LEOMINSTER — During the Leominster Planning Board meeting on Monday, Nov. 3, 2025, developers of the proposed multifamily housing complex on Orchard Hill Park Drive faced pushback from residents and city officials after offering a $100,000 payment to the city instead of constructing sidewalks on Harvard Street.
Jim Lambert, managing director of Wood Partners, who spoke on behalf of the developer, WP East Acquisitions, said the updated site plan reduces the project from 308 to 294 units and moves all buildings, drive aisles, and parking areas outside the 50-foot buffer from nearby residential zones, except for a small section near city-owned property that is undeveloped.
“We are not proposing to install sidewalks along Harvard Street,” Lambert told the board. “Instead, we are proposing to contribute $100,000 to the city to use for a future build if they’d like or for other uses.”
That statement prompted concern from residents. During the meeting, a planning board member read aloud a letter from Chelsea Madison of 65 Harvard Street, who argued that the lack of sidewalks creates a safety hazard and that the developer’s payment “would not come close to covering even half the cost of the required sidewalk work, leaving the remainder to fall on Leominster taxpayers.”
“To be blunt, this is a clear example of corporate greed,” Madison wrote. “Large corporations like this come into our city, profit from massive developments, and then try to pass the cost of public safety back onto residents.”
Ward 1 Councilor Robert Tossi, who also spoke during the public hearing, urged the board to consider sidewalks mandatory. “It’s a very, very dangerous road,” Tossi said. Later adding, “You cannot walk that road at all.”
The planning board’s legal counsel, Justin Perrotta of KP Law, then clarified that the board’s authority under site-plan review does not extend to off-site work such as sidewalks on Harvard Street. “You can require sidewalks within the limits of the site plan, but not beyond it,” Perrotta said.
Planning Board Chairman John Souza agreed, noting that while the board shares residents’ concerns, requiring sidewalks along Harvard Street falls “outside of our purview of what we can do.”
“It was only the intersection of Stagecoach Road and Prospect Street that was tied into the Orchard Hill project and that was because of traffic that we saw at that intersection,” Souza said.
After Planning Board Chair John Souza’s remarks, Chelsea Madison – whose letter was read into the record earlier in the meeting – approached the dais and spoke, challenging what was said in a letter from Brian Faulk, Wood Partner’s attorney where he wrote that “requiring sidewalk installation is beyond the planning board’s authority.”
“That statement is simply not true,” Madison said. She then cited examples of other Wood Partners projects in Bolton, Wayland, and Marlborough where sidewalk or pedestrian improvements were required as part of the approval process.
Madison also refuted claims that telephone poles or grading made sidewalks impossible, pointing out that Prospect Street already has sidewalks “where poles run right through them,” adding, “If it’s possible on Prospect Street, it’s possible on Harvard Street.”
After Madison’s rebuttal, the planning board’s legal counsel said that if the board applied a standard not contained in the city’s ordinance, it “would be a constitutional violation.”
“The constitution only establishes what the breath of the municipality’s power is; within that, it’s limited to each board by the ordinance,” Perrotta said.
Perrotta said that if the ordinance establishes that the board is conducting a site-plan review, then pedestrian access and movement may be considered as part of that process — but only within the specific area covered by the proposed site plan and application.
“In those other examples you gave, I’d be willing to bet that those were special permit situations where a board had much more power than they do under site plan,” Perrotta said to Madison. “The other thing to add is certainly a board can request an applicant to comply with any condition it wants to, but the board can’t go outside the power that it has within the scope of whatever regulatory situation we’re in. As I’ve said multiple times since I’ve been here, we’re in site plan review. It’s a very limited review and there’s only so many things that the board can do and the ordinance is what controls what the board can do here.”
Haley Brady of Harvard Road then approached the dais and told the board it had the authority to require 30 feet of separation between uses. She asked for an additional 15 feet so new residents would not face the back of Target’s loading docks. Brady added that while sidewalks might not fall under site plan approval, they were part of the subdivision purview and should be addressed later in the process.
“But if this applicant is offering you a hundred grand towards the cost, they’re not doing so because they’re nice; you have some standing there,” Brady said. Adding, “Is a $100,000 bribe worth a child’s life?” Her last remark was met with applause from attendees.
Spencer Holland, the applicant’s attorney, responded that mitigation payments are “far from being nefarious and are so commonplace in every city and town across the Commonwealth.”
Holland added, “The word bribe is, you know, pejorative to put it politely. They are a totally common part of the permitting process. The intent is to contribute towards community concerns that you know relate or perceived to relate to a project.”
Steven White of 35 Scenic Drive asked why the developer was reluctant to undergo a site development review for the Orchard Hill Park Drive project, suggesting it might be to avoid delays in construction. White said the project would have a major impact on traffic and described having to wait through three rounds of a red light at Prospect and Main streets during rush hour. “Another 2,000 people plus living up in that area,” White said, “is just going to be devastating.” He recommended that the Planning Board accept the developer’s offer of $100,000 to study the overall impact of the development.
City Councilor At Large Susan Chalifoux Zephir spoke after White, saying she agreed that a development impact statement is very important.
“I’m just going to agree with what former Ward 1 Counselor David Rollins had to say earlier,” Chalifoux Zephir said. “A Development impact statement is very, very important for the two preliminary subdivisions that are also on the agenda tonight; and you really can’t separate them, as he said, because the landowner included this parcel in one of the preliminary subdivisions.”
Chalifoux Zephir urged the planning board to take a careful, deliberate approach to the Orchard Hill Park Drive project, noting that the landowner had previously included the parcel in a larger preliminary subdivision covering roughly 80 acres. She said the project’s overall impact should be evaluated comprehensively, suggesting that conducting a development impact statement would provide valuable information to guide decisions and help ensure that “the neighborhood [and] city council could get behind” the final plan.
At the end of the meeting, the board decided to continue discussion of the Orchard Hill Park Drive extension rather than close the preliminary subdivision matter.
After debating whether to close or extend the hearing, members agreed to continue it to the next meeting on November 17, 2025, to allow time to determine what form of a development impact statement might be required.