think of. Uh, personally, uh, and

2:02:20I've expressed this to my neighbors, I

2:02:21know it's not a popular opinion. I I

2:02:24support housing at this particular

2:02:26property. Uh, these will be multif

2:02:28family lowrises. They will not be in

2:02:30excess of three stories. Uh, it's from

2:02:32my perspective lower density in terms of

2:02:34multif family housing. So I personally

2:02:36do not have an issue with this

2:02:37particular petition. Ultimately, while

2:02:39the petitioners u representative saying

2:02:41that if they're proposing 40 units in

2:02:43the building and some town houses, we

2:02:45all know that ultimately once it's

2:02:46reszoned, it could be any project,

2:02:48right? So I'm looking at the use table

2:02:49itself uh pretty limited residential

2:02:51uses, not particularly high density. So

2:02:54I personally uh do not have an issue

2:02:56with the petition. Thank you.

2:02:58>> Thank you.

2:02:59Whoever's next, come on up.

2:03:04Uh uh Ricky Green. I live on FiveNap AV

2:03:08which there I've been there for 40 years

2:03:10and when I moved up there there were

2:03:12five houses on my road. Now it's packed

2:03:15with houses and I don't mind that at

2:03:17all. But to put 80 units in that area

2:03:21with one access road is insane. It's

2:03:24already a mess at the bottom of the

2:03:25hill. There's accidents all the time.

2:03:29When they put these 80 units in, it's

2:03:31going to be backed up to Barry Road.

2:03:33Honest to God. Are you going to put

2:03:34another access road?

2:03:36>> Hold on, sir. You You You have to direct

2:03:38your questions to me. It's just

2:03:39>> I'm asking him, do I Are they going to

2:03:41put another access road in when they put

2:03:44build these units, or are they just

2:03:45going to keep that one access road?

2:03:46>> So, I I I just want to be clear about

2:03:48where we are. So, right now, all we're

2:03:50considering is a change to the zoning,

2:03:52which is like the what's allowed the

2:03:54rules. if they if they want to do the

2:03:58project that uh Mr. Smith was talking

2:04:01about, they have to come back for a

2:04:04special permit. So, that's when you get

2:04:05to see what they actually plan to do. At

2:04:08this point, it's like what could they be

2:04:10allowed to do? And just so that you

2:04:13understand this part because I think

2:04:14it's important, all we're doing is

2:04:17making a recommendation to city council

2:04:19that they may or may not review at all,

2:04:21but most importantly, they're going to

2:04:22follow their process. So there's going

2:04:23to be another hearing with one of their

2:04:25subcommittees and then ultimately a

2:04:26discussion at city council. So we're all

2:04:30I'm trying to tell you is you're a long

2:04:31way from getting to look at access roads

2:04:34and all that.

2:04:34>> So you don't want to know about any of

2:04:35that stuff. So what are we really doing?

2:04:37>> Well, they they may not know. I mean

2:04:38they and and when we're considering it,

2:04:42we're not considering a specific

2:04:44project. We're considering the

2:04:45underlying zoning because they they

2:04:48could say one thing. I mean, I'm not

2:04:50suggesting this is what they're going to

2:04:51do, but they could say one thing and

2:04:52then just do something else completely

2:04:53different. So, we have to consider all

2:04:55the things they could do.

2:04:56>> But you should know that there's only

2:04:58one way in and out,

2:05:00>> one access, 80 units, one way in and out

2:05:02onto a small street. If they don't put

2:05:04another access, you should know the

2:05:05things like that though, shouldn't you?

2:05:06>> Uh, when it comes to a site plan,

2:05:08absolutely. Those are that that's when

2:05:10that stuff gets reviewed. But at this

2:05:12stage, that's not actually what we're

2:05:13thinking about.

2:05:14>> All right. All right. Thank you.

2:05:19Hi, Paul Landry. I live at Tunap A. I'm

2:05:22opposed to this. Uh there's there's way

2:05:24too much traffic in the area. Number

2:05:26one, they have no sidewalks on Chester

2:05:28Street. It's a dangerous street. It

2:05:31crosses 122 at the end. There's an

2:05:34accident, major accident at least once a

2:05:36week there. Maybe just check the

2:05:38statistics. And for the fact that it's a

2:05:41single family neighborhood and you're

2:05:43going to bring all these people going to

2:05:45be coming and going. They're not going

2:05:46to be staying there. No pride in the

2:05:48neighborhood and it's going to destroy

2:05:49the neighborhood. So, you know, I'm

2:05:52definitely opposed to it. Somebody's

2:05:53going to get killed if this is approved.

2:05:55They're going to get killed on Chester

2:05:56Street and you guys are going to be

2:05:57responsible for changing the zone.

2:05:59That's it.

2:06:00>> Thank you for your comments.

2:06:02There's somebody behind you, but then

2:06:04you can go next if you like.

2:06:05>> Sorry.

2:06:06>> My name is Susan Burns. Um, I've lived

2:06:08at 10 Nap for approximately 43 years. I

2:06:12am definitely opposed to this project.

2:06:14Um, I think it's going to just destroy

2:06:16the blueprint of the neighborhood, which

2:06:18is a single family, maybe a few

2:06:20scattered two families.

2:06:22I also feel that if you zone it, you

2:06:25know, if the zoning is approved,

2:06:28>> um it could potentially, and I mean I

2:06:32realistically I think it will become a

2:06:34an assumption do

2:06:36um and that will you'll have another

2:06:41situation like Holy Cross where the

2:06:43neighbors are in an uprise

2:06:46um because if it's it's proximity to

2:06:49Assumption College, it's going to be

2:06:50right there. Um, and everybody says,

2:06:53"Oh, well, they're going to be upscale,

2:06:54going to be a Listen, these kids, their

2:06:57families, they have money. There's going

2:06:59to be no problem with renting out or

2:07:01whatever."

2:07:03Um, like everyone said, if the zoning

2:07:07changes,

2:07:09um, like the like he said, the accidents

2:07:11at the bottom of Chester and Route 2022,

2:07:15which is stateowned road,

2:07:18um, are astronomical. It's it's every

2:07:20week. Um I would encourage any one of

2:07:24you to go to the police, get a a log of

2:07:27how many accidents have been in the last

2:07:28five years.

2:07:31Like other people have said, the street

2:07:33is w not wide enough. The only way that

2:07:36you could accommodate this zoning would

2:07:39be to widen the street, which would

2:07:42take people's land by eminent domain

2:07:44domain, which people have lived there

2:07:47forever.

2:07:49And obviously everybody's against that.

2:07:52The um and I know the the one if it's if

2:07:57it's if it is if it is zoned if you know

2:08:00if the zoning goes through um

2:08:05people are going to tend to use

2:08:08the Grove Street uh the uh Chester

2:08:10Street exit. If there's an exit, even if

2:08:13there's even if there's two, the only

2:08:15thing that would be logical would be to

2:08:18get one going right out to to Grove

2:08:20Street, but that's not going to happen.

2:08:22So, if you have to come out Chester

2:08:24Street,

2:08:25there's going to be multitude of

2:08:27accidents. Right now, as it stands,

2:08:30one car can barely get through in the

2:08:33winter. Now, when you're coming up that

2:08:36street and and the opening, the major

2:08:39opening is right at that corner, which

2:08:41is

2:08:43very dangerous. When you're coming up or

2:08:45going down in the winter, you're just

2:08:47praying that no one's coming because

2:08:50you're out of control in your car.

2:08:53And there's no way really to change

2:08:55that. You know what I'm saying? It's

2:08:56just the topography of the land. So, um

2:09:01um I I vehemently oppose it. Thank you.

2:09:05>> Okay. Thank you for your comments. Um

2:09:07come on up, sir.

2:09:12>> Good evening. Uh my name is William

2:09:14Hughes. I live at 83 Barrett Avenue. Um

2:09:19the neighborhood

2:09:21is a long-standing neighborhood

2:09:25on the street on Barrett uh Barrett aav

2:09:29uh south and barab north. We live in

2:09:32north. We have three 80 year olds who've

2:09:36lived there all their lives.

2:09:39You can look at the area. Single homes,

2:09:42single families raised a come here, buy

2:09:47a good house,

2:09:49go to a good school, live in a good

2:09:52neighborhood.

2:09:55I heard what Joshua said, the attorney,

2:09:58that the uh plan has been somewhat

2:10:00scaled back.

2:10:02I did not know that it was going to be

2:10:05the 40 plus or minus. I'm not sure what

2:10:07plus or minus apartments are, but it was

2:10:0930 to 40 town houses now scaled back to

2:10:12I think he said seven or 10. That's

2:10:15different. But the traffic on that road

2:10:20is is now it's a cut through from the

2:10:22west side to really 290. Uh there's

2:10:262,000 cars transverse that road a day. I

2:10:30made a public uh record request to the

2:10:32Worester uh Police Department about uh

2:10:35accidents, 911 calls, etc. at the

2:10:39intersection down at Chester Street and

2:10:41Gro Street. Um there are lots of

2:10:44accidents. Um there are actually two

2:10:47trees there that bear the scars of many

2:10:49accidents. Um, I did a uh public uh

2:10:53records request for 311 events uh for

2:10:58the city basically from January 1st,

2:11:012025

2:11:03to Jul uh June 1st, 2026

2:11:07looking at Barry Road, Chester Street,

2:11:10and Westchester Street, which are really

2:11:12the the cut through and the parts of

2:11:14this uh road that would be affected uh

2:11:17by this development.

2:11:19Um during this period of time there were

2:11:22two 267 events recorded by 3101. Barry

2:11:27Road had 76.

2:11:30Of those 76, 53 were for potholes.

2:11:35Nine were for the street not being

2:11:37plowed.

2:11:38Chester Street had 124.

2:11:4370 uh 43 of those were for potholes.

2:11:4832 of them were for the street not being

2:11:50plowed or sanded or needing plchester

2:11:54street had 67

2:11:5739 of those were for potholes

2:12:01nine for the street not plowed so of the

2:12:04total of the 2679

2:12:07of the events which is 52% were for

2:12:10potholes

2:12:12the road

2:12:14in the in the late winter and the

2:12:17spring, we all start to go, "All right,

2:12:19we're going to start calling about the

2:12:20potholes." Uh, actually, um, Councelor

2:12:24Economo actually did a 311 about the

2:12:27potholes a couple of weeks ago, and they

2:12:30came up. I mean, the city is great. They

2:12:31come up and they patch the holes, but

2:12:35it's about water runoff.

2:12:39Runoff that comes right down the

2:12:40driveway of the proposed development.

2:12:47thaws, freezes, thaws, potholes.

2:12:50Uh the lady before me talked about the

2:12:52road

2:12:54coming up the hill. It's a blind corner,

2:12:56blind drive. You can't see down, you

2:12:58can't see up. In winter, we have

2:13:00strategies. When it snows,

2:13:04you make the corner, you get down to the

2:13:06bottom hill, you look up the hill. Is

2:13:08there anybody in the road? Nope.

2:13:10Proceed. Minimum speed 40 miles an hour.

2:13:14Why? Got to have your momentum because

2:13:15you got to make the lefthand corner

2:13:17hoping no one's coming down. If

2:13:20someone's coming down, you can always

2:13:21veer right, but if there are cars ahead

2:13:24of you, you're going to have to wait.

2:13:26Why? Because if people don't know what

2:13:29they're doing, it's going to be madness.

2:13:31We can talk about that. Um, one of the

2:13:35things the 311s just for a point of uh,

2:13:39comparison, Gro Street in the same time

2:13:42period

2:13:44had 321 total events,

2:13:4782 of them were for potholes, 25%.

2:13:52Park A had seven

2:13:55no potholes, no snow.

2:13:58So, it's really involving changing the

2:14:01neighborhood, the nature

2:14:05of the area, longstanding

2:14:08traffic, which you've heard about. You

2:14:11know, the road is small. We had a U

2:14:17flatbed come down the uh Barrett the

2:14:19other day hauling a steam shovel,

2:14:23making the right hand corner onto

2:14:25Westchester Street.

2:14:28almost made it but managed to ding the

2:14:31telephone pole. Now the pole was

2:14:34damaged.

2:14:38You have two large trucks come up. We're

2:14:40going to have to see who wins. So these

2:14:42are all considerations we live with

2:14:44every day.

2:14:48We like where we live.

2:14:51We'd like to be able to stay there in

2:14:54relative peace and calm. One of the

2:14:56things that has occurred is below this

2:14:59proposed development to the east.

2:15:03Recently, the planning board has

2:15:05approved uh four single houses to be

2:15:08developed down there which will add four

2:15:11driveways

2:15:13and subsequent

2:15:15um traffic. The other part is runoff,

2:15:19water runoff. One of the things is

2:15:21there's a lot of ledge in this area and

2:15:24the developer talked about, yeah,

2:15:26there's probably ledge up there. He

2:15:27didn't want to blast, which is really

2:15:29good. We're happy about that. But

2:15:31anytime there's a major development up

2:15:33there, ledge gets moved around and water

2:15:37devel water develops new paths. Uh, one

2:15:40of our neighbors at the meeting we had

2:15:42talked about spending $40,000

2:15:46because of

2:15:51runoff water that changed

2:15:54when ledge got moved

2:15:57into her house, into her home that she

2:15:59had lived in for decades, had been dry,

2:16:02and then $40,000 to to remedy it. So,

2:16:06there's a lot to be considered. I mean

2:16:09people talk about the trees, the

2:16:10wildlife etc. But it's really the

2:16:13quality and the nature of of life for

2:16:15us. We understand that Worcester now

2:16:18next

2:16:20projects that by I believe 2040 there's

2:16:23going to be 60,000 more people

2:16:26projected to live in the city. That's a

2:16:28lot of people.

2:16:30But the people on the hill want to have

2:16:32people that live in single occur owner

2:16:36occupied housing. We just had two houses

2:16:39sell in that area that had been empty

2:16:43for months. Two months.

2:16:48We like Worcester.

2:16:50We like We like where we live. So up to

2:16:55you. Thank you.

2:16:57>> Thank you. Uh come on up, sir.

2:17:04>> Hi there. My name is Bill Hurley. I live

2:17:05at 46 Westchester Street, the corner of

2:17:07Barrett Avenue, Westchester.

2:17:10I've lived there now for 14 years, and

2:17:12for 14 years, I've been trying to get

2:17:14them to properly care for Westchester

2:17:18Street. I mean, the people used to drive

2:17:20up on my front lawn because they thought

2:17:22that was part of the roadway. So, I

2:17:25planted grass and plane claimed back my

2:17:28property.

2:17:30We've had

2:17:32uh last month a truck tractor trailer

2:17:34with excavating equipment came down

2:17:36Barrett Avenue. It hit the telephone

2:17:38pole on the corner. Took a good chunk

2:17:41out of the telephone pole and just kept

2:17:42on going down the road. Didn't care. I

2:17:46called national grid. I called the city.

2:17:49Everybody came up and looked at it, but

2:17:51nobody's done anything about it. It's

2:17:53leaning like this now because the truck

2:17:55hit it. Three days ago, a guy came up

2:17:59the hill, came up Westchester Street,

2:18:01went around that lefthand turn that

2:18:03everybody's talking about with traffic

2:18:06coming up and down too tight. He ran

2:18:08into a telephone pole. He was going too

2:18:12fast and he just right off the side of

2:18:16his car, passenger side of his car was

2:18:18torn off and laying in the road. This

2:18:21guy wasn't inching along. He was

2:18:23speeding. I've complained to the police

2:18:26department about the traffic up there.

2:18:29I've tried to get them to do something

2:18:30about it. I call Joe Petty's office and

2:18:34complain about trying to get somebody to

2:18:36come up and write tickets. And what I

2:18:39end up with is two or three different

2:18:41cop cars that come by my house and wave

2:18:43at me and then keep on going.

2:18:47So, I mean, is this really the true way

2:18:50to run the city properly? The roadway is

2:18:53hell.

2:18:55When I first moved in there, I used to

2:18:58shovel all the gravel down that came

2:18:59down Barrett Avenue to fill in the

2:19:01potholes on the other side of Barrett

2:19:02Avenue.

2:19:04So, I'm doing all this labor to try and

2:19:07keep my neighborhood clean and nice, but

2:19:10I can't get you folks to even think

2:19:12about doing anything about paving my

2:19:15street without charging me per lineal

2:19:17foot.

2:19:19I would point out, sir, that we we're

2:19:21not employees of the city of Worcester.

2:19:22We're we're residents like yourself.

2:19:23>> I can't hear you.

2:19:24>> Sorry. I I would point out we're not

2:19:26employees of the city of Worcester.

2:19:27We're residents like yourself. So,

2:19:29>> I understand that. I

2:19:30>> I'm I'm not going to come pay for your

2:19:31driveway, but or your or your road, but

2:19:33I understand your frustration as a

2:19:35fellow resident.

2:19:37>> Okay. So, we get anything done about it?

2:19:42>> I I don't work for DBW. I don't work for

2:19:44the city of Worcester. That's what I'm

2:19:45telling you. like I'm I'm not the guy

2:19:47that's going to fix it for you.

2:19:48>> You're gonna build this structure up in

2:19:50there and do something about that. As

2:19:53they've said, there's only one entrance

2:19:54and one exit. That sign over there that

2:19:57says Inman Avenue

2:20:00on the corner of Westchester and the

2:20:02driveway to the Mercy Center, the sign

2:20:06says access to Inman Avenue. It doesn't

2:20:09call that Inman Avenue. that is nothing

2:20:12more than a driveway for the Mercy

2:20:15Center. That's all it ever was. It never

2:20:17had a street name. It never matter, you

2:20:20know. And

2:20:22Joshua came by and I pointed out that's

2:20:25not in avenue at the end of Westchester

2:20:28Street.

2:20:30It It's not. It's a driveway.

2:20:33I can walk up to the map and show you

2:20:35right away, but

2:20:41you don't have the room up there for all

2:20:43that traffic. You don't plan to seem to

2:20:46have the room to widen Westchester

2:20:48Street cuz you'd be driving through my

2:20:51living room to be honest with you.

2:20:56There's several houses up there that are

2:20:5820 ft off the curb

2:21:01and you can't go any wider the other way

2:21:04because the telephone poles are there.

2:21:07So nobody planned anything. Nobody

2:21:09thinks of anything. So, while we're

2:21:10trying to plan this project here, which

2:21:14I'm totally against, but you know, why

2:21:19don't we actually get down to the brass

2:21:20tax and talk about what's going to

2:21:22happen as far as planning of that

2:21:24roadway and if everything's going to

2:21:28enter off of Westchester Street, how are

2:21:30you going to do that? There's been

2:21:32accidents on the corner of Barrett and

2:21:34Ne at least twice a year. And I'm not

2:21:37talking little fender benders. I'm

2:21:38talking people getting pushed up on

2:21:40people's lawns with their vehicles.

2:21:44>> I understand your frustration,

2:21:47>> right? But you guys are in control of

2:21:49anything and can't do much have anything

2:21:51about anything.

2:21:53>> You know, it feels that way a lot of the

2:21:54time.

2:21:55>> Well, yeah. You know, it looks that way

2:21:56right now

2:21:58because truthfully,

2:22:00>> it I I'm telling you it looks that way

2:22:02from me sitting right here and I've been

2:22:03doing this for 8 years and I would point

2:22:05out as a volunteer to my community.

2:22:08>> So, while I understand your frustration,

2:22:10you're directing it in the wrong place,

2:22:12sir.

2:22:13>> Thank you.

2:22:15>> Can I say one more thing?

2:22:17>> I think the counselor wants to speak.

2:22:21>> Sure.

2:22:23So, so,

2:22:26>> you know, the builders come in

2:22:29and they'll build that and they'll leave

2:22:32with their big bag of money and 50 yards

2:22:34either way, it looks good,

2:22:37but 100 yards up the road where Barrett

2:22:39and Chester meet, it's small and it's

2:22:41not wide and all these people like

2:22:43they're getting affected by it, they'll

2:22:45leave. They won't even look at they're

2:22:46not going to take care of that stuff.

2:22:49We'll end up paying for it with our

2:22:50taxes because they're going to go, "Oh,

2:22:51it's a cluster. You know what?" and

2:22:53we'll have to pay our taxes will put in

2:22:55sidewalks and lights and street lights

2:22:57and red lights. It's it's it's not fair.

2:23:00It's they just shouldn't even do this.

2:23:02This is there's too much too many

2:23:04houses. That's all. Thank you.

2:23:07>> Thank you, counselor.

2:23:14>> Where was I going? Um

2:23:17the one other thing about that is the

2:23:20speed bumps and things that have been

2:23:21built in that area where you did redid

2:23:24tornado and you redid Barrett a but you

2:23:28didn't do the lower half of Bar but I

2:23:31>> who's who's you

2:23:34>> who's you that you're referring to

2:23:37>> the city I'm sorry the city

2:23:39>> I I mean

2:23:40>> and I know you

2:23:41>> I look I this is a public meeting and

2:23:44planning board exists is for folks to

2:23:46come and voice their concerns about

2:23:47items that are going to affect their

2:23:49>> neighboring meeting. And what I did at

2:23:51the parking lot meeting was I invited

2:23:53Tony and Joshua and everybody to come up

2:23:55to my house and look at the traffic

2:23:57problem before you building anything.

2:24:00Nobody's shown up. Nobody comes by. I've

2:24:02invited invited the mayor down to come

2:24:04take a look at things. He doesn't show

2:24:06up for anything. He should be here in my

2:24:09opinion, but

2:24:11>> I mean you'll have to take that up with

2:24:13him or or vote for somebody else. But

2:24:18>> counselor,

2:24:19>> thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Ladies,

2:24:22gentlemen, I appreciate your your

2:24:25diligence here and uh listening to us

2:24:27all. Um,

2:24:32these items that are being spoken of

2:24:34tonight

2:24:35are what would come of the zone change.

2:24:38Um, and I'm here to stand here before

2:24:41you with my neighbors here to oppose the

2:24:44zone change from RS7 to R to RL7.

2:24:48Um, I think more more discussion needs

2:24:52to take place, more insight into the

2:24:56neighborhood. Um this is a neighborhood

2:24:59of single family homes tightly compacted

2:25:02together. Um what is being proposed

2:25:06would be out of character for the

2:25:07neighborhood.

2:25:09Um,

2:25:10you heard all about the traffic and I'll

2:25:13the only one thing I'll add to it is

2:25:14from Barrett Aav to Midchester Street as

2:25:18you're going down or easterly towards

2:25:21Grove

2:25:23from November through May. It's all ice.

2:25:27We can put salt on it all day long, but

2:25:30it's there's just a runoff off that hill

2:25:33that impedes that area.

2:25:36um the density in that small area too.

2:25:39How do we protect those abutters who

2:25:41would be affected the most by that area?

2:25:46Respectfully ask the planner board to

2:25:48protect the established single family

2:25:50neighborhood in that area. Um

2:25:55what there are no guarantees that this

2:25:59builder will be the final builder. Um,

2:26:03so we change the zone. It opens up more

2:26:09opportunity.

2:26:12Maybe this developer flips it. The next

2:26:15developer that comes in may have more

2:26:17density to add into that space. Um,

2:26:22it creates a more transient

2:26:24neighborhood. People coming going on a

2:26:26regular basis. So with that,

2:26:31you know, does something need to be done

2:26:33there? Sure. I don't want a shuttered

2:26:35building there. That's not helping the

2:26:36neighborhood either, but I feel more

2:26:38discussion needs to take place. And with

2:26:41that, I would ask you at this time to

2:26:44oppose the zone change. Thank you for

2:26:46your time. Thank you.

2:26:53>> Okay. Anyone else in the room?

2:26:56I see anybody in the room. Is there

2:26:57anyone online with their hand raised?

2:27:02>> This is Steve Kerry in the planning

2:27:03division. Apologies. This is Steve Cary

2:27:05in the planning division. We do have um

2:27:07someone going by Rob's iPhone and then

2:27:10someone named Jod as well. Um so Rob,

2:27:13I'm going to unmute you on our end. You

2:27:14just have to unmute on your end.

2:27:19>> Thank you. Yes. Sorry. This is councelor

2:27:21Robert Bada. I I was calling in to speak

2:27:24on item two. I didn't know if it would

2:27:25be too late to test to provide

2:27:27testimony. I was not able to get to the

2:27:29meeting earlier.

2:27:32>> Uh, hey councelor. Um, item two is uh

2:27:36Chquet road which was a leave to

2:27:38withdraw. Is that what you're uh hoping

2:27:41to talk about?

2:27:49>> Oh, counselor, you are muted again. Let

2:27:50me um see if you can unmute.

2:27:54Yes, that's correct.

2:27:56>> Um it it it is already uh it that's

2:28:00already passed.

2:28:01>> So they've withdrawn.

2:28:03>> Yeah, they they've withdrawn. We we

2:28:04granted them their leave to withdraw. Um

2:28:06>> Okay. Thank you. I was concerned about

2:28:08just the topography and the private

2:28:10roads there and um close proximity to

2:28:13the lake, but I appreciate that. Thank

2:28:15you very much.

2:28:16>> Yeah, no problem. Um

2:28:19who's next?

2:28:20>> Great. We also have uh Jody. Uh, I'm

2:28:23going to unmute you on our end. You just

2:28:25have to unmute on your end.

2:28:28>> Hello, my name is Jody Chapelain and I

2:28:30live 11 Barrett Evan Worester and I

2:28:33pretty much agree with what everyone

2:28:35else is saying between the traffic, the

2:28:37runoff. Um, I left a area that they're

2:28:42trying to build so I could become a

2:28:45homeowner of a single family. I really

2:28:48didn't want a neighborhood where I left.

2:28:50Um the other um items um the woods um

2:28:55they are home to many animals um deer,

2:29:00rabbits, wolves or I should say coyotes,

2:29:04>> foxes, turkeys and to take more of that

2:29:07density and then also those trees are

2:29:11giving us shade and and cooling. If you

2:29:13take them away and even put little

2:29:14trees, it's still going to take a while

2:29:16for them to grow. Um, so, um, I've also

2:29:19agree with the other items. So, I would

2:29:21really like to leave it in RS7,

2:29:25if that's how you say it, and because

2:29:27like councilman um said that, you know,

2:29:29then someone else could even come in and

2:29:31and do more. So, I would agree to also

2:29:34not uh pass it. Thank you.

2:29:36>> Okay. Thank you very much for your

2:29:38comments. Anyone else online?

2:29:43>> This is Steve Kerry in the planning

2:29:45division. I am not seeing

2:29:47uh anyone else with their hand raised.

2:29:52>> Okay. Uh let's move on to board

2:29:54discussion. Um Mr. McCormack, do you

2:29:56mind going first?

2:29:59>> Uh sure. Um I I well I guess I'll start

2:30:03off by saying I appreciate um all of the

2:30:05uh neighbors and butterers who came out

2:30:08to provide comment. Um, but I get the

2:30:10the way that I'm kind of looking at this

2:30:12is um, you know, I think as the chair

2:30:14tried to describe, we're looking at this

2:30:16strictly as a zoning map amendment. Um,

2:30:19I know that the applicant described a

2:30:21proposed project that they um, you know,

2:30:24might try to develop should this zoning

2:30:27change go through. Uh, but that's all

2:30:29very down the road and kind of

2:30:31conceptual at this point. Um, from

2:30:34strictly a zoning map uh perspective,

2:30:37uh, I know this board typically

2:30:39um doesn't tend to favor

2:30:43um redevelopment or uh resoning um of

2:30:48that is kind of inconsistent with the

2:30:50surrounding area. Um, it does appear

2:30:53that the majority of the area

2:30:55surrounding this parcel is RS uh 7. that

2:30:59also buffers the or abotss the uh

2:31:01assumption universities

2:31:04zoning to the south. Um

2:31:07but I I'm kind of weighing that against

2:31:09the uh existing conditions on this kind

2:31:11of unique large site um where there's a

2:31:14an existing building that uh certainly

2:31:17could be redeveloped. Um and obviously

2:31:20the the city's need for housing and its

2:31:23recent master plan or comprehensive plan

2:31:26um where it calls for uh gradual

2:31:28increases in uh zoning to allow for the

2:31:32for these kind kinds of redevelopment.

2:31:35Um, you know, I I'm looking at the the

2:31:38current zoning could probably fit um,

2:31:42you know, upwards of 80 or more uh,

2:31:45single family homes if it were

2:31:46subdivided today by right. Um, so I

2:31:49think what the applicant is

2:31:52contemplating is not um, you know,

2:31:56outrageous compared to what what could

2:31:59be done today. Um, you know, I again,

2:32:02we're not looking necessarily exactly

2:32:04what specifically the applicant is

2:32:05proposing because this is a zone change

2:32:07that affects the the property, not the

2:32:10the current owner of the property. Um,

2:32:13so,

2:32:15you know, I think in in line with the

2:32:17city's comprehensive plan and um

2:32:20allowing the existing building to have

2:32:22some uh better opportunities for reuse

2:32:25and some some better uh red development

2:32:28of that site. I would be open to um a

2:32:33favorable recommendation on the proposed

2:32:35zoning change, but I would certainly

2:32:37like to hear from uh the rest of the the

2:32:39rest of my board members.

2:32:42Thank you, Mr. McCormack. Uh, Mr. King.

2:32:48>> Yes. And as it relates to specifically

2:32:50the zoning map amendment on this one, I

2:32:54would be fine with supporting I do

2:32:55understand the residents concerns. Um, I

2:32:58would just say as we get towards a

2:33:00definitive site plan, please do come

2:33:01back because we will touch upon a lot of

2:33:04the concerns mentioned.

2:33:07>> Thank you, Mr. King, Mr. Gilera.

2:33:11Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So,

2:33:14yeah, Mr. McCormack pointed out

2:33:15something important.

2:33:18While maintaining the current zone would

2:33:22appear to be consistent with what's

2:33:24already in the neighborhood, and that's

2:33:27generally a policy that this board

2:33:29favors uh to maintain consistency and

2:33:32avoid uh any kind of spot zoning.

2:33:36um the effect would essentially be the

2:33:40same in terms of the number of people

2:33:43that might be living if the property as

2:33:45is developed to its uh most dense

2:33:49potential.

2:33:51So the question is, is there a better

2:33:53way forward?

2:33:55And so

2:34:00I'm open to seeing what might be

2:34:03proposed down the road with the

2:34:04understanding that

2:34:07there is a process that needs to be

2:34:09followed before anything is approved.

2:34:10This is simply um a recommendation about

2:34:14whether this property might be eligible

2:34:19to support some other uh type of

2:34:22development beyond what is currently

2:34:24allowed. But again, there is an entire

2:34:28rigorous process that must be adhered to

2:34:30before anything might be built on that

2:34:33site down the road. Uh regardless of who

2:34:36is the owner. So, at this point, I'm

2:34:39willing to see where this process goes.

2:34:42Um, following the recommendation from

2:34:45this board to the city council. And

2:34:48again, there is much opportunity for

2:34:52this proposal to even create a zone

2:34:56change. There's still much opportunity

2:34:58for a dialogue to transpire regarding

2:35:01that which is completely separate from

2:35:04what may actually be proposed down the

2:35:07road.

2:35:10Thank you.

2:35:12>> Thank you, Mr. Delera. Uh Mr. Tumi.

2:35:16>> Um again, the biggest part of this is

2:35:19what we're making is just a

2:35:20recommendation. the real decision

2:35:22process sits with the city council and

2:35:24that's where that decision is going to

2:35:26made no matter what we decide this

2:35:29evening. I can see arguments for both

2:35:32side but again even as RS7 as uh my

2:35:35colleague said you still could get a lot

2:35:37of houses in there and that's every

2:35:39every comment that was made tonight is

2:35:41still going to be in effect relative to

2:35:43that.

2:35:47>> Thank you Mr. Chum. Uh Mr. Mr. Rosende,

2:35:51>> um, as an alternate member, I don't get

2:35:54to vote on this, but to the extent that

2:35:56my my comments might be useful. I I

2:35:59regularly drive down Westchester and

2:36:01Chester, I understand um what the

2:36:03conditions are there and what the

2:36:04concerns are. Um, I would say also that

2:36:07as my my colleagues have stated, um,

2:36:10this is merely a recommendation to

2:36:13change a map. um before anything is

2:36:15constructed there, there will be

2:36:16multiple opportunities to um be heard on

2:36:20what gets built to oppose uh what may be

2:36:22proposed for the site. Um but that all

2:36:25comes down the road. This is merely um

2:36:31how this is labeled on a map.

2:36:35>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rosende.

2:36:39>> Mr. Chairman, if I may, there's one

2:36:40other thing I would like to mention.

2:36:42>> Sure. Go ahead. Um

2:36:45in my experience when projects of this

2:36:47nature are eventually realized and again

2:36:50looking down the road as to what may get

2:36:53built after the process is completely

2:36:56transpired. Um these are opportunities

2:37:00for

2:37:02underlying infrastructure problems to be

2:37:06potentially addressed. So, if we're

2:37:08looking at issues related to water

2:37:10runoff or uh traffic,

2:37:13uh

2:37:15while the development is underway, there

2:37:18is an opportunity for some of those

2:37:20underlying issues to be looked at and

2:37:22potentially improved. So, again, that's

2:37:25something that may happen way down the

2:37:27line.

2:37:29>> Thank you.

2:37:30>> Yeah, but at most expense, the tax pays,

2:37:33right?

2:37:36Uh let's let's keep the discussion um

2:37:40within the context of the meeting. But

2:37:43uh look, I um for for my comments, uh I

2:37:50certainly uh planning staff knows this

2:37:52and I'm um I I find zoning map petitions

2:37:57to be incredibly frustrating. Uh I've

2:37:59been on this board for uh eight years

2:38:01now and sat through a lot of uh changes.

2:38:06Um I have a background in housing

2:38:07development. Um specifically affordable

2:38:10housing and that's why I I got involved

2:38:13uh to volunteer my time in service of my

2:38:15community because I think uh well I

2:38:18thought that was a a worthwhile effort.

2:38:19But but these are these are a really

2:38:23bureaucratic

2:38:24um thing like zoning

2:38:27ultimately the changes we make now

2:38:29result in the city we're going to have

2:38:31in 20 30 40 or 50 years. Uh and um

2:38:37I think that deserves consideration and

2:38:40careful consideration.

2:38:42Uh

2:38:43where I get frustrated is really two

2:38:46places. Um, a zoning map amendment is a

2:38:49three-stage process typically, uh, where

2:38:52it goes to council first, comes to us,

2:38:54goes back to council, goes to a

2:38:55subcommittee, and then finally gets

2:38:56voted on by council. Uh, and I my my

2:39:01first frustration is uh, that to me

2:39:05feels disingenuous. It feels like it's a

2:39:07pressure. like this board exists, this

2:39:08meeting that you've all came tonight,

2:39:10invented your frustrations with all the

2:39:12different things that the city, you feel

2:39:14the city has failed your neighborhood on

2:39:16over the last um you know, however long

2:39:18you've lived there, some of you very

2:39:20very long. Uh, but you come here and you

2:39:23vent that frustration tonight and then

2:39:25you go to the subcommittee maybe and you

2:39:27vent that frustration then and you go to

2:39:29Josh's neighborhood meetings and you

2:39:30vent that frustration then and by the

2:39:31time it actually gets to the vote, the

2:39:33people who you elect uh will have had

2:39:35that effect dampened. And I'm not

2:39:38speaking of your counselor in the back

2:39:39of the room. I'm speaking of the council

2:39:41at large. Uh so in in that respect, I

2:39:45feel um we've all just wasted each

2:39:47other's time for the last, you know,

2:39:49hour. Um

2:39:51and and I don't like that. Uh so that's

2:39:54that's a source of frustration for me.

2:39:56Another source of frustration for me is

2:39:58that

2:39:59uh the city somebody one somebody who

2:40:03had lived there a long time and I'm

2:40:04sorry I forget which one of you said

2:40:06this talked about when you moved there

2:40:07there were five houses and now there's

2:40:09Yeah. Okay. Now there's many many more.

2:40:11Uh city is changing all the time. I

2:40:14understand that

2:40:15>> I and sorry I I I understand you want to

2:40:18talk but we sort of can't uh

2:40:22the the

2:40:27not doing something is also an option

2:40:30but it's an option that also has

2:40:32consequences. So I if we just leave this

2:40:35zoning the way that it is you may wind

2:40:37up with an 80unit single family home

2:40:39development. you may wind up nothing

2:40:41happens and that nobody ever fixes your

2:40:43road and the city continues to neglect

2:40:46uh the area. All of those are

2:40:48possibilities. Uh and it may be that we

2:40:52p, you know, ultimately council passes

2:40:54this zoning change, a different

2:40:55developer comes in and they build

2:40:56something that you hate uh after many

2:40:59many reviews um by this board and others

2:41:02uh before it eventually gets to a

2:41:04building permit. Unfortunately, we have

2:41:06to just try to make the best choice that

2:41:08we can uh in the moment right now. Um,

2:41:12and when it comes to zoning map

2:41:14amendments, I actually

2:41:16I I mentioned I'm a housing person. I

2:41:19support housing. We've got a lot of

2:41:20people coming to the city. Uh I think

2:41:22where the city is, you know, really

2:41:24struggling right now is how do they

2:41:26balance uh the demands of the people who

2:41:30have lived here and have invested their

2:41:32time and finance financial resources and

2:41:35making the city what it is against the

2:41:38people that we should be welcoming.

2:41:41Uh

2:41:43I don't

2:41:46really, you know, an RL7 is actually a

2:41:48really restrictive zoning district. I

2:41:49know Josh said uh RS7, RL7, they're both

2:41:53fairly restrictive. I don't know that

2:41:56you get um I I think you probably get a

2:41:59better project if someone's going to

2:42:00develop here in an RL7 zoning regime.

2:42:03And so for that reason, I would support

2:42:05this. Notwithstanding all the facts that

2:42:08like a lot of your concerns come down to

2:42:10the fact that you one prefer nobody

2:42:12develop there, which I don't really

2:42:14think is feasible. somebody will build

2:42:16something on a parcel this size in this

2:42:18city eventually. Uh and and two, a lot,

2:42:21you know, there's there's a lot of like

2:42:24um just stuff that you wish you got

2:42:27better services on from the city, which

2:42:29I'm empathetic to uh as somebody who

2:42:32lives here as well. So, uh I think

2:42:34that's a long way around to saying,

2:42:36"Hey, I get it. You're frustrated. I'm

2:42:37pretty frustrated, too. Uh I'm going to

2:42:41vote to support this

2:42:48And any other comments from board

2:42:50members?

2:42:57All right, I think we're ready for a

2:42:59motion.

2:43:02>> I would make a motion to favorably

2:43:04recommend the proposed zoning map

2:43:06amendment for 25 Westchester Street as

2:43:10outlined in the application. Second

2:43:14>> on the motion. Mr. McCormack,

2:43:17>> yes.

2:43:18>> Mr. King,

2:43:19>> yes.

2:43:20>> Mr. Dero,

2:43:21>> yes.

2:43:22>> Mr. Tumi,

2:43:23>> yes.

2:43:23>> I vote yes as well. Five to zero.

2:43:27>> Thank you, members.

2:43:29U Mr. Chair, if if I may ask, um I

2:43:33believe the next two matters are also

2:43:36>> related. Yes.

2:43:37>> projects. Yes. Um could could we take a

2:43:405m minute recess?

2:43:42>> Sure.

2:43:43>> Appreciate.

2:43:44>> Let's do that. Let's be back at uh 7

2:43:468:20.

2:50:36Board members King, McCormack, and

2:50:38Delero, we're just looking to confirm

2:50:40you're back online with us.

2:50:42>> This is board member King. I'm back.

2:50:45>> Board member McCormack, I'm also back.

2:50:48>> Board member Dela is here, too.

2:50:50>> Great. Thank you. We should be starting

2:50:51shortly.

2:50:53>> All right, folks. I think we're all uh

2:50:55back. So, welcome back. We're going to

2:50:58end the recess uh and call the next

2:51:00item,

2:51:02which is

2:51:06item number 10, 95 Vernon Street, a

2:51:08public hearing for a zoning map

2:51:10amendment.

2:51:14>> Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, before I begin, um

2:51:17would the would the board be willing to

2:51:19entertain flipping the order between 10

2:51:22and 11?

2:51:23>> Is anybody here to speak on either of

2:51:25these? Are you guys Which one are you?

2:51:27Would you like 10? Um

2:51:31>> 11.

2:51:34>> Okay. Uh I I I think because we've got

2:51:37somebody waiting, let's let's not do

2:51:39that. Um let's go in order.

2:51:41>> We have two people waiting.

2:51:42>> We we do. Uh

2:51:44>> okay. I tend not to switch it if if

2:51:47somebody's here for

2:51:48>> Okay, understood.

2:51:50So, Mr. Chair, we're talking about 95

2:51:53Vernon. Is that correct? Yes.

2:51:56>> Okay. Uh I'm I'm again for the record,

2:51:59Joshua Lee Smith, attorney with Bage and

2:52:01Dwey. Um I'm going to be really brief on

2:52:03this.

2:52:04>> This we are seeking a a zoning map

2:52:07amendment with respect to this parcel.

2:52:10Uh this parcel is uh about 1.6 acres in

2:52:14size. Um it is uh currently within the

2:52:18business office district BO2.0.

2:52:21uh and we are looking to simply add and

2:52:25overlay the A-Rod on top of this um

2:52:28parcel in its entirety and as not to

2:52:33fast forward too much but the next

2:52:35petition uh proposes also and as part of

2:52:38what is being requested and A-Rod as

2:52:40well. Um so that can't be looked at

2:52:44completely with with blinders because we

2:52:46are looking to have some contiguity uh

2:52:49with respect to both requests. Um to

2:52:52give a little bit more context uh the

2:52:55property is located as I said within a

2:52:58BO2.0.

2:53:00um this the by extending the A-Rod uh

2:53:04you would be also extending it from

2:53:07across the street across Winthrup Street

2:53:09which is uh the Worcester Academy site

2:53:12which is also currently within an A-Rod.

2:53:15So, the A-Rod would be an extension uh

2:53:17both to 128 Providence Street, which is

2:53:20the next item on the agenda, and then uh

2:53:23to 95 Vernon Street. U the A-Rod, as I

2:53:27mentioned earlier on the last petition,

2:53:30uh is a um set of provisions within the

2:53:33zoning ordinance that allows for

2:53:35flexibility uh adaptive reuse uh with

2:53:38respect to existing buildings. Um it

2:53:42encourages uh um all many more

2:53:46flexibility and variety of different

2:53:48types of uses. Uh while at the same time

2:53:51um because it's an overlay, it it still

2:53:53honors the underlying district. We're

2:53:56not looking to amend um the underlying

2:53:58district. Uh the current building that's

2:54:00there now is a medical office use. Uh my

2:54:04client is at at this time not planning

2:54:07on um con converting that. uh but they

2:54:10do they are looking to have flexibility

2:54:13and to provide additional contiguity

2:54:15with respect to the A-Rod again which is

2:54:17being proposed with the adjoining

2:54:19property at 128 Providence Street. Um so

2:54:22with that I will I'm happy to answer any

2:54:24questions. Thank you Mr. Chair.

2:54:27>> Okay. Thank you. Uh staff comment on

2:54:29this

2:54:30>> through the chair. This is Olivia Hull

2:54:32in the planning division. So, the

2:54:35petitioner st as stated intends to

2:54:38establish the adaptive reuse overlay

2:54:40district or the A-Rod at the property at

2:54:4395 Vernon Street. Uh the A-Rod was

2:54:46created to foster redevelopment of

2:54:48vacant or underized underutilized

2:54:50buildings with the intention of um

2:54:53allowing mixed use type developments um

2:54:56and providing dimensional flexibility

2:54:58and use flexibility. So, in this case,

2:55:02um, adopting the A-Rod is going to

2:55:04enable opportunities for new residential

2:55:06uses, specifically a multifamily

2:55:10high-rise dwelling that's not otherwise

2:55:12allowed in the underlying BO2 zone. This

2:55:15use would only be allowed by granting of

2:55:16a special permit from the planning

2:55:18board. Um, as well as introducing

2:55:21flexibility to other dimensional

2:55:23controls like setback, frontage, lot

2:55:25area, etc., parking minimums, and

2:55:28landscaping. um and design standards for

2:55:32parking and loading.

2:55:35Um, there are also a handful of business

2:55:39and general uses that would be allowed

2:55:42by special permit that are not otherwise

2:55:45allowed in the BO2 zone, including food

2:55:47service excluding um consumption or sale

2:55:50of alcoholic beverages, indoor

2:55:53recreation such as a gym, um retail

2:55:56sales, and um

2:56:00I'm sorry, just retail sales here. um

2:56:03for some zoning history at this

2:56:05property. Uh the older zoning maps dated

2:56:091971 indicate the property was

2:56:11previously re uh zoned RG5

2:56:15sometime between 1987 and 1991. The area

2:56:20uh around this property was reszoned

2:56:23from RG5 to INH which is an

2:56:27institutional medical zone. Uh

2:56:30subsequently between 1991 and 2007, the

2:56:33property was reszoned to its current BO2

2:56:36designation. Um likely a result of the

2:56:40transition of the Saint Vincent

2:56:42Hospital, uh which existed here, um but

2:56:44then was relocated to the downtown area.

2:56:48Uh between 2002 and 2007, the A-Rod was

2:56:52established to the northwest of the

2:56:54subject property. um

2:56:57essentially helping facilitate

2:56:59redevelopment of the former hospital

2:57:01property.

2:57:03The surrounding neighborhood is

2:57:04characterized by three family and multif

2:57:07family dwellings uh and some lower d

2:57:10lower density residential uses. There's

2:57:13also some mixed use uses here um and

2:57:16educational uses such as Worcester

2:57:19Academy and Girls Inc. Uh there's a few

2:57:22commercial uses also interspersed to the

2:57:25north and west of the property um

2:57:27comprising of medical offices

2:57:30uh and some neighborhood retailers like

2:57:33convenience stores and food um like fast

2:57:37food shops.

2:57:39Um,

2:57:41as far as land use history goes, the

2:57:46property appears to have remained

2:57:48undeveloped prior to 1870. And then

2:57:51between 1886 and 1910, the property was

2:57:54developed with uh the affforementioned

2:57:57Saint Vincent Hospital prior to it prior

2:58:00to its relocation.

2:58:02In 1980, the ZBA approved a special

2:58:06permit in variance

2:58:08uh for the property at 95 Vernon Street

2:58:11to allow construction of the existing

2:58:13three-story medical office building. Um,

2:58:18and

2:58:20that is actually all I have for comment

2:58:22on this, but happy to answer any

2:58:23questions.

2:58:26>> All right. Thank you, Olivia. Uh,

2:58:29I guess moving on to the member of the

2:58:31public. Um, come on up.

2:58:43Hello. Good evening. Good evening, Mr.

2:58:45Chair, members of the planning board. My

2:58:47name is Fenson Bradley, uh, principal

2:58:50D21 Architects, Adboroough, Mass. I'm

2:58:54here representing the board and unit

2:58:56owners of 10 Winthub Street uh also

2:58:59vertigo Vernon Medical Center 1 which is

2:59:02the property just north of the site. Um

2:59:07we have submitted written comments

2:59:09regarding this application. I won't

2:59:10repeat the entire application. Um I will

2:59:13just highlight a few items that kind of

2:59:15summarize our concerns. Uh what's a

2:59:17little deceiving on this map is that you

2:59:19actually don't see the buildings and if

2:59:22you can see uh 10 Winthrip and 95 Vernon

2:59:25or really close to one another. Um and

2:59:29first just note that we understand again

2:59:31as noted earlier the zone this is just

2:59:34for the zoning amendment and to

2:59:36establish the adaptive reuse overlay

2:59:38district. Um but our concern is that uh

2:59:42unlike the the prior application and the

2:59:44one after both of those kind of zone

2:59:47amendments had some sort of definitive

2:59:49plan or direction that they were going

2:59:51and I believe that information was kind

2:59:53of of not uh not supplied here. Um the

2:59:57board is objecting to uh

3:00:03objecting to this petition at the time.

3:00:07And just want to note that uh it really

3:00:09matters because 95 Vernon and 10

3:00:11Winthrop have historically

3:00:14uh not functioned as completely separate

3:00:17buildings. If you can see, it's maybe 30

3:00:19feet right between the two buildings.

3:00:21And there's actually documentation

3:00:23referred um review by the firm

3:00:25identifies uh longstanding relationships

3:00:28between parking access

3:00:31existing easements, electrical

3:00:33infrastructure, domestic hot water, fire

3:00:36suppression system, telecommunications

3:00:38and equipment and other infrastructure.

3:00:41is a historical agreement that

3:00:42recognizes that the existing park

3:00:44easement is to remain in remain in

3:00:46effect. It also documents contemplation

3:00:50of separation of water, fire

3:00:52suppression, electrical,

3:00:53telecommunications.

3:00:55Um the board is representing

3:00:58uh board's concern is straightforward.

3:01:00Before the zoning is changed in the

3:01:03matter intending to facilitate future

3:01:05development of 95 Verdon, we believe

3:01:07this existing relationship between the

3:01:09two properties should be identified and

3:01:12the intended redevelopment should be

3:01:14disclosed officially for impacts to be

3:01:16evaluated. For example, what use was

3:01:19contemplated, residential, senior

3:01:21housing considered the parking demands,

3:01:24parking circulation, fence and access

3:01:26change. Uh what utilities serving 95

3:01:29Vernon still originate in 10 win or vice

3:01:32versa? What price separation work has

3:01:35been completed if any and what remains

3:01:37outstanding? Um these are existing

3:01:41planning issues not just hypothetical

3:01:43concerns. Um, we saw we also and I item

3:01:49number 11, we did kind of review the 128

3:01:51Providence as well and understand that

3:01:53this is uh being attached with that and

3:01:55again there they identify 98 units or

3:01:58some sort of development. We just think

3:02:00it's just going to be too broad to kind

3:02:02of have this as adaptive reuse overlay

3:02:05district and these two buildings are

3:02:06still connected. And I commend the last

3:02:08application for also seemed like they

3:02:11had some sort of public outreach. Also

3:02:13note that I'm also a property owner at

3:02:1510 Winthrup as well. I own a few few

3:02:17units with my wife in that who does this

3:02:19holistic medicine. Um so it is a primary

3:02:22concern and we didn't receive anything

3:02:24about public outreach. We didn't receive

3:02:26anything. Um the board hasn't or I

3:02:29didn't receive anything at least

3:02:31understanding development we could have

3:02:33maybe supported or could have voiced

3:02:35some sort of these concerns.

3:02:37Uh accordingly, we disrespectfully

3:02:40request that the pay board um either

3:02:43continue this matter till 95 veron can

3:02:46provide um or defer to action till they

3:02:49could provide additional supplemental

3:02:51information

3:02:52uh with the intended redevelopment. Uh

3:02:55what do they want to do with the

3:02:56adaptive reuse overlay district? We had

3:02:59did hear that they not plan to change

3:03:00the use but have the flexibility for all

3:03:03the owners and developers in the future.

3:03:05Nothing just a changing one I mean

3:03:07essentially looking at kind of a shared

3:03:09site with two buildings on that's being

3:03:11cut in half and now reszone part of the

3:03:13half what happens to the other half and

3:03:16just to note it's still a medical office

3:03:18building ten with them still a medical

3:03:19office building with active doctors and

3:03:22medical professionals in there.

3:03:25Um again we're not asking the planning

3:03:28board to uh

3:03:31to make any uh decisions on any private

3:03:34easements or condominium rights but just

3:03:36again just to kind of know the history

3:03:3795 verdant believe they were both

3:03:39condominiums process of being deondoed

3:03:42and redeveloped and nothing has been

3:03:44done to the kind of adjoining property.

3:03:47Um

3:03:48and for this reason we uh respectfully

3:03:52uh request either a continuence or um

3:03:55that we opposed to this petition.

3:03:58>> Okay. Thank you for your comments.

3:04:00>> Okay.

3:04:00>> Um I'd give the applicant just an

3:04:02opportunity to address any of those. Uh

3:04:04and

3:04:06>> I believe other members of the board may

3:04:08may be online as well.

3:04:09>> Oh, yep. And we'll get to them. Um Josh,

3:04:13you want to go first?

3:04:15Um I I can speak now or if there are

3:04:17other folks, Mr. Chair, who want to

3:04:20>> Anybody with their hand raised?

3:04:21>> No one with their hand raised online

3:04:23right now.

3:04:24>> Okay.

3:04:24>> Oh, wait. Apologies. I do see someone I

3:04:26do see two people now with their hand

3:04:27raised. Um so I'm going to call on um

3:04:30Koni. I'm going to unmute on our end.

3:04:32You just have to unmute on your end.

3:04:39>> Hi. Can everybody hear me?

3:04:40>> We can.

3:04:42>> Okay. Thank you. Uh I appreciate your

3:04:44time. Uh and thank you Fenton for uh

3:04:46that concise review. I'm also a uh unit

3:04:49owner at 10 Winthre Street and I'm uh

3:04:51past presidents of the board and uh now

3:04:54clerk and I did not want to take too

3:04:58much time but did want to share a little

3:05:01bit of uh history with the two buildings

3:05:03that are the 95 Vernon that's right

3:05:06behind us right now. uh there the major

3:05:09concern that we're having is that there

3:05:12are some uh still shared electrical

3:05:15units. There's still some uh equipment

3:05:18that is currently uh in our building

3:05:21that is being shared between the two

3:05:23buildings and there hasn't really been

3:05:25any kind of formal plan as to how that

3:05:29separation or that electrical separation

3:05:31possibly other things as Fenton was

3:05:33outlining uh are going to take place.

3:05:36So, because we really only received this

3:05:38information over the past week and a

3:05:40half to two weeks saying that they are

3:05:42planning to kind of um redevelop in a

3:05:44different way than originally intended,

3:05:47we really just probably need a little

3:05:49bit more time to be able to uh make sure

3:05:53that our our interests are protected and

3:05:58also to make sure that if it does become

3:06:00an issue where there's, you know, kind

3:06:02of minimum, excuse me, where it becomes

3:06:04residential housing or something else

3:06:06besides uh medical dental offices or you

3:06:10know medical offices in our area. There

3:06:13are only a certain number of parking

3:06:15spaces that we have and uh we also do

3:06:19have again shared resources when it

3:06:21comes to um all of our you know

3:06:23separation. So we want to make sure that

3:06:25those things are taken care of before uh

3:06:28moving forward. So really at this point

3:06:31we're just uh asking for some some more

3:06:33time. So, thank you for that.

3:06:36>> Thank you. Um, there there was two.

3:06:38>> There's actually a third now, but um I

3:06:41will now say say um I see Sam. Uh Sam,

3:06:43I'm going to unmute you on our end. You

3:06:45just have to unmute on your end.

3:06:48>> Good evening. Uh my name is Sam Aluri.

3:06:50I'm an orthodontist.

3:06:52Um I have u I own actually um one-third

3:06:58of the units at 10 Winro Street.

3:07:02Um I have multiple um medical offices,

3:07:06dental offices there.

3:07:08We are concerned about

3:07:11this zoning change. So I just wanted to

3:07:14be on the record. I submitted an email.

3:07:17Uh I hope uh that the planning board um

3:07:19got a chance to review that. Um although

3:07:23we are in supportive of the um basically

3:07:27uh the housing uh crisis in Worcester

3:07:31and whatever you know um

3:07:34uh help we can do we're happy to do it

3:07:37and that's why we have these medical

3:07:38offices to support the city but if

3:07:41there's so there will be some

3:07:42restrictions on

3:07:45our businesses and the use of our

3:07:46businesses then we can't function

3:07:49properly.

3:07:50Uh recently I was elected president of

3:07:52the board. So I support what Mr. Bradley

3:07:55uh said and what Dr. Kapadia said. I

3:07:58myself I'm an orthodontist and I uh

3:08:00treat patients. So um the the the

3:08:03parking situation is already um tight.

3:08:07Thank you.

3:08:08>> Okay. Thank you for your comments. Um

3:08:11somebody else.

3:08:13>> Yes, I see Cindy. Uh Cindy, I'm unmuting

3:08:16on our end. You have to just unmute on

3:08:17your end.

3:08:19Thank you and good evening and um I

3:08:21appreciate everything that's been said

3:08:23so far and I just want to reiterate that

3:08:26um as a board member, I am a board

3:08:28member. I'm the treasurer as well as a

3:08:30unit owner with um Mr. Bradley and our

3:08:35biggest concern is the separation. Um,

3:08:38so we want to make sure that that's on

3:08:40record and we're also concerned about

3:08:43the parking as well as um how the

3:08:46property will be taken place um will be

3:08:49taken care of cuz currently we do have

3:08:51some concerns about how the property is

3:08:53taken care of especially the trash. So,

3:08:57with just a short space between us and

3:09:0095, there are a few things that we need

3:09:02to iron out before um any approvals of

3:09:08reuse goes forward. Um I as with Sam and

3:09:12um everyone else that spoke before me,

3:09:14we're all in favor of the housing.

3:09:16That's not our issue. So, we're not here

3:09:18to block housing, additional housing in

3:09:20any capacity is necessary for the city,

3:09:23especially with the location. So, we get

3:09:25that. What we are concerned about is

3:09:27that we're not stuck carrying the

3:09:31expenses of any um reuse that takes

3:09:35place. So, we would love for the

3:09:36developer and the lawyer to actually

3:09:38have a conversation with us rather than

3:09:41we just see something in the mail coming

3:09:43from the city a week and a half before

3:09:47um this hair hearing. So, that is all I

3:09:50have to say. Hopefully that opens up the

3:09:53dialogue um for us to communicate a

3:09:56little better with 95 or 95 can

3:09:59communicate a little better with us. Um

3:10:01with that I have nothing else to say but

3:10:03thank you all and um we are in favor of

3:10:06moving forward and supporting you all

3:10:08with this change especially the senior

3:10:11center.

3:10:13>> Okay. Thank you. Uh anyone else online

3:10:16Mr. Kerry?

3:10:18>> No one else with their hand raised.

3:10:20Okay, go ahead, Josh.

3:10:22>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair.

3:10:25So, first of all, I I do want to

3:10:27underscore I know that the members

3:10:30realize this, um, but to the public and

3:10:32to to the neighbors here, especially the

3:10:35ones that just spoke, I want to

3:10:36underscore the fact that these are these

3:10:38are two completely separate petitions.

3:10:40the the petition that is uh item number

3:10:4211 that uh the board is going to hear

3:10:45next uh with respect to 128 Providence

3:10:47Street is a completely separate and

3:10:49apart petition. Um I mentioned that just

3:10:51because someone had mentioned that these

3:10:53are somehow connected and they're not.

3:10:55Um

3:10:57a lot of the comments that we just heard

3:10:59uh are in my view private party related

3:11:04matters um private property rights

3:11:06related issues. Uh I have some knowledge

3:11:10with respect to ongoing um

3:11:14communications between the two property

3:11:15owners relating to separate things like

3:11:19separation of utilities. Uh I'm I'm not

3:11:22aware of uh parking or uh there were

3:11:25some other utility related matters uh

3:11:28expenses those types of things. Uh I

3:11:30have no knowledge of that. Um but uh I

3:11:34do know that there there's an ongoing

3:11:36dialogue uh between the two property

3:11:38owners with respect to those matters. Uh

3:11:41those issues have nothing to do

3:11:42whatsoever respectfully um in my opinion

3:11:46uh with respect to a request a petition

3:11:49for a a zone map change. Uh and I will

3:11:53say that the zone map change that we're

3:11:55requesting is is not a change at all

3:11:59whatsoever with respect to the

3:12:00underlying zone. So again the the

3:12:03current zone is a BO 2.0 that will the

3:12:07petition has nothing to do with changing

3:12:09the BO2.0.

3:12:11One of the uh one of the neighbors had

3:12:14mentioned something to the effect of uh

3:12:16somehow that this if this change were to

3:12:19be approved that it would somehow

3:12:20restrict the use on the on the adjoining

3:12:24property somehow. Um that is that is not

3:12:27the case whatsoever. The BO2.0 would

3:12:30still continue to exist. Um this is

3:12:32merely an overlay district. It would be

3:12:35superimposed on top of the existing

3:12:37BO2.0. And so all of those uses that are

3:12:40allowed in that underlying BO 2.0 zone

3:12:44would would still continue to be

3:12:46allowed. The A-Rod, however, would just

3:12:48allow for sort of look at it as a

3:12:51supplemental um list of additional

3:12:54potential uses that also could be

3:12:57explored uh when and if my client uh or

3:13:02future owner wanted to explore those uh

3:13:04future uses, including potentially

3:13:07residential. Um, but there are also some

3:13:09other business related uses uh that that

3:13:13also could be explored. The other big

3:13:15thing I want to underscore too and this

3:13:16is sort of similar to the last petition

3:13:19is that by adding the A-Rod

3:13:23and let's take for example mult the

3:13:26multifamily use which right now uh a

3:13:29high-rise multif family use is not

3:13:30allowed within the BO 2.0. Um if this

3:13:34were to be approved

3:13:37and again as the chair has mentioned on

3:13:39the previous petition this is only a

3:13:41recommendation um vote that would be

3:13:43happening here tonight uh either up or

3:13:46down the if this were to be approved

3:13:49that particular use would still require

3:13:51a special permit. So, if this is if this

3:13:54A-Rod does ultimately get approved, um

3:13:57recommended favorably by the the by the

3:13:59planning board, again by the economic

3:14:00development committee, and then finally,

3:14:03um voted for approval by the city

3:14:05council, that uh high-rise multif family

3:14:08use would still require a special

3:14:11permit. It would not allow my client to

3:14:12just simply go pull a building permit

3:14:14and start building or converting. Um but

3:14:18again I said as I said at the outset my

3:14:20client right now I can tell you has no

3:14:22intention of of converting this to a

3:14:25residential use. Uh he saw the

3:14:28opportunity uh as the A-Rod potentially

3:14:32is going to be extended to the

3:14:33neighboring property at 128 Pro Street

3:14:36to also again for contiguity extend for

3:14:40flexibility. But my client the the as

3:14:43the neighbors know uh that my client's

3:14:47building currently is tenanted with

3:14:49medical office tenants um and he is

3:14:53continuing to u try to

3:14:56um um fill that building uh with uh with

3:15:00the same types of medical office users.

3:15:02He has no intention right now to to

3:15:04convert anything. But I did want to

3:15:06underscore that this is it would not be

3:15:07a by right use if this does if this got

3:15:10approved. Um the I I did receive the

3:15:13letter um recently from there were two

3:15:16letters that were sent to me u one from

3:15:19um uh Dr. uh Alori and then the other

3:15:23one from um from the architect

3:15:27um who just spoke a moment ago. Uh

3:15:30apologize don't have the name in front

3:15:32of me right now but um the gentleman to

3:15:35my left

3:15:37a a lot the vast majority of what's set

3:15:39forth in this letter really uh a lot of

3:15:42it wouldn't wouldn't even come up if we

3:15:45were applying for site plan review. Uh

3:15:47again, a lot of the issues here that

3:15:48have that have been discussed are are uh

3:15:52private party private property rights

3:15:54issues between two um property owners

3:15:57and uh I acknowledge that they there

3:16:00there have been and are still ongoing

3:16:02discussions with respect to things like

3:16:05separation of utilities. Those

3:16:06discussions are ongoing. I don't really

3:16:08see that those are have any place in a

3:16:11in a zone map change petition. um nor if

3:16:16this did ever get to site plan review.

3:16:18But again, my client doesn't even have a

3:16:20plan with respect or even a conceptual

3:16:21with respect to changing this to any

3:16:23type of residential use.

3:16:26>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

3:16:27>> Okay. Thank you for your comments. Uh

3:16:29just to the the folks in the other

3:16:30building um because I I feel like

3:16:33sometimes when when we talk about this

3:16:35because we deal with these things often

3:16:38uh we sort of lose sight of the fact

3:16:40that you've probably never heard of a

3:16:41zoning map amendment or certainly never

3:16:43come to a planning board hearing. So uh

3:16:46I just want to define a couple things

3:16:47for you that might be helpful here. One

3:16:49is uh

3:16:52Josh, Attorney Smith was just

3:16:54referencing uh something called an

3:16:56A-Rod, which is short for an adaptive

3:16:59reuse overlay district. Uh zoning is

3:17:01basically a set of rules. We define

3:17:04districts in the city. Uh and then in

3:17:06each one of those districts, there's a

3:17:08bunch of rules about the types of things

3:17:09you can build there, how far apart they

3:17:10need to be, etc. Uh a an overlay

3:17:14district just goes on top of the

3:17:16underlying zoning. uh when you're trying

3:17:18to promote something in particular. So

3:17:20in this case, adaptive reuse, uh it

3:17:23would give um this is often implied in

3:17:25like a manufacturing building setting.

3:17:27Obviously, we don't have as many uh as

3:17:29much manufacturing in the city as we

3:17:31used to. And so we have these old

3:17:33buildings, we want to adapt them, reuse

3:17:36them. Uh we apply the A-OD because it

3:17:38gives us a little bit more flexibility

3:17:40uh in doing that. And that is really

3:17:42what's going on on the parcel next door.

3:17:45Um what the city often does when someone

3:17:47reaches out for a uh zoning map

3:17:50amendment is they they request that um

3:17:52that person also speak to their

3:17:54neighbors and say, "Hey, do you want to

3:17:55join our petition?" Because usually if

3:17:57it makes sense in one place uh to change

3:18:00the zoning, sometimes it makes sense in

3:18:01the surrounding parcels. And I think

3:18:03that's what happened here. It sounds

3:18:05like this property owner uh just said,

3:18:07"You know what? It gives me a little bit

3:18:09more flexibility should this ever come

3:18:10up in the future. Uh I'd like to do

3:18:13that." Uh, and that's the petition we

3:18:16have before us. Uh, the 128 parcel, um,

3:18:21which is the the the larger, uh,

3:18:24building, is also changing some of the

3:18:26underlying zoning, so it's a little bit

3:18:27more complicated, but but, uh, your

3:18:29neighbor, uh, just wanted to open up

3:18:32some options. Um, Attorney Smith is also

3:18:35correct. uh many years down the road

3:18:38were this ever to come to the place

3:18:40where somebody was going to do something

3:18:41different, there's going to be a lot of

3:18:43engineers and architects and other

3:18:44professionals involved who are going to

3:18:46have to work out how to separate the

3:18:47utilities. No one's going to make you,

3:18:49you know, pay the cost of their

3:18:52redevelopment. The that's just not how

3:18:55that's going to eventually work. Um were

3:18:58it ever to come to that, maybe you

3:19:00separate your utilities uh at at some

3:19:02other point. Interestingly enough, I've

3:19:05been involved in a couple projects

3:19:06involving medical office buildings in

3:19:08the city and it seems like a popular

3:19:10thing from this vintage that we had

3:19:12shared utilities uh for these campus

3:19:15projects. So, um actually not that

3:19:17uncommon. I don't know how useful that

3:19:18little nugget is for you, but I think

3:19:20it's interesting. Um so, hopefully that

3:19:23helps. Uh I think we're ready for for

3:19:26board comment unless there's anyone else

3:19:29from the public. Did do you have any

3:19:30follow-up questions?

3:19:33Yeah. Good. All right. Uh Mr. McCormack,

3:19:38>> thank you. Um yeah, Mr. Chair, I think

3:19:40you kind of summarized my thinking on a

3:19:42lot of that uh very well. Um yeah, I I

3:19:47think you know, we're looking at this

3:19:49strictly through a zoning map uh

3:19:51amendment lens. And um in terms of what

3:19:54the property is requesting um to be

3:19:56added to the A-Rod, I I think that's um

3:20:00reasonable and uh appropriate for for

3:20:04this for its location in the city for

3:20:06the parcel itself um and for the the

3:20:10additional uses and flexibility it

3:20:12provides. Um certainly appreciate the uh

3:20:15some of the concerns that we heard from

3:20:17the uh abuing property. Um but again as

3:20:20you mentioned I think a lot of those

3:20:21were uh private property matters that

3:20:23would definitely get sorted out you know

3:20:26if and when any actual development

3:20:28occurs uh much farther down the road. So

3:20:32um I don't want to uh belabor it because

3:20:33I think you you covered everything

3:20:35pretty well but I would uh support this

3:20:37this amendment. Thank you.

3:20:39>> Thank you Mr. McCormack. Mr. King.

3:20:42>> Happy to support this one in general. Um

3:20:45it seems to make sense. Thank you.

3:20:47>> Thank you Mr. Delera.

3:20:51Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So,

3:20:54I would echo some of the councelor's

3:20:56comments about the effect that this

3:20:58potential zone change would have.

3:21:01Um, it wouldn't allow anything to happen

3:21:04by right to this property. And so, any

3:21:07potential change in use down the road

3:21:09would require a special permit. Um,

3:21:13while I have some concerns about what

3:21:16seems to be bit of an ongoing set of

3:21:19communications issues between the two

3:21:20adjacent property owners about things

3:21:22like the shared utilities and whatnot.

3:21:24Uh, but that's not really something

3:21:27that I think is in the board's purview

3:21:28for considering whether or not to

3:21:29recommend this change.

3:21:32So, I would also say that the the zone

3:21:34change adding the A-ROD would neither

3:21:36prevent nor facilitate those private

3:21:39deliberations between the two property

3:21:40owners from taking place. So, I hope

3:21:43that they resolve it. Whether or not

3:21:45this change eventually goes through and

3:21:48uh to that end, I would support this

3:21:50change being recommended by the board.

3:21:53Thank you.

3:21:56>> Thank you. Um Mr. Tumi,

3:21:59>> thank you. Um, my limited time on the

3:22:02board and learning about zoning and spot

3:22:04zoning,

3:22:06this kind of kind almost seems like a

3:22:08spot zoning. Shouldn't the city kind of

3:22:10have looked at this as the entire block

3:22:12and said, "Well, if we're going to make

3:22:14the A-Rod district the entire thing,

3:22:16also take 10 Winthrup Street and make

3:22:18that A-Rod." So this entire block that

3:22:21we have becomes the same zoning district

3:22:24instead of potentially having two or

3:22:26three different zoning differences

3:22:27within this small area. I haven't looked

3:22:31totally ahead to what 128 Providence is

3:22:34and what the differences that they might

3:22:35be looking for, but it just in my mind

3:22:38makes sense. Let's take the entire

3:22:39region of the of that block and make it

3:22:44all the same thing.

3:22:46I mean, I don't disagree with you, but I

3:22:48think the the technicalities of this

3:22:50often drive the bus. So, the I here's

3:22:54what I know without um you know,

3:22:56preempting the next. So, 128 is a

3:22:59city-owned parcel and they want to

3:23:01enable it for housing, which makes a lot

3:23:03of sense. Uh the uh it is all the former

3:23:08St. Vincent's Hospital campus before

3:23:10they moved downtown. Uh, and so the the

3:23:13idea is they have some very specific

3:23:16requirements that they need uh to

3:23:18accomplish in the underlying zoning. I

3:23:20think probably when they spoke to this

3:23:22property owner about it, uh, they didn't

3:23:25want to change, you know, because they

3:23:27were using it for medical office use, it

3:23:29might not have been allowed and whatever

3:23:30the new zone is, uh, that we're going to

3:23:32look at for 128. So sometimes even

3:23:36though I like where your head's at, the

3:23:39reality is we got to try to make it

3:23:41work.

3:23:42>> Again, I don't know if anyone ever

3:23:43talked to Ted Worth and said, "Hey,

3:23:46we're going to look for this A-Rod. It

3:23:47might be something makes sense for you

3:23:48guys to do this as well." And and

3:23:51instead of having, you know, what

3:23:54becomes two different prop, you know,

3:23:55they look at it unified amongst

3:23:57themselves to say, "Yeah, I guess this

3:23:59could be beneficial to us to have it

3:24:00this way." or maybe they say it's not

3:24:02and we want to keep it the same, but it

3:24:05seems like they weren't consulted about,

3:24:07gee, maybe you guys should do this and

3:24:09we do it as a unified thing as opposed

3:24:11to two separate things.

3:24:14But again, I again I'm willing to

3:24:16support this and again my question is

3:24:20any reason you can't include one 10

3:24:22width at the same time and and just make

3:24:25that continuous to the whole thing or

3:24:28whatever the city is looking for to be

3:24:30able to make that continuous to the

3:24:32whole block.

3:24:33>> Uh if if this whoever sponsored this

3:24:36petition comes back and amends it or

3:24:38gets amended at a later date. I don't

3:24:40I'm I don't know the legalities of all

3:24:42the bureaucracy of this, but uh I'm sure

3:24:44they could. Um and I don't know why they

3:24:47didn't, but

3:24:50that's all I have. Thank you.

3:24:52>> Okay, Mr. Rosende.

3:24:54>> No comment. Thank you.

3:24:56>> Okay, I think we're ready for a motion.

3:25:00>> Okay. I would make a motion to favorably

3:25:03recommend the proposed zoning map

3:25:05amendment for 95 Vernon Street as

3:25:08outlined in the proposed petition.

3:25:11>> Second.

3:25:13>> On the motion, Mr. McCormack.

3:25:15>> Yes.

3:25:16>> Mr. King.

3:25:17>> Yes.

3:25:18>> Mr. Delera.

3:25:20>> As a Red Sox fan, is this the only kind

3:25:22of air rod I would say support? Yes.

3:25:26>> Mr. Tumi?

3:25:27>> Yes.

3:25:28>> I vote yes as well. That motion passes 5

3:25:30to zero. Uh, moving on to the

3:25:33aforementioned number 11 128 Providence

3:25:36Street, a public hearing for a zoning

3:25:37map amendment.

3:25:39>> Through the chair, this is Michelle

3:25:40Smith in the city's planning division.

3:25:42Just to present this on behalf of the

3:25:44applicant, which in this case is the

3:25:45city. So the property is here as you see

3:25:49on the screen, the Worester Senior

3:25:50Center property, also known as 128

3:25:53Providence Street, and the city holds

3:25:55the custodianship of the property

3:25:57through the city manager's office. So

3:25:59our office, the executive office of

3:26:01economic development, has submitted

3:26:02through the city manager request to

3:26:04reszone the property in support of the

3:26:08hopeful adaptive reuse of the portion of

3:26:11the long vacant uh piece of the

3:26:13property, which is the former St. V

3:26:16Vincent's Hospital Nurses Building,

3:26:18which as you know if you've been to the

3:26:20senior center is attached to the portion

3:26:22that's occupied and actively used as the

3:26:24senior center. So the the department

3:26:26actually put out an RFP for responses

3:26:29for redevelopment of this with the

3:26:31preference specifically for housing for

3:26:33seniors. Um and the most advantageous

3:26:36proposer uh was selected which is Roger

3:26:39Communities um who I know has

3:26:41representation here this evening as well

3:26:43and may wish to speak specifically to

3:26:46the their intentions but they're a

3:26:47nonprofit developer that's based in

3:26:49Massachusetts and has um substantial

3:26:51experience with affordable and senior

3:26:53housing development. And so since

3:26:55they've been selected, they've been

3:26:56working through due diligence, um

3:26:58proceeding with exploring tax credits

3:27:00and the like. Um advancing proposals for

3:27:03redevelopment, hopeful redevelopment of

3:27:05the property, which if we kind of go to

3:27:07the the next couple slides, I think

3:27:09there's a an aerial image that shows you

3:27:11again what that looks like. Um

3:27:14ultimately their current proposal would

3:27:16proceed with about 98 units of uh

3:27:19affordable senior housing, 53 which

3:27:22would be located within the existing

3:27:24portion of the building that would be

3:27:25renovated. And then the addition that

3:27:27they would be proposing would have 45

3:27:30units. So really the purpose of this uh

3:27:33hopeful zoning amendment the city is

3:27:35putting forward here for your

3:27:36consideration would be to pull this

3:27:38property into the RG5 which you can see

3:27:42is located to the south and the adaptive

3:27:45reuse overlay which you can see is

3:27:46located to the northeast. So basically

3:27:48extending the adjacent districts over

3:27:50the property u to encompass the entirety

3:27:53of this parcel to enable that

3:27:56redevelopment. Today the business office

3:27:58district has restrictions which my

3:28:00colleagues will talk about from a zoning

3:28:01perspective but from a a reuse

3:28:03perspective this limits that um in order

3:28:06to enable high-rise development

3:28:08specifically. And so while high-rise

3:28:10means a lot lot of things typically you

3:28:12know where we see that as a pinch point

3:28:14is four or five stories. And so this

3:28:16existing building is four stories and

3:28:19the new addition that they are

3:28:21anticipating would likely be four

3:28:22stories or more. Um, so this is a pinch

3:28:26point for the current development and

3:28:28reuse of the site. And so we're hoping

3:28:30to open up that opportunity with the RG5

3:28:33um, which would make that by right in

3:28:34terms of the the scale of the

3:28:36development, but also introduce the

3:28:37flexibility with the adaptive reuse

3:28:39given the fact that that overlay is

3:28:41really intended for properties just like

3:28:43this to help adaptively re reuse

3:28:45historic buildings. Um, so specifically

3:28:47the nurses building component that's

3:28:50been sitting there vacant and underused.

3:28:52It's directly in line with the purpose

3:28:53and intent of the adaptive reuse

3:28:54overlay. Um, and obviously that our our

3:28:57larger objectives for housing

3:28:59production, which we've talked a lot

3:29:00about this evening, um, that this really

3:29:02furthers that and specifically trying to

3:29:04meet a need that we have for affordable

3:29:06housing and specifically housing for our

3:29:08seniors. Um, so with that, I will let uh

3:29:13I think attorney uh Smith comment on um

3:29:16some other components of the proposal.

3:29:19Um, and I'm happy to answer any

3:29:21questions. Thanks.

3:29:24>> Uh, thank you, Michelle. And I I'm just

3:29:27going to say again, just for the record,

3:29:28Joshua Lee Smith with Bow and Dwey. So,

3:29:30as Michelle mentioned, um, I'm I'm

3:29:33representing Rogers and Communities, uh,

3:29:35who is the nonprofit developer in

3:29:37connection with this project. I'm not

3:29:39going to rehash what Michelle just laid

3:29:42out very eloquently. Um, I will say that

3:29:45Roson uh was awarded as a preferred

3:29:48developer uh with with respect to the

3:29:51long-term lease leasing of this site uh

3:29:54which includes the conversion of the

3:29:56existing building that which is known as

3:29:58the nurse's home uh and also uh the uh

3:30:03uh development of groundup a groundup

3:30:05addition as well as Michelle described

3:30:08in total again uh 98 uh units

3:30:12residential units as part of this

3:30:13project. Uh I will just want to add um a

3:30:17couple of things again. It's a little

3:30:19bit of um relating back to uh the the

3:30:23previous uh petition on unlike the

3:30:26previous petition which if that

3:30:28ultimately does get approved with

3:30:30respect to the map change uh would

3:30:32require a special permit for a a

3:30:34high-rise multif family use. uh we are

3:30:37requesting uh in working with the city

3:30:39uh that that the that the underlying use

3:30:42here also be changed. So that's a big

3:30:45distinction between this and the last

3:30:46petition. Um the so it is a this

3:30:50particular partial is also within the

3:30:52business office district and we're

3:30:54looking to have this be converted to an

3:30:56RG5 which by the way and Michelle may

3:30:58have mentioned this would also be an

3:31:00extension because just to the south of

3:31:02this property is also in the RG5. The

3:31:05other extension is the A-Rod, which is

3:31:08exactly what the last petition also um

3:31:11has uh uh was requesting. And so um and

3:31:16and in this case again the A-Rod, this

3:31:18would be an extension because across the

3:31:19street uh at the Worer Academy site is

3:31:21is also an existing A-Rod. So two

3:31:24extensions, one from the north with

3:31:25respect to the A-rod and then one from

3:31:27the south moving north uh with respect

3:31:29to the RG5.

3:31:31Um the the A-Rod, as Michelle had

3:31:33mentioned, will provide some additional

3:31:35flexibility uh especially with respect

3:31:37to dimensional requirements and parking.

3:31:40Um but with respect to the use, it was

3:31:42important for uh my client to have this

3:31:45be an RG5 byite multif family use. Um

3:31:49these are just some pictures. Uh the

3:31:52these are existing conditions

3:31:53photographs uh for those who are not too

3:31:56familiar with the site. Uh, and again, a

3:31:58lot of people probably know this

3:31:59generally more as the senior center

3:32:01property. Uh, Steve, if you could

3:32:03advance one slide, please.

3:32:08And one more

3:32:10and keep going

3:32:13till we get to we should have some

3:32:14renderings.

3:32:16Well, actually, let's go back one for a

3:32:18moment right here. So, this this gives a

3:32:21a more graphical depiction of uh what is

3:32:24contemplated. Now the these are at the

3:32:25conceptual stage uh but I can assure you

3:32:28that Roger has had multiple

3:32:30communications uh with the city uh uh

3:32:33Peter Dunn, Paul Morano, Michelle Smith,

3:32:35we had we went to an in connection with

3:32:39this project. Uh so the expansion area

3:32:43um as Michelle had described uh is

3:32:46planned left here uh to the west uh

3:32:49closer closest to Winthrup Street. So

3:32:51that that will be the groundup addition

3:32:54so to speak. Uh and then there will be a

3:32:56conversion uh with respect to a a large

3:33:01portion of the existing building that

3:33:03nurses home building. U Steve if you

3:33:05could advance to the next slide. And

3:33:08again these are at the conceptual stage.

3:33:11However, um as you can see to to the

3:33:13right there on this um illustration is a

3:33:16rendered 3D rendering of what's um

3:33:18what's contemplated in terms of the

3:33:20addition.

3:33:22And Steve, if you could advance and

3:33:24here's another view of it.

3:33:29And one more. So, as you can see, the

3:33:32the existing building is a four-story

3:33:34building. Um what's proposed is I think

3:33:36characterized as a four plus story

3:33:38building. Uh and again that that is the

3:33:41so-called the new addition is the

3:33:43so-called phase 2 portion 38,000 square

3:33:45feet and that will contain 45 plus or

3:33:48minus units

3:33:51um with with the balance of the uh other

3:33:54existing building uh containing 53 plus

3:33:56or minus units uh for a total of 98

3:33:59units. So, we want just wanted to share

3:34:01this again. Um, my client's still

3:34:04working through uh final designs both

3:34:07with the city uh as well as the

3:34:09executive office of um uh livable

3:34:12communities with the state and um uh as

3:34:16sort of been the theme uh with respect

3:34:19to these last three petitions. Uh there

3:34:21there will be an ongoing process uh with

3:34:23respect to design and the board's

3:34:25ability to uh opportunity to vet the

3:34:28project. um in terms of um ultimate uh

3:34:31engineered drawings and final

3:34:33architectural uh designs. So happy to

3:34:36answer any other questions the the board

3:34:38may have. Thank you. Oh, and I

3:34:39apologize. I did want to acknowledge a

3:34:41couple of folks. Um one in the room and

3:34:43then to to my left and then one online.

3:34:46Anakah Lambert uh is is online and this

3:34:49gentleman right here uh Ken Chris Foley

3:34:52is also both representatives of uh

3:34:54Roger.

3:34:56>> Okay.

3:34:56>> Thank you.

3:34:57>> Thank you guys. Thank you for your

3:34:58patience tonight. Uh

3:35:01sounds like we've covered staff and um

3:35:05applicant comments. Is there anyone from

3:35:06the public on this item tonight?

3:35:13>> Not seeing anybody online.

3:35:15>> Terrific. Uh board members, Mr.

3:35:17McCormack.

3:35:19>> Sure. Thank you. Um yeah, for myself uh

3:35:23similar to the last application, I think

3:35:25this is a very reasonable um request and

3:35:28extension of the A-Rod and the

3:35:30underlying uh residential zoning. Uh I

3:35:33think it complements or uh even uh

3:35:37enables uh a really important

3:35:38redevelopment of uh a historically

3:35:41significant building as well as um

3:35:44providing the opportunity for uh

3:35:46additional much needed senior uh

3:35:48housing. So for you know I think th

3:35:51those collection reasons it's uh I'm

3:35:53very happy to support this and I I'll

3:35:56leave it at that. Thank you.

3:35:57>> Thank you Mr. McCormack. Mr. King

3:36:00>> uh happy to support great use of the

3:36:01space. Thank you

3:36:03>> Mr. Delo

3:36:03>> through through the chair before we

3:36:05continue um taking board comments. I did

3:36:07just want to go over a couple of the

3:36:09differences between the BO2 and the RG5

3:36:12zone. Um, and I won't harp too much on

3:36:15these differences, um, especially over

3:36:16the A-Rod since we already covered that

3:36:18previously, but I did just want to

3:36:20highlight that the RG5 and the BO2 zone

3:36:24BO2 zones do differ significantly

3:36:27um, across these districts with the RG5

3:36:30being more restrictive in all categories

3:36:32except for residential uses. Uh, the

3:36:34multif family high-rise use is allowed

3:36:36by right in the RG5 uh, where it is not

3:36:38allowed in the BO2. other general and

3:36:42business uses without going over every

3:36:44single use. Um where they're generally

3:36:46allowed in the BO2, they're either

3:36:50requiring special permit or not allowed

3:36:52in the RG5. And then where they require

3:36:55a special permit in the BO2, they're

3:36:57they're also just not allowed in the

3:36:59RG5. Um, as far as dimensional

3:37:02requirements, um, the BO2 district

3:37:05requires 5,000 feet of law area and 40

3:37:08feet of frontage per unit with a maximum

3:37:10of 200 ft, where the RG5, uh, requires

3:37:14the same 5,000 square ft of law area or

3:37:17more per dwelling unit and a 50 uh foot

3:37:20frontage requirement or more per

3:37:23dwelling unit. Um, however, it does have

3:37:25a lower maximum on the frontage, uh,

3:37:27where it caps out at 100 ft for

3:37:29highrises and 125 ft for low rises. As

3:37:34far as, uh, density regulations, the BO2

3:37:38is regulated by a 2:1 floor area ratio

3:37:42um, serving as control for

3:37:44non-residential uses uh, which have no

3:37:46frontage or lot area requirement. Uh the

3:37:51F um is not applicable in RG5 for

3:37:55residential uses um as they are

3:37:58regulated by the lot area and frontage

3:38:00requirement.

3:38:02Um with the those requirements

3:38:05increasing per per unit on the lot. Um,

3:38:09as far as the A-Rod establishment goes,

3:38:14um, the permitted uses, like I said, the

3:38:17high-rise would be allowed by Wright.

3:38:19However, there are certain business uses

3:38:21with the A-Rod that would be allowed

3:38:23that aren't otherwise allowed in the

3:38:25RG5, such as food use, including food

3:38:27service, including alcohol sales and

3:38:29consumption, gyms, and retail. Um, the

3:38:35A-Rod also allows the planning board to

3:38:37establish or grant special permits uh

3:38:40for parking flexibility, dimensional

3:38:42controls, and layout requirements as

3:38:44previously stated on the uh prior

3:38:46petition.

3:38:48I also want to highlight that this area

3:38:51was zoned RG5 as of 1971. Then sometime

3:38:57between 87 and 91, the area was reszoned

3:39:00to INH and then subsequently reszoned to

3:39:05BO2, the designation it holds today in

3:39:082007.

3:39:10Uh, and then the A-Rod was adopted to

3:39:12the area to the northwest between 2002

3:39:16and 2007.

3:39:19Um, as far as the building itself, we

3:39:23already discussed it's currently the

3:39:24home of the senior center. Um, it is a

3:39:26designated historic property in the

3:39:28macro listing and um, the area they're

3:39:33looking to redevelop was the former

3:39:35Saint Vincent Nurses Home. I don't want

3:39:37to repeat too much of what was already

3:39:39said. I know it's getting late and my

3:39:40computer just died. Um, but happy to

3:39:42answer any questions if uh, anybody has

3:39:44any.

3:39:46>> Thank you. Uh, okay.

3:39:49Anybody have any questions on that?

3:39:53hearing none. I believe we had just

3:39:57heard comments from Mr. King. So, Mr.

3:39:59Delera.

3:40:00>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, with uh

3:40:04the potential pivot to housing with the

3:40:06adjacent A-Rod, I think this is uh an

3:40:09appropriate sidecar amendment to support

3:40:11as well. Thank you.

3:40:14>> Okay. Thank you. Um, Mr. Tumi.

3:40:18>> Yeah, it's been a long time this

3:40:19product, this property has been idle.

3:40:22It's great to see it finally get

3:40:23utilized again and happy to support

3:40:25this.

3:40:26>> Thank you, Mr. Tumi. Mr. Rosende,

3:40:29>> no comment.

3:40:31>> Also, no comment from me. I think Mr.

3:40:32McCormack said it best. Uh, so we're

3:40:35ready for a motion.

3:40:38>> Would make a motion to favorably

3:40:40recommend the zoning map amendment for

3:40:43128 Providence Street as outlined in the

3:40:46petition.

3:40:49>> Second.

3:40:50>> On the motion, Mr. Mr. McCormack,

3:40:52>> yes.

3:40:53>> Mr. King,

3:40:55>> yes.

3:40:55>> Mr. Delera,

3:40:56>> yes.

3:40:57>> Mr. Tumi,

3:40:58>> yes.

3:40:58>> I vote yes. Five to zero. That motion

3:41:00passes. Good luck, guys.

3:41:02>> Thank you very much.

3:41:05>> All right, moving on to ANRS.

3:41:09All right, this is Steve Kerry in the

3:41:10planning division. I think you've got uh

3:41:13six um ANRS on the agenda. I think just

3:41:16four of them are properly before the

3:41:18board. Um, let me just advance the

3:41:21slides here. Yeah. Uh, 12A 52 Butler

3:41:24Street is not probably before the board.

3:41:2612B 13 Southgate Place is um this is a

3:41:31actually a city property. Um, so the fee

3:41:35waiver the the fee ANR fee was waved for

3:41:38this one. Anyway, they are um

3:41:39essentially um just creating a um

3:41:43separate uh lot with creating parcel A

3:41:47by adding this lot line you see in red

3:41:48here. Um that basically you know will

3:41:52not would not be considered a a

3:41:55buildable lot. Um

3:41:58this is 22 Shaner Street. Um this is

3:42:03generally a lot line adjustment I think

3:42:05so that the driveway that you can sort

3:42:07of see the curb cut for is then wholly

3:42:08on one of the properties. Um this is

3:42:12RG5. Both have the 50 ft of frontage

3:42:14that they need uh for a single family

3:42:16detached home.

3:42:19Um 12D is not properly before the board.

3:42:2212E um is another uh lot line

3:42:25adjustment. I think the only lot line

3:42:27that's moving is the one that's on the

3:42:28left there is shifting slightly to the

3:42:31east. Um, all three of these uh lots you

3:42:34see will be will have the 65 ft of

3:42:36frontage needed for a single family

3:42:38detached home in RS7.

3:42:41And then 12S. This is um essentially

3:42:45putting out a a a zero lot line um a lot

3:42:49line along the party wall between this

3:42:51single family semi- detached aka duplex

3:42:54leaving both with the minimum 35 ft

3:42:56that's needed in the RL7 zoning

3:42:58district. So the board's going to be

3:42:59making a motion on 12B, 12 C, 12E, and

3:43:0412F.

3:43:05>> Is there a motion on the ANRS?

3:43:08I'd make a motion to endorse ANRS 12 BC

3:43:12and F.

3:43:14>> Second.

3:43:16>> On the motion, Mr. McCormack,

3:43:18>> yes.

3:43:19>> Mr. King,

3:43:20>> yes.

3:43:20>> Mr. Delera,

3:43:22>> yes.

3:43:22>> Mr. Tumi,

3:43:23>> yes.

3:43:23>> I vote yes. Five to zero. That passes.

3:43:27Um, no communications or board policy

3:43:29and procedure.

3:43:31>> There is one communication. Um, yeah,

3:43:34about habitat mat for rare species. I'm

3:43:37not sure Olivia who

3:43:38>> through the chair. I apologize. I

3:43:39believe that was a a carryover and error

3:43:42from a previous slide deck. Cool.

3:43:44>> I think we discussed that at the last

3:43:45meeting.

3:43:46>> Awesome. Uh so no communications, no

3:43:49board policies and procedures. And I

3:43:52take it the minutes aren't ready and uh

3:43:55no minutes to approve. Is there a motion

3:43:56to adjurnn?

3:43:58>> Motion to adjurnn.

3:44:00>> Second.

3:44:01>> All in favor say I. I. I. I.

3:44:03>> I. We'rejourn. Thanks everybody.

3:44:06>> Thank you.