LEOMINSTER — During the Leominster City Council meeting on Monday night, residents spoke in support of reversing recent Multi-Use District 2 (MU2) zoning changes, which removed special permit requirements and allowed a 308-unit apartment complex at Orchard Hill Park Drive to move forward.
The public hearing on Petition 9-26, which seeks to amend the zoning ordinance to reinstate special permit requirements and other public safeguards, drew passionate testimony from residents who said the changes were made quietly and have already enabled unchecked development.
“This reversal is not about anti-housing. It’s about allowing the community to have a say in how we grow,” said Haily Brady of Harvard Street. “Smart growth is transparent. It’s measured. It respects both neighborhoods and natural resources. The changes in MU2 did none of those things. Reversing these changes won’t stop development. It just simply restores accountability.”
Brady and others said the new zoning language stripped the requirement for special permits, bypassed notification to abutters, and allowed a high-density residential development to proceed without review by boards or public comment.
Residents also raised concerns about safety and infrastructure.
“I don’t think the city can handle the extent of what this apartment complex is going to do,” said Chelsea Madison of 65 Harvard Street, the mother of a 14-month old child.
Madison said Harvard Street is already a dangerous road with no sidewalks, and although the city recently renovated Prospect Park, residents can’t safely walk there. “We want to be able to walk down that street and enjoy it,” she said, “but we can’t do that because when we do, we end up taking our life into our own hands being on Harvard Street. You have so many cars flying down the road.”
Madison said walking on Harvard Street feels like taking her life into her own hands due to the number of cars speeding through the area. With a 14-month-old child and a dog, she said she experiences daily anxiety just trying to go for a walk, as drivers often show little regard for pedestrians. A school bus stops in the middle of the road near her house, and she questioned how that situation would be managed with an influx of new traffic. While Madison noted that current residents are generally careful, she said, “This apartment complex doesn’t feel like it’s going to be a part of the community. A lot of people speed to get to Target and cut through this road.”
Madison said she wants the situation to be viewed strictly from a safety perspective, emphasizing that this is her primary concern.
“You’re going to risk accidents,” Madison said. “You’re going to risk pedestrians dying.”
Architect Elizabeth Macarilla of 75 Harvard Street questioned the rationale behind removing local oversight from a city already stretched thin.
“It really does absolutely nothing for any of our current city residents,” she said. Later adding, “You don’t just come in, let a national developer walk all over a city, change its rules, and ignore the existing fabric and the people who already live there.”
Residents also alleged favoritism and misuse of public funds.
Jerry Molet of 58 Sky Lane accused the city of creating “spot zoning” to benefit a single developer, who received a $2 million state grant to build a road intended for commercial use, only to flip the parcel for residential development.
“This was designed for us not to know what was going on until the last minute,” Molet said. Later adding, “Now we’re playing catch-up to something already underway.”
Councilor at Large Susan Chalifoux Zephir said the planning board is scheduled to hold its public hearing on Petition 9-26 on October 20 at 6:35 p.m. She explained that the city council will likely vote on the petition after receiving the planning board’s recommendation. The public hearing will remain open until that time.
