LEOMINSTER — The Planning Board on May 5 approved a special permit and site plan for the redevelopment of 198 and 204 Hamilton Street into a contractor’s yard, and greenlit a new 4,200-square-foot retail and office building at 428 Lancaster Street. The projects drew objections from abutters who cited truck congestion, declining property values, inadequate fencing, and rodent infestations.
The contractor’s yard, proposed by Van Realty Trust and presented by engineer Justin LeClair of McCarty Engineering, followed the withdrawal of a prior truck parking proposal after discussions between Van Realty Trust, city officials, and the city’s legal counsel. During the meeting, LeClair said the property is zoned as “ME1,” (i.e. mixed-use 1) which allows contractor’s yards only by special permit.
“We decided to convert it—or rather go with—a contractor’s yard,” LeClair said. “The intent is for tradesmen, different types of contractors, to rent out the bays and then provide them additional truck parking if they have vehicles that need to be on the site.”
The plan for Hamilton Street parcels 2 and 4 includes five vehicle bays on the backside, landscaped berms (i.e., raised soil mounds with plantings), two dumpster pads, and parking areas sized for both passenger vehicles and larger contractor trucks. The front of the existing building will be retained, while the rear will be demolished and replaced by new construction. Curb cuts along the street will also be narrowed and reconfigured to facilitate turning movement for larger vehicles.
“We are reducing both curb cuts—one down to 30 [feet] and the narrow one…to about 60,” LeClair said. “The larger one is so truck traffic could still enter and exit the site and not have any issues with the turn movements.”
Donna Witt Henderson, who owns the adjacent building at 192 Hamilton Street and operates Brows Ink Studio Academy—a microblading and permanent cosmetics school and studio—told the board she was not notified about the project until receiving the official letter from the city. “I think it’s great that they went to everybody and let them all know, but I wasn’t informed of anything until I got the letter from you guys,” she said during the meeting. She added that she’s the only abutting neighbor to the property and actually purchased the property from Van Realty Trust, noting that it was part of the original parcel.
Henderson said the property is already being used to store trucks, including 22 rented spaces for 18-wheelers along the left and rear of the lot, as well as additional trucks and RVs backed up to the fence behind her building, which abuts conservation land.
“It already looks like a truck stop,” she said. “They’ve got trucks there that they’re working on the engines, and there’s a whole bunch of other people there.”
She also pointed to what she described as a concerning development: “A couple of the 18-wheelers that were carriers were not supposed to have cars on the carriers, and for the most part they don’t,” she said. “But over the past couple of months, they’ve had cars on them backed up to the conservation land.”
She also questioned how the site would be monitored once approved. “Who polices this afterward?” she asked. Adding, “How do you know?”
Planning Board Chair John Souza responded that, in the recent year, the city had hired a new code enforcement officer, Luke Beaulac. “So now when we have something that we approve here, then he now can go onto that property and if somebody is not following the plan that they gave us, he can talk to them and get things straightened away or even put a cease and desist order or start legal action,” Souza said.
Photo credit: Screenshot from Leominster Access Television’s YouTube channel
Henderson voiced concern that, if approved, the contractor’s yard could worsen the situation and devalue her property. “I don’t want the value of my property to be degraded by what is next door as a contractor yard with 18-wheelers,” Henderson said.
Planning Board Chair Souza responded by explaining that complaints about the current state of the site were part of what led to the new application. “What has brought this about is there was a number of complaints about the way it’s being operated today, in the past,” the board member said. “So we prevailed on them to make it an official…it was sort of a contractor’s yard, and there was no landscaping, no control on lighting, no control on parking, because there was no plan. Now we have a plan.”
Henderson said that when the current owners first took over the property, their original plan was to build a retail strip mall with 36 one-bedroom apartments above. “Over time, it’s changed,” she said.
In response, a representative of Van Realty Trust at the meeting said the current site plan mirrors the original apartment layout and truck parking proposal. “The plan is essentially the same plan with the building in the same location that that apartment building would have gone eight years ago, nine years ago,” he said. Later adding, “The plan is also the same plan that came in last year with the truck parking but through conversations and speaking with Luke and other individuals in town, we’ve dismissed and gotten rid of all the car carriers…there’s no long haulers there anymore that would just park. Truthfully, I like them more because they were only there two or three days a month.”
He also emphasized Van Realty Trust’s history of tasteful development on Hamilton Street and their effort to keep their properties clean. “We’ve built a number of the buildings on Hamilton Street, we always try to do it tastefully and keep things good for the street,” he said. “You know, 162, the attorney’s office, the dentist’s office. We try to keep them all to a theme, getting Hamilton Street different than where it was 25 years ago.”
Henderson challenged that characterization, saying the proposed use represents a step backward. “To me it sounds like even with a building that was the same as the retail apartment idea, you’re bringing us back 25 years if you’re willing to put in a contractor’s yard,” she said.
She added that despite the comments from Van Realty Trust’s representatives, car carriers were still on-site. “There are still car carriers there…I’ll take pictures every time,” Henderson said.
Planning Board Chair Souza then interrupted Henderson, stating, “Okay, ma’am, make your discussion back and forth to the board not to the individuals.”
Henderson replied stating, “I’m sorry, I apologize.” Adding, “I am there on a regular basis and I see what’s going on all the time.”
Souza then said, “You’re going to have arborvitaes, these plantings, Cape Cod, birch, and junipers. So, you’re going to have quite a few plantings so it should help your view a little bit.”
Henderson acknowledged that Van Realty Trust had previously added an island after conversations with her but said the final design did not reflect what they had discussed. “They did a beautiful job, but it wasn’t what I had talked to him about,” she said. “I’m trying to be a good neighbor, but I’m also a truth-teller. You don’t know me from Adam — I’m just a small building business owner next door. I’m not looking to block them on this; I’m looking for it to not look like it does now. I mean, it looks like a truck stop.”
Henderson remained unconvinced, citing past experiences where approved site plans were not followed. Carol Vittorioso, Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board member acknowledged the concern, stating, “It’s a concern of mine because I think there’s a fine line between contractor’s yard and junkyard.” She added that if abutters observe violations, they should contact the city’s code enforcement officer: “If you see something that you think falls under junkyard, I would call the compliance officer,” Vittorioso said. “You’ll know the difference when you see it.”
The board unanimously approved both the special permit and the site plan for 198 and 204 Hamilton Street.
428 Lancaster Street
The board also approved plans for a new retail and/or office building at 428 Lancaster Street to replace the fire-damaged and now defunct Luccas American Kitchen building. Engineer Christopher Anderson of Hannigan Engineering said the new 4,200-square-foot structure will be single-story, with a redesigned driveway and internal parking lot to reduce on-street congestion.
The site plan includes 18 parking spaces, one more than required under zoning, and repositions the building along the easterly property line. “Based on the usage and square footage of the property, we need about 17 spaces,” Anderson said. “We’re showing 18 in excess of the required parking.”
Access to the site will be limited to a 22-foot-wide driveway, replacing the current open layout. Anderson said ADA-compliant parking has also been incorporated into the design, so vehicles will no longer back directly onto Lancaster Street. “We’ve eliminated all on-street backing up,” Anderson said.
In addition to new fencing and landscaping, the plan calls for preserving two large maple trees at the site’s front corner and planting six new trees to meet landscaping zoning requirements. A dumpster pad will be installed near the end of the driveway and enclosed with a solid wall vinyl fence.
Anderson told the board the proposed use would generate fewer vehicle trips than the restaurant previously permitted for the property. Citing data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation manuals, he said, “A restaurant use, based on square usage and size of the existing restaurant, you’d be seeing about 180 trips per day,” he said. “For a building this size that’s proposed for retail or office, a retail structure you may be seeing 145 trips per day, an office you’re really seeing about 50 trips a day.”
He also relayed the Leominster Police Department’s input on the proposal. “The police department has reviewed it and approved it, but they also had a few additional comments,” Anderson said. Those comments included a suggestion to consider a signalized crosswalk at the nearby intersection with 435 Lancaster Street, a request for a traffic study based on anticipated customer volume, and a note that alarm system contact information should be filed with police if one is installed.
Before public comment, a Planning Board member noted that sections of the fence at the rear of the property were missing, allowing a direct view into abutting residential yards. In response, Anderson explained that the fence was not located on the applicant’s property but said the developer would reach out to the abutting property owner. “So the fence is technically located on the abutter’s property,” he said. “I don’t see an issue with us reaching out to them to see if they’re amendable to us repairing it as necessary. But I can’t 100% say that we can replace it because it is on their property.”
The Planning Board later added a condition requiring the installation of a new six-foot stockade fence along the rear of the site.
During public comment, a resident of Longwood Avenue expressed concern about the current state of the fence separating the proposed development from nearby homes. She said the fence “has been smashed through several times” and emphasized that “that fence has to be there.” She said her family has lived in the neighborhood for 99 years and that she has lived there for 54. She pointed to the lack of upkeep on a neighboring property, saying that her neighbor has left fallen trees in his yard and simply parks in front of them. She also described how vehicle headlights from nearby developments affect her home, explaining that the lights from passing cars shine into her backyard across the street. “The lights from Elm Hill, all the cars that stop there shine into my backyard across the street,” she said. Later adding, “It is loud. It is bright.”
The resident recalled problems during the time the former Luccas building was in operation. “When it was Luccas, cars were parked all the way around the block and on our street as well,” she said. “There is no parking left on our street…it’s crazy.” She also mentioned a persistent rodent issue in the area. “There is a rat problem also because of the factory behind us,” she said.
“There’s actually a dead rat in the middle of our road right now,” a man at the meeting said in response.
The Longwood Avenue resident clarified that she was not opposed to redevelopment of the site, but stressed the importance of addressing the fence and the broader impact on nearby residents. “I just want to point out that I am not against this redevelopment at all,” she said. Later adding, “There does have to be some sort of barrier.”
Following public comment, the board discussed final conditions and waivers. They granted waivers for the traffic impact statement and the requirement that a licensed landscape architect stamp the landscape plan. They also voted unanimously to approve the site plan with conditions, including compliance with conservation and departmental reviews, mitigation of asbestos and rodent issues if necessary, and adherence to police recommendations regarding alarm system protocols. As previously mentioned, a new six-foot stockade fence along the rear of the property was included as a formal condition of approval, not a waiver.
Other items discussed:
Continued public hearings:
- 68, 70, and 72 Pleasant Street: Continued to July 21 pending updated FEMA floodplain map.
- 435 and 481 Lancaster Street & 2B Elmhill Avenue: Continued to June 2 pending traffic study.
Lot release:
- 69 Biscuit Hill Drive (Lot 24): Released from covenant after long delay.
ANR (Approval Not Required) plan endorsed:
- 65 Lindell Avenue: Lot lines squared off between two properties under common ownership.
Zoning petitions scheduled:
- Crossroads North Park Overlay (Petition 47-25): Hearing scheduled for June 16 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall auditorium; police presence requested.
- Union Street zoning changes (Petition 48-25): Hearing scheduled for June 2 at 6:35 p.m.
