LEOMINSTER — The Leominster City Council’s Legal Affairs Committee continued its public hearing Monday night on Petition 9-26, which would amend the city’s Multi-Use District 2 (MU2) zoning ordinance — a designation that residents say opened the door to the now-controversial 308-unit Orchard Hill Park development near Harvard Street and Route 2.
During the public hearing, resident Haily Brady of 200 Harvard Street said she didn’t grasp the impact of the current MU2 ordinance until she saw how it applied to the proposed Orchard Hill Park development. She asked councilors to review the density and buffer requirements that the present MU2 zoning allows.
“Seeing 308 units allowed in such a small area, so close to residential districts, your 50-foot buffers that used to be a minimum that was required between residential districts — now it’s a maximum at the discretion of the planning board,” Brady said. “It could be less than that.”
She noted that the 17.95-acre parcel proposed for the Orchard Hill Park development could allow up to 408 units by right under the current MU2 zoning, though wetlands and other site conditions limit the project to 308 units. Brady added that the MU2 zoning, as it stands, could have far-reaching effects beyond the immediate project site.
“Another 66 acres beyond this one parcel are now subject to the same density allowance,” she said. “I implore all of you to really look into it because it’s impactful — it’s a huge change.”
Resident Albert “Al” Wenning of 194 Ridgewood Drive, who said he’s live there since 2001, before the Target development at Orchard Hill Park, echoed Brady’s concerns, describing worsening traffic along Route 2 near the Harvard Street corridor. “It’s impossible to get around there,” Wenning said. Later adding, “Any type of development is just going to make it worse.”
After the public hearing, Councilor Claire Freda criticized the delay in bringing Leominster Planning Board Chair John Souza and Joseph Boyle, a principal planner with the Montachusett Regional Planning Commission (MRPC), before the Legal Affairs Committee to address the public, saying, “They’re the ones with the answers we should have.”
“I think we should have had them down here so that we could clear up all this confusion about the housing committee,” Freida said. Later adding, “Nobody seems to understand where that whole situation goes. From August to October, we could have had them down here — it would have helped a lot in getting the answers we need.”
Legal Affairs Committee Chair Susan Chalifoux Zephir said Boyle and Souza had been slated to attend the city council meeting that night, but because the planning board continued its own hearing, the city council also continued theirs and will bring them in after the planning board meets again. She noted that the planning board’s hearing was continued to Nov. 3, and the city council will resume its public hearing on Petition 9-26 on Nov. 10 at 6 p.m.
