2026-10-27 - Economic Development Committee Meeting

00:00All

00:02right. Good afternoon everyone. Today is

00:05Tuesday, October 27th, 2026. This is the

00:08meeting of the city of Worcester

00:09subcommittee on economic development. My

00:12name is Morris Bergman. I'm the chair of

00:14the committee. To my left is at large

00:17city councelor Katherine Tumi, Kathleen

00:20Tumi, excuse me, Kate. Tumi, and to my

00:22right is at large councelor Satra Mitra.

00:25We have some members of the city uh

00:28departments here today. Uh to my

00:30immediate left is Peter Dunn is the

00:32chief economic development officer. To

00:34my immediate right is Michelle Smith who

00:36is a planning director. Clerking for us

00:38today is AJ Puddle. Uh Mr. Puddle, would

00:42you read 1A for us, please? Actually,

00:44would you take attendance first?

00:46>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Councilors

00:48Mitra

00:49>> here,

00:50>> Tumi

00:51>> here,

00:52>> and chairperson, councelor Bergman

00:53>> here. Would you please read 1A for us?

00:56>> Of course. Uh so pursuant to chapter 20

00:59of the acts of 2021 and in order to

01:01ensure active public engagement the city

01:03of Wister currently allows for both

01:05in-person and remote participation at

01:07all of its meetings. To partake in the

01:09meeting you can either come in in person

01:10or you can join via Zoom. The Zoom link

01:12is listed on the agenda and on the

01:14granus portal of the city's website.

01:16There's also a phone number for tonight.

01:18That phone number is 1-646-828-76666

01:23and the access code is 160-3823487.

01:28We would use this as an opportunity to

01:30remind folks that if you would like to

01:32be heard on a particular item, the best

01:34way to do so is to use the raise hand

01:37function. The raise hand function is in

01:39the bottom center of your screen if

01:40you're on Zoom and it is dialing star9

01:43if you're on a phone. again um we ask

01:46that you use that if you do want to

01:48provide any um public testimony um when

01:51appropriate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:52>> Mr. Thank you, Mr. Pile. Do we have

01:54anybody online?

01:55>> Mr. Chairman, we have uh three phone

01:57numbers listed and one person using the

01:59Zoom application with an

02:01>> All right. So, why don't we take public

02:03comment first for those who are present.

02:06Anybody who wants to make comment on any

02:07item on the agenda, please step forward,

02:10give us your name, city of residence,

02:12and uh we'll be very flexible with uh

02:15giving you a fair amount of time.

02:18>> Good evening. My name is

02:21>> Hang on, Mr. Hughes. Is this his

02:22microphone on?

02:24>> Mr. Chairman, you should be will It

02:25looks like I'm getting the Okay. from

02:26cable services.

02:27>> Okay. Well, my apologies. I I wasn't

02:29sure your microphone was on. Go ahead.

02:31Uh my name is William Hughes. I live in

02:33Barrett A in Worcester. I've come to

02:36talk to you this evening uh on 3B 25

02:40Chester Street

02:42development.

02:44The Mercy Center, 16.7 acre lot at 25

02:49Westchester Chester Street is looking to

02:51be developed [clears throat] by a

02:53developer who is looking to obtain a

02:55reszoning of the area to allow for the

02:58development. On August 11th of this

03:01year, the develop the developer met with

03:04approximately 40 concerned neighbors. A

03:05plan uh was presented to refurbish the

03:08present Mercy Center into 40 apartments.

03:11Other constructions would result in 35

03:13to 40 townhouse units. The neighbors

03:16raised concerns. Traffic, water, water

03:21management, the environmental tree

03:23removal, flora, fauna disruption, excuse

03:26[clears throat] me, and a conflict with

03:28the environment and culture of the

03:30single house

03:32environment.

03:34Following that meeting, there was

03:36community push back and in early August

03:39uh the developer decreased the townhouse

03:42numbers drastically reducing it from the

03:4535 to 40 to 7 to 10. It was my

03:48understanding that has now been uh

03:51reduced to zero. So they're only looking

03:53to develop the old Mercy Center.

03:57This reduction is a significant retreat

04:00probably aimed at mllifying neighborhood

04:02concerns. But the bigger hurdle remains

04:05the zoning change for this 16 uh 7 acre

04:09lot.

04:12The zoning shift is really the lynch pin

04:14for the entire project. Changing from R7

04:18to R1, it's not a trivial matter. It

04:20restructures allowable uses, building

04:23form, density, and ultimately the urine

04:26fabric.

04:27R1 zoning permits multif family

04:30dwellings and h town houses inherently

04:33increasing capacity. It fundamentally

04:35alters permissible land use and density

04:39thresholds.

04:40It definitely fuels uh residents worries

04:43about changes to their streets, traffic

04:46and general community feel. Should the

04:49resoning occur, this developer or any

04:52subsequent developer would be allowed

04:54much higher density, including multif

04:56family and townhouse style uh options.

05:01It is understood that the development of

05:03this property is an opportunity for the

05:06city of Worcester to change the property

05:08status to pay a by positive revenue.

05:12It is understood that Worcester now next

05:15projects a growth of 60,000 residents in

05:18the following decades

05:21for Worcester. A little history, the

05:24area and neighborhood surrounding the

05:26acreage is decades old community of

05:29approximately 250 single primary owner

05:32occupied homes. The majority of these

05:35homes are families who've lived there,

05:37raised families there for decades.

05:41These owners sought out quiet small

05:43neighborhoods with good schools and to

05:46be able to access all that Worcester

05:48offers.

05:49Neighbors talked about the farm that

05:51occupied a large area of the hill and

05:54the present Westchester Street was a cow

05:57path at one point. Several streets

05:59remain dirt streets. The area has seen

06:01additional housing, primarily single

06:03housing.

06:05Notably in 2009, the Willows, an

06:08independent living facility housing

06:10approximately 250 uh residents was

06:13constructed.

06:14Subsequently, Barry Road extension was

06:17built. The latter providing a convenient

06:19connection between the west side of

06:21Worcester and Salsbury Street to Gro

06:24Street, West Boilson, Route 190 and 290.

06:30the issues. Traffic.

06:33Westchester and Chester Street are older

06:35roads, excuse [clears throat] me.

06:37Engineered for a low volume of cars.

06:40Increasing density will naturally

06:41increase traffic flow and potentially

06:43bring greater parking, safety

06:44challenges, congestion, uh, pedestrian

06:47safety, and the cumulative impact over

06:50time that might degrade the quality of

06:52its life.

06:54Today, the Worester Department of

06:56Transportation and Mobility, DTM, has

06:59shared the following average weekday

07:02traffic volume estimates.

07:05Westchester Street, 4,43

07:10vehicles. Chester Street, 4,20 vehicles.

07:15Cars, trucks, ambulances, fire

07:18apparatus, construction, service

07:21vehicles, school buses, and others

07:23transverse these streets on a daily

07:25basis. Westchester Street is notably

07:29narrow,

07:3125 to 30 feet in most in many areas.

07:35Second issue, water, potholes, winter

07:39snow, sanding. This area experiences

07:42significant water and storm water, snow,

07:45and ice management and runoff issues. Of

07:48particular note, the Mercy Center

07:50driveway is a prime and direct source of

07:52water runoff onto and then down

07:55Westchester and Chester Street

07:57throughout the winter.

08:01This water runoff is significant and

08:04year round. As a result, in the winter

08:07and spring, the neighbors experience

08:08road icing and what we describe as

08:11pothole season. Numerous potholes of

08:14varying dimensions occur on both sides

08:16of the road, impairing travel in both

08:18lanes, frequently requiring cars to stop

08:21to allow oncoming cars to pass.

08:24Typically, repairs last a year,

08:27cycle repeats, same potholes, same area,

08:30same problem. People who live up in the

08:33hill, we have a strategy during winter.

08:36It's called can I get up the hill? You

08:39turn on to uh Chester Street. You look

08:42up the street. If it's snowing, you know

08:45have know if there are any cars ahead of

08:47you because you have to have a 40 mph

08:49speed to make the corner at at the fork

08:52because if you don't and it's slippery,

08:54you're not going to make it.

08:57Ple repairs are reported by 311 center

09:02from January of this year to June.

09:04Chester Street had 47.

09:07Westchester Street had 39. Our council,

09:10Mr. Economo, was gracious enough to have

09:14a large section repaired earlier this

09:17spring. Wintertime snow plowing, sanding

09:21Chester Street 32, West Chester Street

09:239. other developments. Recently, the

09:27planning board approved a fourhouse

09:29development plan on Chester Street. This

09:31is a plot of land that abuts the 16 uh

09:34acre and below on Chester Street.

09:39Lastly, over the last couple of months,

09:41two houses budding the property of Mercy

09:43Center have gone been sold and three

09:46others are now on the market. When the

09:49owners of three of these properties uh

09:51were asked about why did the decision to

09:53leave to sell, they did indicate the

09:56Mercy Center uh project was part of

09:59their decision making. To sum up, the

10:02Mercy Center redevelopment is a

10:04compelling case study and adaptive reuse

10:08zoning strategy and the perennial

10:10tension between growth and preservation.

10:12It introduces the nuances of roles of

10:16planners, developers, community in

10:18shaping our city. Ultimately, it gets to

10:21the heart of the debate of development,

10:24the trade-off between much neededed

10:26housing and preserving neighborhood

10:28character. Thank you for hearing me. I

10:32wish you the best.

10:36Anybody else in the audience want to

10:38come forward and speak on any item on

10:39the agenda? If so, please state your

10:41name and city residents.

10:44>> Hello, Jonathan Morales, Worcester. U

10:47dear members of the standing committee

10:49on economic development. Uh on behalf of

10:51the Worcester affordable housing

10:53coalition, we support councelor Robert

10:56Belotta's proposal to increase the

10:57payment in lie of constructing

10:59affordable housing uh from 3% to 5% of

11:03the total construction value of all

11:05building permits for a development,

11:06including trade permits. When developers

11:09opt to make a payment instead of

11:11building the affordable units, Worcester

11:13should secure the strongest possible

11:14financing financial contribution to our

11:17affordable housing efforts. Increasing

11:19the payment to 5% would help ensure that

11:21the developers who choose not to build

11:23affordable units contribute more towards

11:25creating and preserving truly affordable

11:27housing elsewhere in Worcester. This

11:30change alone will not resolve Worcester

11:32shortage of truly affordable housing.

11:34Our priority remains creating homes that

11:36residents with low incomes and working

11:38families can actually afford. But we

11:40urge you to advance the proposal as a

11:42meaningful step while continuing to

11:43strengthen policies that create and

11:45preserve deeply affordable housing. Our

11:48residents need both greater investment

11:49and actual homes within their reach.

11:52Thank you.

11:53>> Thank you.

11:55>> Anybody else in the audience want to

11:57come forward and speak?

11:59Um Mr. Ple hearing or saying no one? uh

12:04would you address the uh virtual callers

12:08please and uh ask them to speak?

12:10>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I would

12:11once again just remind folks if they do

12:13want to speak to use the raise hand

12:14function. The raise hand function is the

12:16bottom center of the screen or if you're

12:19on a phone, you would dial star9 if you

12:22are interested in speaking.

12:24And Mr. Chairman, at this time, no one

12:26is raising their hands.

12:28>> Oh, we scared them off, huh? All right.

12:30Anybody else in the audience want to

12:32come forward before we take up agenda

12:34items?

12:35Again, we'll be flexible. So, if

12:37somebody comes in uh that couldn't be

12:39here for the beginning of the meeting,

12:41we'll certainly entertain, give him an

12:43opportunity to speak. Uh we're going to

12:45move then to agenda item

12:512A. That's approval of the minutes. Mr.

12:54Pile, would you read that agenda item

12:55and ask for a vote? Order that the city

12:58council standing committee on economic

12:59development hereby approves the minutes

13:01of the economic development committee

13:02meeting on September 16, 2026. And on a

13:06roll call, councelor uh councilors

13:08Metitra,

13:09>> yes.

13:10>> Tumi,

13:11>> yes.

13:11>> And chairperson, councelor Bergman.

13:13>> Yes. So at a request of a petitioner,

13:17I'm going to take items 3 C and 3D first

13:21and then we'll go back to 3A and 3B and

13:24then 3 E. So item 3 C, report of the

13:27planning board upon the communication of

13:29the city manager recommending the zoning

13:31map be amended by extending RG.

13:33>> I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I apologize and I

13:35thank you for allowing to go out.

13:37>> Was there a different preference?

13:39>> If if if we could actually take um item

13:42B first.

13:44>> So 3B.

13:46Do that. Which one would you like to do?

13:50Second?

13:50>> Uh uh 3 3B.

13:53>> 3B first. first. Yes.

13:54>> What about second

13:56>> and second? Uh 3

14:00D.

14:02>> Okay, we're going to go a little out of

14:04order at the request of the council.

14:083B. Report of the pling board upon the

14:10petition of Timothy J. McMahon,

14:12executive director of Catholic Charities

14:13of the Dasis of Worcester, request to

14:16amend the zoning map by establishing the

14:18adaptive reuse overlay district A-Rod to

14:21wholly encompass the property at 25

14:24Westchester Street. By taking this item

14:26two, we'll we'll um get some of the

14:28folks that are here involved and and

14:32back home in a reasonable fashion. So,

14:35item 3B is what we're addressing as far

14:37as the agenda item. Councelor Smith,

14:40would you like to go first?

14:41>> Thank you, uh, Chair Burkeman, and, um,

14:44good afternoon, members of the Economic

14:46Development Committee. Uh, just for the

14:48record, my name is Joshua Lee Smith. I'm

14:50an attorney with the law firm of Bad

14:51Dwey, uh, here representing the

14:53petitioner tonight in connection with

14:55this matter. Um, so, as was mentioned

14:58during public commentary by by Bill

15:00Hughes, this this property located at 25

15:03Westchester Street, uh, it's about a 16

15:06acre lot currently. It is currently

15:09zoned as an RS7 zone. Uh there are no

15:12overlay districts currently that

15:14encumber this property. Um it is off of

15:17Westchester and is it is close proximity

15:20to Inman Avenue. Uh the driveway that uh

15:23Bill Hughes had just mentioned a moment

15:24ago uh is partially directly adjacent to

15:28this 16acre lot. Uh what my client is

15:31looking to do, what what they are

15:33proposing uh to the city council uh is

15:37to convert the existing RS7 zone to

15:41convert that to an RL7 zone. by doing by

15:45converting it the district to an RL7

15:47zone that would allow for multifamily

15:50use uh more specifically high-rise

15:53multif family use as it's defined in the

15:55Z worester zoning ordinance which would

15:57allow for four uh buildings that are

15:59four stories or taller uh to be used for

16:02multif family purposes. Um, I will

16:04stress that to the extent that the city

16:07council does approve this zone change to

16:10an RL7 that uh multif family high-rise

16:14use would still require a special

16:15permit. So, it would not convert the use

16:18to a buy multif family use. There would

16:21be plenty of vetting uh if this

16:24ultimately does get approved, this MA

16:26zone map change if this gets approved

16:28going before uh the zoning board as well

16:31as the planning board in connection with

16:33this project. Just a little bit of

16:35history with respect to the site. I'm

16:37sure um the committee members are

16:40relatively familiar with this site. It

16:42is uh a dilapitated building. It has

16:45been underutilized for years. The last

16:47use of this building was by the current

16:50owner of the property which is the

16:51Catholic Charities of uh the Diosis of

16:54of Worcester. U the most recent use was

16:57a school for special needs adults and um

17:01at in its heyday it was pretty well

17:04occupied um with uh parents and and uh

17:08buses coming to and from the site. What

17:11my what my client is proposing to do is

17:14as um indicated uh convert this existing

17:18building to a multif family use. So

17:21conversion adaptive conversion of the

17:24existing building from its former school

17:26use nonprofit use uh to approximately 40

17:30plus or minus apartment units. And that

17:33would be um uh within a um the existing

17:37building as Bill Hughes has mentioned.

17:40Uh well, first of all, we've met with

17:42the NE a number of neighbors on multiple

17:44occasions. We did have one large uh site

17:47neighborhood meeting uh outreach

17:49meeting. Um councelor Conamo uh helped

17:51facilitate that. Uh we've had a number

17:53of discussions with neighbors about the

17:55project and it has morphed over time. um

17:59as as presented to the neighbors a few

18:02couple months ago now uh we we were

18:05proposing a conversion of the existing

18:07building plus in addition to that

18:10between uh 30 to 40 townhouse units that

18:14has been scaled back it was scaled back

18:17um after the neighborhood meeting to a

18:20reduced number of townhouse units based

18:22on the feedback from the neighbors um

18:25and and since then as Bill Hughes has

18:27just mentioned

18:28the my client the developer has now

18:32agreed to scale this back so that there

18:33are no town h there's no townhouse

18:35component at all. So basically the

18:38project entails uh conversion of the

18:40existing building to 40 town uh 40

18:44multif family units only. Uh so I do I I

18:48want to stress that um that the the

18:50project is is just a conversion of an

18:53existing building. Um some of the

18:55comments, concerns, questions that some

18:58of the neighbors had raised that Bill

19:00Hughes raised tonight um are are issues

19:04u that the developer has as well um

19:07pertaining to traffic uh pertaining to

19:10the street Westchester Street. It it

19:13being narrow in certain areas and being

19:15steep in certain areas um uh and and

19:19congestion and speeding along those

19:21streets. Uh storm water was mentioned as

19:23well. The driveway that comes from

19:25Westchester Street leading up to the

19:27Mercy Center building, a portion of that

19:29is uh Inman Avenue, a portion of that is

19:32a private way. The some of the storm

19:34water related issues. Again, the these

19:36are issues that that the developer, my

19:39client, they have aligned concerns with

19:41that too. And as part of the project, as

19:43part of this redevelopment, if this all

19:45goes forward, would would absolutely be

19:48improved, upgraded, uh to uh current

19:52storm water management standards, um in

19:54order to uh mitigate some of the storm

19:56water issues that some of the neighbors

19:58were talking about. Um all of the

20:01traffic, the speeding, the narrowness,

20:04the steepness of Westchester Street,

20:06those are all offsite conditions

20:07clearly. Um but again the developer as

20:11if this moves forward they acquire the

20:12property develop the site they'll have

20:14an aligned interest to try to see uh

20:17what what can be done with respect to

20:19those challenges as well. Um

20:22uh one thing one major item that some of

20:25the neighbors had um which is now off

20:27the table is that there were there my

20:29client was proposing to clearcut a

20:31number of the trees there. Uh I don't

20:33know if you have Ariel's depictions of

20:35the site, but a large portion of that of

20:38the Mercy Center's 16 acre lot contains

20:41woodlands. So uh the a significant

20:44portion almost half of the northerly

20:46portion of that lot if town houses had

20:49been contemplated a lot of those

20:51woodlands would have been cleared. So

20:54that is completely off the table now. So

20:56the developer in um uh making this a

20:59simply a conversion project of the

21:01existing building. You can see the

21:03parking there that that exists there

21:04today. That parking footprint, that

21:06building footprint will will basically

21:08be the same. The parking um you know, we

21:11still need to go through fully

21:13engineered drawings and design. Um but

21:15we anticipate that the impervious effect

21:18with respect to this proposed project is

21:19is going to be much much less than what

21:22was first presented uh to the neighbors.

21:24And we we thank the neighbors for all of

21:26their feedback. Councelor Econom uh for

21:29all of those feedback. It really made a

21:31difference. uh my client feels that they

21:33can monetize this project still make the

21:35numbers work with it just being a

21:37conversion project. Uh so with all of

21:39that said um again we respectfully are

21:41requesting this conversion from the RS7

21:43to the RL7. Happy to answer any

21:45questions. Thank you.

21:48>> Council Mitra, any questions?

21:57Hello Mr. through you to council Smith.

22:01[clears throat] So uh there were people

22:03who were in the planning board when this

22:06was presented to the planning board and

22:07how was the reaction of people who came

22:10into the planning board?

22:12>> Uh so through the chair the we did have

22:15a planning board meeting. The planning

22:16board voted unanimously to recommend to

22:19the city council approval of the zone

22:20change. Uh there were some it was a

22:24relatively small group that actually

22:25showed up and provided comments at the

22:27planning board meeting. Uh I don't want

22:30to overly generalize, but a lot of the

22:32comments that were made were similar to

22:34what Bill Hughes had just mentioned

22:36tonight. Um traffic uh the the street

22:40being narrow, snow plowing concerns, a

22:43lot of off-site conditions

22:46>> and um through the chair to you. This

22:50you mentioned will go back to the

22:53planning board again or the zoning board

22:56again for the reconsideration of the

22:59changes that were being done.

23:01>> That's correct. To the extent that the

23:02city council does ultimately approve the

23:04zone change, uh then that will allow for

23:07a path for the developer to seek their

23:09discretionary permits. Attorney Smith

23:12and Council Mitch, if you don't mind me

23:14interrupting for a brief second, I'd

23:15like to ask Miss [clears throat] Smith

23:17if she could give us a procedure. I

23:20think it'll be helpful to know what

23:21happens if this were to be approved at

23:24the council level.

23:25>> Sure. Through you, Mr. Chair. Um, so

23:28ultimately, if this is approved by the

23:30city council, you are approving a

23:31conceptual change to the zoning. So,

23:33we're not talking about any specific

23:35project or proposal. We're just talking

23:37about a change to the code, which I know

23:38the counselors are familiar, but in case

23:40there's folks online, uh just making

23:42sure that that folks understand, we're

23:43not talking about a specific development

23:44proposal. We're talking about the set of

23:46regulations that govern development of

23:48this lot. So, planning board originally

23:50considered the petition. You heard um

23:53and it's written on the agenda as the

23:54adaptive reuse overlay. Through the

23:56planning board process, the applicant

23:57modified that request because there were

23:59some concerns about that zoning overlay

24:01allowing additional uses beyond

24:04residential. So through that that um

24:07overlay there's additional commercial

24:08uses that are allowed through special

24:09permits. So the applicant modified their

24:11petition to go from basically our second

24:14least uh dense zoning district to the

24:16next dense zoning district. So from an

24:19RS7 zoning district which it is today to

24:21an RL7 zoning district. The

24:24distinguishing characteristic being well

24:26most dimensional requirements are the

24:27same. We're we're now allowing by right

24:30two units of density on any lot. Um and

24:33the the controls for that um increased a

24:35little bit. They increment because now

24:36we have two units. So we we have now not

24:38just considering single family homes,

24:40we're considering duplexes and two

24:42families. Um and there are other uses

24:44including low-rise multif family, not

24:47high-rise, low-rise multif family. So

24:49that's up to three stories that are

24:50allowed through special permit as well

24:52as three families. So those are the new

24:54uses that really get introduced as

24:56compared to the existing zoning. So just

24:58just to clarify that, I I wanted to to

25:00call that out. So from here, were the

25:02council to decide that reszoning this

25:0416.7 acre property to the requested RL7

25:08zone was appropriate for the city, that

25:10would move forward to city council. Um,

25:14subsequent to city council were the

25:15council full council to adopt the

25:17change. Then when they decide to put

25:19forward a proposal, most likely that

25:21proposal will require a special permit

25:24because we anticipate that they want to

25:26redevelop the property for multif

25:27family. Um but were that to change um

25:30there is by right development option for

25:32single or two family single would have

25:34that option today right that could go

25:36and and be divided subdivision etc. Um

25:39so that's really the the difference is

25:41that any additional more dense use

25:43besides two family uses would require

25:46special permission. So were they to

25:47change the use of the property from its

25:49religious exempt use today to a multif

25:51family use, zoning board would consider

25:53whether or not that use is appropriate

25:55at that location and then the project

25:57would likely need to go through site

25:59plan review um based on the number of

26:01units um but can't say definitively

26:04based on the scope and scale of the

26:05changes. All that gets con uh considered

26:07in deciding whether it needs site plan

26:09review. So most likely it would go in

26:11front of the planning board. Um based on

26:13what they're talking about for the use,

26:14it would absolutely go in front of the

26:16zoning board. And as part of that, u the

26:18majority to answer your other question

26:20in terms of the comments that were

26:21discussed at planning board, the

26:23majority of those comments were as

26:24represented by the applicants council

26:27were really related to the the area and

26:30navigating and the condition of roads

26:32and the volumes of traffic. So that

26:34could be evaluated through the special

26:36permit and should it go to the planning

26:37board for site plan review it would be

26:39evaluated also by the planning board at

26:41that point. So additional levels of

26:42review it would go back a specific

26:44development proposal would go back to

26:46the planning board. Um but I want to

26:48characterize that there are just like

26:50there are now potential buy development

26:52options that may not trigger you know

26:54that type of review depending on exactly

26:56what would happen to the property.

26:58>> Thank you.

27:00I interrupted you so thank you for

27:02>> No problem. No problem. That was nice to

27:04get you clarified. Mr. through you. I

27:06just uh you know considering the fact

27:08that uh the [clears throat]

27:11original plan has been a little bit

27:13changed and it's now to be a lower you

27:16know dimension

27:18you know Chester Street Westchester

27:20Street itself is very narrow and steep

27:22and uh considering the new homes that's

27:26going to be you know apartment going to

27:28be built the traffic I'm sure the when

27:31you go for the special permit that part

27:33will also be a matter of consideration.

27:35because the it will increase the valve

27:38volume of the traffic. It will increase

27:40the because the kind of road that is

27:43something of the safety that I I remain

27:45concerned about

27:47because it was just a street is not a

27:50very wide street. It's busy street. I

27:52live near wide there. I know how busy it

27:55is and plus it is not a very smooth

27:58street. You know it's a uh steep coming

28:01down going up. I'm sure councelor as

28:04well knows that. So I'm sure that's

28:06something that needs to be kept in mind

28:08when we go to the special permit.

28:12>> Sure. Through the chair just to clarify.

28:14Yes, that would certainly be something

28:15that's within the respective board's

28:16perview u as it relates to the impact

28:19that the proposed project would have on

28:21that. Um certainly a developer is not

28:23required to mitigate an existing

28:25condition. Um, but to the extent that

28:26the proposed development may create a a

28:29more challenging circumstance, there

28:31would be a a review by the board to see

28:33how that could be mitigated to the best

28:35extent reasonable um with the city and

28:38so department of transportation and

28:39mobility DPW would all be providing

28:41comments through that that process.

28:43>> Thank you.

28:45>> Thank you.

28:46>> Gonna go to councelor Tumi and then

28:48district one councelor Con.

28:51>> Thank you Mr. [clears throat] Chair.

28:52Thank you for the report. Um question um

28:55historically

28:57um how much more traffic uh did the

29:00Mercy Center have when it was in

29:03operation? Do we know

29:08>> through the chair? My understanding, you

29:10know, it's a a school, so I don't know

29:11how many pupils were at the school or

29:13what that trip generation would look

29:15like. that wasn't, you know, not part of

29:16our analysis for the purposes of zoning

29:19because ultimately the for the

29:20reasonzoning what's being considered is

29:22is the appropriateness for the land use.

29:25Um, and so that that wasn't necessarily

29:27a a point.

29:28>> Just thinking about uh how much

29:33>> how much use there was on this on the

29:35road and all that. I would I would

29:37venture to say that um probably anywhere

29:42between 50 and 100 cars a day

29:46staff and all that. So I think that's

29:48reasonable. Um okay. So uh in the

29:52planning of this um you're talking about

29:5540 something units

29:58you Mr. Chair what 42 units

30:02>> that be Mr. Smith. Yeah,

30:03>> that's correct. 40 plus or minus again

30:06within the existing building.

30:07>> Okay. So, uh roughly we figure two cars

30:11per house.

30:13>> So, that's 80. So, that's well within

30:15the 50 to 100 roughly. So, um from that

30:20perspective, I don't think that'd be a

30:22huge increase. Um other than I mean

30:26right now there's no traffic, but um but

30:28it was working before. But I do, one of

30:30the things that I am concerned about is

30:32the reme remediation for runoff from the

30:35driveway um because um environmentally

30:40uh and and also the parking lot. Um I'm

30:43just wondering what types of remediation

30:46um you've budgeted so that you can

30:48pencil this because I know that that can

30:50be very expensive.

30:54Well, um, again, I I qualify all this by

30:56saying that fully engineered drawings

30:58have yet to be prepared. Um, there has

31:01been some level of due diligence with

31:02respect to the site. If you go to the

31:04site, um, if you've been there recently,

31:06you could you could see to an untrained

31:09eye that driveway right off of

31:11Westchester Street, which becomes Inman

31:13Avenue, is uh full of ruts and and it's

31:19depressed and it's obviously been

31:20damaged by improper storm water. Uh

31:23again all of that will be become um the

31:28responsibility of the developer and will

31:31be repaved resurfaced and fully

31:33engineered with respect to uh up to

31:35upto-date uh require requirements with

31:39respect to storm water management. Again

31:40that's with respect to the driveway uh

31:42which the the public uses pretty freely.

31:46Um the neighbors made that clear. And

31:49then with respect to the parking lot as

31:50well. The parking lot is is pretty

31:52dangerous uh frankly to even walk on,

31:55let alone have vehicles traversing up

31:58and down. It's sort of a kind of a very

32:01relatively steep sloped. Um and in my

32:05opinion, it wasn't really well designed

32:07as as originally designed even when it

32:09was brand new. Um, so again, my client

32:12has every intention and to their benefit

32:16to improve all of that with respect to

32:19the storm water, but also the layout and

32:21design of that parking lot.

32:23>> Okay. Well, those those are the only

32:25questions that I have right now. Thank

32:27you.

32:27>> Thank you. Uh, District 1 Councelor Tony

32:30Conal.

32:32>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [clears throat]

32:36Um, first I just want to say I want to

32:39thank really the residents who came out

32:42back in August. We had a great crowd as

32:45Mr. Hughes had said about 40 40

32:47residents showed up um as far away as up

32:50to um

32:53Barry Road and every street in between.

32:57Um, and really I applaud

33:02uh Mr. Smith and his client, the

33:04developer for listening and hearing what

33:09many of the residents had to say. Uh the

33:11critical mass that was being proposed

33:13was not

33:16was not it was just too much for that

33:17neighborhood. and and something that I

33:19said in another meeting.

33:22I think what we have to look at, my

33:25opinion anyways,

33:28as quick as we are to move these

33:30projects forward and create the housing,

33:34is not to let go of those who have

33:40purchased and made their homes

33:43by the rules that were before them, who

33:45now live and navigate in these

33:48neighborhoods. I think that's an

33:50important thing for us to keep in mind.

33:52as we go forward with all these projects

33:56because

33:58they made the sacrifice. They're there

34:00and now they're being to some degree

34:03inconvenienced.

34:04Um

34:06so having said that, a few of my

34:08questions

34:10um some of it was some of it was

34:12answered, some were not. To what

34:14standard would Inmanav be upgraded to? I

34:18don't know if that's to Mr. Lee to Mr.

34:21Smith or to

34:23to the table here before us. Um, and

34:27would all of Inmanav be upgraded?

34:32>> Through the chair, sorry, through the

34:34chair, through the chair to whomever

34:36feels most comfortable answering that

34:39question.

34:40>> Uh, again, again, I'm not a self-rfest

34:42engineer. Um but I will say uh first of

34:46all in a it does run along the frontage

34:50of the property but it also then extends

34:52it bends it curls around. So my client

34:56would not have an intention to improve

34:59beyond uh what what is uh along its own

35:03frontage. Um, in terms of the standard

35:05itself, I'm sure there's a there's a um

35:08a term of art with respect to the

35:10standard, but I I can say generally uh

35:12as a non-engineer that the that it will

35:15be improved. Again, I had mentioned

35:16already the storm water management that

35:18needs to be uh design redesigned uh

35:22within that driveway uh as well as

35:24clearly it needs to be repaved. um J

35:28basically just re-exavated and repaved

35:31to a safe and passable road standard

35:35uh level.

35:37>> If I may, Councelor Conway, is there a

35:39for our planning director? Is there a

35:41standard you could help with the answer

35:43on that

35:44>> through the chair? Unfortunately, the

35:45standards for streets do vary. Um,

35:49typically in terms of a project like

35:51this where there's an existing street

35:53and there's not utility upgrades

35:54happening in the road, um, there

35:56wouldn't necessarily be a standard

35:59specifically that they would be imposed

36:00on. So, for example, if someone were in

36:03a private street where it's maybe

36:05unpaved or partially paved and there's

36:07an extension of a sewer main, that's

36:09going to automatically trigger an

36:10upgrade to a fully paved condition. We'd

36:12be looking usually for a minimum 20 to

36:1424 feet in width. So, kind of two travel

36:17directions. Um, in this case, it's an

36:19existing improved road. I would expect

36:21that we would be looking for it to be I

36:23don't have its width right now, but I

36:25suspect it's probably not the width we

36:26would be looking for. Minimum 20 ft fire

36:29apparatus access requirements. I would

36:31expect that likely we would be looking

36:33at resurfacing. And I don't know what's

36:35in the road for drainage. And at that

36:36point, we'd be looking for drainage. I

36:38would say that as a a bare minimum. We'd

36:40have to see ultimately what exactly is

36:41being proposed, what density, the extent

36:44of any other site improvements, and all

36:46of that would go into making a decision

36:47about exactly what extent of

36:49improvements um we would be looking for.

36:51So, it's a little bit situational and

36:53kind of depends on exactly what's

36:55proposed, but hopefully that gives you a

36:56little bit of some context.

36:57>> Thank you, Council Kell. Thank you for

36:59letting me interrupt you.

37:01>> That's okay. No, no problem. So are uh

37:04through the chair uh to Miss Smith, is

37:07there are there catch basins in the in

37:09the street now? And if there aren't

37:11catch basins in the street, would would

37:14the developer be required to install

37:16catch basins in the street to capture

37:18that water runoff and or a water

37:23uh retention system on site?

37:28>> Sure. through the chair to the

37:29councelor. It does appear that there are

37:30some inlets shown in the city's GIS

37:32system along portions of Inman A. Um I

37:35haven't been out there myself to inspect

37:37the catch basin. So I can't tell you

37:39definitively how many or if they're

37:40functional um because this is a section

37:43of street um as many streets in the city

37:45that are not um necessarily maintained

37:48um by the city. Um so because a portion

37:51of this I believe is is um laid out not

37:54even as the street. It shows up as being

37:56the street, but it is in fact not

37:59actually the street. It's on private

38:01property.

38:01>> So in your in your um in your system

38:05before you through the chair,

38:06>> does it show a tie-in at the bottom of

38:09Inman into Westchester Street for any

38:12kind of drainage

38:13>> through the chair? There is a connection

38:15at least of two inlets that I see in the

38:16city system here that connect into

38:18Westchester. Yes.

38:20>> Okay.

38:22um through the and please if if I'm

38:25overstepping my time just let me know

38:28through the chair to Mr. Smith. Um,

38:33where would I believe you have this in

38:36front of you as well, this map? Do you

38:38have this as well?

38:39>> This is the aerial.

38:40>> Yes. Yeah,

38:42>> I know it to memory.

38:44>> So, where would where would you be

38:46looking at upgrading Inman Street to?

38:55Um, as I as I had mentioned, um, Inman

38:58Avenue comes off of well, it it's a

39:01private driveway off of, uh, Westchester

39:04Street and then it becomes Inman Avenue

39:07along the parking what what is currently

39:09the parking area as well as the

39:11building. Um, and then it curls it turns

39:15to the right.

39:16>> Correct. So uh and there are access

39:19points that currently exist which I

39:21would imagine would be similar or

39:24potentially modified um to that point

39:26where Inman starts to turn to the right

39:29and that's where I would imagine the

39:31delineation would be in terms of

39:33improvement of Inman Avenue.

39:35>> So when I I'm just looking at a Google

39:37map as well here. So, when I look at the

39:39Google map up to that dog leg right,

39:44that whole stretch down to Westchester

39:45Street would be improved.

39:48>> That's correct.

39:50>> Okay. Um

39:53through the chair to to our city

39:55planners,

39:57would that end up being

40:00would that continue to be a private

40:02street, a driveway, or become a public

40:06street? How would that play out going

40:08forward?

40:10>> Sure. Through the chair. Ultimately, it

40:13again it depends. Um part of that is it

40:16depends on what the applicant proposes.

40:17So any work that happens in an existing

40:19private street on the city's official

40:21map. That will require an approval with

40:23the planning board through what we call

40:24chapter 12 section 12 which is the

40:26reference to the general revised

40:27ordinance that specifies the process for

40:29making those improvements where the

40:31planning board would review the adequacy

40:33of any changes to the surfacing, grading

40:35or drainage of the street to make sure

40:37that they're sufficient for the use

40:39that's intended. Um, so that would be

40:41reviewed through the the planning board

40:42as part of that process on the property.

40:46Were the applicant to be interested in

40:47establishing the remainder of what

40:49functionally provides access and folks

40:51use as we heard um as a street that is

40:54not a street. The applicant could lay

40:56that out in a variety of different

40:57fashions, but most likely through a

40:59subdivision would that road would get

41:01established as a a public way were they

41:03to choose to do that. If they were not

41:05to choose to do that, it is likely that

41:07we would be looking for some form of

41:09redundancy and access um elsewhere

41:11through the the street network. And my

41:13suspicion is that that may not be

41:16preferred from a standpoint of

41:18additional necessary upgrades. But

41:20ultimately, that's a decision that the

41:21applicant would work with city staff um

41:23at the time they come forward with a

41:25spec specific proposal um that would be

41:27evaluated. So there would be review of

41:29that and then were that to be

41:30established there would be usually an

41:32easement process that would that would

41:34go forward to enable more public use of

41:37that lawfully. Hopefully that clarifies.

41:40>> So I guess from my standpoint and from

41:42from what I've heard from the residents

41:44number one is how do we hand handle

41:47water runoff off of that? Uh, number

41:51two, in this map, it shows Inmanav from

41:54the top to bottom. And obviously,

41:56there's a portion of it that you say is

41:58a driveway. And it I just want to make

42:01sure that the residents who live in this

42:03area and use that area still have the

42:05right to pass and repass on that

42:10driveway andor street, however it's

42:13however it's viewed. I think that's

42:15important. Um, and really, as Mr. Hugh

42:18said the runoff off that hill right in

42:19that area specifically

42:22almost right on the money right from

42:23that from Inmanav south or east uh down

42:26Westchester Street becomes very icy

42:29during the the winter season and runoff.

42:32Um so I would expect that to be

42:36as part of the planning board process

42:39um something that uh would be considered

42:41as we go forward if that's the case.

42:45Um,

42:49I know you touched on it, but if you

42:51could,

42:53as the site sits now and say the zoning

42:58uh did not get granted,

43:00what would be the buy right options

43:05now

43:07or if there is anything proposed in

43:09Boston

43:11um down the pike?

43:14because I I want the people to

43:16understand that

43:19at some point this may be out of our

43:21hands.

43:23Um where right now we may have some

43:26input into what takes place here.

43:30>> So if I may, thank you councelor Cono.

43:34Uh if I may, attorney

43:37Smith, would you have a response for

43:39that? Um, in terms of, and Michelle may

43:44be able to elaborate on this, um, single

43:46single family detached dwellings, um, is

43:50a use that, uh, is allowed.

43:53>> And if you could, excuse me, through the

43:55chair, if you could just explain exactly

43:57what single family detached

44:00means

44:01so people understand what it means.

44:03>> So, a classic example would be a a

44:05single family subdivision. Um, and as as

44:09Bill had mentioned before, a lot of the

44:10homes that are in and around this

44:13neighborhood are single family homes.

44:16[clears throat] So, that type of a

44:17development consisting of single family

44:20dwellings where one family lives in a

44:21single dwelling um, uh, is a type of

44:24development that is allowed under the

44:26current zoning.

44:28That's one example. Um

44:31uh another example which is more of a

44:34catchall would be any any kind of a a do

44:37amendment related use uh as Michelle had

44:40mentioned before the currently I it it

44:42sounds as though the city is currently

44:44designating designating this as a

44:46taxexempt use and exempt under zoning

44:48under the do amendment uh either

44:51educational or religious use educational

44:54I'll tell you is extremely broad and the

44:57city of Worcester has interpreted the do

45:00amendment as being extremely broad in

45:02the ter in in terms of the types of uses

45:04that could be allowed by right uh not by

45:07special permit but by right under the do

45:09amendment uh one example of an

45:11educational use that you see a lot in

45:13the city of Worcester are our colleges

45:15and universities that's sort of a a lay

45:17person's easy understanding of what a do

45:19amendment educational use is however a

45:22more broad interpretation uh which the

45:24courts have uh uh conceded under the do

45:27amendment under educational use Could be

45:29something like a a wet shelter or a dry

45:33shelter or some type of a facility where

45:36uh uh people are a a are are there um

45:40with case managers uh social workers

45:43coming to provide aid um and educate

45:46them. That is also uh in the court's

45:48eyes viewed as do amendment protected

45:50uses. There are a number of those types

45:52of uh facilities within the city of

45:54Worcester. Um that is an example of

45:56another type of byite use. Beyond that,

45:59um I'm not sure if perhaps nursing

46:02nursing home might be a another type of

46:05a use that that may be allowed under

46:06this current zoning.

46:09If I may through the chair and I and I

46:11know there's been discussion at the

46:12state level, I'm not sure where it is if

46:14it's been passed or not where

46:17duplexes I guess would probably be the

46:19best way to explain it. you know, two

46:21side by side attached houses um by right

46:25and I know Smith [snorts] alluded to

46:28that. I don't know if um if that's an

46:31accurate um description or presumption

46:34that may be able to take place here.

46:37>> So either Mr. Thank you councelor Kyle

46:41uh Mr. Dunn or Miss Smith whichever

46:44would you like to address that question?

46:46>> Sure. through the chair to the council.

46:47There's a couple of things sort of

46:49happening um simultaneously at the state

46:51and and recently at the state level

46:53through the legislature. One of which is

46:55now a ballot question uh and that's

46:57related to um uh minimum lot sizes. So I

47:00don't think that really applies in the

47:01scenario, but it's just a a timely topic

47:04around zoning and and changes that are

47:06happening. Uh there is also what the

47:08state refers to as their economic

47:10development bond bill. Uh I think the

47:12title of it this time around is called

47:14the Mass Winds Act. And so that's

47:16pending with the legislature, but one of

47:17the provisions in that that has gotten

47:19some attention, it would uh if passed

47:22the way it's currently written would

47:24allow duplexes by right citywide. So

47:26where that's not currently a byright use

47:28in the RS7 zoning district, if that were

47:31to pass, then duplexes could also be a

47:33byight use under that new state law. And

47:36then in uh July um a state law went into

47:40effect around uh use variances as well

47:43for residential type uses. Uh so there

47:46could also be pathways today under the

47:48state law where the zoning board of

47:50appeals would have to consider other

47:52residential uses as a as a variance

47:55process versus a a uh zoning change or

47:58or a special permit process as well.

48:01>> Thank you. Um just a couple more

48:03questions. No councelor economy, you're

48:05you're the district councelor, so you

48:07have some expertise the rest of us don't

48:09have. So don't feel you're under any

48:11time constraint.

48:12>> No, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

48:13I just want to make sure, you know, I do

48:16my due diligence to the people I

48:18represent. Um,

48:22correct me if I'm wrong. Through the

48:23chair, market rate housing, correct?

48:26Uh, Mr. Mr. Smith.

48:29uh through the through the chair. Uh

48:31that has yet to be fully determined.

48:37Okay. [cough and clears throat]

48:42And then I know we had uh through the

48:44chair some discussion as to whether the

48:46developer would be

48:49um amendable to adding a speed bump if

48:53that was the case on Westchester Street

48:56in the vicinity of Barrett a

48:59um that's a 50/50 on from what I've been

49:02hearing back on people but I just want

49:04to make sure that it's out there and on

49:06record if that is the case. Yes, through

49:09the chair. I I have discussed that with

49:12my client and uh they are amendable to

49:14that.

49:16>> Okay. So, what's disturbing to me at

49:19this juncture is that I don't have a

49:22guarantee that it's going to be market

49:23rate housing.

49:25Um

49:31sorry, in in live time here. So uh my my

49:34client confirmed yes uh through the

49:36chair it this will be a market rate

49:38project.

49:39>> Thank you. Thank you. And I would just

49:42urge our planning department as this

49:45moves forward if that is the case that

49:48whatever can be done to control the

49:50runoff off that hill onto Westchester

49:52and Chester Street be a priority. Um it

49:56is a very difficult area um coming up in

49:59the winter season.

50:01Um, and I think that does need to be

50:03addressed. Um, having said all this, I I

50:06do want to thank Mr. Lee. I want to

50:09thank the developer for listening

50:13uh and hearing the neighborhood and

50:15hearing the neighbors. Um, I think what

50:17we've come to

50:20the feedback that I've got of the 40

50:22people, I would say the 25 that left

50:26email addresses and or phone numbers who

50:28I distributed information to,

50:31uh, all but one got back to me in favor.

50:35So um having said that, I would I would

50:40stand here today at this moment with the

50:42information presented right now um in a

50:45favorable manner uh for that zone change

50:48for that property. And I would say this

50:50to um

50:53that building cannot stay vacant either.

50:56That's it's it's opening us up for more

51:00neighborhood issues. Um, and like I

51:03said, I do appreciate the the developer,

51:07Mr. Lee, Mr. Hughes, who's here with us

51:10tonight, and the rest of the neighbors

51:11who came out to voice their opinions, to

51:13be heard,

51:15um, and to help guide this process um

51:18hopefully um to a positive conclusion

51:21for all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

51:23>> Thank you, Councelor Cono. I just I

51:25probably have a few comments and put

51:27this up, I believe, for a vote. Um

51:31the comments would be brief and that

51:33would be they would be as follows.

51:35Something's going to happen to that

51:37property at some point. It can't stay

51:39vacant as was just said by councelor

51:41Conwell. That's not to the benefit of

51:43the neighbors and it's not to the

51:45benefit of the city. It's also not to

51:46the benefit of the neighbors or the

51:48city. The property falls into nonprofit

51:51hands. I understand there's nothing more

51:53sacred in this city than its

51:55neighborhoods. We all believe that when

51:58we run for reelection or election, we

52:01have these conversations and we live in

52:03these neighborhoods and we know that we

52:05don't want to be changing neighborhoods

52:09to the detriment. I do believe, however,

52:11this project is removed enough. It's

52:13using the same facade that was already

52:16there. And I don't know of any

52:18alternative

52:20um that would guarantee that you

52:22wouldn't have at least you know that

52:25number of vehicles for 40 units on any

52:27other alternative use of that property.

52:30I think the biggest issues that are

52:32there, Mr. Hughes touched upon it,

52:34attorney Smith touched upon it. There

52:36are road condition issues that are there

52:38that are going to that were there before

52:40this project was envisioned and

52:44hopefully they'll be helped by this

52:45project, but they're not going to be

52:47solved by this project or any project.

52:49They have to be solved by in large part

52:52by the city. And to that end, I'm sure

52:55councelor Cono will advocate for um

52:58those positive changes to the to the

53:00roads and the drainage so on so forth. I

53:03know my colleagues and myself are on

53:04this committee and are on the council

53:06will do as well, but there's more to fix

53:10in that neighborhood uh problem-wise

53:13than this project is going to contribute

53:15to. So, I would be supportive of it at

53:18this time given what I've heard and

53:20given the fact that there are multiple

53:22alternative uses that will be at least

53:25um as um as challenging to the

53:29neighborhood as this one is and perhaps

53:31more so. Um, so if unless my colleagues

53:34have further follow-up questions, it'd

53:36be my motion to take a vote on it.

53:38Councelor Tumi, do you have any other

53:40questions? I do not.

53:41>> Councelor, I'm set. Thank you.

53:44>> Um, Mr. Ple, will you take a roll call

53:46for voting to um approve the zone

53:49change?

53:50>> Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, just for

53:51clarification purposes, we'll be

53:52approving for a zone change for an RL7

53:55um as was um discussed at this committee

53:58level and as well as uh planning board.

54:00Correct.

54:01>> Yes. That's item three. Is that correct?

54:03>> Correct. Thank you.

54:03>> That's item 3B.

54:04>> Thank you.

54:05>> Councilors Mitra,

54:08>> yes.

54:08>> Tumi,

54:09>> yes.

54:09>> And chairperson, councelor Bergman.

54:11>> Yes.

54:12>> So we'll go to we'll go to item three D.

54:17reported the planning board upon the

54:18petition of George Maropoulos on behalf

54:21of 321 Greenwood Street LLC requests to

54:24amend the city Worester zoning map as

54:26referenced in article 3 section two of

54:28the Worcester zoning ordinance by

54:30changing the zoning designation of the

54:33portion of 321 Greenwood Street that

54:36currently that is currently within the

54:38MA manufacturing limited ML.5 zoning

54:42district to the business limited BL1

54:44zoning district as shown on the map

54:47attached.

54:49It's a mouthful.

54:50Um,

54:53Tony Smith, would you like to

54:56give us your pitch on item 3D?

54:59>> Yes, Mr. Chair. And um,

55:01>> are you M councelor Mitra?

55:04>> Uh, he had to remove himself for one

55:07minute. We can wait or uh, he can join

55:09in. Um, whatever your preference is.

55:12>> Okay. Oh, I don't mind. I don't mind

55:14waiting for a minute if you want to hold

55:15up or I think I

55:18he said he'll be right back. So, why

55:20don't we just Why don't we just take a

55:21one minute

55:22>> one minute break?

55:23>> Sure.

55:59That's another

56:27I

56:56There's four

57:00Item 3D, attorney Smith.

57:02>> Uh, so again, for the record, Joshua Lee

57:04Smith with Bow and Dwey, uh,

57:06representing the petitioner in

57:07connection with this matter. Uh, I'll be

57:09really brief on on this one. U, this is

57:12a lot more straightforward if just

57:14relative to the last matter. Uh, this

57:16this ex is an existing law that is

57:18splitzoned. So, uh, we view this in part

57:22as sort of a corrective cleanup type of

57:24an action here. The property is um

57:27pretty much half uh within the BL1 zone

57:31and half within the ML0.5

57:34zone, the rear portion of which is in

57:36the manufacturing zone. Uh my client is

57:40looking to develop this site. It's

57:41currently vacant. Uh they're looking to

57:43develop it for housing um in particular

57:46townhouse style housing. um proposing 20

57:49plus or 20 plus or minus uh residential

57:52townhouse units uh along with accessory

57:55parking um uh I think it's a single

58:00garage uh unit um as well um to

58:03accommodate the site and um a number of

58:07uh other site related improvements

58:09landscaping uh other beautifification uh

58:12for this property. Um the property

58:14itself in terms of the neighborhood

58:16directly across the street are mostly

58:18single family homes, single and two

58:20family homes. To the north is a

58:22commercial retail bank. Uh to the south

58:25I believe is also a residential type of

58:28a use and to the east uh is a is a

58:32landfill. Um, so my client again is

58:34looking to I'll say uh uh revitalize

58:39this site uh and and use it for a uh an

58:42active housing production purpose.

58:44>> Thank you. Before I go to my colleagues,

58:47anybody that came recently, do either

58:50one of you want to speak on any item on

58:52the agenda or you just visiting?

59:02>> Mr. P will you will you try to find out?

59:05Okay. Uh so I'm going to go to councelor

59:08Tumi first on this one. Item 3D if there

59:12are any questions.

59:13>> Actually I do not have any questions on

59:16this.

59:17>> Council me

59:21confirmed [clears throat] through you

59:23Mr. chair to uh the councelor Smith is

59:26that so currently we have the ML

59:30mix zone and that you are going to be

59:32converting the whole thing into BO

59:35>> that's correct

59:35>> is that the plan

59:36>> yes

59:37>> okay and so so that we can build multi-

59:40unit there and the purpose of that is

59:43>> extend the the BL1 portion of the site

59:46extend that to replace the ML0.5 and

59:51develop the entirety of the lot with the

59:5420 townhouse units.

59:55>> We don't have a plan at this point or

59:58>> we we do actually. Um so previously

1:00:01there was reference of the uh

1:00:03>> and the plan was presented to the

1:00:05planning board.

1:00:06>> This has been approved by the ZBA in

1:00:08short.

1:00:08>> Oh okay. Yes.

1:00:10>> Okay.

1:00:11>> So we still need to go to the planning

1:00:12board.

1:00:12>> Yeah. Understand. Okay. Thank you. If

1:00:15you if I may, uh, attorney Smith, front

1:00:18of the ZBA, what were there people

1:00:20attending that were for or against or

1:00:23was there limited number of people there

1:00:25altogether?

1:00:25>> Good question. I believe

1:00:27>> can ask Miss Smith, she's

1:00:28>> I don't think there was anyone there in

1:00:31opposition, but Michelle, please correct

1:00:33me if I'm wrong.

1:00:34>> Yeah, through the chair, um, I don't

1:00:35recall any opposition and this was a use

1:00:38variance. So, you heard from Mr. done

1:00:40earlier, the state changed the laws back

1:00:41in July. So now communities are required

1:00:44to allow use variances for residential

1:00:46uses. And so the applicant in parallel

1:00:48with this process proceeded to obtain a

1:00:51use variance, our first use variance in

1:00:52fact um [laughter] that the zoning board

1:00:55granted out uh the end of September for

1:00:57this. So they regardless of the zone

1:00:59change, they have that, but ultimately

1:01:01they're seeking to proceed with the zone

1:01:02change to clean that up because should

1:01:04for whatever reason that project not

1:01:05move forward, it does create more

1:01:07continuity in zoning by having the whole

1:01:09property zoned the entire uh same way

1:01:12because we don't actually have

1:01:13provisions in zoning that accommodate

1:01:14for flexibility in use for splitzoned

1:01:17properties at this point in time. So you

1:01:19can only do what you can do in the

1:01:20manufacturing, you can only do what you

1:01:22can do in the business and the business.

1:01:24Um so happy to answer more questions

1:01:25about that but yes they have obtained

1:01:27zoning board approval and I don't recall

1:01:29opposition from residents.

1:01:31>> Okay.

1:01:31>> So you one more question. So once this

1:01:34conver

1:01:38manufacturing

1:01:40opportunities there is that correct?

1:01:42>> Yeah through the chair. So through the

1:01:44change in zoning basically you're

1:01:45pulling away a lot of dirty if you will

1:01:48manufacturing uses that result from the

1:01:50relic zoning. So the the property's

1:01:52history over time was manufacturing and

1:01:55then for a brief period of time it was

1:01:57actually RG5 or residential zone and

1:01:59then it it switched to the current

1:02:01zoning back in the early 90s. Um so

1:02:04right now today there's no residential

1:02:05uses that would be allowed on the

1:02:07manufacturing portion of the lot and as

1:02:08it switches to the business zone those

1:02:10uses open up by right. Um and the same

1:02:12is true with the manufacturing uses most

1:02:15of those uses go away or start requiring

1:02:17special permits. So things like

1:02:19automotive um repair, truck uh

1:02:22servicing, that would no longer be

1:02:24something that would be allowed. Um the

1:02:26same thing with like a contractor yard.

1:02:27They could have a contractor yard there

1:02:29today. With the business zoning, that

1:02:31that would not be something that would

1:02:32be allowed.

1:02:35>> Yeah, there are a variety of different

1:02:37uses, uh different business uses. Um, so

1:02:39things like you see with the the bank to

1:02:41the north. Um, personal services, so

1:02:44like a salon or some sort of retail,

1:02:46those would all be allowed by right,

1:02:48those uses today would require special

1:02:50permission. Um, so we're opening up a

1:02:52lot of uses that are in character with

1:02:54that corridor already. Um, and probably

1:02:56less detrimental if you're a residential

1:02:58neighbor. You'd find that that use is

1:02:59less detrimental to you in that

1:03:01neighborhood. Not everyone maybe, but

1:03:03um, mostly I would say.

1:03:04>> Thank you for the clarification. Thank

1:03:06you, Mr. Chair.

1:03:07>> Okay. first use variance. Mr. Smith,

1:03:10you're a trailblazer.

1:03:12>> Yes. Making making history. It's a good

1:03:15modest project, I think, for the first

1:03:17first use variance in Worcester.

1:03:19>> Well, as as Miss Smith explained it, I

1:03:20think I understand now why there was

1:03:22very little neighborhood uh well, why

1:03:26there was really no neighborhood

1:03:27opposition because it sounds like from a

1:03:29residential perspective, it's going to

1:03:31be an improvement.

1:03:32>> Yeah. Um Mr. Ple, would you take a roll

1:03:36call on the motion to approve?

1:03:39>> Councilors Metitra,

1:03:41>> yes.

1:03:42>> Tumi,

1:03:42>> yes.

1:03:43>> And chairperson, councelor Burkeman.

1:03:44>> Yes. So, we've done 3A and 3D. We're

1:03:49going to go to 3C if that's

1:03:56We did B and D. I'm sorry. Yeah, we're

1:03:57going to go 3C. I'm sorry. Uh, we can go

1:03:59back to We can do A as well. Attorney

1:04:02Smith, which one are you here for? All

1:04:04of these

1:04:04>> if if I I am if we could take uh item C,

1:04:07Mr.

1:04:08>> Is that item C?

1:04:09>> Yeah, we can do 3 C.

1:04:10>> Item C would be

1:04:12>> referred. Yep.

1:04:15Report of the pling item 3C. The report

1:04:17of the pling board upon the

1:04:18communication of the city manager

1:04:19recommending the zoning map be amended

1:04:21by extending the RG resident general

1:04:24zoning district and adaptive reuse

1:04:27overlay district A-Rod to wholly

1:04:29encompass the property at 128 Providence

1:04:33Street. Attorney Smith,

1:04:37do you have somebody else to speak?

1:04:40>> My client is behind me. Um to the extent

1:04:42he wants to my petition.

1:04:43>> I'm sorry. It was Mr. Dunn's petition.

1:04:46Yes.

1:04:46>> So, attorney Smith, if you'll indulge me

1:04:48for a moment, I'd like to have Mr. Dunn

1:04:50since it was his petition.

1:04:52>> Absolutely.

1:04:52>> Go first.

1:04:53>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's sort of a

1:04:55partnership because it's uh currently a

1:04:56city-owned property, as I'll describe,

1:04:58but the um group that we're working with

1:05:01to finally fi have a productive reuse

1:05:04for the former St. Vincent nurses

1:05:06building at 128 Providence Street is

1:05:08also a client of uh Attorney Smith. Um

1:05:11so, he's involved in this as well. Um,

1:05:14as the council and committee knows, we

1:05:16did a request for proposals. I think it

1:05:18was probably the third attempt at doing

1:05:20a request for proposals uh on this

1:05:22former St. Vincent uh nurses building

1:05:24that is attached to the senior center.

1:05:26So, this is the historic building um

1:05:28because of its connection to the senior

1:05:30center. Uh we determined that the best

1:05:32way to do this was through a very

1:05:34long-term lease so that it would still

1:05:36be financable um for the developer that

1:05:39we were seeking senior housing because

1:05:40what a great complimentary use to the

1:05:42senior center. but senior housing um and

1:05:45it was just hard logistically to try to

1:05:47you know sell the asset because of its

1:05:49interconnectedness uh with the senior

1:05:51center. So through that RFP process we

1:05:54uh designated Roger Communities uh as

1:05:56the most advantageous proposal and our

1:05:59preferred developer uh to undertake this

1:06:01with us. Uh Roger Communities is a

1:06:03nonprofit developer with experience in

1:06:06both affordable housing and senior

1:06:08housing and their project is consisting

1:06:10of approximately 98 units of affordable

1:06:13senior housing within both the existing

1:06:14historic building as well as an addition

1:06:17uh that would be constructed on the

1:06:18adjacent land. Um, we uh submitted this

1:06:22from the administration because we are

1:06:24the current record owner of the property

1:06:27uh to uh I guess most properly submit

1:06:30the petition for the resoning. And

1:06:33essentially this right now um the

1:06:36current zoning is a business office 2.0

1:06:38zoning district which is comparable to

1:06:41those adjacent property that I'm sure

1:06:42Mr. Smith will talk about that's sort of

1:06:44medical offices and then the senior

1:06:45center you could think of as sort of you

1:06:47know uh I guess appropriate for that

1:06:49zoning district as well. Um but what it

1:06:52does not allow for is high-rise multif

1:06:55family. So as referenced previously in

1:06:57this meeting uh high-rise multif family

1:06:59is defined as four stories or more. Uh

1:07:01and because of the nature of the um

1:07:04proposal that we've selected as our

1:07:06preferred proposal, we do require this

1:07:10uh zone change to be considered so that

1:07:12we can facilitate that high-rise multif

1:07:15family use on the property. So that's

1:07:17kind of the I guess the nature of the

1:07:20request in a nutshell. Uh it would be

1:07:22specifically uh to transition the zoning

1:07:26district to an RG5 as well as the

1:07:28adaptive reuse overlay district.

1:07:33>> Thank you.

1:07:36>> Mr. Smith, did you want to add anything?

1:07:38Attorney Smith.

1:07:39>> Peter's [clears throat] done a lot of

1:07:40the work for me here. The only thing

1:07:42I'll add um uh just a couple of items.

1:07:46Um just in terms of the total number of

1:07:48units uh Peter mentioned 98 units I just

1:07:52want to uh break down so a portion of

1:07:54that is conversion uh within the

1:07:56existing building about 53 plus or minus

1:07:59of those 98 units will be conversion uh

1:08:02within that as as uh he had mentioned uh

1:08:05the former St. Vincent's nurse's home,

1:08:07nurse's building. The groundup portion

1:08:11uh which will be groundup um new

1:08:13addition to the building will be about

1:08:1645 plus or minus units. So 53 conversion

1:08:19and then plus 45 groundup units. Um I

1:08:23also want to underscore this. This

1:08:26really is I think a a feel-good type of

1:08:28a project. Not only is it house going to

1:08:30provide housing production, but it's

1:08:32going to provide housing production for

1:08:33seniors. And then in addition to that it

1:08:36will provide mixed income with respect

1:08:38to the the types of units. So from 30%

1:08:42AMI uh to 80% AMI in terms of the

1:08:46occupants who will be living uh within

1:08:49this this completed project. Uh the last

1:08:52thing I'll just say uh with respect to

1:08:53the zoning um Peter had mentioned the

1:08:56A-Rod is also part of what we're seeking

1:08:58here. Um both the A-Rod and the RG5

1:09:02are consistent with the neighborhood.

1:09:04There are uh properties in and around

1:09:06this area that are either RG5 and or uh

1:09:10um within the A-Rod. The A-Rod adds uh

1:09:13Peter already mentioned what the RG5

1:09:15provides with respect to the multif

1:09:17family use particularly particularly

1:09:19with respect to the high-rise. The A-Rod

1:09:22allows for uh not only flexibility with

1:09:24respect to certain types of business

1:09:26uses which are not contemplated here,

1:09:28but it also provides for more

1:09:30flexibility with respect to

1:09:32non-compliance with certain dimensional

1:09:34and parking requirements. Whereas

1:09:37otherwise a project might require having

1:09:40to uh seek seek a variance in certain

1:09:43circumstances, uh the A-Rod provides

1:09:45more flexibility on those fronts as

1:09:46well.

1:09:47>> That's helpful. Thank you. Did your

1:09:49client want to speak?

1:09:51>> Yes,

1:09:52>> sure.

1:09:55>> Just your name. The city of residents.

1:09:57Welcome.

1:09:57>> Uh Jeremy Vieiraa, um resident in

1:10:00Boston, Massachusetts. I work for the

1:10:03real estate developer, the Rochester

1:10:05Communities. We are nonprofit real

1:10:07estate developer that focuses on senior

1:10:09housing and senior services. And we've

1:10:11been in Massachusetts for about 160

1:10:13years providing services to seniors. Uh

1:10:16we think this is an incredibly exciting

1:10:18project um to have this kind of uh

1:10:21synergies with the senior center and a a

1:10:24singular focus on delivering units um

1:10:28with the city and working in partnership

1:10:30with the city. Uh it's an extraordinary

1:10:32opportunity to revitalize that corner um

1:10:36and really provide housing for the next

1:10:38uh you know 50 years there, 90 years

1:10:41actually. Uh so thank you very much.

1:10:43Thank you councelor Mitra any questions

1:10:50>> through chair to councelor Smith I you

1:10:53have given a great explanation of

1:10:54everything that I had in my mind to ask

1:10:57you and uh I think it's a great project

1:10:59seems to me and

1:11:02one common question that I always have

1:11:05is uh was a is he flow through in the

1:11:08planning board when it went through or

1:11:10any objection unanimously approved by

1:11:13>> with respect to the uh recommendation by

1:11:15the planning board. Yes. Again, this

1:11:17there was no opposition. I can I can say

1:11:19that with certainty.

1:11:22>> Councelor Timmy.

1:11:24>> Uh thank you. Uh could you reiterate how

1:11:26many uh floors the building will have?

1:11:31>> Four plus.

1:11:36uh four on on one section on the

1:11:39redevelopment and then there is uh four

1:11:41and a half on the new addition.

1:11:44>> Okay. Thank you. Um and the the other

1:11:46thing was um that I see a lot in this is

1:11:50was the issue of the parking um having

1:11:53enough uh parking for future. Um, one of

1:11:58the concerns I've always had is

1:12:01especially when we're doing new

1:12:02development, um, is utilizing, um,

1:12:07different types of transportation. So,

1:12:09we've, you know, that you've got people

1:12:11who probably some aren't going to be

1:12:14driving. Um, are you going to consider

1:12:17possibly providing a car share program

1:12:21um or a van or or something like that uh

1:12:24for the residents? Is that something

1:12:26that

1:12:27>> Yeah, so that's something we're

1:12:28exploring right now. We we've done it on

1:12:31quite a few of our projects um that that

1:12:34have limited um connectivity.

1:12:37>> Uh so it's something we've we've

1:12:39explored. We're also looking at uh you

1:12:41know reconfiguring some parking lot area

1:12:44that's currently adjacent to the site to

1:12:47uh add some units of parking there for

1:12:50for our residents and working with um

1:12:53the senior center to uh see what what

1:12:56how we can share parking uh in that

1:12:58facility as well. Okay.

1:13:00>> And and and certainly there's there's a

1:13:02lot of interconnectedness

1:13:04interconnectedness

1:13:06uh for some utilities etc. Um, and that

1:13:09can be ex very expensive and I'm just

1:13:13curious how you're how you're you're

1:13:15going to manage all that.

1:13:17>> Yeah, we've had the the both the the

1:13:20contractor that helped us respond to

1:13:21this project um and the our design team

1:13:25had already done a a preliminary utility

1:13:28study to uh schedule out and think about

1:13:30how we're going to divide those

1:13:32utilities up. Um, and then as we get

1:13:34further into design, we will continue

1:13:36digging into that. something we're very

1:13:38aware of, very conscious of. Um, another

1:13:41thing is working with National Grid on

1:13:43>> that was my next question.

1:13:47>> Is there enough electricity?

1:13:48>> Yeah. And so their preliminary letter to

1:13:51us does indicate that there is capacity.

1:13:53Um, we're going to continue working with

1:13:55them because we know that is a

1:13:56challenge. We're working very early in

1:13:59the process with them and as we get um

1:14:02additional details on our mechanical

1:14:04systems and electrical systems. We'll be

1:14:06sending that to them as soon as possible

1:14:09to make sure that they're evaluating and

1:14:11we can understand exactly what the

1:14:13pricing and what any upgrades to the

1:14:15system might be required.

1:14:17>> Okay. Thank you very much.

1:14:20>> Thank you. Uh just a couple quick

1:14:22questions. uh attorney Smith, if you're

1:14:25want to field them or your client, um is

1:14:27this going to this is as I understood

1:14:29going to be marketed towards seniors. Is

1:14:32that correct?

1:14:32>> That's correct.

1:14:33>> So, how do you plan on doing that? In

1:14:36other words, is there a is there a

1:14:39marketing plan like I I just I've never

1:14:43really thought about it, but I'm

1:14:45assuming if somebody Well, actually, how

1:14:47do you define senior? I guess is my

1:14:48first question.

1:14:49>> Yeah. So, this is defined as 62 plus.

1:14:53um is is the state the state definition

1:14:56>> walking around that might be all three

1:14:57of the counselors [laughter] maybe not

1:14:59councelor Tumi she's younger than I

1:15:02>> um this is affordable housing as as

1:15:06councelor Smith has mentioned um what we

1:15:09will be doing this is a very rigorous

1:15:12actually uh marketing plan and lottery

1:15:15process and and that is has to meet a

1:15:18tremendous amount of state requirements

1:15:21um for affordability and the the way

1:15:24it's framed, the different groups that

1:15:26it's marketed to to make sure it's

1:15:27distributed broadly. Um, people will

1:15:30enter a lottery for those units. Um, and

1:15:34then a lottery is cast. Affordable

1:15:37housing in the in the state and in in

1:15:40Boston and Worcester in particular is a

1:15:42huge need. So, we expect probably four

1:15:45to five times as many applicants, if not

1:15:48more, as um will be as available units.

1:15:52Um and that will all be run again

1:15:54through our our property management

1:15:56wing. Um a very rigorous lottery process

1:16:00to make sure do uh due processes.

1:16:02>> I appreciate the answer. Do you know how

1:16:04old the building is? I'm just It's a

1:16:06beautiful old building.

1:16:07>> It's uh built the original building I

1:16:09believe is 1923 if I'm correct. And the

1:16:12last question I have, it's not going to

1:16:14affect my support. I do have you do have

1:16:17it for this project, but I'm just

1:16:19curious. Worcester residents wouldn't

1:16:22get priority from the applicant pool as

1:16:24you describe or would they?

1:16:25>> No, there is a there is a priority to

1:16:27Wister res. Yeah.

1:16:29>> Great. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:16:31>> Yep. Go ahead, councelor Chimmy. Um, so

1:16:35I'm just I after having read the uh

1:16:37article um on built development in

1:16:41Boston, um I certainly hope that you'll

1:16:44let people know that it's much easier to

1:16:46work with Wister.

1:16:48>> Thank you.

1:16:49>> Welcome. Councelor, I'm sorry, Mr.

1:16:52Podle. Would you take a roll call of the

1:16:55counselors? My motion would be to

1:16:56support item 3

1:17:00C. Councilors Mitra,

1:17:03>> yes.

1:17:03>> Tumi,

1:17:04>> yes.

1:17:05>> And chairperson, councelor Burkeman.

1:17:07>> Yes. So, we'll go to item 3A.

1:17:12Report of the planning board upon the

1:17:13petition of George Marcopoulos on behalf

1:17:15of 93 Vernon Street LLC requests the

1:17:18zoning map be amended by establishing

1:17:20the adaptive reuse overlay district

1:17:22A-Rod to wholly encompass the property

1:17:25at 95 Vernon Street. So, um, that's

1:17:29petition of Attorney Smith.

1:17:32>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, for

1:17:34the record, Joshua Lee Smith with Badage

1:17:36Dwey. Uh, this, if you're looking at the

1:17:39map, um, this may look familiar because

1:17:40it is directly adjacent to the property

1:17:43we just discussed. Um, so this is 95

1:17:46Vernon Street. Uh, directly next door is

1:17:49the site of 100 128 uh, Providence

1:17:51Street. So, George Mcopoulos is the

1:17:54principal uh, owner of this current

1:17:56site. This site is currently used and

1:17:58occupied for medical office use. Uh the

1:18:01property is, as you mentioned, Mr.

1:18:03Chair, currently within a BO2.0, a

1:18:06business office 2.0 zone. Uh my client

1:18:09is looking to retain that business

1:18:12office 2.0. However, uh he is seeking um

1:18:16approval by the city council to add on

1:18:18top of that or overlay the A-Rod. So, uh

1:18:22put on top of the current BO2.0 zone uh

1:18:25the adaptive reuse overlay district.

1:18:27This would allow for more as we've um as

1:18:31I've discussed to some extent on some

1:18:33other matters this evening. Allowing for

1:18:36the A-Rod will uh enhance the BO 2.0

1:18:40options with respect to use. Uh but a

1:18:43adding the A-Rod will also provide some

1:18:45flexibility with respect to uh

1:18:47dimensional and parking requirements. Uh

1:18:50so that that is what my client is um

1:18:53looking for. support from this

1:18:54commission. Thank you.

1:18:55>> Thank you. Um before I go to my

1:18:58colleagues, so that's the medical

1:18:59building, right? 95. That's the medical

1:19:02building.

1:19:02>> That's correct. And and [clears throat]

1:19:04uh just to not be confused with the

1:19:07property directly to the north, that is

1:19:09also a medical office building,

1:19:11unrelated.

1:19:12[clears throat]

1:19:13>> I find find my memory hard to uh

1:19:16believe, but when I was probably four or

1:19:18five years old, our I lived in that

1:19:20neighborhood and our family doctor was

1:19:22at that building. So that's why I

1:19:24recognize that. Um, [clears throat]

1:19:25you're is that the same? It's not the

1:19:28same client for this property, is it?

1:19:30That's behind you.

1:19:32>> No.

1:19:32>> No.

1:19:32>> Shaking his head. No. Excellent. All

1:19:34right. Uh, councelor Mitra, any

1:19:36questions?

1:19:38>> Councelor Tumi, any questions?

1:19:40>> No questions.

1:19:40>> Planning board have anything they wish

1:19:42to say about this

1:19:44>> through the chair? This is a unanimous

1:19:46recommendation in favor from the

1:19:48planning board. um finding that this

1:19:49would help increase the flexible

1:19:52opportunities for future redevelopment.

1:19:54I believe it's a fully occupied um

1:19:56medical buildings. I'll have attorney

1:19:58Smith correct me if I'm getting that

1:19:59wrong. Um but would preserve the

1:20:01opportunity in the future really to have

1:20:03potential for high-rise multif family,

1:20:05which isn't currently permitted under

1:20:06the zone. Any um use of that permission

1:20:09were this change to move forward would

1:20:11still be through a special permit from

1:20:12the planning board. Um and there would

1:20:14be reductions um for parking

1:20:17requirements and flexibility for things

1:20:18like loading that could be afforded

1:20:20through a streamlined process with the

1:20:21planning board where that to to move

1:20:23forward. So that's really the purpose

1:20:24here. Um I know you typically do ask we

1:20:26did have some um butters with some

1:20:28concerns. There's the packet that you

1:20:30have in front of you is lengthy and that

1:20:31entails mostly those comments. I will

1:20:34say that those comments were generally

1:20:35speaking more operational in the sense

1:20:38of the interconnected nature of this lot

1:20:41with the neighboring lot and were really

1:20:43more about um understanding you know

1:20:45what exactly was going to be proposed um

1:20:48which obviously at this point we're

1:20:49talking about theoretical zoning of the

1:20:51property and what land uses could be

1:20:53moved forward um so that didn't dissuade

1:20:55the planning board from still thinking

1:20:56that this was the right choice.

1:20:58>> Okay, thank you. Any follow-up

1:21:00questions? Mr. Potter, will you take a

1:21:02roll call on the motion to approve item

1:21:043A?

1:21:05>> Councilors Mitra,

1:21:07>> yes.

1:21:07>> Tumi,

1:21:08>> yes.

1:21:08>> And chairperson, councelor Burkeman.

1:21:10>> Yes.

1:21:11>> So,

1:21:12>> thank you very much,

1:21:13>> Attorney Smith. Does that

1:21:14>> finish you for the night?

1:21:16>> It does.

1:21:16>> All right. We're going to go to 3E.

1:21:18Thank you.

1:21:19>> 3E. report of the pling board upon the

1:21:21communication of the city manager

1:21:23recommend recommending adoption of

1:21:25zoning ordinance amendment relating

1:21:28related to driveway pavement and

1:21:30permits.

1:21:32Mr. Dunn, do you have any update on

1:21:36where we're at with this at the moment?

1:21:38[clears throat]

1:21:40>> Uh Mr. Mr. Chairman, our recommendation

1:21:42at this time would be to to hold this

1:21:43for a second time uh just because we are

1:21:47still coordinating some of the feedback

1:21:49that we received when this was first

1:21:51submitted to council. And it there's

1:21:53also was a transition um and leadership

1:21:56at inspectional services. It was from

1:21:58inspectional services. So, they're still

1:22:00kind of driving this. And uh this

1:22:02particular memo that's on the agenda was

1:22:05the law department's um communication

1:22:07about updating the ordinance. But

1:22:09there's some things that we're still

1:22:10working through around uh the actual

1:22:12like permitting function of that and we

1:22:13want to make sure that we have that uh

1:22:16ability to bring that back to council

1:22:17based on feedback previously received.

1:22:19So I think inspectional services is

1:22:21still working through that.

1:22:23>> Yeah. Thank you. So my preference

1:22:27and I'll certainly hear from my

1:22:28colleagues if they have a different

1:22:30opinion would be not to be would my

1:22:32preference would not to be voting on

1:22:34something that's not complete and we've

1:22:37been asked to hold it. I think that's a

1:22:39reasonable request. So councelor Tumi do

1:22:42you have any issue with that?

1:22:43>> Nope.

1:22:44>> Councelor Mitra any issue with that? So

1:22:46Mr. P, will you take a motion to hold

1:22:48item 3E?

1:22:50>> Counselors Mitra?

1:22:52>> Yes.

1:22:52>> Tumi? Yes.

1:22:54>> And chairperson councelor Bergman.

1:22:55>> Yes. So we're on the last agenda item of

1:22:59the evening. It's agenda item 4A

1:23:02miscellaneous item order of council

1:23:04Robert A. Balada. Request standing

1:23:06committee on economic development. Hold

1:23:07the public discussion relative to

1:23:09adjusting the city's zoning book to

1:23:12amend section five of the city's

1:23:13inclusionary zoning ordinance to

1:23:15increase the payment in le of

1:23:16construction afford to increase the

1:23:19payment in lie of constructing

1:23:21affordable housing from 3% to 5% of the

1:23:24total construction value of all building

1:23:26permits for the de for the development

1:23:29including trade permits the attached for

1:23:31current ordinance. Now, one thing

1:23:34strikes me is our public discussion

1:23:37is going to be limited, I believe, to

1:23:40those of us around this table. Um,

1:23:43unless I'm missing something. Uh, Mr.

1:23:46Pile, do we have anybody online?

1:23:49>> Mr. Chairman, not at this time. No.

1:23:51>> Okay. So, I'm happy to have a

1:23:52discussion. It's the last agenda item,

1:23:55but my sense at the end of it and

1:23:56obviously it could change and I want to

1:23:58hear my colleagues opinions if they

1:24:00differ is to hold this and uh for for

1:24:04maybe different advertising, different

1:24:07type of advertising or at least another

1:24:08opportunity for the public to weigh in.

1:24:10It's a very important issue. Um and I

1:24:13know there has been some some discussion

1:24:15other communities. So I'll go to Mr.

1:24:17done um and ask if you could update us

1:24:21on things happening in and around

1:24:24Massachusetts related to this topic.

1:24:27>> Sure, Mr. Chairman. Um I'll definitely

1:24:30get to that context because I think that

1:24:32context is important, but also just some

1:24:34specificity around uh how things have

1:24:36been going in Worcester, too. And I

1:24:39don't want to, you know, characterize

1:24:41the counselor's intent of this, but

1:24:44because I think it's well-meaning and

1:24:46and we could always use more dollars in

1:24:47our affordable housing trust fund. I do

1:24:49think part of it could be because we had

1:24:51a a great I guess I would say abundance

1:24:54of resources in the affordable housing

1:24:56trust fund because of the American

1:24:57Rescue Plan Act. So when we started the

1:24:59affordable housing trust fund, we were

1:25:00able to do that in a very big way with

1:25:02the uh administration and city council's

1:25:05commitment of at least 20% of our ARPA

1:25:07dollars going to affordable housing

1:25:09related purposes. And so it was an

1:25:12initial uh 15 million and then there was

1:25:14even more. We're probably uh above 18

1:25:17million in total commitments now out of

1:25:19the affordable housing trust fund. And

1:25:20and again the majority of that was from

1:25:23American Rescue Plan Act. But where that

1:25:24has now sunset and all that has been

1:25:26committed, all the American Rescue Plan

1:25:28Act dollars are gone. The trust fund

1:25:30will now rely on two primary sources of

1:25:32revenue. One being payment in LW uh and

1:25:35then the second being the trust fund's

1:25:37application to community preservation

1:25:39act funds. Um and that's how a lot of

1:25:42communities around the Commonwealth also

1:25:43fund their affordable housing trust

1:25:44funds is through those two. Certainly,

1:25:46I'd say the majority being uh mostly

1:25:49reliant on CPA funds, but if a community

1:25:51has inclusionary zoning, if it has a

1:25:53payment in loo as an option for

1:25:55compliance, those generally go in there.

1:25:57Um when we first set out on inclusionary

1:26:00zoning, the different parameters in it,

1:26:03you know, it's kind of tough sometimes

1:26:04because the ordinance itself kind of

1:26:07reflects market conditions and market

1:26:08conditions can change over time, right?

1:26:10So, we had submitted a lot of these

1:26:12details in 2022 to the council. It was

1:26:15ultimately adopted in 2023. I mentioned

1:26:17that in particular because in 2022

1:26:19that's when the Federal Reserve started

1:26:22increasing interest rates um and has

1:26:24stayed at elevated levels since and have

1:26:26had many other economic headwinds

1:26:29affecting the the real estate market for

1:26:31sure. But I would say that so far um I

1:26:34think we struck a pretty good balance in

1:26:36the context of the state. I'd say our

1:26:37inclusionary zoning ordinance is around

1:26:40average. You know, we're certainly not

1:26:42the most restrictive and we're certainly

1:26:44not the most um lenient as it relates to

1:26:47uh inclusionary zoning. There are some

1:26:48inclusionary zoning ordinances that

1:26:50exist that it's actually not even

1:26:51mandatory. If you participate, you just

1:26:53get density bonuses and off- streetet

1:26:55parking relief and the like. So, I'd say

1:26:56we're around the middle in terms of how

1:26:59our uh zoning ordinance was c

1:27:00inclusionary zoning was crafted. And I

1:27:02think what we've seen in terms of the

1:27:04market response has been, you know,

1:27:07pretty good in the sense that we created

1:27:09a a slate of options for compliance. If

1:27:12you're going to build affordable units

1:27:14in the project, it gets triggered at a

1:27:16certain unit count, 10 units or or 12 12

1:27:20units or more. Um, and then uh if you're

1:27:23going to build those units, it's uh

1:27:25different levels of affordability. So if

1:27:26you're going to do 60% area median

1:27:28income, it's 10% of the project. If

1:27:30you're going to do 80% area income, it's

1:27:3215% of the project and also created this

1:27:35uh compliance option by doing the

1:27:37payment in loo. And I think where right

1:27:40now we've had about half of the projects

1:27:42subject to the ordinance choose to do

1:27:43the units and about half of the projects

1:27:45choose to do the payment. So I think

1:27:47that's a healthy mix because what we

1:27:48didn't want to have I don't think you

1:27:50would like strike a good balance if you

1:27:52created uh you know either a a fee

1:27:55structure for the payment and loo that

1:27:57was so expensive that nobody chose it or

1:28:00a fee structure that was so cheap that

1:28:02everybody chose it. So the fact that we

1:28:03have people making a mix of deci

1:28:05decisions I think is really healthy. Um,

1:28:08but I would say that uh I definitely

1:28:10would not be uh in support of raising

1:28:14that fee at this time. Um, because I

1:28:16think with with what's going on around

1:28:19project viability, a lot of the economic

1:28:21headwinds, if anything, I think we

1:28:22should be considering, you know, things

1:28:25that maybe create either more options or

1:28:28understand those economic challenges

1:28:30that these projects are facing. As you

1:28:32see in this committee, a lot of times

1:28:34subsidy is required for these projects

1:28:35to work. Uh, so I don't think that the

1:28:38market is strong enough or that the

1:28:40economics is strong enough to start

1:28:42increasing fees in a big way. It sounds

1:28:44kind of small, 3% to 5%, 2% increase.

1:28:47Um, but some of these projects now, the

1:28:48larger multif family projects, we have

1:28:50some that are in excess of $und00

1:28:52million investment. So that's a

1:28:54significant additional cost. In fact, I

1:28:57mean, if we were pressed for making

1:28:59recommendations on changing inclusionary

1:29:01zoning right now, you know, I think that

1:29:03we would maybe even think about a cap so

1:29:05that some of those larger projects, you

1:29:07know, how do you how do you absorb a $2

1:29:10million fee? That's a really exorbitant

1:29:12fee um for some of these projects to

1:29:15then still move forward with it. Um or

1:29:17and one of the things that we were

1:29:19thinking about as we and I know the

1:29:21chairman has long talked about trying to

1:29:23encourage more home ownership

1:29:24opportunities in the city. Right now the

1:29:27ordinance um applies to both rental

1:29:29housing and for sale housing. And so if

1:29:32we want to think about how do we pull

1:29:34these levers to maybe move things in a

1:29:36different way or have the market respond

1:29:37in a certain way, I think we could, you

1:29:39know, certainly consider removing the

1:29:41applicability of inclusionary zoning on

1:29:43for sale product to try to encourage

1:29:45more of that for sale product because a

1:29:47lot of people, as you see, it's a

1:29:48proliferation of rental projects that

1:29:50you're seeing proposed to the planning

1:29:52board and

1:29:53>> and council. Um, so that's kind of my

1:29:55take on it. I'd say right now too in the

1:29:57context of, you know, other communities

1:29:58in Massachusetts, but also beyond

1:30:00because inclusionary zoning is not just

1:30:02a Massachusetts construct. It exists in

1:30:04other parts of the country. Um, if

1:30:06communities are talking about

1:30:07inclusionary zoning, they're talking

1:30:08about relaxing it, not making it

1:30:10stronger at this time. Um, so I would

1:30:13say that I think this I understand the

1:30:15spirit of it. We could always use, you

1:30:16know, as many funds as we can get in our

1:30:19affordable housing trust fund, which is

1:30:20where these would go. But I just don't

1:30:22think, you know, putting that um on the

1:30:25backs of real estate right now,

1:30:27considering, you know, the real

1:30:29volatility and and challenges that real

1:30:31estate is experiencing right now would

1:30:32be the right direction to go in at this

1:30:34time.

1:30:35>> I appreciate that presentation. Smith,

1:30:38you want to

1:30:38>> uh through the chair. I just want to add

1:30:40too that there are some areas of our

1:30:42community because of the MBTA compliant

1:30:44zoning that we have where were we to

1:30:46propose a change, we would also need to

1:30:48do additional economic feasibility

1:30:49studies. So there would be additional

1:30:51work that we would have to do to defend

1:30:53the economic viability of that change

1:30:55for our community.

1:30:56>> Even if it goes up

1:30:58>> if it Yep. If it were it to move

1:31:00forward, right? So that's an additional

1:31:01study that the city would have to to use

1:31:03to validate that.

1:31:05>> Thank you. Um, councelor Timmy.

1:31:08>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, when are

1:31:10inloo pay uh inloo payments paid?

1:31:15>> Uh, through the chair to the councelor,

1:31:16they are um established the fee itself

1:31:19is established at the beginning of the

1:31:20project when they pull a building

1:31:22permit. They submit what their

1:31:23inclusionary zoning compliance pathway

1:31:26is. And if they choose the payment in

1:31:28lou versus building the units, we get

1:31:30the numbers from them around the

1:31:32construction costs of the project and

1:31:34establish what the fee amount is. But

1:31:37the fee is due um on or before

1:31:40certificate of occupancy. So there is a

1:31:42lag. Um, I would say right now we've

1:31:44received

1:31:45>> in total I think we have about a little

1:31:47less than half a million about 490,000

1:31:50or so of payment and lose that are

1:31:51anticipated and about half of that

1:31:54>> maybe a little over half of that has

1:31:55been received to date because the other

1:31:57ones are still in construction.

1:31:59>> Is there any way to step up that payment

1:32:04earlier in the process?

1:32:06>> [clears throat]

1:32:07>> I think our through the chair I think

1:32:09our rationale in terms of why it's due

1:32:13on or before certificate of occupancy is

1:32:15that the idea is that they've this is a

1:32:18project that has created market rate

1:32:20units

1:32:22>> and has chosen not to create the

1:32:24affordable units alongside it and if you

1:32:27bump it up in the process we could be

1:32:29collecting fees from somebody that

1:32:31hasn't actually done a project.

1:32:33>> Okay?

1:32:33>> Right? So like if you did it at the

1:32:34building like as we've seen there are

1:32:36some projects that are like underway

1:32:37right now that are now stalled and so if

1:32:39those just don't happen now we've

1:32:42collected a fee on a project because

1:32:45they've decided to do 100% market rate

1:32:47units but they've never actually

1:32:50completed the market rate unit. So it

1:32:51feels like a little in congruent with

1:32:53like the the purpose of it to collect it

1:32:55earlier. It's why we chose to do that. I

1:32:58do think there could be some other

1:32:59communities that maybe I could do that

1:33:01research to see if like other

1:33:02communities do it at the time of the

1:33:04building permit, but that's why we chose

1:33:06to do it at certificate of occupancy was

1:33:08just to know that the project was, you

1:33:10know, going to get done basically.

1:33:12>> Yeah,

1:33:13>> that would be a great I appreciate that

1:33:14report. Thank you through the chair.

1:33:17>> Camera [clears throat]

1:33:20um just comment um Mr. Chair so you to

1:33:24[clears throat]

1:33:25the comment that Mr. done gave I I I

1:33:27think the uh spirit of the order is

1:33:31appreciated. I think uh we all need uh

1:33:34to see that there is somehow give the

1:33:36push to the affordable housing that

1:33:38happens and I also agree that increasing

1:33:41it from 3 to five even though it seems

1:33:43small for a larger project could be a

1:33:46significant amount that uh you know

1:33:47people have to think of and again the

1:33:50order says that to hold a public

1:33:52discussion relative to this and since we

1:33:55don't have you know that public

1:33:57discussion today so probably would be a

1:33:59good idea to at this point to hold it

1:34:01and maybe see how we can make it more um

1:34:05aware for people to come in to have a

1:34:08discussion on it. Uh do some more maybe

1:34:12let people know that this this item is

1:34:14on the agenda in a little bit more

1:34:16vigorous way. So we have public per

1:34:19discussion or hearing for this project.

1:34:21So at this point I think um I like the

1:34:23spirit of it but I I do think that needs

1:34:26to be discussed and considered. uh even

1:34:28though 2% increase doesn't sound huge

1:34:30but it could be huge based on the amount

1:34:32of the of the project so probably

1:34:35recommend to hold it for

1:34:36>> yeah thank you uh council me just a few

1:34:39comments of my own I mean I certainly

1:34:43recognize well intended I do have

1:34:46concerns about the message it sends um

1:34:49to the development community that we're

1:34:52going to increase uh is three is 3%

1:34:55through to Mr.

1:34:573% kind of a standard in Massachusetts.

1:35:00I'm assuming you came up with that based

1:35:03on some information.

1:35:05>> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I would say that

1:35:06we're actually in the minority on the

1:35:08fee structure in the sense that a lot of

1:35:10communities um do it on a on a per unit

1:35:14basis. So, $300,000 a unit, $200,000 a

1:35:18unit. I think some are even more

1:35:20expensive than that. Uh, and I felt like

1:35:22again because we're creating an

1:35:23ordinance that, you know, yes, it's a

1:35:25living ordinance, we can consider

1:35:26amendments over time, but

1:35:30the cost of building a unit changes

1:35:32drastically over time. So, I just felt

1:35:35like doing that wasn't appropriate to

1:35:37have it kind of I guess the longevity of

1:35:40it and the relevancy of the per unit

1:35:42cost of a fee like that. So by doing it

1:35:44as an index, you know, if you do 3% or

1:35:47five, whatever the percentage is, it at

1:35:48least kind of goes up and down as costs

1:35:51change. So that was why we did that.

1:35:52There are a couple few other communities

1:35:54that do it. I think we're I think it's

1:35:55in that three three to 5% range is the

1:35:58average. Um but there are certainly a

1:36:00number of communities that do it like on

1:36:01a kind of a flat fee on a per unit basis

1:36:04>> based on the total cost at the end

1:36:07>> at the of the project. Yeah. Yeah. The

1:36:09other question I had is how many you may

1:36:13you may be more comfortable with the

1:36:15report if you're willing to do that

1:36:17maybe off the top yet. Um how many

1:36:20projects have come in where over a

1:36:22million dollars has been put into the

1:36:25payment in lie of

1:36:28>> so Mr. Chairman we don't have any um

1:36:30that have I guess come to fruition. um

1:36:32what we're tracking right now because it

1:36:34can be I guess a little challenging to

1:36:37track everybody that comes to planning

1:36:39board because there's a lot of projects

1:36:41that come to planning board but then

1:36:42they never actually put a shovel in the

1:36:43ground and this fee gets established

1:36:46when they pull a building permit. That's

1:36:47when we get real visibility on costs. So

1:36:49I'd hate to start tracking like

1:36:50everybody who may consider building a

1:36:52building and not even knowing what their

1:36:54costs are. But I so I can tell you that

1:36:56for those projects that have pulled a

1:36:58building permit and are under

1:37:00construction and are subject to the

1:37:01ordinance, there are six right now

1:37:03projects. Um the most expensive one I

1:37:06think was 280,000 or so

1:37:08>> that would be contribution and payment.

1:37:10>> Yeah. On that per project basis, the one

1:37:12that's biggest and no surprise uh in

1:37:14order to make the project work, they're

1:37:16seeking subsidy from the city. We

1:37:18approved a tax increment exemption

1:37:19agreement for uh what we call the second

1:37:22residential building in the ballpark

1:37:24district. Um it's proposed by GFI

1:37:26partners which would be behind the

1:37:27Revington on Green Island Boulevard and

1:37:30it would be it's in excess of a million

1:37:32dollars but no surprise that project

1:37:34needed assistance from us and the state

1:37:36in order to make the economics work. So

1:37:38when you described earlier 50/50 between

1:37:40payment in Lua versus building the

1:37:43units, how many how many uh payments

1:37:47have we kind of received in order to see

1:37:50the balance of that? We're talking 10

1:37:5220.

1:37:54>> Oh no, there so there there are only six

1:37:56projects right now that are subject to

1:37:57it. So there are three projects where we

1:37:59t we've received one of them and two are

1:38:02under construction. So we would receive

1:38:03those fees when they get closer to

1:38:06certificate of occupancy. Okay, that's

1:38:07fine.

1:38:08>> So, I guess my question is um if if if I

1:38:12were going to ask a chairman's order um

1:38:16well, I guess I have one other question

1:38:17before I go that to that route and maybe

1:38:19Miss Smith wants to weigh in on this

1:38:21one, too. Um what percentage, if you

1:38:23could kind of guesstimate, are you

1:38:26seeing in front of planning board for

1:38:28projects for

1:38:30uh units that are for rent versus for

1:38:33sale?

1:38:35Is there overwhelmingly for rent?

1:38:37>> I would say overwhelming for for rent

1:38:39with the exception of um construction of

1:38:41like single family duplex townhouse

1:38:42style where we we see some ownership

1:38:45typically single family ownership duplex

1:38:47very often ownership townhouse mixed bag

1:38:50um everything else you know which is the

1:38:52majority of what I would say we see is

1:38:55is rental. Would it be possible with the

1:38:57chairman's order to get a uh ask for

1:38:59report on the number of uh projects

1:39:02requesting

1:39:03single family going through the planning

1:39:05board for a single family homes?

1:39:08Actually, let me rephrase that the

1:39:09number of units for rent versus for

1:39:11sale. That that data exist or is it am I

1:39:15asking for something that be hard to get

1:39:17>> through the chair? that would require a

1:39:18substantial amount of staff time to go

1:39:20through and do that analysis just

1:39:21because ultimately the board can't treat

1:39:24a rental versus ownership project

1:39:26differently um you know in terms of the

1:39:28law of fair housing comes into play and

1:39:30so we we can't review them differently

1:39:32>> but I could get that couldn't I from uh

1:39:34from u no from code department on on the

1:39:38occupancy permits

1:39:39>> no because they won't they won't again

1:39:40they're tracking the amount of units and

1:39:43what classification is not whether those

1:39:45are let or rented excuse excuse me,

1:39:47rented or owned as like a condo for

1:39:50example. Um, and and I will say too that

1:39:52sometimes that's not even fully

1:39:54determined when they come into planning

1:39:56board. They might be thinking that they

1:39:57are going to do rental, but they're not

1:39:59totally sure. And some of that plays out

1:40:01with the market dynamics, right? When

1:40:03they actually go to apply for the

1:40:04building permit, once they've built the

1:40:05unit, what is the market like when

1:40:07they're looking to sell? You know, if

1:40:08it's like the real estate market we've

1:40:10been in, it probably makes sense on the

1:40:12lower density units, they can get a good

1:40:13price for that single family home,

1:40:15they're going to opt to sell that. um

1:40:16some of the town houses maybe they're

1:40:18not going to get the price that they

1:40:19want and so they're going to opt to rent

1:40:21that. So it really depends on the

1:40:22developer and what their specific

1:40:23objectives are which is often related to

1:40:26what their financing is.

1:40:27>> Well to either one of you are there any

1:40:28data out there regarding any communities

1:40:31that have waved um the in payment of Lua

1:40:34for in order to promote

1:40:37home ownership. Is there any data out

1:40:39there?

1:40:39>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. When you look at when

1:40:41we were uh doing the initial construct

1:40:43of this ordinance, it was also sort of a

1:40:46a mixed bag in terms of whether our

1:40:48community had inclusionary zoning only

1:40:50applying to rentals versus applying to

1:40:52both rentals and for sale. We ended up

1:40:54going the route of having it apply to

1:40:56both. I forget. I mean, off the top of

1:40:57my head, I think it was probably roughly

1:41:00half. Um but there were certainly a

1:41:02number of communities that had it only

1:41:03applicable to rental. And if I could

1:41:05just elaborate on what Miss Michelle

1:41:07with Miss Smith was saying, you could

1:41:09actually see and we're seeing some of

1:41:10this more nationwide. I don't think

1:41:12we've seen a prepoundonderance of this

1:41:13in Worcester, but even these subdivision

1:41:15plans of like single family style

1:41:17neighborhood developments that are for

1:41:19rent, not for sale. So just because it's

1:41:20single family, it also doesn't mean that

1:41:22it'll be owner occupied. We're starting

1:41:24to see some inquiries related to that.

1:41:26Um, but haven't seen it as much as some

1:41:27of the other parts of the country are

1:41:28seeing it. I do think especially in

1:41:30Massachusetts where the cost of

1:41:32constructing it is very significant

1:41:34sometimes and we've talked about this in

1:41:36the past around just why don't we see

1:41:37more condos as well uh the cost to

1:41:40create a unit is just really tough based

1:41:43on what that unit would then sell for to

1:41:45make that necessary return even just a

1:41:47recoup cost. And so maybe you'd see even

1:41:50in the whether it's subdivision or

1:41:51condos that they start out as rentals,

1:41:53but then maybe their exit strategy is

1:41:55through a condo conversion or a sale of

1:41:57that home once they recoup their

1:41:59investment to cover cost. Because I'll

1:42:01use one example where there's actually a

1:42:03ribbon cutting on Thursday for the

1:42:05affordable condos on Elm Street historic

1:42:08building. 22 condos that'll be sold uh

1:42:11to households at 80% area median income.

1:42:14Um, and so those are selling between

1:42:17based on the unit size, they have a few

1:42:19different unit sizes, between 250 and

1:42:21$300,000 is what they're selling for. It

1:42:24costs them over $600,000 to create it.

1:42:28So like if you don't do that with

1:42:29subsidy or if you don't start out as

1:42:31rental and recoup the cost, like how do

1:42:32you spend $600,000 on a unit and sell it

1:42:35for $300,000? [laughter]

1:42:38>> Don't numbers don't work.

1:42:39>> Yeah. No. No. Would it be labor

1:42:41intensive to do a report for the uh for

1:42:43this committee uh for the next time this

1:42:45item is on uh looking at the uh pros and

1:42:48cons of exempting for sale properties

1:42:51from um from payment?

1:42:54>> So that would be my chairman's order. Um

1:42:56Mr. Pottle, you able to get that?

1:42:59>> Yes, Mr. Chairman.

1:43:01>> Either my colleagues have any other

1:43:02questions or any other suggestions? So

1:43:05we're going to my motion would be to

1:43:06hold this item. Mr. Potter, will you

1:43:08take a vote on that? Councilors Mitra.

1:43:12>> Yes. Tumi.

1:43:13>> Yes.

1:43:14>> And chairperson councelor Burke.

1:43:15>> Yes. I don't believe there are any other

1:43:17items on the agenda. Is that correct,

1:43:18Mr. Ple?

1:43:19>> That's correct.

1:43:20>> So the time is I don't know if that time

1:43:22is correct, but it's 652. Motion to uh

1:43:27end the meeting. Would you take uh roll

1:43:29call on that?

1:43:30>> Councilors Mitra.

1:43:31>> Yes.

1:43:32>> Tumi.

1:43:32>> Yes.

1:43:33>> And chairperson councelor Bergman.

1:43:34>> Yes. Thank you.

```*