2026-08-31 - Zoning Board of Appeals

0:01Good evening and welcome to the Monday

0:03uh August 31st 2026 meeting of the city

0:06of Worcester zoning board of appeals. My

0:09name is Lawrence Abramoff and I will

0:10chair tonight's meeting. This meeting

0:12will of the Worcester zoning board of

0:14appeals will be conducted in a hybrid

0:16manner with both in-person and remote

0:19participation.

0:20As a preliminary matter to tonight's

0:22meeting, I would like to confirm the

0:23board members and staff who are present.

0:26Board members, when I call your name,

0:27please respond in the affirmative. Um,

0:31Eric Torino,

0:33>> present.

0:34>> Eric Bartenhagen

0:36>> here.

0:36>> Matt Sacko

0:38>> here.

0:39>> And I am here. And staff, uh, we have

0:43Michelle Smith

0:44>> present.

0:45>> Amy Beth Laith

0:46>> present.

0:47>> And David Horn

0:48>> here.

0:49>> Okay, great. Um, before we start, a few

0:53housekeeping notes. Tonight's meeting is

0:55being livereamed from the city of

0:56Worcester website and the recording will

0:58be available for rebroadcast. This is a

1:01public meeting which means both that is

1:03being recorded and that minutes will be

1:05taken and published at a later date. The

1:07public may participate remotely by

1:09calling 1669-254-5252.

1:15That's 669-254-5252.

1:19access code 1604564634

1:25or using the link shown on the screen.

1:28Once an item is called, there will be a

1:30brief presentation of the item followed

1:32by any additional comments and

1:33clarifications from members of the city

1:35staff, then an opportunity for anyone

1:38from the public to speak on that item

1:39before we proceed to board discussion

1:42and action.

1:43To manage remote participation during

1:45our hybrid meetings and prevent

1:47disruptions, all participants are

1:49automatically blocked from unmuting

1:50themselves, turning on their video, or

1:53sending chat messages. For remote

1:55participants who would like to comment

1:57on an item on our agenda, we ask that

1:59you use the raise the hand feature in

2:01Zoom during the discussion on that item.

2:04If you are joined by phone, you can

2:06raise your hand by pressing star9.

2:09Staff will then call on members of the

2:11public one at a time and give them

2:13permission to unmute themselves if you

2:15are joined by phone. You will then be

2:17able to unmute yourself by pressing star

2:19six. Please note the board appreciates

2:23brevity in your comments. To help with

2:26this process, we ask all speakers

2:28participating in person to use a

2:30microphone to please clearly identify

2:32yourself each time you speak. And the

2:35first time you speak, please state the

2:36city or town of residents for the

2:38record. To help maintain an orderly

2:41meeting, please address all comments and

2:44questions through the chair rather than

2:47directly to any of the other speakers or

2:49applicants. Applicants should be aware

2:51that approvals are generally

2:52conditional. Decisions are typically

2:54signed by the board at the next meeting

2:56and filed with the city clerk the

2:58following day. Beginning the appeal

3:00period, it is the applicant's

3:02responsibility to address any conditions

3:04of approval, and the lack of doing so

3:06may result in delays or enforcement.

3:08Please contact the planning division

3:10with any questions. Any party agrieved

3:14by a decision of the board has the right

3:16of appeal under Mass General Laws

3:18chapter 4A, section 17. There are a

3:22number of items on our agenda being

3:24continued or postponed tonight, which I

3:26will read through shortly. If you are

3:28here for one of them and they're being

3:30continued, please note that no

3:32additional notice will be sent to you

3:33before the next meeting. The best thing

3:35to do is to call the planning division

3:37the day prior to our meeting to confirm

3:39if the item will be heard or postponed

3:41that night. As it is not uncommon for

3:44items to be postponed multiple times

3:46before they're heard by this board. Uh

3:49for the purposes of streamlining our

3:50meeting, I suggest that board member

3:53Barton Hagen offer to make any motions

3:55and that board member Tokinu uh second

3:58any such motions. In the event either

4:01member prefers not to do so, I simply

4:03ask that you identify another member to

4:05do so. Um so the first two items on the

4:08agenda are um item number one uh 149

4:14Plantation Street. Uh, their request is

4:17to withdraw their application. Do I hear

4:21a motion to approve?

4:22>> Uh, I'd like to make a motion to

4:24withdraw 149 Plantation Street.

4:27>> Thank you. Is there a second?

4:29>> Second.

4:30>> On the motion, uh,

4:35Mr. Bartinhagen,

4:37>> yes.

4:38>> Mr. Sacko,

4:39>> yes.

4:40>> Mr. Torino,

4:42>> yes.

4:42>> And my vote is yes. So, anybody who is

4:45here for 149 Plantation Street, that

4:47item has been withdrawn and is no longer

4:49before us.

4:50>> Just to clarify through the chair, that

4:51would be without prejudice. Correct. The

4:53withdrawal.

4:54>> Yes.

4:55>> Thank you.

4:56>> Uh the second item is a continuence.

4:59That's uh item 2, Ro, right ofway

5:02adjacent to 692 Milbury Street. A

5:04request is for a special permit. Uh, and

5:08it's request is to continue the hearing

5:10to September 28th and extend the

5:12constructive grant deadline to October

5:1420th. Do I hear a motion to do so?

5:16>> Uh, I'd like to make a motion uh to

5:18continue item number two, row adjacent

5:20to 692 Milbury Street to the dates as

5:22just stated by the chair.

5:24>> Is there a second?

5:27>> Second.

5:29>> On the motion, Mr. Bartagen?

5:31>> Yes.

5:31>> Mr. Torino?

5:33>> Yes.

5:33>> Mr. Sacko?

5:36Yes.

5:37>> And my vote is yes. So, if you're here

5:39for item number two, that's the rightway

5:41adjacent to 692 Milbury Street, um you

5:44will get no further notice of of the

5:47continued hearing, but right now it's

5:48scheduled for September 28th. You can

5:51check with staff if you want to follow

5:53up on that later on. Um okay, the first

5:56item of business um is 57 Perry Avenue.

6:03Before we do that, I just want to make a

6:05one comment to um everybody present. We

6:09only have a four member board tonight

6:11and um in order to get approval of the

6:15zoning board according to Mass General

6:17laws, you need uh four positive votes.

6:21Normally there's five people voting and

6:23if you had a 4 to one vote, it would

6:26pass. Uh tonight you need a four to zero

6:29vote. So you have an opportunity to

6:31withdraw beforehand if you want to wait

6:34till the next board meeting which I hope

6:36will be fully staffed.

6:39Okay. So um first item is 57 Perry

6:42Avenue. Given that I assume uh you want

6:45to go forward.

6:46>> Um good evening Mr. Chairman, members of

6:48the board. Um for the record my name is

6:50Donald O'Neal. I'm a lawyer here in

6:53Worcester and I'm here this evening on

6:54this matter um

6:57and a representation of um Isaac

7:01Movo and Jorine Kagwan.

7:06Um

7:08connection with this property at 57 U

7:10Perry. Um this is an existing three

7:14family dwelling uh with a

7:1712 space parking lot. Uh basically it's

7:21a double lot uh contains 100 feet of

7:25frontage and um

7:31uh almost 13,500

7:35square ft of area. So they're very close

7:38to meeting the area requirement for two

7:42uh

7:43three family structures which would be

7:457,000 square ft each and 60 ft of

7:48frontage. Uh we did look at various um

7:53ways of trying to divide the lot

7:56um and ended up with the configuration

7:59that we have now, which basically puts

8:01the proposed division line between the

8:04two properties uh down the middle of the

8:07uh driveway entrance with the idea being

8:10that the um driveway would be um used by

8:15both properties. Basically, it would be

8:17a shared parking arrangement with uh six

8:20spaces for each

8:23uh six spaces for the existing building

8:26and six spaces for the proposed

8:28structure as well. Um that uh caused us

8:32to uh locate the uh new proposed

8:36structure to the rear of the lot uh

8:39behind the parking uh area. Um we did

8:43look at um there there were also some uh

8:47topographical considerations here just

8:50in terms of the property um rises uh as

8:54you go towards the rear of the property.

8:56Um and uh we did explore the option of

9:01uh perhaps moving the new structure

9:05closer to the street and putting u

9:08parking uh to the rear of the uh both uh

9:12buildings would have parking in the

9:14rear. Uh again with that um situation

9:19there were issues related to the the

9:21slope again uh and also the

9:26need to if we were to construct a new

9:28parking lot to provide for infiltration

9:32of the parking area uh as well as the uh

9:35new proposed structure. Um so we ended

9:38up um settling on this configuration.

9:40The end result being that the uh one lot

9:44does not need any frontage relief. It

9:46exceeds the frontage requirement. Um the

9:50proposed lot needs 26 ft of frontage

9:52relief. Um the original split that we

9:57had was 50/50 so that it would each need

9:5910 ft. But uh this is just a function of

10:03um getting the property line to run down

10:06the middle of the driveway so there

10:08could be a shared parking arrangement.

10:10And this is somewhat similar to another

10:13project that the board um that I was

10:15involved with. The board had looked at

10:17on Cambridge Street. I think we did the

10:18same thing with in that case there were

10:21two houses and a shared parking lot

10:23between them. So that would be a an

10:25arrangement that would require um you

10:28know an easement and a um agreement to

10:30maintain um the parking lot uh by the

10:34two owners. And initially in in this

10:36case we have the same owner. So there's

10:39uh no issue there in terms of the

10:41management of the parking but that would

10:44be um provided for going forward. Um the

10:50existing house also um needed um

10:55minimal relief from the side yard

10:58setback. Uh and that is a function again

11:01of the division of the two properties.

11:04But that's a uh basically um

11:08uh the need to include the include the

11:12parking at the division line resulted in

11:16the existing structure being it's it's

11:18closer basically to the parking facility

11:20which is it's going to be sharing. Um,

11:22and the other relief that's required is

11:24a special permit uh for the parking um

11:29provisions because with the division

11:31line going down the middle of the

11:33driveway, obviously you're not going to

11:34have u a setback uh from the property

11:37line because it's a shared driveway

11:40situation. Uh and then also some of the

11:43uh landscaping requirements and setbacks

11:45as well. Um what we're proposing

11:49basically to do is to leave the existing

11:52parking lot in place uh leave the

11:55existing house uh as it's situated and

11:58to construct the newer dwelling uh

12:01behind the parking area. Um and the

12:05advantage in that situation too is the

12:09uh

12:10you're not disrupting anyone in terms of

12:13uh constructing closer to the street. Um

12:17the parking it's already there. The

12:20building is already there. Um and um you

12:24know the existing

12:26um not adding to uh and this scenario

12:30any additional uh drainage um leaving

12:35the site uh other than what currently

12:37exists. And we do have a proposal from

12:41the engineer for infiltration of the

12:44roof runoff from the existing new

12:46structure on lot two. Um now that was

12:50going to be done through a um

12:55perimeter a stone uh trench which goes

12:59around the foundation

13:01which uh gives the storage capacity

13:03comparable to what you would have um

13:06with a um

13:10infiltration a buried infiltration

13:12system. However, we did look into and

13:15the the uh report that you've got in the

13:17plan shows that they did uh we did look

13:20into the possibility of infiltrating

13:23uh the storm water on the site and we

13:26did look in particular to that grassy

13:28area that's behind the existing

13:30building. However, the uh soils were

13:33poor. uh the groundwater was high uh and

13:38uh the topography actually works against

13:41uh that proposal as well because it goes

13:43up as it goes towards the back. Um so

13:48uh the proposal came up that the

13:50engineer has shown on the plan which has

13:52the a stone trench uh which goes around

13:56the property and does provide the

13:58equivalent uh capacity storage capacity

14:01as what you would have with an under

14:03underground infiltration chamber. Um the

14:06engineer is Mark Elbag is I believe

14:10online uh if you have questions

14:12concerning that. Um I did look at the

14:15other conditions of approval

14:18um that was suggested by staff

14:21um the um

14:25all of which were agreeable with the

14:27exception of number two which does ask

14:30for us to um

14:33provide 100% infiltration for the roof

14:37runoff from the existing structure. Um

14:41and

14:43as I understand it from speaking with

14:45the engineer that's just impossible to

14:48provide. Uh so and the reason for that

14:52is any in infiltration that you would

14:54have uh we already explored that in

14:56connection with the existing new

14:59structure uh to be proposed and settled

15:02upon the trench around the new building

15:06um as a um solution to the problem. But

15:10it's not one you would need to

15:15uh presumably you could dig around the

15:17existing building which would disrupt

15:19the nice you know the settled area. I

15:22think that you saw the photograph

15:23looking at it. It's you know pretty well

15:26landscaped and has the um

15:31all that would basically have to be torn

15:32up to try and put an infiltration trench

15:35around the property. Uh the issue also

15:40that you would have in that um situation

15:42is that's an old rubble stone

15:45foundation. Um in all likelihood putting

15:48a trench around it to store water from

15:51the roof uh would no doubt lead to water

15:54in the basement. You don't have that

15:56same situation with a new structure uh

15:59just because it it would be constructed

16:02and it's going to be it will be a

16:04regular cement foundation

16:06uh that could be waterproofed and could

16:08be um built so that there's no issue

16:12with respect to that. And I would go

16:14back to um my original comment in terms

16:17of

16:18uh there's no infiltration for the roof

16:21of that building currently. Um and

16:24there's no infiltration for the parking

16:26area. Um we're leaving those both uh in

16:31place. So uh we're not adding um what we

16:37are adding is the new roof runoff from

16:40the proposed building and we're dealing

16:42with that. But um this would require us

16:44basically to

16:47decrease uh the amount of water

16:50substantially that would come off the

16:52property and there's nothing to indicate

16:54that there's any problem with you know

16:56that parking area and that building have

16:58been there for a very long time. Uh and

17:01so that would just whatever function

17:04takes place currently would continue. Um

17:08but we are unable to comply with that

17:10provision. Other than that, the other um

17:13recommendations or conditions of

17:15approval um are acceptable and there are

17:18also I believe two waivers that are

17:20listed uh which I would request those

17:23waiverss and if you want Mr. Elbag to uh

17:27elaborate more on the uh drainage

17:31situation, I believe he's online and

17:34other than that I be happy to answer

17:36your questions.

17:37>> Okay. Thank you. uh staff

17:40>> through the chair. This is Amy Bethle

17:42for the planning division. Uh so before

17:44you is a petition for 57 and what will

17:50potentially be 63 Perry Avenue. Um as

17:55stated presently on the premises is a

17:57three family dwelling and associated

17:59parking. Um, and the applicant is

18:02seeking to divide the parcel and

18:04construct a three family dwelling on the

18:06lot two with 12 total parking spaces

18:09shared between the two lots. Um, and

18:12then also make associated site

18:14improvements. This is the RG5 zoning

18:17district. So, for relief that is needed

18:21um for the existing structure at 57

18:24Perry Avenue, it's relief of 400 nope,

18:28strike that 859 square ft from the 7,000

18:33square ft minimum lot requirements for

18:36the three family dwelling in the RG5.

18:38And the applicant is proposing 6,141

18:42square ft of lot area for the existing

18:44house. Uh they need a variance of relief

18:47for 7.5 ft from the minimum 8 foot

18:50sideyard setback requirements and the

18:53applicant's proposing.5

18:56ft and there's a pinch point um showing

19:00the picture on the screen where the

19:02existing side stairs are. That lot line

19:05is close to the existing side stairs. Um

19:09and then also a special permit to modify

19:11the parking and dimensional layout andor

19:13landscaping requirements, loading

19:15requirements and the number of required

19:17parking spaces. Um for the landscape

19:20buffer requirements, uh the applicant is

19:23proposing a

19:26sorry the parking facilities must be set

19:29back a minimum of 5 ft from all boundary

19:31lines and the applicant

19:33um has the

19:36proposed parking area is the common

19:39driveway along the property line. So

19:42that buffer will not be existing. So

19:44they need relief of that 5-ft landscape

19:47buffer. And then for the proposed lot

19:50two, the proposed 63 Perry Avenue, they

19:54need a variance of relief of 26 feet

19:57from the 60 ft minimum frontage

19:59requirements.

20:01Um, and they need relief of 5.8 ft from

20:06the minimum 8ft sideyard setback

20:09requirements. So there are multiple

20:11locations where the applicant needs

20:15sideyard setback relief.

20:21So um they need relief

20:292.42

20:31ft is proposed here. This lot line is

20:35considered a sideyard lot line that

20:37faces the street. Even though it faces

20:40the street, it is a sideyard lot line.

20:44Um they need 77 ft of relief from the

20:48minimum 8ft sideyard setback

20:49requirements over on this side, the

20:54south side.

20:57And then they need relief of 2.5 ft from

21:00the 8-ft sideyard setback right here at

21:03the northern sideyard.

21:07So those are three different sideyard

21:09variances. And then they also need the

21:11special permit uh to modify the parking

21:14and dimensional layout andor landscaping

21:16requirements, number of parking spaces

21:18um for the same landscape buffer on this

21:21lot because it's the common driveway. So

21:23there's no landscape buffer. Um

21:27there's parking in the front yard

21:31setback.

21:35So there's a um

21:38the applicant is proposing one parking

21:40space within the front yard within the

21:42first 25 ft of the boundary line. If

21:44you'll see this isn't exactly the

21:48parking area is not exactly even all the

21:51way across. And this first parking space

21:54on the proposed lot is within that 25-

21:57ft buffer.

21:59And then on this lot, they also need

22:02relief of the front yard imperous

22:05surface requirements. So there's in the

22:08RG5 zone, there is a 50% maximum of

22:13imperous surface within the front yard.

22:16And on the proposed lot, the applicant

22:18is proposing 73.1%

22:23um of the front yard to be impervious.

22:27So that's all the relief that's

22:29requested.

22:31Um so to

22:35we have a bunch of um staff comments and

22:39questions. A lot of them have to do with

22:41the architecture of the building. Um,

22:44and so we were looking for kind of more

22:47defined

22:49um,

22:51renderings of what the proposed

22:53architecture would be. Um and so absent

22:57of that, we are looking for

23:02the proposed architecture

23:04to have this bottom um

23:08picture right that you can see on the

23:10screen with the orange detail is the

23:13proposed structure. And so in this

23:17structure, we're looking to see more

23:19windows. This is the street facing

23:21facade. And so staff would be looking

23:23for more windows um to provide some

23:26visual interest. These are all

23:28conditions and the applicant did say

23:31they were acceptable, but I just want to

23:32explain to you kind of where staff was

23:35considering these things. Um we are

23:40looking for this upper part here to kind

23:44of mimic this gabling because this feels

23:47um large with no details. So, we're

23:51looking for some some detail in this

23:53architecture face. Um, also we're

23:56concerned about this flat area between

23:58these two peaks. So, we want to make

24:00sure there's either some roof drainage

24:03or some kind of sloping so that the

24:06water won't pull in that area.

24:09Um then also what you can't tell in this

24:132D drawing is that this bottom um

24:18kind of separation point right here is

24:21actually a cantal lever. So the the

24:24house actually sits a little bit forward

24:27of the first floor if you will. The

24:30upper floors are cantalvered over the

24:32first floor. So, we were hoping that

24:35there could be some kind of detail

24:37around this front entry to kind of

24:40accentuate the front entry and also

24:42create some kind of front porch looking

24:45situation.

24:47Um, so those are kind of our

24:49architectural details. Um, we're looking

24:53to understand and I think the answer is

24:55yes, but whether or not the fence the

24:57existing fence around the the existing

24:59parking area would be remaining.

25:02Um,

25:04we are

25:08looking for the applicant to kind of

25:10explain to the board how they are going

25:13to manage the maintenance of the common

25:16driveway.

25:18Um,

25:20we are also, again, this is also a

25:23condition that the applicant did agree

25:24to. So just saying that there's no

25:27proposed walkway from the proposed house

25:31to the street. So we're a also asking

25:34for an easement for the residents to use

25:38the existing walkway at the existing

25:42house.

25:46So when they come out, they can walk

25:48down the stairs that exist between the

25:50two buildings.

25:52Um, we're asking for additional

25:54landscaping as we do. Um, and then to

26:00address the applicant's concern about

26:01the uh, drainage or the mitigation of

26:06the runoff. um instead of trenching

26:09specifically and maybe the engineer can

26:11speak to this a little bit online, but

26:13maybe um if there is a gutter system on

26:17the house that maybe they could capture

26:19the runoff through rain barrels or there

26:21might be another mechanism where that

26:24runoff could be captured um to help with

26:31um that point.

26:35Uh, I'm going to say I'm going to stop

26:37there and I guess you all can discuss

26:38and let me know if you have any

26:40additional questions.

26:41>> Hey, thank you,

26:42>> Mr. Chairman.

26:43>> You want to address some of that?

26:44>> Yeah, one one point. Um, yeah, just for

26:48for what it's worth, the impervious area

26:50on lot one is actually 19.1

26:55um well below the 50% uh criteria. So if

26:59you look at one at 73 and one at 19

27:03at average if you average them together

27:05it's 50%. You know what I mean? So it's

27:09um it's it and again um really all this

27:12all this relief and everything that

27:14we're asking for is

27:16is sort of derived from the fact that um

27:21um you know we're we're sharing a

27:23parking arrangement and we are creating

27:25two standalone lots. um which

27:29necessitate the relief, but in in effect

27:32um you know, for practical purposes,

27:34basically it's it's really like two

27:36houses on one lot. Um however, they do

27:40need to stand, you know, on their own,

27:42which is again why we're requesting that

27:45relief. But if you look at the overall

27:47picture, uh it's 13,500 square ft of

27:50frontage. It's got 100 ft of I mean

27:52area. It's got 100 feet of frontage.

27:55Those are, if you were to RG5 area, um

28:00we're not um in any way overloading a

28:04lot beyond what would be permitted for

28:07six units on this type of a building.

28:10>> Um the situation with respect to the

28:14sidewalk um easement, of course, we'll

28:17give ourselves an easement, you know,

28:19for the sidewalk. And again, that's a

28:22function of trying to utilize um you

28:26know, the existing infrastructure in

28:28place rather than adding a separate

28:32sidewalk um next to the existing

28:35sidewalk uh you know for the use of um

28:39uh of the uh the new building. But um

28:42there's no issue on that. Um the

28:45architectural

28:47uh provisions, I did speak with the

28:48architect. she is on vacation and was

28:51going to try and connect but I think

28:52she's having difficulty but um the

28:55provisions which staff had recommended

28:58in terms of adding some additional um

29:01trim details extra windows uh and some

29:05sort of a um a porch like configuration

29:09for the canal lever are all things that

29:11she said that she can do uh and is uh

29:16you know will do uh if if we are

29:18approved approved. Uh those are all

29:21things that she can um attend to and get

29:24done. Um

29:27I don't know if if Mr. Albeg wants to

29:29weigh in on the um

29:33uh infiltration of the roof water which

29:37is currently uninfiltrated

29:40on the existing building uh to see if

29:43there's another way to look at that. But

29:44again,

29:46that's the existing condition today. if

29:48we were to withdraw this petition, not

29:50build a thing there, it's whatever is

29:53there is there. And so we're not

29:55changing that. Uh but I perhaps he could

29:59um if if you're interested in that

30:01point, I want him to pursue.

30:02>> I'd like to postpone that for the moment

30:03if that's all right with you.

30:06>> You know, no problem.

30:07>> We could hear from him afterwards

30:09>> on the on the drainage.

30:15>> Okay. Is that all right?

30:16>> Well, sure. If if you say it again.

30:19>> I was going to say we can hear from him

30:20afterwards. I was

30:21>> Oh, sure. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe there'll be

30:23other things that he might address as

30:24well.

30:25>> You?

30:25>> Yeah, I'm fine with that.

30:26>> You're fine with that. Okay. Is Is there

30:28anybody in the audience wish to be heard

30:29on this?

30:32>> No. Is there anybody online

30:35wants to be heard?

30:37>> Once again, it's star nine to raise your

30:39hand. I do have one person with a hand

30:42raised. I'm gonna ask Sophia

30:46to Oh, unmute.

30:50>> Hi. Yes, I am the architect. I do happen

30:53to be on vacation, but I am able to just

30:56re, you know, reinstate that. Um, I did

30:59see all the comments from you and they

31:00made complete sense. I'm aware that this

31:02is, you know, adjacent to a historical

31:04area. Um, we're trying to be respectful

31:07to the environment in the neighborhood.

31:10So, um, just wanted to kind of chime in

31:12and say, you know, I'm I'm grateful and

31:14thankful for the comments that you all

31:16provided. So, thank you for that.

31:18>> Okay. Thank you. Um,

31:21all right. So, I love the idea that this

31:24has plenty of parking. So many areas

31:28like this, we're always looking for

31:29relief from parking. I mean, you've got

31:3112 spaces. Um, to clarify, uh, the new

31:35building is a three- decker. I mean,

31:37apartment per floor not stacked, right?

31:41>> Okay. Um

31:42>> and uh and I appreciate trying to reuse

31:46what's there. Uh also um there's a lot

31:49of land there. There's 13,500 square

31:52feet, so it's not a lot of relief in

31:53terms of um what you're doing there. Um

31:57the the the two issues that I feel um

32:01are um

32:04making this not perfect uh brought up by

32:08staff are uh the drainage and I realize

32:12um you uh have according to your

32:17engineer as long as that we get a a

32:19document saying that uh the ability to

32:22capture all the drainage that um excess

32:27drainage that's going to be created with

32:28the new imperous surface, basically the

32:31roof um and any other uh ground work

32:35done. Um, is there anything that can be

32:38done to try to because we're

32:42unless you're living in um in a bubble

32:45or something you're hearing every day

32:48about these massive floods all around

32:49the world, including I've experienced uh

32:53several very very very heavy rainstorms

32:57that have impacted properties that I own

32:59in Worcester. So, you know, where we are

33:01today with the amount of water coming

33:03down is one place where we're going to

33:05be

33:07not some distant time in the future, but

33:10in the next few years. Um, is there

33:12anything that can be done to capture

33:15some of the rain uh some of the drainage

33:17from the like rain barrels or something

33:19from the existing uh thing? I realize

33:22you don't want to disturb around the

33:24foundation, but can you do anything

33:26there?

33:28Um if if Mr. Elbeck is online and

33:32>> sorry, can you hear me now? Sure. Yep,

33:33I'm here. So, we we did deep holes on

33:36site and we evaluated the soil and uh

33:39groundwater conditions on site.

33:41Unfortunately, it's poor soils and it's

33:43it's high groundwater. Um so, we we're

33:46really limited on what we can do with

33:49this

33:50with the grades on the lot with

33:52everything sloping towards the street.

33:54Um, we could certainly look at rain

33:56barrels for the existing structure. I

33:59think that could that could easily be

34:01added. Uh, there's not a lot of volume

34:05in a rain barrel, but it certainly would

34:07help. And then with regards to the

34:10proposed structure, we're capturing the

34:12first inch of rainfall uh and

34:14infiltrating that in the trench which uh

34:17exceeds the current infiltration rate

34:20which is about a third of an inch based

34:23on the current soil conditions. So,

34:25we're we're increasing infiltration

34:28um but we have very limited space

34:31horizontally and vertically to provide

34:34uh additional detention or infiltration.

34:38Um on a tight site like this, you'd

34:40often times look at under the parking

34:43lot for subsurface

34:45either detention, treatment, or

34:47infiltration. But in this case, with the

34:50high groundwater

34:51uh and that

34:54surface already being elevated off of

34:56the road, we're unable to bring up the

34:59elevation of that parking current

35:01parking structure to provide anything

35:03beneath it. Um it's close to the water

35:07table and it's already significantly

35:09higher than the street elevation.

35:11>> Oh, okay. Um but rain barrels could be

35:14added. I realize that they're

35:16incrementally not a huge amount of

35:18volume but uh

35:20>> sure and and we we we would not have

35:22>> certainly a tool we could use a

35:23>> rain barrel requirement.

35:25>> Okay. So rain barrels would be all right

35:27on the existing structure at least at

35:29least something um you know as your

35:33engineer just said you know he estimates

35:36that it will or calculates that it will

35:38capture you know up to one inch of

35:40rainfall. So, we're likely to see a lot

35:42more than that in any one of these heavy

35:44rainstorms. And and then you're you're

35:47deal, you know, the the people downhill

35:49from you have to deal with it or the

35:52city has to deal with it. And there's a

35:54big problem in the city with

35:55infiltration.

35:57>> Yeah. I I don't object to doing

35:59something that we are able to do. I I

36:01just object to doing something which we

36:03can't do.

36:04>> Right. And and so the the other thing

36:06that would um make this at least to me,

36:09I'll wait to hear from the other board

36:10members um is the the staff's

36:14recommendations. I like them because

36:16they uh help to have the structure fit

36:19more into the neighborhood. Um you know,

36:21the the existing house has some, you

36:24know, structural and architectural

36:26integrity and so do many of the others

36:28in that area. Um so I'd like to see a

36:31plan of that. I'd like to see it drawn

36:33out, but um I I'll before we go to vote

36:37or do anything else, I'll hear from the

36:39other board members. So, uh Mr.

36:42Bartonhagen,

36:44>> uh thank you through the chair. Um I

36:47share the concern the board that the the

36:50chair expressed about, uh rainwater and

36:52the barrels would be a good idea. Maybe

36:54we can get some suggested language for

36:57condition if this does move forward. Um,

37:00I just wanted to clarify with staff, uh,

37:03in the staff memo for lot two at the at

37:06the beginning there's two variances

37:08listed, but then later once you dig into

37:10the memo, there's four variances listed.

37:12I'm assuming the four variance version

37:13is the correct version.

37:15>> It is. So the first the front version

37:18was how we had advertised this item. Um

37:23because the number of the variance

37:27itself is not hasn't changed like it's

37:29still the sideyard setback variance then

37:31we just broke out what that relief

37:34actually looked like. Does that make

37:36sense?

37:36>> It does. Um thank you. Um

37:42the the uh when comparing the staff

37:46questions with the uh

37:50with the recommendations there um the

37:53they had a question about the the slope

37:56the the flat surface between the two

37:58buildings um and wanted to make sure

38:00that there was sufficient uh runoff of

38:03that and wouldn't be pooling and that's

38:05not one of the conditions. So, I just

38:07wanted to get your response to that to

38:08make I mean, I'm sure there will be, but

38:09I just want to make get it on the record

38:11that that that little flat area between

38:14the two roofs will be handled.

38:17>> Yeah. And and we do have an architect

38:20working on this, so I'm I'm sure she's

38:23aware of that and has um you know,

38:25factored that in. Um but if um you know,

38:29if she's still present, she can say

38:31something about that. But I'm sure that

38:32she's, you know, built that into her uh

38:35design. I don't know how she did that,

38:40but um it's um kind of obvious if you

38:44look at the plan. So,

38:46>> uh I'm sure she's uh made a you know

38:48some provision for that, but um

38:51following up on um

38:55uh Chairman Abramoff's um desire for um

38:59to see the plans um if uh that could be

39:03something which if we end up uh

39:06continuing this hearing to the next

39:08meeting, we could presumably come back

39:11with some um more detail on the

39:14architecture ual plans and she could

39:16then also um a better explanation of you

39:20know how you're going to handle the um

39:23how is that addressed in terms of uh you

39:27know whatever rain uh falls off that you

39:30know where does it go?

39:31>> Okay.

39:32>> But we could that could be part of the

39:35um round two if if we make it to round

39:38two.

39:39>> Any

39:39>> I was just going to say through the

39:40chair two things. um you could add that

39:43as a condition if the board was so

39:45inclined and then you wouldn't need to

39:47worry about it. Um and then second for

39:50the rain barrels um it would be ideal to

39:54know how many so we can work that into

39:57the condition also.

39:59>> Yeah, it's sounding like maybe these

40:01might be things that would be best

40:02served at the at a future meeting when

40:04we get some more clarity. And I guess to

40:06that end, one thing, and I realize this

40:10might not be able to be fixed, but

40:14my strong preference would be to have

40:16this second building street closer to

40:19the street just like every other

40:20building up and down the street. it just

40:22for continuity sake, for for consistency

40:25sake, it would be unusual, I guess, to

40:28have this a building set back this far

40:32with a with a parking lot as the front

40:34facing to the street. Um, that's not

40:37ideal. I'm sure originally perhaps that

40:41wasn't what you were planning for this

40:43lot. Uh, and there is a comment in here

40:46about why you and your architect decided

40:49that that wasn't feasible.

40:52I'm just I'm

40:54>> Yeah,

40:55>> I just I don't like the fact that that

40:58we have this kind of weird setback

40:59building and with a parking lot in

41:01between. I would much prefer the

41:02building where the parking lot is and

41:04the parking lot where the proposed

41:05building would be. And I know that there

41:06might be some problems with that, but I

41:08just wanted to throw that out there.

41:10>> Sure. and and through the chair uh to

41:12you. Um

41:14>> good point.

41:15>> The um it was really more the engineer

41:18than the architect. We did have an

41:20initial proposal which we looked at a

41:23building in front and the parking in

41:24back. However, if the problem becomes um

41:29uh you could put the building up front,

41:31but then you'd have to do away with the

41:33parking because there's no way to

41:35basically create a new parking lot to

41:38the rear of the property. um that could

41:41function the way the the existing one

41:43does. Um so that it was it had to do

41:47really that was more of the

41:49consideration that we did we actually

41:52did look at that. Um, and then I

41:54somewhere on my file there's a plan

41:57which shows the building down in front

41:59and then parking driveway right up the

42:01middle with parking in the back, but

42:04they couldn't get it to work in terms of

42:06the um any kind of there wouldn't be any

42:09way to infiltrate a brand new parking

42:12lot located at the rear of the

42:14buildings. Plus, it's it's up higher,

42:16too. Um so and and I think in terms of

42:20the other question I mean think about

42:23this in the scope of um an ADU

42:28which you know is now permissible

42:30statewide where you're creating um

42:34additional dwelling units um on an

42:37existing lot you know in some cases

42:39within five feet of the property line.

42:42Um, and this is just, you know, it's

42:45it's on a bigger scale, but um, you

42:49know, um, it's it's similar in that

42:51respect. I think it's not the not what

42:54you would preference would be. Yeah. To

42:56have it on the street in the parking in

42:58the back, but um, it just doesn't work.

43:01And in this situation, this is um, a

43:05creative workaround on that. And it does

43:07result in the creation of you know three

43:10additional units which are needed. Um

43:13and um you know I think also the parking

43:16is in front. There is a a fence that's

43:19in front. Um

43:22we're pretty far back from the street.

43:24I'm not sure from street side uh whether

43:28it's going to look all that peculiar to

43:31have the building set back in that

43:34location because we're not we plan is

43:36not to touch the front of it. It'll

43:38still look the same on the front. It'll

43:39just be another building that you'll see

43:42again looking up also. Um maybe not that

43:45steep, but you're going to be looking

43:47up. Um, I don't I don't think it would

43:49be that um

43:51um and and we're doing our best also to

43:54sort of um activate the facade so that

43:57it it's visually um appealing, but it

44:01it's more the engineering than the

44:03architect um in terms of making that

44:06call.

44:06>> Yeah. And

44:08>> two things that I forgot to mention is

44:10that this project will have to go to

44:12site plan at the planning board. So if

44:15we don't want to resolve or do anything

44:16about the drainage pieces, the planning

44:19board will obviously address that. Um

44:21also it will need definitive uh frontage

44:24subdivision due to the uh relief for the

44:27frontage through the planning board

44:29also. And the engineer has his hand

44:31raised if you are

44:32>> well before before one other comment and

44:35I I don't dispute that I think it's a

44:37good idea to add three units here. Um uh

44:41and frankly and I I'll put this out to

44:43my other board members. I would be

44:45positively predisposed to granting a

44:47variance of reducing the parking spaces.

44:52Uh if that's what it takes to move this

44:53to the back. I mean a lot of things that

44:56get approved have a lot fewer parking

44:58spaces. I know that 12 is the amount

45:00that would be needed here. Um,

45:04but you know, if if and I don't know whe

45:07this is the case, if your engineer would

45:08have to let us know, but if if it if if

45:10the if the quidd proquo for moving the

45:14building to the front is and the parking

45:16lot to the back is the parking lot has

45:18to be smaller,

45:20um, I would be I would take that as a

45:23good tradeoff as long as it wasn't

45:25significantly reduced. Um, but I know

45:28that other board members might think

45:29differently, but that's just, you know,

45:31my preference, but I guess I'll I'll

45:33leave it there.

45:34>> Well, interesting. Thank you. Um, you

45:37know, I too would like to see it at the

45:39front of the lot. Um, however, um, I if

45:44that's not something

45:48to happen, what I do want to see is

45:50that, uh, the structure fits in more

45:53with the style and um, and and nature of

45:56the neighborhood. So, that's what we

45:57were talking about with the

45:58architectural things. Before we go any

46:00further, let's let's hear from the other

46:01board members. Uh, Mr. Torquino, do you

46:04have any comments or questions? I don't

46:06have any

46:08>> I'm in support with you that uh we need

46:11to get a plan and then the language

46:13concerning the water barrels needs to be

46:15corrected. So,

46:16>> okay.

46:17>> I think enough is already said between

46:19you and uh the other board members. So,

46:24I'm in line with it. Now, my only

46:26question is, is the applicant asking

46:29that he will definitely submit a plan in

46:33the next hearing?

46:35>> We're not quite there yet.

46:37>> Okay.

46:38>> Okay. So, hold on one second for that

46:40and let's just hear if uh Mr. Sacko, do

46:42you have any comments?

46:44>> Um, no, nothing new to add. I think it

46:46I'm right on par with the rest of you as

46:48far as potentially a postponement could

46:51be the solution here, just because there

46:52are so many outstanding items we need

46:53more color on. Yeah. Other than that, no

46:55more comment.

46:56>> I mean, I I think we're we're close to

46:58this. There's uh two things to consider

47:01that um or three things um that to come

47:06back with is one some way to mitigate

47:08some of the drainage from the existing

47:11structure and um you know consider

47:14moving it to the front with the um

47:19uh alternative is presented by uh Eric

47:24and and or uh a more um fitting

47:29architectural plan. So if if that's okay

47:33uh and you would like a continuence,

47:35right now I don't feel comfortable

47:36voting on it. Um so I would suggest a

47:40continuence. Yes, I I I would request to

47:44be continued to the next meeting and uh

47:46we can come back with um some revised um

47:50architectural or updated architectural

47:52plans and also

47:54>> just excuse me before we uh postpone do

47:58you just want to have a brief discussion

47:59versus the front

48:00>> moving to the front back

48:02>> identify yourself

48:04>> uh sorry Mark Elbag the design engineer

48:06>> okay

48:07>> just even if we do postpone it might be

48:10nice just to get a little guidance on,

48:12you know, front versus back on the

48:13building placement. Um, I pulled up one

48:16of our previous iterations.

48:18Um, we originally were planning to

48:21design in the front and we were fighting

48:23a couple of a couple of design issues.

48:26Uh, for one, we would need a pretty

48:28steep driveway to get to the rear

48:32parking from the street. uh that steep

48:35driveway would have to go along the

48:37south property line or go along the

48:40existing building in between the two

48:42buildings. Uh if you could imagine a

48:44proposed building where the current

48:45parking lot is uh you know would have a

48:48very steep driveway right where the the

48:50mouse cursor is now on the screen. Um

48:53and that would lead to a drive a parking

48:56area in the rear. Um the reason we cut

49:00away from that is it would be a steep

49:02driveway between two structures. Would

49:04have to reinforce the foundation wall of

49:07the existing structure or build a large

49:08retaining wall. Uh we would also have to

49:12render pretty much the entire lot

49:15impervious. Um because not only would we

49:18have to create parking in the back, we

49:19also have to add that driveway area

49:22which you know isn't utilized for

49:23parking, just a driveway aisle. Um, so

49:26we ended up with

49:29spaces head in along the back wall, but

49:33we um or back lot line I should say, but

49:36we were unable to provide really any

49:38storm water mitigation whatsoever with

49:41that configuration. And

49:43>> and was that with 12 parking spaces?

49:46>> No, it was a reduction in parking. I

49:48think it was 10 or 11.

49:52Um but really the the the the

49:56driving factor was we were creating a

49:58lot more impervious with no way to

50:01mitigate. So we didn't think that that

50:02would be successful at site plan review.

50:05The the other option that we looked at

50:07was moving the building to the front and

50:11and not providing on-site parking. But I

50:14believe from the owner and the the

50:16project proponent, uh I don't think it

50:19was economically a viable project

50:21without parking uh for the residences.

50:24So we looked at those we did look at

50:26those other two options. Um and it just

50:30it the storm water hurdle seemed like it

50:34couldn't be overcome with that much new

50:37impervious area. Well, I mean, if that's

50:40the case and the staff, city staff is

50:42comfortable that that is is accurate,

50:46then I don't have any problem with, you

50:47know, I just wanted to make sure that we

50:49had considered, you know, moving it to

50:51the front even if the parking had to be

50:53reduced somewhat. And it sounds like

50:55that has been considered. So, you know,

50:58uh I just wanted to make sure that that

50:59was the case before I approved this.

51:01Yeah.

51:02>> Yep. Certainly.

51:02>> Okay. I I think we've got a good picture

51:06of it. So, if you could include some of

51:08what he just said as part of the uh next

51:11meeting's presentation. Sure. Along with

51:13a revised architectural plan and some

51:15kind of a plan for um rain barrels or

51:17some other uh mitigation. That would be

51:21uh what I'm looking for and I think the

51:23board agrees with that. So, do you

51:24request a continuence to uh what is it

51:27September?

51:27>> October 7th

51:28>> through the chair. Can I just clarify?

51:30We already do have that narrative from

51:31the engineer I believe in writing. So,

51:33I'm just are we looking for something

51:35additional? Um,

51:36>> if we have that information, the the

51:38evaluation of what would happen if they

51:40moved it from

51:41>> it's it's an email summary, but it was I

51:43believe included in in the drive.

51:46>> I think that would be adequate.

51:47>> Okay. Okay.

51:48>> So, so and I think I'll have Amy Beth

51:51offer up, but I think we do you had

51:53asked for some language related to a

51:54condition on rain barrels. So, we have

51:56language on that. Just want to offer u

51:59before you entertain whether you're

52:01continuing or not. Um, Amy Beth, if you

52:03want to read that.

52:04>> Yep. Um,

52:06>> excuse me. The other thing for

52:07continuing is to get a revised

52:09architectural plan that,

52:12>> as I said, fits the neighborhood.

52:15>> Yes, Amy Beth.

52:17So the condition with the new language

52:20again and I don't know if attorney

52:22O'Neal feels comfortable we would need

52:23to understand how many rain barrels for

52:25this condition but provide X number of

52:28rain barrels to collect the runoff from

52:30the existing structures roof on lot one

52:36>> sounds okay to me

52:40>> I think you still want to see the plans

52:41though

52:42>> still want to see the plans

52:43>> okay

52:43>> so

52:44>> so we can finalize that

52:46>> right and you do request the continuence

52:47to uh what is it September?

52:49>> Yeah. And I I can get some insight from

52:52the engineer too as to you know what

52:54>> he'll have a better idea than I would in

52:57terms of how many.

52:58>> Okay. Amy,

52:59>> I just want to say one more thing

53:00through through the chair for the

53:02architecture plans. We did condition

53:06in the conditions pretty much everything

53:08that you're looking to see. So, they are

53:11going to have to provide those details

53:14before they're allowed to do anything

53:16regardless.

53:17>> Right. But we want to see them.

53:18>> You want to see it? Okay. Just want to

53:19make sure.

53:20>> Yeah. So, um, do I have a motion to

53:22continue

53:24>> to September 28th?

53:25>> Like to make a motion to continue 57 and

53:2763 Perry Avenue to the next meeting,

53:30September 28th. Is that right?

53:32>> Yeah.

53:33>> Yes. With uh, do we have to extend the

53:37constructive grant deadline? That would

53:39be till October 20th.

53:41>> Till October 20th.

53:43>> And the constructive grant deadline

53:45extended to October 20th.

53:46>> Okay. Do I have a second?

53:48>> Have to come back the next

53:51>> Mr. Torino.

53:52>> When you leave,

53:55>> you know, I've got I'll be up here for a

53:56while yet. Yes.

53:57>> Okay.

53:58>> Okay.

54:02>> Hello.

54:03>> Yes. Do I have a second on the

54:04continuous

54:05>> second?

54:06>> Okay. Uh let's vote on this and Mr.

54:08Bartonhagen.

54:09>> Yes.

54:09>> Mr. Torino,

54:11>> yes.

54:11>> Mr. Sacko,

54:13>> yes.

54:14>> And my vote is yes. So, we'll see you

54:16September 28th.

54:17>> Thank you.

54:18>> Thank you.

54:19>> Thank you.

54:20>> Thank you so much.

54:21>> You're welcome.

54:23The next item is 18 Crystal Street, I

54:27believe.

54:31Yes. The

54:34request is a variance for relief of 12

54:37parking spaces from the 12 space minimum

54:39off- streetet parking.

54:41Uh will the person representing the

54:43petitioner please come forward and

54:46present your petition?

54:47>> Uh uh for the record um my name is

54:50Donald O'Neal. I'm a lawyer here in

54:52Worester here this evening on behalf of

54:54the applicant uh in this case Crystal

54:57Street Apartments LLC.

55:00Um this is an existing

55:03um

55:06six unit building

55:09uh located. It's really like two to

55:12three deckers kind of put together I

55:15think is um the way I would describe it.

55:18But the um directly across the street

55:21from uh Crystal Park

55:24um

55:26it um

55:28current configuration has uh six five

55:33bedroomedroom apartments

55:36um which um are really um

55:41actually quite a bit larger than they

55:44really need to be. Um and what um so we

55:50have a total of

55:52presently

55:53um 30 bedrooms

55:56um and six apartments.

56:00Um and what we're proposing to do is to

56:05uh reconfigure um the interior space so

56:09as to create 12 apartments, three

56:12bedroomedroom apartments each. Uh that

56:16does result in an increase of um

56:19of uh six additional bedrooms, but

56:22they're configured in a way that

56:24basically would um a smaller sized

56:29apartment that's more uh fitting um for

56:33what the need is in that area. And the

56:37history of the property as I understand

56:38it u my client just purchased this

56:41property uh closed I think in the

56:43beginning of August. Um and um the plan

56:49would be

56:51uh in all likelihood um it's

56:54located within

56:57couple of blocks of Clark University.

57:00Uh, and the expectation would be that

57:02you would have student um, renters. Uh,

57:06and that's been, as I understand it,

57:10traditionally historically what the um,

57:14building has been used for. And in this

57:18situation, it it um lines up um with our

57:23plan in that um, there really is no

57:26parking available on site. I think the

57:28con the there are two spaces in the

57:31existing driveway on the right hand side

57:33of the building. Um but the um there's

57:38not a lot of need for um

57:42a parking and it

57:45as setup if if the likely tenants are

57:48Clark University students and most of

57:51them or quite a few of them have been

57:53international students um and a lot of

57:56people don't have cars um so it's not an

58:00issue and it is uh again within walking

58:04distance, easy walking distance of um

58:07Clark. Um and we are looking therefore

58:12for the relief that we're looking for is

58:14the 12 parking spaces that would be

58:17required um

58:20uh for six additional units even though

58:22it's all within the same space. Um

58:27you know in that regard this is again a

58:29situation where we don't feel that

58:31parking is needed. Uh the other factor

58:35in that is we can't count it but um

58:40the on street parking uh is actually uh

58:44available uh because cross street is the

58:47park uh and there's no houses on that

58:49side of the street.

58:51>> Uh and there's a long stretch of um you

58:53know street that would be available. Um

58:57and we don't see the need actually that

59:00we're going to need that. Um my client

59:03has been um in the process since

59:06purchasing the property and prior to

59:07that has been looking at the parking

59:09situation and there always seem to be

59:12parking available on the street. And

59:15again um we don't feel that um um you

59:19know we're going to need that number of

59:20parking spaces um or any parking spaces

59:24actually beyond what we have currently.

59:26And we're not also expecting

59:30um

59:32you know that the um

59:36public transportation is available. Part

59:39of what we're proposing for this

59:41property

59:42uh suggested by staff is to have um uh

59:47bicycle um

59:50>> facilities available on the property. Um

59:54if for people they could either walk or

59:56ride their bike or in some cases we do

59:59have a couple of the existing parking

1:00:02spaces available and then whatever would

1:00:04be available on the street. Um there. So

1:00:07the this is one of the uh properties

1:00:10that as a result of the um change in um

1:00:15zoning recently

1:00:18uh ended up reducing the um requirement

1:00:21here just to basically the parking

1:00:23relief. This would have been a

1:00:24residential conversion provision which

1:00:27would have allowed for the area relief

1:00:30and frontage relief. Um but however

1:00:33that's you know that's no longer

1:00:35required based upon the recent changes

1:00:38to um chapter 48. Um we did um Raphael

1:00:44Hernandez

1:00:45um I think is online from Acropolis. uh

1:00:48he has developed the plans. Um and in

1:00:53that regard um

1:00:55there are some suggested comments from

1:00:59staff that um I wanted to sort of just

1:01:03um bring to your attention and and walk

1:01:06through. I have looked at the um

1:01:09um the conditions generally

1:01:12um and there were a couple um

1:01:16uh clarifications that we wanted to make

1:01:17in terms of those conditions. So, uh, on

1:01:21staff memo page four or five,

1:01:24um, there was a request that, um,

1:01:29the, uh,

1:01:32this is asphalt from the rear of the

1:01:34property, um, be removed, um, and that,

1:01:38um, two shade trees uh, with landscaping

1:01:43uh, be installed. Um, it's actually it's

1:01:46not asphalt. It's it's stone. looks like

1:01:49half inch stone. Um, and we don't have

1:01:52an objection to um removing um

1:01:59basically turning that area to to the

1:02:01extent we can in the in the rear yard

1:02:04into a lawn grass area. Um, however,

1:02:08which not shown on

1:02:11um this rendering, but is shown on the I

1:02:14think the existing conditions plan that

1:02:16you have. Um

1:02:18there is a large retaining wall that

1:02:23goes across the back of the property

1:02:25that is um stone retaining wall that is

1:02:30about 14 ft high.

1:02:33Um I didn't measure it but somebody else

1:02:35did. Um so u that's the area that

1:02:39they're talking about to the rear of the

1:02:41building. And the complication with this

1:02:43suggestion from staff um is uh twofold

1:02:48actually. I if I could uh cover what uh

1:02:52A, B, and C. Um

1:02:56the uh we have another plan that shows

1:02:59it, but we are going to be providing a

1:03:02handicap uh ramp to the rear of the

1:03:05building. Uh, and there's another

1:03:08rendering that

1:03:10I don't know if if you've got it or a

1:03:12plan that shows the handicap ramp comes

1:03:15from the

1:03:17uh,

1:03:20yeah, although it's it's it the later

1:03:23version basically has it starting a

1:03:25little bit further to the back. Um, but

1:03:28there's a ramp that goes around, wraps

1:03:31around and goes through the through the

1:03:33backyard and into the um

1:03:37entry into this the rear entrance the

1:03:40back of the property. So,

1:03:43uh that would that area would be um

1:03:48um

1:03:50you know unavailable for landscaping

1:03:53basically because you need the the

1:03:55handicapped access. Um so,

1:03:59uh there's still some other room back

1:04:01there as as you can see to the if you're

1:04:04looking at the screen to the left of the

1:04:06screen. Um what we were proposing is

1:04:11there was a staff comment that talked

1:04:13about uh providing um indoor bike

1:04:16storage

1:04:17um as well as exterior bike storage for

1:04:20a total of 12. Um speaking with Mr.

1:04:23Hernandez. Um he informed me that which

1:04:27which would have been fine with us but

1:04:31uh for 12 units and up any common area

1:04:34has to be um accessible. So the proposed

1:04:39indoor storage area would have been in

1:04:41the basement which requires

1:04:44setter stas to go down into the

1:04:45basement. So basically there is no way

1:04:48to make that basement bike storage um

1:04:51accessible for for handicapped access.

1:04:54So our proposal um that we wanted to

1:04:56present was to uh provide a covered

1:05:00storage um in the rear corner opposite

1:05:04corner where the ramp is uh for um 12 uh

1:05:11bikes. Um, and I I do have I have a a

1:05:17sketch that um

1:05:21uh Mr. um Hernandez developed that I can

1:05:25show you if if you um

1:05:28>> Sure.

1:05:28>> Sure.

1:05:42So, so to be clear, you're um requesting

1:05:45that we uh change A to um

1:05:53>> Yeah. change change

1:05:54>> put as much grass area as possible and B

1:05:57and C have a covered storage for bikes

1:06:00in the rear yard.

1:06:02>> Correct. Yeah. And the only thing about

1:06:03that is it's obviously is going to cut

1:06:05down on the area that's available for

1:06:07landscaping. And the other thing that I

1:06:09wanted to just to uh kind of push back

1:06:12on as well was the two shade trees. Um

1:06:17because

1:06:18there's a lot going on back there

1:06:20between the wheelchair ramp. Um the

1:06:24bicycle storage and the 14 foot high

1:06:28wall. Um I was over there today myself u

1:06:32walking in the backyard and there also

1:06:35on each corner of the building there are

1:06:38overhead wires that connect to the

1:06:41building. Um so I don't think a tree

1:06:44would actually treerees not really going

1:06:46to fit that.

1:06:46>> Are you proposing something different?

1:06:48Uh, I mean, we could do the do grass and

1:06:52we could do shrubbery perhaps, but um

1:06:56it's just the trees are not um I don't

1:06:58think they'd be too close to the house.

1:07:01Um and it we just I'm not opposed to the

1:07:04trees. It's just can't really fit them

1:07:06in there.

1:07:06>> Okay, understood. Should we hear from

1:07:08staff now? You good with that?

1:07:09>> Uh yeah, the only and that regard too,

1:07:12the only thing I was going to say is on

1:07:13they're also recommending two in front.

1:07:17Um, and there is a little bit of I don't

1:07:19know if we have any exterior front

1:07:21photos there. It's a small area on

1:07:23either side of the front entrance, maybe

1:07:265x5 thereabouts. Um,

1:07:30and the request from staff was for two

1:07:32additional trees in front. Um

1:07:36the only problem I see with that is um

1:07:39on the right hand side

1:07:42uh on the front there are six gas

1:07:45meters.

1:07:46Now they're going to be six more. Um and

1:07:50that area itself is is like I said maybe

1:07:5425 square ft. I don't think you could

1:07:56dig a hole big enough to plant a 3-in

1:07:59caliber tree next to the gas meters. Um,

1:08:03you know, between the building and the

1:08:04sidewalk and the driveway to put a tree

1:08:07in that location. I would, you know, if

1:08:09if the request were like a dwarf tree of

1:08:12something that's, you know, 10 ft tall,

1:08:14something like that, we could maybe

1:08:16accommodate that. But um an actual

1:08:20full-size tree I think it would be um

1:08:23not feasible particularly on the right

1:08:24hand side. Um and on the left hand side

1:08:28um uh you know maybe again you could get

1:08:32maybe a small maybe like a crab apple

1:08:35tree or something like that but not not

1:08:38an oak tree or anything of that nature.

1:08:40>> Suggesting you plant two call them

1:08:43ornamental trees out front instead of a

1:08:45full

1:08:46>> smaller. Yeah. Yeah.

1:08:47>> Yeah.

1:08:47>> Okay, understood. Amy Beth.

1:08:50>> Oh, is that it?

1:08:52>> Uh, that's it.

1:08:53>> You off too quickly?

1:08:54>> Yeah.

1:08:55>> Go ahead. You all set?

1:08:57>> I'm all set.

1:08:58>> Amy Beth. All right. Through the chair,

1:09:00this is Amy Beth Le from the planning

1:09:01division. Uh, so presently on premise at

1:09:0418 Crystal Street is a six-unit

1:09:07multifamily low-rise dwelling and two

1:09:10privileged parking spaces. The applicant

1:09:13seeks to reconfigure the interior of the

1:09:16building to create 12 total units with

1:09:19no proposed changes to the exterior of

1:09:22the structure. This is the RG5 zoning

1:09:26district. So for the relief that is

1:09:30requested, it is for relief of 12

1:09:33parking spaces from the 12 space minimum

1:09:36off- streetet parking requirements. that

1:09:39is for the six additional units. That's

1:09:43they're requesting 100% of the parking

1:09:45relief for the six additional units.

1:09:49Um as alluded to by attorney O'Neal that

1:09:53due to changes in MGL4A,

1:09:56this is the only relief that they will

1:09:58need for these changes. All of the

1:10:01interior changes are allowed by right.

1:10:05Um,

1:10:07couple questions, things that we had

1:10:10brought up for the applicant is that

1:10:12with the change in units, curbside

1:10:15pickup is no longer available to use.

1:10:18So, we're curious how waste removal will

1:10:21be handled for the tenants andor located

1:10:24on site. Um, we're also interested to

1:10:28know how the proposed parking will be

1:10:31managed.

1:10:33Um, for the proposed bicycle racks, we

1:10:36did get the late uh updates to the plan

1:10:40that did represent or show us like you

1:10:43saw like attorney O'Neal showed to you

1:10:45with the bike rack in the rear. Um,

1:10:48something to take into consideration is

1:10:50that that structure will need to be set

1:10:54back five feet from the property line to

1:10:57be zoning compliant. So, um, that might

1:11:00need to be something that is updated.

1:11:05Um,

1:11:07and so I also when we get there after

1:11:10you discuss, I do have, if you're

1:11:12interested, I have proposed language for

1:11:14attorney O'Neal's um, revised conditions

1:11:17if we want to get there. And then the

1:11:20other item that I just wanted to offer

1:11:22is that Raphael Hernandez is online and

1:11:26is available with his hand raised if and

1:11:28when you are interested in having him

1:11:30speak.

1:11:31>> Okay. Thank you. Um, is there anybody

1:11:34else? Anybody in the audience wants to

1:11:36be heard on this? Yes. Please come

1:11:38forward. State your name and city of

1:11:39residence.

1:11:47My name is Joseph Clemmy. I'm Worester,

1:11:49Massachusetts.

1:11:52Can I present this to you, sir?

1:11:53>> Sure.

1:12:04What am I? Uh,

1:12:07>> we have a petition going on 1718

1:12:10Crystal.

1:12:13>> Oh, this is a neighborhood petition.

1:12:15>> Yes, sir.

1:12:16>> Okay.

1:12:19And uh

1:12:29this is all in opposition. Okay, great.

1:12:39I feel that. Look at that. Go ahead. As

1:12:41far as the parking on the street, I have

1:12:44been a resident.

1:12:46I lived in that house. Um, I live right

1:12:49next door, 16 Crystal Street. I've been

1:12:52in my residence for 47 years.

1:12:55Um, parking is astronomical on that

1:12:59street with that house there. I have a

1:13:02few pictures, nothing of

1:13:06the situation now, but you know, I I had

1:13:09taken some pictures of the road going up

1:13:11just recently just to show what the

1:13:13street looks like with cars parking on

1:13:15both sides.

1:13:16>> Mhm.

1:13:17>> This winter was absolutely

1:13:20terrible. The students would park on the

1:13:22other side of the street. They wouldn't

1:13:24move their cars. A few times the cars

1:13:26got left there and they just plowed

1:13:28around the cars. Narrowing the street

1:13:30down more and making it harder for

1:13:33emergency vehicles to get down to the

1:13:35end of the road because there are some

1:13:37sober houses down there made that very

1:13:40very difficult for them to get down our

1:13:43road. Um,

1:13:46I don't believe that if there were

1:13:48college students there, there were going

1:13:49to be no vehicles

1:13:52with the previous owner that was there.

1:13:55And the students that were there, there

1:13:57were probably two cars to every floor.

1:14:03Um,

1:14:04constantly blocking my driveway,

1:14:07me constantly telling them they can't be

1:14:09doing that. They have to be 5 foot from

1:14:11my curb cut away. I just started having

1:14:14them ticketed. Um I really it wasn't a

1:14:19lot of calls for 311, but I got fed up

1:14:22with it at the end. So they I did have

1:14:23them come a few times. I have other

1:14:26neighbors on the street who have

1:14:29problems with them and they live further

1:14:31down the street than I do. The car the

1:14:34street right now

1:14:37cannot handle

1:14:39any more vehicles than what it has

1:14:42already. I mean, you can go down Crystal

1:14:44Street right now in front of that house

1:14:45and there's no vehicles there because

1:14:47the whole house is empty. You can go up

1:14:50a few and as you can see in the pictures

1:14:54there. Most of these cars in this

1:14:56picture

1:14:59um belong to

1:15:01let's see Davis 12 10

1:15:06maybe. Um

1:15:09I I can't tell you the name the number

1:15:11of the h house.

1:15:16Yeah, I I can't tell you the number of

1:15:18the house.

1:15:22I'm just trying to go count back. 12 10.

1:15:27That might be eight Crystal Street. So 1

1:15:312 3 4 5 6 7 eight of these vehicles

1:15:36right here belong to one three deco.

1:15:40I mean, if you're putting a 12 in, I I I

1:15:45cannot imagine there's going to be no

1:15:47vehicles there at all.

1:15:49I just don't find anywhere where they're

1:15:51going to park that amount of vehicles. I

1:15:54mean, granted, we have Illinois Street

1:15:55down the end of the road. But the

1:15:57students, they're not going to want to

1:15:59walk from Illinois Street up to their

1:16:01apartment. They're going to want to park

1:16:02in front of their house. They're going

1:16:04to want to park in front of my house.

1:16:05They're going to want to park in front

1:16:06of the house next door to them.

1:16:10I I just can't say I mean

1:16:15>> I can read this through if you want to

1:16:17hear it, but I mean you have it.

1:16:19>> Well, we have it here.

1:16:20>> Yeah, you have it.

1:16:21>> Um that's all I have to say, but I I I

1:16:24just oppose it 100% and you can see my

1:16:27neighbors do too.

1:16:28>> Yeah. Thank you. You're welcome.

1:16:30>> Thank you.

1:16:30>> Anybody else want to be heard?

1:16:37Is it

1:16:38>> name and city of residence?

1:16:40>> Sure. Tom Bighgam, 36 Crystal Street.

1:16:43I'd just like to echo what Joe said

1:16:45about the parking is our main concern.

1:16:47So, I'll respectfully disagree with

1:16:49attorney O'Neal. Just one example was a

1:16:53student from that home parked in front

1:16:54of my house. You come home from work

1:16:56from Boston 6 o'clock at night. The

1:16:59driver was covered and the sidewalk was

1:17:00covered. So, snow was put back onto the

1:17:03sidewalk that we cleared. So, not every

1:17:06student will have a vehicle. Not every

1:17:08student's a problem. But I know the

1:17:10city's been issuing variances for

1:17:12parking for larger dwellings, but our

1:17:14concern is really the parking is, you

1:17:16know, you can't get by as it is now.

1:17:19Then during the winter when there's a

1:17:21storm, they declare an emergency. So,

1:17:22it's one side.

1:17:25So, all the vehicles go to one side of

1:17:26the street. So, so I appreciate, you

1:17:29know, listening to us today and

1:17:31considering the parking concern. That's

1:17:33the major issue that we have. So,

1:17:35>> thank you.

1:17:36>> Thank you.

1:17:36>> Anybody else?

1:17:48>> Good evening all. Stanley Pinkney, a

1:17:51resident of Wester Crystal Street.

1:17:54Uh, I've lived here since

1:17:57209

1:17:59and I find that there's a repeated

1:18:01problem parking on Crystal Street during

1:18:05snowstorms. Most of the people who live

1:18:08in that uh double house, their friends

1:18:13come,

1:18:14they park all the way down the street in

1:18:16front of my house. There are notices for

1:18:20snow removal.

1:18:22The plows can't do the job because the

1:18:24cars are in the way because people won't

1:18:26move their cars with the alerts. I've

1:18:30seen 18-wheeler trucks

1:18:32drive up Crystal Street to Main Street.

1:18:36They get stuck on the street because of

1:18:38the parking on both sides of the street.

1:18:41Somebody has to stop either which way in

1:18:44order to let the other car go by. but an

1:18:4618-wheeler or a fire department truck.

1:18:50I've seen that just get bogged down

1:18:52because people don't move their cars.

1:18:55So, I agree with everything the previous

1:18:57speakers had to say because we our

1:18:59neighbors along that street.

1:19:01>> Thank you.

1:19:01>> Thank you.

1:19:02>> Anybody else?

1:19:05Is anybody online?

1:19:14Amy Beth

1:19:14>> only only Raphael.

1:19:16>> Okay. Nobody online to hear about this.

1:19:19Um

1:19:22well uh the parking is an issue. I don't

1:19:25know how you propose to address it. Uh

1:19:28um I can say that I I like the idea of

1:19:31taking this structure and um making it

1:19:34code compliant. I'm sure you have to do

1:19:36that to uh to bring it to add the units,

1:19:40fire um sprinklers, etc., etc. Uh, you

1:19:44know, access. Um,

1:19:48but it does increase the demand for

1:19:50parking on the street and it does seem

1:19:52to be an issue. I don't know if you have

1:19:54you had a chance to review there.

1:19:57>> No, no, but um I I can um take a look at

1:20:02that. The only thing I would respond

1:20:04with is

1:20:06um

1:20:09you know the um

1:20:13uh

1:20:15if if you have six five- bedroomedroom

1:20:19apartments

1:20:21um that are grandfathered

1:20:24um that the additional parking that

1:20:27would be created by we are proposing um

1:20:31six additional

1:20:33uh bedrooms. Uh but it maybe is

1:20:36something that we can take a look at in

1:20:37terms of um trying to keep the bedroom

1:20:42count consistent with what already

1:20:46exists. That would

1:20:48>> so that if you're at 30 existing

1:20:51bedrooms and then 30 bedrooms only just

1:20:56broken up into

1:20:59um

1:21:00separate apartments instead of having

1:21:03you know six overly large apartments

1:21:06um you've got you know 12 normalsiz

1:21:09apartments with um the same number of

1:21:12bedrooms then I don't think that I think

1:21:16to the extent you're looking at a

1:21:18bedroom count representing potentially

1:21:21I guess the um the same number of that

1:21:24shouldn't generate any additional

1:21:26traffic over or or parking over what um

1:21:31is currently there and I speaking to my

1:21:34client um I know he did do some inquiry

1:21:37in terms of the previous owner in terms

1:21:40of how many people had cars uh and it

1:21:42and it wasn't uh a significant number Um

1:21:47but the um

1:21:50um I understand the um issues that have

1:21:53been raised and that the the board um

1:21:56you know feels a need to address that.

1:21:59Um and um

1:22:03I would suggest uh maybe in this case

1:22:05also a continuence to the um to the next

1:22:10meeting. we can take a look at the the

1:22:13configuration,

1:22:13>> right,

1:22:14>> and perhaps come back with um some

1:22:17revised plans that um bring the um

1:22:22bedroom count uh back down to 30

1:22:25>> what was originally um there in place.

1:22:29>> Seems to me a good start. Let's hear

1:22:32from the other board members. Eric,

1:22:35>> thanks to the chair. Yeah, obviously

1:22:37when you have I mean you'll you'll look

1:22:39at this but there are a lot of people

1:22:40who sign that petition on the hall list

1:22:43Crystal Street. So obviously this is

1:22:45parking is a big concern. I agree with I

1:22:48agree with you Mr. Neil, that if you do

1:22:50a like for like, if it was 30 bedrooms

1:22:52before and it's 30 bedrooms after the

1:22:54reconfiguration, then there's nothing

1:22:57there's no increase in the number of of

1:22:59bedrooms and that would make it uh car

1:23:02neutral uh essentially and therefore

1:23:05ameliate some of the concerns that the

1:23:07neighbors might have because it was

1:23:08there was 30 bedrooms before. Um so

1:23:11you're not adding to the problem um that

1:23:14exists. It's you're just maintaining the

1:23:16same level. I know that staff is not

1:23:19excited about another continuence to

1:23:22probably a very busy day on September

1:23:2428th, but um I I don't see any way

1:23:26around it here um myself. Um okay, I I

1:23:32agree and um and all the changes we

1:23:35discussed seems to be in um we seem to

1:23:38be in agreement on those. So let's hear

1:23:41from uh Mr. Torquino. Do you have any

1:23:43comments on this question? I I it's

1:23:46unfortunate that we have to deal with

1:23:48this parking. I know this area very

1:23:52well. I drive there all the time. I

1:23:55support the project, but the parking

1:23:57issue is making me

1:24:00um really consider my decision. So,

1:24:03would it be possible to have a parking

1:24:06analysis done carefully

1:24:08attached to it? because I understand

1:24:11what the applicant said. But let's take

1:24:14what the neighbors are saying and then

1:24:17evaluate it carefully because I

1:24:20experience these

1:24:22snow days when you know you have snow

1:24:24banks and people park on both sides and

1:24:27then when you're driving in the morning

1:24:29you have eyes on the floor you can't

1:24:31drive cuz you're afraid to bang on

1:24:32somebody's car and then there's trucks

1:24:35coming trash you know we have to avoid

1:24:37that cuz it's not good for anybody.

1:24:41So I would like to have a parking

1:24:43analysis down on that street. That's

1:24:45where I stand.

1:24:47>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sacko.

1:24:51>> Chair continuence is um the way to go

1:24:54here. No comment.

1:24:55>> I think I agree with you. Um

1:24:59>> just do do we want to ask the applicant

1:25:01to actually do a parking study or a

1:25:03traffic study or is that a little

1:25:05overkill?

1:25:06>> Um

1:25:06>> especially if they come back with a plan

1:25:08where there is no net increase.

1:25:09>> I'm not sure we need that. I agree with

1:25:11you.

1:25:12>> Um

1:25:13>> but I mean obviously board members um

1:25:16Tono feel strongly about that. So I

1:25:18guess we can leave it up.

1:25:20>> We leave it up to Yeah.

1:25:22>> Okay.

1:25:23>> Because the the the the neighbors I know

1:25:26exactly what the neighbors are saying.

1:25:28I've experienced it on that street,

1:25:31various streets around Grafton Street.

1:25:34And when I'm dropping off my kids, it's

1:25:36very it's dangerous. You can hit

1:25:38somebody's car. They've packed on both

1:25:40sides and it's tight. And then when

1:25:43there's a trash delivery truck on the

1:25:45You can't move,

1:25:47>> right? And frankly, this last winter was

1:25:49hell

1:25:50>> getting around Worester to just put it

1:25:52bluntly.

1:25:54>> Yeah. So,

1:25:54>> and we don't know that the next one

1:25:55won't be as bad or even worse. Um I hope

1:26:00not because my plowing bill was really

1:26:02high. Uh but um uh

1:26:07given that in my opinion given that

1:26:09there's no net if you reproposed with no

1:26:13net increase in bedrooms

1:26:15um I think I think we have um

1:26:19uh some room I feel I have room for

1:26:21compromise at least we've addressed some

1:26:23of the neighbors issues. So um we leave

1:26:27it at that. Are we good with a

1:26:29continuence to September 28th?

1:26:32Um yeah, I think we I think the um um

1:26:38well, it seems that there's a there's a

1:26:41desire on the board's part to to

1:26:44I don't know that would give us a

1:26:46reconfiguration and unless you you were

1:26:48just looking at a condition that would

1:26:51um I would probably um think it would um

1:26:56make sense to to

1:26:58sit down with Mr. Hernandez to see what

1:27:01he can come up in terms of a

1:27:02reconfiguration.

1:27:03>> Good idea.

1:27:04>> Um so I you know the outside's not going

1:27:06to change, but the floor plan would

1:27:09change. Um so um and I hate to the point

1:27:14of this meeting was to get through some

1:27:16of the um your backlog. Um but you know

1:27:20we've this time shouldn't need to be

1:27:22repeated next time through.

1:27:24>> So I think it is progressive in that

1:27:26regard. But I would think a continuence

1:27:29um would make sense and we can sort of

1:27:31look at the issue and uh I I hadn't seen

1:27:34that wasn't aware that there was a a

1:27:37petition uh floating around

1:27:40>> a lot of signatures on

1:27:41>> but I can get a copy of it and u we'll

1:27:43we'll look at that see if there's some

1:27:45anything that um else

1:27:47>> they have a valid point parking there is

1:27:50you know is a problem

1:27:53>> and and I guess as far as I'm concerned

1:27:55as far as the other changes go. I'm I

1:27:57was okay with those as far as the the

1:27:59removing the trees and the grass and the

1:28:01bikes outside. I don't know whether by

1:28:03reducing them or bedrooms you might have

1:28:04room for an interior bike rack uh on the

1:28:07first floor now uh you know I have no

1:28:10idea but uh but otherwise I would I was

1:28:13okay with all the other changes that you

1:28:15had recommended.

1:28:16>> Okay, great. Okay, so okay sir you want

1:28:19to be heard please come up.

1:28:21>> No, come on up. you have to be on the

1:28:23mic.

1:28:23>> And through the chair, while the

1:28:25speaker's coming up, just hearing the

1:28:26board's concerns, would you be looking

1:28:28for the applicant to provide you with a

1:28:30transportation demand management plan

1:28:31for their proposal? So, just basically

1:28:34how they're going to manage parking,

1:28:35something that you could condition.

1:28:36>> I mean, board member Toro might be the

1:28:39one to speak on that, but he's the one

1:28:40that wants to see that. But that's what

1:28:42it sounds like he's saying. Yeah.

1:28:44>> Yes.

1:28:45>> Okay. Okay. Joseph Clemmy. So the other

1:28:50concern I have is the rubbish out front.

1:28:53Okay. Now, as she spoke earlier, it

1:28:56eliminates them from the city of Wester

1:28:58picking up their rubbish.

1:29:00>> That's correct.

1:29:00>> All right. So, the previous owner had a

1:29:03dumpster on the 18 Crystal Street side

1:29:07um by the little white house.

1:29:10The dumpster was always full, but it was

1:29:13always a pig style in front of the house

1:29:15when it come rubbish day, too.

1:29:18Um, the canned bottle and cans, there

1:29:21had to be at least

1:29:2312, 13 of those things piled out in

1:29:26front of that house. Where they got them

1:29:27from, I don't know, but I know they've

1:29:29had mine plenty of times before. And I

1:29:31just use a plastic container.

1:29:34Looks like the handicap ramp is going to

1:29:36go up on my side of the property.

1:29:40I also have a problem with them throwing

1:29:42their stuff in my yard all the time.

1:29:45Is there any law saying how far that

1:29:47handicap ramp has to be from my property

1:29:49or can it be buted right up against my

1:29:52property?

1:29:52>> Uh I believe there's setback for any

1:29:55structure.

1:29:57Uh Mr. Horn or Michelle

1:30:00>> to the chairman that would be exempt

1:30:02from setback if it's a handicap ramp.

1:30:04>> A handicap ramp is exempt from setback.

1:30:07>> Sorry. Through the chair. The applicant

1:30:09did revise their design for the handicap

1:30:12ramp. So, it is not to the speaker, it

1:30:15is not what you're seeing represented in

1:30:17this photo. Um,

1:30:21if if once you've completed what you

1:30:24want to say, I can show you the new

1:30:27plan. This is what he presented to the

1:30:29board was the new plan for the ramp in

1:30:30the rear.

1:30:35>> Okay. Um,

1:30:37that's your concern. Amy Beth can show

1:30:39you what the plan the revised plan is

1:30:43and if you're okay with that

1:30:44>> and and what would they be doing about

1:30:46the rubber situation?

1:30:48>> We'll have to hear from them.

1:30:49>> Okay. Thank you,

1:30:53>> Mr. O'Neal.

1:30:56>> Yeah. Um the handicap ramp kind of hugs

1:30:58the building there. It's a normal

1:31:01walkway that uh be the same thing for

1:31:03anyone.

1:31:04If they need a ramp, they need a ramp or

1:31:06could be a walkway too. And there, you

1:31:08know, there's no normal setback for a

1:31:10walkway.

1:31:10>> Sure.

1:31:11>> Uh and it's just, you know, it's it's

1:31:13pretty um they

1:31:15>> inconspicuous, kind of unobtrusive.

1:31:18Um

1:31:18>> what about the trash

1:31:19>> in uh trash? Um the they are correct.

1:31:25The um previous owner had um that came

1:31:29up in the staff memo

1:31:32um as well. And the previous location

1:31:36was a dumpster which was um plastic

1:31:39rollout dumpster that was located on the

1:31:42front left hand corner. It's kind of a

1:31:45paved area there. Um, and that was um,

1:31:49so there was private pickup previously

1:31:52and that was the location and um, I

1:31:55never got to that in terms of uh, going

1:31:57through staff's memo, but uh, we were

1:32:00uh, going to propose continuing on with

1:32:02that current situation.

1:32:05>> Uh, I think the issue is you have to

1:32:07have enough carts to cover the amount of

1:32:11trash.

1:32:12>> Yeah. Right. No. and and I I I you know

1:32:16my client is is

1:32:19new to the properties he's purchasing

1:32:21it. Uh he has other properties that he

1:32:23manages. Um so I think the um um what's

1:32:28true previously as to what happens when

1:32:32under new ownership um one doesn't

1:32:35necessarily translate into the other.

1:32:37>> Okay. Um and we would um you know his uh

1:32:41this is a pretty significant investment

1:32:44in terms of this building. It's going to

1:32:45be as as indicated all you know made

1:32:48code compliant in terms of fire

1:32:50protection and uh various other

1:32:53upgrades. Um so um you know he's um he's

1:32:57not looking to have a building with uh

1:32:59trash

1:33:01uh you know

1:33:02>> piling out of a a dumpster um that he

1:33:05owns.

1:33:06>> Right. And and uh just a point I'm going

1:33:08to make to the neighbors is if if if

1:33:10trash or something like that is a

1:33:12problem, I believe it's a phone call to

1:33:14code. Is that correct, Mr. Horn?

1:33:16>> That's correct, Mr. Chen.

1:33:18>> Yeah, phone call to to code and um or

1:33:21311 and they'll connect you to code and

1:33:25you got to be persistent with it. I know

1:33:27I've had problems like that myself in

1:33:28the past. you know, you got to call and

1:33:30call and call and call again sometimes

1:33:33and it's a pain and it's impacts your

1:33:35life, but sometimes that's what you have

1:33:38to do. So, okay. Um, uh, continuence to

1:33:42September 28th.

1:33:46>> Uh, October 7th.

1:33:47>> October 7th. Is that the

1:33:50>> I think that's the next meeting.

1:33:51>> No, September 28th is Sep is our next

1:33:54meeting.

1:33:55>> Oh, October 7th must be planning board

1:33:57or something. Uh, yeah. Okay.

1:33:59>> Um,

1:34:01>> is that enough time to get the traffic

1:34:03information you need?

1:34:03>> I think it's enough time for the

1:34:05architectural. Um, and uh, in terms of

1:34:08looking if we have to do a

1:34:10transportation management um, is that

1:34:13>> um, require

1:34:14>> what did you call that? Excuse me.

1:34:16>> Would that be at our uh, discretion?

1:34:20>> No, she had a different word for a

1:34:22different description

1:34:23>> through the chair. So, transportation

1:34:24demand management plan. So basically

1:34:26explaining a plan that's prepared that

1:34:28explains how you're going to manage the

1:34:30demand for parking on the site, what

1:34:32parking would be available, how tenants

1:34:33become aware of the lack or existing

1:34:37parking, if there's an agreement in

1:34:38place to rent parking somewhere else, um

1:34:41how folks are being provided with

1:34:43information about bus lines and bike

1:34:45storage, etc. So it's a plan that kind

1:34:47of describes how operationally things

1:34:50will work and details out um the reasons

1:34:52that you know what what's proposed is

1:34:54adequate from a demand perspective.

1:34:58>> Um I still think um if we were um

1:35:06to commission that I think we could

1:35:07probably get that done also within that

1:35:09uh

1:35:09>> for September 28th.

1:35:10>> September 28th.

1:35:12>> All right. Do I hear a motion to

1:35:13continue this item to September 28th?

1:35:16Uh,

1:35:16>> I'd like to make a motion to continue 18

1:35:18Crystal Street to uh September 28th,

1:35:212026 meeting with a constructive grant

1:35:23deadline of October 20, 2026.

1:35:25>> Thank you. Do I have a second? Mr.

1:35:27Torino,

1:35:28>> second.

1:35:29>> Uh, all in favor? Mr. Bartonhagen?

1:35:31>> Yes.

1:35:31>> Mr. Torino?

1:35:33>> Yes.

1:35:33>> Mr. Sacko?

1:35:34>> Yes.

1:35:35>> And my vote is yes. So, this item has

1:35:37continued to September 28th. they'll

1:35:39come back with a revised plan and some

1:35:41of the detail that uh we have requested.

1:35:45Um if you want to be sure that the

1:35:47meeting will be held they we will be

1:35:48ready that day because sometimes they

1:35:50did continue beyond that you can call

1:35:52staff u the week before just to make

1:35:55sure. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank

1:35:57you for coming.

1:35:57>> Number

1:35:59okay.

1:36:02>> Uh

1:36:04this goes to Amy Beth. Uh, the next

1:36:07item, um,

1:36:10where's my paperwork here, Crystal? 88

1:36:13Providence Street.

1:36:15Will the person representing the

1:36:17petitioner please come forward and

1:36:19present your petition?

1:36:22Thank you.

1:36:24>> Um, good evening. Um again

1:36:28for the record uh Donald O'Neal lawyer

1:36:32here in Wister here this receiving on

1:36:33behalf of the applicant

1:36:35um in this matter which is a request for

1:36:40a special permit

1:36:43to um allow for a change in a

1:36:47pre-existing non-conforming use which is

1:36:49a um currently

1:36:52um a convenience store. Um it has um

1:36:57been operated by my clients uh since

1:37:032002.

1:37:04Um and prior to that I've been I've

1:37:08going through um staff's memo. I see

1:37:10that it's um um it has been um listed as

1:37:15a storefront going back um

1:37:19over 100 years. Um,

1:37:24currently it's set up as a sort of a

1:37:27traditional convenience store use. Um,

1:37:30they have um a fair number of um walk-in

1:37:36customers from the neighborhood. Uh, and

1:37:40there there have been um customers that

1:37:43they've have inquired about the

1:37:45possibility of beer and wine sales

1:37:47because I guess the closest uh spot um

1:37:51for people on foot is um end of

1:37:54Providence Street down on up onto

1:37:56Grafton Street, which um not that far in

1:38:00a car, but a little bit farther when

1:38:02you're on foot and it's, you know,

1:38:05uphill on the way home. But um that is

1:38:09um something which um they would like to

1:38:13be able to offer uh as an additional um

1:38:17convenience item within the store. Um

1:38:22while still maintaining the existing uh

1:38:26business that is in place uh and they

1:38:29have been conducting you know for the

1:38:31last 20 plus years. Um the total square

1:38:36footage, it's a one-story building is

1:38:38about uh 1,40.

1:38:41Um and we have um I think that area is a

1:38:47little bit larger than um what we had

1:38:50calculated um on the block. It was um

1:38:54more if you're looking at the plan where

1:38:57it says beer and wine sales, it's really

1:39:00from that line back to the um storage

1:39:04space in the back. So, we're talking

1:39:06about um

1:39:09about 360

1:39:13square ft of area within 14 1440

1:39:20uh square foot building. So that works

1:39:22out to be actually uh square footage

1:39:25wise um it's about 25% of the floor

1:39:28space. Um, and some of that has to do

1:39:30with the um,

1:39:33uh, I think particularly with um,

1:39:37beer probably more than wine, but um,

1:39:40there's a a lot of varieties now. Um,

1:39:43and and I think that the in order to uh,

1:39:48carry uh, you know, some selection um,

1:39:52you need a little bit of space in order

1:39:54to do that. Um the building itself um

1:39:59occupies a um three three family uh next

1:40:04door. It's actually where my clients

1:40:06live. Uh and they uh have the store

1:40:09which they operate. Um and that location

1:40:13um there is no parking for the store

1:40:17currently and we're not proposing any

1:40:20parking. There's there's really no space

1:40:22in order to do that. But they have been

1:40:25functioning in that location for 20 plus

1:40:27years and prior to that uh many years

1:40:30before that by previous owners. Um so um

1:40:34we are just looking for the special

1:40:36permit which would allow for the

1:40:38expansion of this um use. It would also

1:40:41obviously require approval from the

1:40:43license commission. Um and um we would

1:40:48need to go through uh and obtain their

1:40:50approval as well as well as a license to

1:40:53um uh make the sales. But the first step

1:40:56would be uh getting your approval to

1:41:00allow us to um um you know pursue the

1:41:04approval from the license commission. Um

1:41:06I have looked at the uh staff um

1:41:12proposed comments uh in terms of

1:41:14approval. Um

1:41:18I have no objections to those and there

1:41:20are actually three waivers that are

1:41:22listed. I would request those waivers

1:41:25and

1:41:27answer any questions you might have.

1:41:29>> Okay. Thank you. Um Amy Beth or Michelle

1:41:32was

1:41:33>> through the chair. It's me, Michelle

1:41:35Smith, on this item. So, from the

1:41:37planning division, here I am to give

1:41:39hopefully our last substantive set of

1:41:41comments this evening. Um, 88 Pro

1:41:43Street, which as you heard, we have a

1:41:45request this evening for an extension,

1:41:48alteration, or change to a privileged

1:41:49pre-existing non-conforming use,

1:41:52specifically to allow for a use of a

1:41:54similar nature within a portion of the

1:41:56building. So, on this property today,

1:41:58there's actually two structures. Um the

1:42:00structure that we're really discussing

1:42:01this evening is known as uh 88A

1:42:04Providence Street. Um that is a a store

1:42:07a sort of grocery convenience store

1:42:09neighborhood scale that's located and

1:42:11known as the store at this location.

1:42:13There's also a three family dwelling

1:42:14that's set back a bit um adjacent to the

1:42:17building to the right. So you can see

1:42:18here on the plan the two structures that

1:42:20occupy the the lot. This is an RG5

1:42:22zoning district, so a residential zoning

1:42:24district. and the applicant what they're

1:42:25looking to do within a small portion of

1:42:27the existing store if we go to the floor

1:42:29plan is to sell um in addition to their

1:42:32regular products which the applicant can

1:42:34detail for you the scope of um

1:42:36specifically looking to sell alcohol

1:42:38being beer and wine or malt and wine as

1:42:41it's referred to uh from a a liquor

1:42:43license perspective. So, they're in

1:42:44front of you to go from what is

1:42:46presently a non-conforming use being the

1:42:49sort of retail, food service,

1:42:50convenience store, ger component, um, a

1:42:54portion of that area, just switching

1:42:56what's out um, on the shelves to allow

1:42:58for liquor to be sold in that location.

1:43:00So, neither of these uses would

1:43:02typically be allowed in this district.

1:43:04Um, as you heard, our records indicate

1:43:06that the use was established sometime

1:43:07between 1911 1937. Um, as indicated on

1:43:11old Sanburn fire insurance maps, the

1:43:13structures there at that time. So, we

1:43:15weren't able to pinpoint exactly the

1:43:16date, but we expect that since then,

1:43:19this building has been operating as some

1:43:20form of a store. Um, this particular

1:43:22operator has been operating the store

1:43:26since at least 2001 when they actually

1:43:28came in front of the zoning board and

1:43:29got a special permit um or got approvals

1:43:32rather uh to extend the kind of rear

1:43:35portion of the building. You can see the

1:43:36articulation and jog and the building

1:43:38line. rear portion was added uh through

1:43:40grant of relief from the ZBA back in

1:43:422001. Um there subsequently were some

1:43:44alterations to the three family um but

1:43:47don't really affect what you're you're

1:43:49here to discuss tonight. So this is

1:43:50about a 1,400 square ft store today with

1:43:54all the space including the storage and

1:43:56approximately I'll have the applicant

1:43:58confirm the square footage but based on

1:44:00our measurements it was around 360

1:44:02square feet that would be proposed

1:44:04specifically to display the alcohol use.

1:44:07Um, so you we call that from a zoning

1:44:10perspective a package store. Obviously

1:44:11they're selling things other than that,

1:44:13but just from a zoning perspective.

1:44:14We're going from one use, which is a

1:44:17retail food sales use, to another use,

1:44:19which is a package store use in that

1:44:21portion of the building. Um, they won't

1:44:24just sell alcohol. This will just be an

1:44:26additional component of the sales and

1:44:28provide the flexibility for them to make

1:44:30those sales. Um obviously they could

1:44:32continue to operate the ger um

1:44:34convenience store as they have been

1:44:36historically operating it in this

1:44:38location without any relief from this

1:44:40board. Um we do have recommendations for

1:44:43conditions of approval. Um conditions

1:44:46two and three are essentially conditions

1:44:47we are pulling forward from prior

1:44:50decisions and the intent would be that

1:44:52this decision would essentially

1:44:54supersede the conditions from previous

1:44:55decisions. so it's not confusing as to

1:44:57which conditions govern for this

1:44:59property. Um, which were related to

1:45:01deliveries and dumpsters not being

1:45:03allowed to be located in the rear. Um,

1:45:05and as well as no air conditioning units

1:45:07on the Patterson side um of the

1:45:10property. So the the new conditions that

1:45:12we would be imposing specifically limit

1:45:14the alcohol sales to beer and wine. So

1:45:16if they decided to sell liquor, full

1:45:18liquor license um in the future, they

1:45:21would come back in front of the board uh

1:45:23for reconsideration.

1:45:25And then it also limits the alcohol

1:45:27sales to align with the um hours that

1:45:30are set forth in the license

1:45:31commission's regulations. So that's

1:45:33Monday through Saturday 8:00 a.m. to

1:45:3511:00 p.m. and then Sundays 10:00 a.m.

1:45:37to 11:00 p.m. Um so those would be

1:45:39basically the the widest range of

1:45:42flexibility. Um certainly the board

1:45:44could discuss whether that needs to be

1:45:46contracted. That will also be set uh by

1:45:48the license commission as part of of

1:45:50their uh permitting process were the

1:45:52application to move from this board onto

1:45:54the next step which would be the license

1:45:56commission uh where the commission

1:45:57considers things like saturation and

1:45:59neighborhood service in deciding whether

1:46:01or not it's appropriate to grant the

1:46:02license. Um so again, if the applicant

1:46:05could just clarify exactly what that um

1:46:08square footage is and if if the board

1:46:10wishes to hear more about all the

1:46:11different products that they sell, they

1:46:13could detail that out. Um we do note

1:46:15that the store currently actually

1:46:16operates a bit earlier than the liquor

1:46:19license uh regulations would allow. So

1:46:22there's a potential for conflict that

1:46:24first hour where they wouldn't be able

1:46:25to sell alcohol. Um that's not unusual.

1:46:28there are areas in the city where that

1:46:30happens, but we just wanted to flag it

1:46:32um for the applicant in the event that

1:46:34that would change their operations in

1:46:35any way. Um we did have questions about

1:46:37kind of current trash management and

1:46:39just wanting to make sure that this

1:46:41wouldn't exacerbate whatever that was

1:46:43and that that's appropriately um being

1:46:46handled and also confirm if there was

1:46:48any changes to signage. Otherwise, this

1:46:51is a property that's located in the

1:46:52Vernon Hill neighborhood. It's located

1:46:54basically on Providence Street on the

1:46:56west side, but near the intersection of

1:46:57Dorchester Street. So, you're right

1:46:59across from the Worcester Academy

1:47:00campus. Um, just to the immediately to

1:47:03the south is Frankie's Pizza. So, I

1:47:05suspect that patrons of the pizza

1:47:07establishment may hop over where they to

1:47:09be granted, grab something to drink and

1:47:11have that with their pizza, assuming

1:47:13that Frankie does BYOB. Um, which I'm

1:47:16not sure that they do. Uh but the the

1:47:20location is also very convenient um in

1:47:22terms of walkability in the

1:47:23neighborhood. It's located right near

1:47:25public transit at the intersection of

1:47:26Providence and Patterson. So certainly

1:47:28convenient for residents to be able to

1:47:30get around and and move to this

1:47:31location. Um and it is in a managed

1:47:34growth area in the citywide long range

1:47:36plan. Well, that's really mostly focused

1:47:38on housing production. Certainly, a lot

1:47:40of what we heard from that planning

1:47:42effort was the desire for community

1:47:43members to be able to kind of shop

1:47:45locally and be able to to walk to a

1:47:47neighborhood corner store to pick up

1:47:48things that they need or to run to a

1:47:50restaurant and kind of having these. So,

1:47:52these types of uses definitely make our

1:47:54neighborhoods vibrant and it was

1:47:55something that we heard a lot about as

1:47:56part of the long-range plan that folks

1:47:58wanted to keep when we were talking

1:47:59about how folks would would like to see

1:48:01that our regulations change. Um, so I

1:48:06can answer any questions that the board

1:48:07might have, but um, the questions again

1:48:09to just recap that we had had were trash

1:48:11m trash trash management, um, the square

1:48:14footage specifically of the the alcohol

1:48:16area, any changes to signage, um, and if

1:48:20the board wanted to hear more about the

1:48:22products that would be, uh, continue to

1:48:24be sold other than alcohol. Thanks.

1:48:26>> Great. Thank you. Um before you answer

1:48:29any of that, let's anybody in the

1:48:30audience wish to be heard on this?

1:48:33No. Is there anybody online?

1:48:37No. Okay. Do you want to answer?

1:48:39>> Sure. I I can try.

1:48:41>> Hold on a second.

1:48:43>> Sorry, I missed it. There is somebody

1:48:44with their hand raised. Uh

1:48:49Franceel.

1:48:55>> Hello.

1:48:56>> Hello. Yep. We we can hear you.

1:48:59>> Uh great. Hi, I'm Francil Holland. I'm

1:49:01here with my wife Karen. We um reside at

1:49:0392 Providence Street and we also own the

1:49:05property at 66 Dorchester Street. Um we

1:49:08did hear about the um proposal for this

1:49:11for the liquor store. We do feel that it

1:49:12would be kind of an issue over here, not

1:49:15only just because it's a liquor store,

1:49:16there's a lot of schools around here and

1:49:17children who run in and out of that

1:49:18store as well, but also even just the

1:49:20parking situation. Um, I know even as a

1:49:23matter of fact, we had recently filed a

1:49:25petition for change in parking because

1:49:27we had a lot of overflow that comes from

1:49:29the other side of the intersection from

1:49:30like Frankie's Pizza. They flood the um

1:49:33the streets over here. They even camp

1:49:34out eating pizza in the middle of the

1:49:36night. Matter of fact, I have I have a

1:49:38lot of trash that accumulates outside of

1:49:40our properties from the property on the

1:49:41other side of the Dorchester

1:49:42intersection. And I think that um having

1:49:45the liquor store there is going to

1:49:47increase that um issue for us as well.

1:49:50So, I mean, that's kind of where we

1:49:51stand on that. I mean, in fact, I had

1:49:53just recently sent a email to the city

1:49:55manager because of the ongoing situation

1:49:58and including photographs of the pizza

1:50:00boxes and soda bottles and everything

1:50:02else that's all, um, in front of our

1:50:04property. Um, which is pretty

1:50:05consistent. So, um, we we are kind of

1:50:07opposed to that idea of increasing that.

1:50:12>> Okay. Thank you.

1:50:14Um, you want

1:50:15>> Yeah, just just to that just for

1:50:18clarify, um, we're not talking about a

1:50:21package store. We're not talking about a

1:50:23full liquor sales. This is strictly

1:50:25limited to beer and wine, which is a

1:50:28different license from a full package

1:50:30store license. Um the pizza um operation

1:50:37is actually the next building over

1:50:41um at I believe that's at 90 um

1:50:44Providence Street. So it's not on this

1:50:48property, it's the store and then the

1:50:50house on the right which is the 88 Pro

1:50:53Street. Um

1:50:56and I think the pizza place would be on

1:50:59the if on the screen to the left. um of

1:51:04uh what's represented.

1:51:06>> Um

1:51:09the um

1:51:11um this is an a situation where we have

1:51:16existing clientele that have been

1:51:17inquiring about this. It's for people.

1:51:20Um I don't think it's going to be uh the

1:51:23offerings are not going to be so

1:51:24extensive that it's um a destination

1:51:27location. And again, it would only be

1:51:29for beer and wine. Um and the intent

1:51:34here is not to convert the entire

1:51:37business um to a beer and wine store. Um

1:51:41it's still going to remain a convenience

1:51:42store.

1:51:43>> Um you're limiting it to uh how many

1:51:45square feet?

1:51:47>> 360. 360. Okay.

1:51:50>> Um which is about 25% leaving 75%

1:51:53convenience store. Uh basically

1:51:57>> um and that's you know that's a little

1:51:58bit of a a guess in terms of um what we

1:52:02would need because they they haven't

1:52:03done this before but um again you do

1:52:06need some um uh some amount of sta space

1:52:12that would have to be available just

1:52:13because of the

1:52:14>> diversity of you know products that are

1:52:16out there. Um there be would be no

1:52:19change to the uh hours of operation and

1:52:22I believe that is 7 to 8

1:52:27uh for um

1:52:30>> except for Saturday which is maybe 7 to

1:52:323

1:52:33>> 8 to 3 p.m.

1:52:34>> 8 to 2

1:52:35>> 3

1:52:35>> 8 to 3 8 to 3 on Saturday closed on

1:52:38Sunday. Um so that it's not again

1:52:42they're just working this into their

1:52:44existing business operation. We're not

1:52:47expanding the hours. We're not going to

1:52:48be open to, you know, the hours that are

1:52:51listed um here for um as permissible

1:52:55hours from the license commission,

1:52:56>> right?

1:52:57>> And um we're we're fine if you want to

1:53:00um

1:53:02um you know limit the um

1:53:05uh hours to the existing hours in the

1:53:07store. Uh in terms of there is the 1

1:53:10hour period between 7

1:53:12um and 8 which is when the alcohol uh or

1:53:18uh beer and wine sales can be go

1:53:19forward. But they also it's a

1:53:21convenience store and you don't want to

1:53:23delay opening until 8:00 because people

1:53:27want to be there at 7 to get coffee or

1:53:29to do you know whatever they're looking

1:53:30to do.

1:53:31>> Okay. So, and I would expect that that

1:53:33would be something which I think the

1:53:34license commission would probably it' be

1:53:36a sign or some way to notify people

1:53:39that, you know, no sales are permitted

1:53:42until 8:00. And frankly, we don't really

1:53:45don't foresee that that would be, you

1:53:48know, a problem um that couldn't be um

1:53:52easily addressed. Um there is no

1:53:56obviously um

1:53:59um parking is uh limited to what's

1:54:02there. Um and

1:54:06I've been there myself many times and

1:54:08people do park in the street and they

1:54:10run into the store and they come out and

1:54:11then they leave. Um and I we don't think

1:54:14and again a lot of people are on foot.

1:54:17Um, so, um, you know, they're not, uh,

1:54:22there's not going to be I wouldn't

1:54:23anticipate a huge increase in foot

1:54:25traffic or vehicle traffic just for a

1:54:28convenience store that has another item,

1:54:30um, that they didn't previously have.

1:54:33>> Okay. Thank you.

1:54:34>> And no change to the signage on the

1:54:36store. Um, no change to the hours. Uh,

1:54:41and so I

1:54:41>> assume they're gonna put beer and wine

1:54:42on the sign somewhere or window or

1:54:46>> Yeah, we would uh

1:54:48>> Yeah, to advertise

1:54:49>> you name it. You have to give us your

1:54:50name and city of residence.

1:54:52>> Yeah. Uh, Twin Winn uh, property manager

1:54:55for uh, TN properties.

1:54:58>> Okay. And you were going to say

1:55:01>> uh, yeah, we'll probably have some

1:55:03signage to advertise that we are selling

1:55:06uh, beer and wine. Uh,

1:55:10>> but maybe not like a major thing. Maybe

1:55:12a window thing.

1:55:13>> It just has to meet the whatever the

1:55:14code is for that,

1:55:16>> right?

1:55:16>> Yes. Yeah. And I'm just saying that the

1:55:18the main sign is says the store I think

1:55:20is there's no place to on that to add

1:55:24that there, but there would be some

1:55:26other presumably minimal signage, but

1:55:29whatever it is that would be permitted.

1:55:31>> Um,

1:55:32>> okay.

1:55:33>> You know, by the by code, nothing too

1:55:36elaborate, I would expect.

1:55:37>> Right. Amy Beth had something.

1:55:40>> I have um Francel with his hand raised

1:55:43again if you want to entertain public

1:55:44comment. And also the other item that

1:55:47Mr. O'Neal didn't address was the trash.

1:55:49So I don't know which one you want to do

1:55:50first. You let me know.

1:55:51>> Uh why don't we have France Cell? Is

1:55:54that his name? Mr. Cell.

1:55:59>> Close. It's Mr. Holland. My name is

1:56:00France Cell first name. But um I would

1:56:03just wanted to say that I would think

1:56:05that the additional um offerings would

1:56:08bring naturally bring in more traffic

1:56:11both foot and you know in um actual cars

1:56:14and as far as you know again the tra you

1:56:16know we've we've lived here for three

1:56:17generations you know and um we've seen a

1:56:20lot of changes in Providence Street you

1:56:22know and I think even as a matter of

1:56:24fact at one point in time there was

1:56:2515-minute parking across from the store

1:56:27right by the Wester Academy building

1:56:29which would allow you know the parking

1:56:31stay closed to that side. But we

1:56:32definitely get a lot of overflow from

1:56:34both the store and um Frankie's Pizza

1:56:36over here. I have people literally

1:56:38parking in my parking area for my

1:56:39tenants. I had people blocking our

1:56:41driveways and you know, it's just you

1:56:44know something you see a lot of time in

1:56:45cities, but um just last night I had to

1:56:47kick somebody off the property who had

1:56:48business over that other side of the

1:56:50intersection. So I mean that's really

1:56:51where we stand on on that. That's really

1:56:53all I had to say about that. Thank you.

1:56:55>> Okay. Thank you. Trash. You want to

1:56:58address trash? trash. Um we the um we're

1:57:01not anticipating a huge increase in

1:57:03trash either other than the is a storage

1:57:06area at the back of the um store uh

1:57:11shown on the floor plan I believe and

1:57:14that would um would be maintained within

1:57:18that area and removed weekly as needed.

1:57:21So, the trash is kept indoors and picked

1:57:23up.

1:57:24>> Nothing outside. No dumpster. That was

1:57:25one of the

1:57:26>> Okay.

1:57:27>> conditions of approval. There's no room

1:57:30for a dumpster outside and we, you know,

1:57:32we weren't planning one anyway.

1:57:33>> Okay. Thank you. Um

1:57:36uh then nobody else online and nobody

1:57:38else here wants to be heard on it. my

1:57:40opinion is, you know, uh we've been

1:57:43talking about um

1:57:46apartments without parking all day. And

1:57:49one of the things that facilitates that

1:57:52is being able to shop in your local

1:57:56community, having an amenity nearby. And

1:57:59um uh in my opinion, pizza and a beer is

1:58:02an amenity that is required to have a

1:58:05good neighborhood vibe. And so, um, I

1:58:09don't see any problem with this. I I'm

1:58:11I'm don't think there's much more to be

1:58:13said on it. I think we've covered it

1:58:15and, uh, um, I think it's important to

1:58:18maintain the viability of of, um,

1:58:22of these local businesses, and this

1:58:24should help. So, Mr. Todd,

1:58:28>> I I second I second what you said, Mr.

1:58:32Chair. I know this neighborhood very

1:58:34much. I live there. It's my neighborhood

1:58:37district and I know there's pizza place.

1:58:41I pick up pizza all the time and

1:58:44whenever I go there and there are a

1:58:46couple of cars there. I park at number

1:58:4852 and I take a nice walk. That's

1:58:51Worester County parking that it's open

1:58:54and there's trash there. If you want to

1:58:56talk about trash, go to Wor Academy

1:58:58Parking number 52 Providence Street

1:59:01right now. There's more trash there than

1:59:04anywhere else. But academy lets the

1:59:06neighbors park there. Um down the street

1:59:09there is a church there. I attend that

1:59:12church. My family goes to that church.

1:59:15We park at the wor academy there. There

1:59:18are three other parking spot that the

1:59:21church let the neighbors use for free.

1:59:25And so this um what do you call

1:59:28convenience store I support it because I

1:59:32don't think the owner is going to sell

1:59:34liquor. He just want to give compliment

1:59:37to what she's selling for the neighbors.

1:59:40And mostly it's the neighbors walking

1:59:42down the street to buy I go there to buy

1:59:45couple of things and I buy pizza. That's

1:59:47it. And most people walk I don't drive

1:59:50there. Most people don't drive there.

1:59:53It's neighbors in the neighborhood and

1:59:54there's no liquor store on that street,

1:59:56Providence Street, and then Venom

1:59:58Street. So that's all I will say. I'm in

2:00:00full support of it. Parking is

2:00:02irrelevant here.

2:00:04>> Is irrelevant here.

2:00:06>> Thank you, Mr. Bartonhagen.

2:00:09>> Through the chair, I don't have too much

2:00:10more to add. I don't like to meddle and

2:00:12and people's business decisions,

2:00:13especially when it doesn't increase the

2:00:17intensity of the use. And here you're,

2:00:19you know, this is a 1400 square foot

2:00:22convenience store. You're just changing

2:00:23the types of things that you're selling

2:00:25there. And as long as you comply with

2:00:27the liquor code, um, I don't see any

2:00:29problem with it. And I agree with what

2:00:30everyone else has said about how it's it

2:00:32would decrease the parking strain, if

2:00:35more neighborhoods had convenience

2:00:37stores that had these options available

2:00:39to them, then people wouldn't be getting

2:00:41in their cars to drive a couple miles to

2:00:42go pick up liquor, beer, or wine. They

2:00:45could just walk down the street. Uh, and

2:00:48you know, I just I remember a couple

2:00:49months ago we approved permits for uh,

2:00:52development down on Harrison in

2:00:54Providence. A pretty big development.

2:00:57And that would be nice for those people

2:00:58in that in that building whenever that's

2:01:00built, if it is built, to be able to

2:01:02just walk five, four or five blocks up

2:01:04Providence and be able to, you know,

2:01:06patronize your store. So, I don't have

2:01:07any problem with it.

2:01:08>> Great. Thank you, Mr. Sacko.

2:01:13>> Not too much more to add on my end. I'm

2:01:15ready to move this forward.

2:01:16>> Okay. Okay, no other comments. Do I hear

2:01:18a motion to close the hearing?

2:01:21>> Like to make a motion to close on 88

2:01:22Province Street.

2:01:23>> Is there a second? Mr. Torino,

2:01:30>> I second.

2:01:32>> Okay. On the motion to close, Mr.

2:01:34Torino.

2:01:37>> Yes.

2:01:37>> Mr. Sacko,

2:01:39>> yes.

2:01:40>> Mr. Bartagen,

2:01:41>> yes.

2:01:41>> And my vote is yes. On the petition, I'd

2:01:44>> like to make a motion for 88 Province

2:01:46Street for approval of a special permit

2:01:48to extend, alter, or change a privileged

2:01:51pre-existing non-conforming structure

2:01:53and/or use to allow for use of a similar

2:01:56nature subject to the conditions set

2:01:59forth in page four of the staff memo and

2:02:01the waiverss as requested by the

2:02:02applicant.

2:02:04>> Is there a second? Mr. Torino.

2:02:06>> Second.

2:02:07>> Second. On the petition, Mr.

2:02:08Bartonhagen.

2:02:09>> Yes.

2:02:09>> Mr. Torquino.

2:02:11>> Yes.

2:02:11>> Mr. Taco

2:02:13>> yes

2:02:13>> and my vote is yes. Good luck.

2:02:15>> Thank you very much.

2:02:16>> Thank you very much.

2:02:17>> Next item on the agenda is three wildly

2:02:19a will the person representing the

2:02:21petitioner please come forward and do

2:02:23so. Nice to

2:02:23>> meet you. Thank you.

2:02:27Uh Donald O'Neal for the record um

2:02:32here uh to request a

2:02:36sixmonth extension of the um variance

2:02:40relief um that we had obtained um for

2:02:45this property back in um

2:02:49August of uh 2025.

2:02:53Um so there's um

2:02:56um no change just a a delay in terms of

2:02:59getting started um and also um

2:03:02>> just an extension of time

2:03:04>> need to go through uh site plan approval

2:03:06but just a straight ex extension for 6

2:03:09months. Okay, great. Staff, any

2:03:11comments?

2:03:12>> Uh, through the chair, just for clarity,

2:03:14um, the project as previously approved

2:03:17in 202 August 4th of 2025

2:03:21was to raise the existing structure on

2:03:23the property and construct two single

2:03:26family attached town style townhouse

2:03:29style buildings with a total of seven

2:03:31units with associated parking and site

2:03:33improvements. And with that sixmonth

2:03:36extension, the new expiration date would

2:03:40be February 26th, 2027.

2:03:44Okay. Thank you. Does anybody in the

2:03:46audience want to be heard? Sir, please

2:03:49come forward. State your name and

2:03:52city of residence.

2:03:56>> My name is Cameron Loss and I am a

2:03:58resident of Worcester. I'm also a

2:04:00resident on Wy Avenue. And in regard to

2:04:04this, as far as the which I just walked

2:04:07by there with my dog recently,

2:04:09the whole thought of putting seven units

2:04:12on this area with the street, which is

2:04:15one of Worcester's classic dirt road

2:04:17streets, and if you've been in

2:04:18Worcester, you know what the dirt road

2:04:19streets can be like. It's asking an

2:04:22awful lot of residential a area, which

2:04:25is primarily of single residences and

2:04:27occasional triple deckers. My hope would

2:04:30be that we would reconsider this

2:04:31considering with the street parking

2:04:32being virtually nil on this street. It's

2:04:35going to make it for a less than optimal

2:04:38situation for them and for those of us

2:04:40who already live there.

2:04:43>> Okay. Thank you. Um

2:04:45perhaps you weren't aware this is the

2:04:47street that we're that the uh developer

2:04:52is going to repave. Is that

2:04:53>> Yes.

2:04:54>> Okay. I'm not sure you were aware of it.

2:04:57part of the condition of approval was

2:05:00and and that street is horrible. I mean,

2:05:02I I got a four-wheel drive vehicle. I

2:05:04don't I'll go up anywhere. I didn't go

2:05:06up that street.

2:05:07>> Nor should you.

2:05:08>> Um I did walk it uh and we are familiar

2:05:11with how bad it is. And part of our

2:05:13approval originally, which still stands,

2:05:16is uh that um the developer will bring

2:05:20that street up to um

2:05:23>> Yes. It's going to require an 80 81G

2:05:26filing with the planning board, but the

2:05:28idea was to extend the utilities and

2:05:30also pave the street um out to um

2:05:36>> you're talking about

2:05:36>> King Phillip maybe um or Randolph Road

2:05:40>> Barber A.

2:05:41>> The condition says the applicant shall

2:05:43improve Wild Street from Barber Avenue

2:05:45to Fraternal A to a curb to curb pave

2:05:47width of no less than 24 feet.

2:05:49>> Thank you.

2:05:50So, um I I do realize that this the the

2:05:54street is a mess and we got to we uh um

2:05:59we took the opportunity to get the

2:06:00developer to pay for upgrading the

2:06:03street and the utilities.

2:06:06>> I wish him the best with that.

2:06:07>> Thank you.

2:06:13Um, is there anybody online who wishes

2:06:15to be heard on this?

2:06:21>> No. So, uh, do I have a motion to any

2:06:24other comments? I'm sorry.

2:06:25>> No. No.

2:06:26>> Any comments, Mr. Torino? Miss,

2:06:32>> I don't have any more comment on this

2:06:34one.

2:06:34>> Okay. Mr. Sacko,

2:06:37>> no. No comment.

2:06:38>> Okay. Um, hearing no other comments. I

2:06:40have a motion to close.

2:06:41>> Uh, motion to Well, just a motion to

2:06:43extend, right? Do we need a motion to

2:06:44close?

2:06:48>> Sorry through the chair. Just confirming

2:06:50with Michelle. This is an official

2:06:52hearing, so it does need to close.

2:06:53>> We need to close it. Yeah.

2:06:55>> Yeah.

2:06:55>> So, there's a motion to close.

2:06:57>> A motion to close on three Wild Avenue.

2:06:58>> Can I have a second for that? Mr.

2:07:00Torquino?

2:07:01>> Second.

2:07:02>> All in favor? Well, let me go down. Mr.

2:07:05Bartonhagen.

2:07:05>> Yes.

2:07:06>> Uh, Mr. Sacko? Yes,

2:07:08>> Mr. Torino.

2:07:09>> Yes.

2:07:10>> And my vote is yes on the petition.

2:07:12>> Uh so I'd like to make a motion for

2:07:14three Wildly Avenue for an extension of

2:07:16time to a previously for a previously

2:07:19granted variance such that such that the

2:07:22new uh date deadline would be February

2:07:2622nd, 2027.

2:07:27>> Sorry, through the chair. February 26

2:07:30>> 26th. Yeah.

2:07:31>> Okay. Thank you.

2:07:32>> February 26th, 2027.

2:07:34>> Do I have a second?

2:07:36>> Second. Uh on the motion, Mr.

2:07:39Bartonhagen,

2:07:40>> yes.

2:07:40>> Mr. Torquino,

2:07:42>> yes.

2:07:42>> Mr. Sacko,

2:07:44>> yes.

2:07:44>> And my vote is yes.

2:07:46>> Thank you.

2:07:46>> Congratulations. Is there anybody here

2:07:49for 18 to 20 Crompton Street

2:07:51>> online? We have

2:07:58to go

2:08:02>> online. Raphael Hernandez is here for 18

2:08:05to 20 Crompton Street. Okay, Mr.

2:08:07Hernandez.

2:08:09>> Good morning, board members and chair.

2:08:13My name is Rafael Hernandez from

2:08:15Worcester Acropolis Design. I'm here to

2:08:17petition for a six-month extension

2:08:20of our zoning approval for 18 and 20

2:08:25Crown Street for a fourstory 12 unit 12

2:08:29parking space

2:08:32building in a vacant lot with vacant

2:08:35paved lot.

2:08:37uh we we had to wait for the civil

2:08:40engineers to do their testing and

2:08:44um provide the documents and

2:08:48right now we've completed everything.

2:08:50The only thing we're waiting on is the

2:08:53TDM the the traffic demand

2:08:57report study and um once we have that

2:09:01we'll be submitting for the planning

2:09:03approval but we still need the

2:09:04extension.

2:09:06>> Okay, great. Thank you. Um staff

2:09:09>> uh Amy Bethle through the chair Amy

2:09:12Bethle for the planning division. Again,

2:09:14as stated and just for the record,

2:09:16originally granted was a variance um for

2:09:20relief of 2,814

2:09:22ft from the 11,900

2:09:25square ft minimum requirement for lot

2:09:28area and 5.52 ft from the 96 ft minimum

2:09:34frontage requirement for the multifamily

2:09:37high-rise dwelling. The new deadline

2:09:40with the six-month extension of time

2:09:43would be February 5th, 2027.

2:09:48>> Great. Thank you. Is there anybody in

2:09:50the audience who wishes to be heard on

2:09:51this? Anybody online? No. Hearing none.

2:09:55Uh any comments from staff?

2:09:57>> Nope. Not for me.

2:09:59>> Uh Mr. Torquino, Mr. Sacko?

2:10:02>> No, sir.

2:10:03>> Okay. Do I have a motion then to close

2:10:04the hearing?

2:10:05>> Uh motion. I'd like to make a motion to

2:10:06close on 1820 Crompton Street.

2:10:09>> Is there a second?

2:10:10>> Second.

2:10:11>> Uh on the petition, Mr. Torquino

2:10:14>> on the motion.

2:10:16>> Yes. Mr. Sacko,

2:10:18>> yes.

2:10:20>> Mr. Bartinhagen,

2:10:21>> yes.

2:10:21>> And my vote is yes. on the petition.

2:10:24>> Like to make a motion for 18 to 20

2:10:26Crompton Street to extend the previously

2:10:29granted variance so that the new

2:10:30deadline uh for that variance would be

2:10:33February 5th, 2027.

2:10:36>> Is there a second?

2:10:38>> Second.

2:10:39>> Uh on the petition, Mr. Bartonhagen,

2:10:41>> yes.

2:10:41>> Mr. Torino,

2:10:42>> yes.

2:10:43>> Mr. Sacko,

2:10:45>> yes.

2:10:45>> And my vote is yes.

2:10:48Mr. Hernandez, your vote is four to

2:10:50nothing in your favor. Good luck. Thank

2:10:52you very much.

2:10:53>> Uh, do we have minutes to approve?

2:10:55>> There were two sets of minutes in the

2:10:56drive. I know that um

2:10:59>> Mr. Bartonhagen,

2:11:01>> I was able to review them before

2:11:03meeting. So

2:11:04>> those So those two sets of minutes were

2:11:06the May 18th minutes and the June 8th

2:11:10minutes.

2:11:10>> Okay. Do I have a motion to accept the

2:11:12minutes from May 18th and June 8th?

2:11:15>> So moved.

2:11:16>> Uh, is there a second?

2:11:18>> Second. Uh on the on the motion, Mr.

2:11:21Bartonhagen,

2:11:22>> yes.

2:11:23>> Mr. Torino,

2:11:24>> yes.

2:11:26>> Mr. Sacko,

2:11:27>> yes.

2:11:28>> And my vote is yes. Do I have a motion

2:11:30to um close the meeting?

2:11:32>> Uh motion to adjurnn.

2:11:34>> Is there a second?

2:11:35>> Second.

2:11:36>> All in favor?

2:11:37>> I.

2:11:38>> Everybody have a good week. Have a good

2:11:40Labor Day weekend. Thank you, Sure.

2:11:42>> Thank you.

2:11:43>> Thanks, guys.