Leominster council weighs citywide zoning change to fix four “pork chop” lots, votes to withdraw petition

LEOMINSTER — A developer’s attempt to fix what he called a “dimensional conflict” on four Central Street properties led to a broader zoning debate during a May 27, 2025 public hearing before the City Council’s Legal Affairs Committee.

Kenneth Delgado, a developer from Lancaster, submitted Petition 35-25 to amend the city’s zoning ordinance by reducing the minimum lot width requirement for two-family homes in Zoning District RB—a district intended for denser residential uses including single-family, two-family dwellings, and limited apartments—from 80 feet to 50 feet for two-family dwellings. According to the petition, “lot configuration would be rectangular and consistent if both frontage and lot width were equal.” The change, if approved, would apply to all RB zones citywide.

Delgado said the proposal stemmed from his efforts to develop four parcels he owns at 1420, 1426, 1428, and 1432 Central Street. “We are trying to eliminate the pork chop lots we have here currently,” he said. Current zoning in RB districts requires 50 feet of frontage but 80 feet of lot width for two-family homes.

Legal Affairs Committee Chair Susan Chalifoux-Zephir opened the hearing by emphasizing the broader implications of the petition. “There are a lot of RB zones throughout the city,” Zephir said. “So if we change RB zoning for one particular location, that can have unintended consequences in other places throughout the city.”

Before hearing public testimony, Zephir read into the record the Planning Board’s 6–1 recommendation to approve the petition and a letter from Interim Planning Director Mike O’Hara—the sole dissenting vote—to the City Council’s Legal Affairs Committee. The letter she read into the record was as follows:

“I have reviewed the petition and the accompanying materials. The petition asks to amend the zoning ordinance’s table of dimensional regulations by reducing the lot width requirement for one type of use in the RB district—a two-family dwelling. The required lot width for all other permitted uses in RB, including single-family dwellings, would remain at 80 feet. The petition states that ‘The 80-foot lot width requirement would create pork chop lots, which the city does not favor.’”

“The four vacant lots referred to in the petition were shown on an approval-not-required plan endorsed by the board in January 2019 (see Plan Book 518, Plan 25). The notes section of the plan clearly states the current dimensional requirements, including lot width. Under the current dimensional requirements, either a single or two-family dwelling could be built on Lots 2 and 4—which are 1426 and 1438 Central Street—while a single-family dwelling could be built on Lots 1 and 3—that’s 1420 and 1432 Central Street, the pork chop lots.”

“In considering the merits of this petition, the board may want to consider the potential effect of such a change. There are considerably more vacant RB-zoned parcels in addition to the four mentioned. The board may also want to consider how many vacant RB parcels would be affected by such a change.”

“Also, if the board is of the opinion that so-called ‘pork chop’ lots are not favored, why have a different width standard for a single-family dwelling than a two-family? It would be noted that the petitioner has the option of applying for a variance from the lot width requirement from the Zoning Board of Appeals.”

After reading O’Hara’s letter into the record, Zephir addressed Delgado, saying, “So what Mr. O’Hara is basically stating is that making a change, wholesale through the city, in terms of the width requirements for RB throughout the city could create problems that we don’t even know about because we don’t know how many lots would be affected. But in your situation, you could get a variance for these particular lots by going to the Zoning Board of Appeals—does that make sense?”

“Yes,” Delgado replied.

Ward 3 Councilor David Cormier then inquired whether Delgado had pursued such a variance, to which Delgado replied that he had not. When asked if his plan was to develop the lots into two-family homes, Delgado confirmed that was his intention.

Councilors press for details on broader impact

Council President Mark Bodanza then pressed Delgado to explain the broader implications of the proposed zoning change. “Have you guys studied that?” Bodanza asked. “Have you looked at other parcels of land in the city and have you made any determination how prevalent this is throughout the city?” Delgado replied that he had not, stating that his attention was solely on creating four rectangular lots on his own property.

Bodanza further questioned Delgado about his development vision, asking if there was a detailed plan for the project.

“Thank you for bringing the plan that demonstrates what the current configuration is, but do you have a plan that shows what you want it to be?” Bodanza asked.

Delgado admitted that no such plan existed yet.

“So, if you don’t have a plan, what is your objective here?” Bodanza asked. “You must have a development objective, how many lots do you want to turn this into?”

Delgado responded that he planned to subdivide the property into four evenly sized, rectangular lots.

Finally, Bodanza confirmed Delgado’s plan to resubdivide the land into four lots, each meeting the proposed 50-foot frontage and lot width, with all designated for two-family construction—a plan Delgado affirmed.

Public testimony in favor of the petition

When the board opened the floor for public discussion, David Franciosi of DSF Construction in Leominster—who attended the meeting with Delgado and sat next to him throughout—spoke in support of the petition after identifying himself as a friend with no financial interest in the project. “We need more affordable housing, and the only way to do that is to repurpose the land and make smaller lots, smaller houses, so we can make them more affordable,” Franciosi said.

Kevin Cormier, a broker who owns EXIT New Options Real Estate on Main Street in Leominster and resides in Fitchburg, also spoke in favor of the petition during the public discussion .Cormier framed the proposal as a practical response to the housing crisis affecting not only Leominster, but the Commonwealth, and the county as a whole.

“I don’t think there’s a day that goes by that I am not asked what is the cure for the housing inventory crisis that we are facing, not only here in Leominster, but across Massachusetts, across the country,” Cormier said. “The answer is, there is no one magic solution. There’s about a million different small solutions that are going to help us with the inventory problem in making housing more affordable. I believe that this petition to change the zoning to have that minimum width to 50 feet rather than 80 feet for two-family homes, is part of that solution and that it gives the planning board and it gives the city more options for smart growth.”

Cormier cautioned against relying on large-scale housing developments to solve the city’s housing shortage, arguing instead for smaller, targeted zoning changes that could gradually expand inventory without overwhelming local infrastructure.

“I understand that the city has to look at a balance,” Cormier said. “We need more housing, but is the housing—is our infrastructure going to be able to support that housing? Traffic, schools, etc.”

He pointed to the city’s limited remaining space for development and stressed that modest, incremental adjustments—like the proposed zoning change—could help meet demand without triggering broader negative impacts.

“Rather than looking at large-scale housing developments, something like this—in a city that is pretty much built out, that has very limited space to continue growth but needs more housing—it gives the Planning Board and it gives the city more options to incrementally increase their housing inventory,” he said. “Again, incrementally, without making huge developments that have a large impact on traffic, have a large impact on schools.”

Cormier then emphasized the impact the housing crisis is having on Leominster residents. “There are so many people that I come across, potential clients, that were born and raised in Leominster, whose family have lived in Leominster for generations, and they’re scared, they’re frustrated, they’re angry because they love this city, and they want to live here, and they don’t feel that they can afford to live here and buy a home here—those younger people,” he said.

Cormier pointed to local housing inventory data to illustrate the ongoing shortage. As of May 27, 2025, he said, there were just 22 homes for sale in Leominster. While that marked an increase from previous years, he argued it was far from sufficient. On the same date in 2024, there were only 12 listings; in 2023, there were 13; in 2022, just 11; and in 2021, 14. “Are we heading in the right direction? We are,” he said. “Are we anywhere where we need to be to have balanced housing and to stop the prices from increasing? No, we’re not. Prices in Leominster are already up 4.45% since last year.”

He added that the average sale price of a home in Leominster was $185,000 in 2011. As of May 27, 2025, that figure has jumped to $480,000. “It’s a little bit of a difference,” Cormier quipped.

Neighboring landowner supports configuration change

After Kevin Cormier concluded his remarks, James Xarras of Independence Drive in Leominster was the next to speak, voicing strong support for the petition. Xarras, who said he was a direct abutter of the Central Street lots who also owns a large parcel of land that is zoned RB, emphasized that the amendment would not increase housing density.

“He’s not proposing changing the density. He’s not building more units, there is no density change in this requirement,” Xarras said. “He’s asking you to maintain the density, maintain the side setbacks, maintain the front setbacks and the rear setbacks.” The only change, Xarras said, would be to allow for more rational lot configurations—rectangular rather than irregular “pork chop” shapes—which he argued would reduce future property line disputes and enhance neighborhood aesthetics. Xarras also noted that, with the exception of one member, the Planning Board had unanimously supported the change, characterizing it as correcting a past oversight.

Council weighs affordability, density, and process

Following Xarras’ testimony, the discussion then returned to the council.

Council President Mark Bodanza revisited concerns about how the change might affect other RB-zoned parcels across the city. He acknowledged that the proposal made sense for the specific Central Street properties, but stressed the need for more data on how a citywide change might play out elsewhere.

Ward 5 Councilor Carrie Noseworthy echoed Bodanza’s reservations, noting that the new information presented by Cormier and Xarras had changed her perspective somewhat. “I just want to make sure I have all the important information before voting on it,” she said.

Councilor At Large Claire Freda then asked Delgado, “What is the plan for the price range of these properties?” Later adding, “Do you have any idea what you are considering affordable?” Delgado responded that no cost estimates had been made yet.

Councilor at Large Thomas Ardinger then clarified the potential change in density, stating, “As it currently is zoned, you could put two two-families and two single-families, correct? That’s…six residences. With this change in zoning, you could put eight residences?” When Delgado confirmed, Ardinger added, “So you are increasing the density somewhat—minor—but technically, yeah. Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.”

In closing, Chalifoux-Zephir said that while the petition appeared to make sense for the Central Street properties, approving a blanket change without fully understanding the implications elsewhere in the city was premature. She recommended that Delgado withdraw the petition without prejudice and instead pursue a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the specific lots in question. She also committed to requesting a broader analysis from the Planning Department to better assess how the change could impact other RB-zoned areas in the city.

The Legal Affairs Committee voted unanimously to close the public hearing and grant leave for the petitioner to withdraw. Later on in the meeting, the council voted 9–0 in favor of granting Delgado leave to withdraw the petition without prejudice.