LEOMINSTER — During the August 25 Leominster City Council meeting, residents spoke in support of Petition 9-26, which seeks to amend the zoning ordinance to reverse the Multi-Use District 2 (MU2) designation at Orchard Hill.
According to the city’s zoning ordinance, MU2 is intended to allow coordinated mixed-use development, combining institutional, multifamily residential, business, and industrial uses. The Orchard Hill parcel, located off Harvard Street behind the Target shopping plaza, is the only site in the city zoned MU2. A proposal for more than 300 apartment units has since been introduced for the property.
Petition 9-26 asks the council to undo the January amendment so that projects at Orchard Hill would once again require special permits, rather than proceeding by right under site plan review.
During the public hearing section of the August 25 city council meeting, Bill Brady of Harvard Street told councilors that abutters had not received individual notice when the zoning change was made, since it was passed as an ordinance text amendment rather than a parcel-specific petition.
“This blindsided all of us,” Brady said. “We were not individually notified as abutters. I guess maybe you’re not aware of it, but if it’s an ordinance form, it doesn’t require individual abutters, only a notice in the newspaper. I don’t know if any of you get it. I assume you would, but let’s just say, it’s not as subscribed to as it once was.”
In response, Council President Mark Bodanza stated, “If it’s a zoning ordinance and it’s a map change, that requires a certified letter to each abutter, but if it’s not a map change, it’s a language change as opposed to a rezoning of a particular parcel, that does not require certified notice to the abutters. So that’s how it works under the ordinance.”
Brady then recalled that when the Target development was first proposed in the area years ago, neighbors were told there would be a clear buffer between commercial activity and nearby homes.
“I was assured that we would have a buffer zone. It would be a substantial buffer zone,” Brady said. He later added, “This entire change, I don’t know if everyone on this council was aware of what they were voting for when they voted on it. Everyone kind of put this through as an MBTA Community Act and it was just housekeeping, quote unquote. It mattered. Why the city council would want to give up special permit is beyond me…You guys license movie theaters and bowling alleys. Why would you give up a special permit? Why? I’ll end it there.”
The next person who signed up to speak during the public hearing portion of the meeting was Donna Molet of Sky Lane, who said the amendment only applies to one site. “So similar as my question is that when you see this MU2 zone project that is, as my understanding, the only space in our city that is zoned MU2,” Molet said. “So, the conversation about the amendment to return back to the original ordinance language specifically speaks to this one parcel.” She added that earlier plans for the site showed commercial, residential, and industrial uses, but that mix had shifted over time, raising questions about whether councilors understood the implications of the January vote.
“This one parcel had, at one point, the multiuse descriptions. I can go back in our records, and I can see where it showed the commercial, it showed the residential, and it showed the industrial,” Molet said. “And yet, when you look at other times, especially when it was voted on in January, it no longer showed the residential, and now it’s back again. And I guess my question is: was the council completely clear when you were voting to change the language for the ordinance?”
Bodanza responded to Molet stating, “This sprang out of the housing committees working with Wachusett Regional Planning Commission as a solution to the housing crisis as it affected Leominster. So I can pretty much assure you that the entire council realized what they were voting on in January was a housing initiative.”
Haily Brady, of Harvard Street, the third and final person who signed up to speak during the public comment section of the meeting, said the MU2 changes were “presented as necessary for compliance with the MBTA Communities Act,” but that the state law “does not require us to eliminate special permits, buffers, or strip away the public’s ability to weigh in on massive developments.” She added, “Projects that used to require a full public hearing and could be conditioned or even denied now sail through with only a site plan review. That’s not oversight, that’s a rubber stamp.” Haily also raised concerns about overcrowded schools, stretched emergency services, and traffic near the North Leominster MBTA station, urging the council to “reverse the MU2 changes, restore the safeguards, [and] give the public back a voice in projects that will shape Leominster for generations.”
When Haily finished, Bodanza said, “Thank you, Miss Brady. And again, to clarify, this housing does not satisfy the MBTA Communities Act.”
Haily replied, “I do understand that. I think the way it was presented and when it was presented, the timeline of such made it seem like it was, it was a very close timeline.”
At this point, Bodanza says, “You’re correct about that.”
Then Hailey says, “And I think there was a lot of confusion with the timeline and how close it was presented. Made it seem like we needed to do this in order to satisfy the requirements of that, and that wasn’t the case.”
A letter from John Gravelle, a resident of the Harvard Street neighborhood, was read into the record. Gravelle wrote that “MU2 allows the developer to bypass special permitting” and questioned whether councilors fully understood the implications when they approved the change in January. He pointed to “a large and important ecological area” of wetlands on the site and criticized plans to “manipulate and consolidate” them to make way for more than 300 apartments. Gravelle asked how many children would live there and where they would safely play, asking rhetorically if they would “ride their bikes on dangerous and narrow Harvard street?” He concluded by urging the council to oppose the project, stating, “Please stand up for the people you represent. Stand up to the big money developer and their paid advocates. This project does not make Leominster a better city.”
The council then voted to refer Petition 9-26 to the planning board, the planning director, Montachusett Regional Planning Commission (Montachusett RPC), and KP Law. A city council public hearing on Petition 9-26 was scheduled for September 22 at 6:30 p.m. Councilor Claire Freda asked that Planning Board Chair John Souza, Planning Director Elizabeth Wood, and Montachusett RPC’s Joe Boyle attend that session. The petition requires a 2/3 vote to pass.
