LEOMINSTER — During the continued public hearing on Petition 9-26 at the Nov. 24, 2025, Leominster City Council meeting, residents and developers delivered sharply opposing views on proposed amendments to the MU2 zoning district, with abutters calling for restored oversight and developers defending the current framework.
Petition 9-26, filed by Councilor At-Large Susan Chalifoux-Zephir, Councilor At-Large Brandon Robbins, Ward 1 Councilor Robert Tocci, and ten registered voters, seeks to amend the city’s Multi-Use District 2 (MU2) zoning ordinance adopted earlier this year, a designation that some residents say opened the door to the now-controversial 294-unit multifamily housing development set for construction at 86 Orchard Hill Park Drive, which abuts Route 2.
Chalifoux-Zephir, chair of the Legal Affairs Committee, began the hearing by reading a letter into the record from Gregg Lisciotti of Lisciotti Development, the developer of the Orchard Hill Park Plaza who said he has owned land in the MU2 district around the shopping center for over 20 years. In his letter, Lisciotti said, “I write in strong opposition to the proposed zoning amendments to the MU2 district” and warned that “changing recently adopted zoning so suddenly and drastically sends the wrong message to those that may be interested in investing in Leominster.”
During public comment, Haily Brady of 200 Harvard Street said neighbors support new housing but want protections reinstated. “Not one single resident neighbor has gotten up here and said, ‘We don’t want housing,’” Brady said. She told councilors residents were “pleading for more than five foot buffers between their properties and a giant build like this” and asking, “‘Please don’t let them direct storm water discharge directly into my backyard.’”
Liz Macarilla of 75 Harvard Street argued that the recent MU2 changes increased density and reduced public input. “The careful and professional planning process did not involve any residents,” she said, later adding that the zoning “shoves development down the throats of city’s residents without any recourse and it takes away tools from the city’s planning board to help regulate and mitigate that development so it doesn’t grow unchecked.”
Chelsea Madison of 65 Harvard Street said removing special-permit review deprived residents of their voice. “I understand that Leominster needs housing. We are in a housing crisis,” Madison said. “By changing this zoning, you have removed the voice of the residents. And I just want to state we are also helping Lemonster grow. We are having families. We’re having children. We should be a part of this. Just as much as Wood Partners is a part of developing the city, we should be a part of developing the city as well.”
Developers and their representatives countered that the current MU2 rules are working as intended. During the public hearing, Attorney Chris Rainier of the Boston-based law firm Goulston & Storrs, which represents Lisciotti Development, told the council that earlier zoning required ground-floor commercial use in residential buildings, which was “infeasible to construct.” He called the 2025 amendments “thoughtful zoning changes adopted after a planning process” and warned that the proposed rollback “would chill economic investment in the city and restrict urgently needed housing.”
Attorney Spencer Holland, representing Wood Partners, the developer of the proposed multifamily project at 86 Orchard Hill Park Drive, told councilors during the public hearing that the city still retains substantial authority over development.
“Since 2012, the MU2 district has ostensibly allowed multifamily housing,” Holland said. “And yet there has been no housing development. This inescapable fact has persisted despite the presence of almost every other condition conducive to housing development. It has lingered despite nearby commercial amenities favorable to housing endured throughout years of record low interest rates and booms in development stretched across unprecedented demand for new housing and inadequate supply. So, how has this fact remained? In a word, zoning.”
Holland added that changing the rules mid-application would render the city’s permitting process dubious.
“To change the zoning now after my client has done everything the city has required of them and thrust the project into non-conforming status would undermine confidence in the city’s permitting process,” Holland said. “It tells my client as well as future applicants that even if they play by the rules, the rules might change if the voices in the room get loud enough. The proposed amendment would revert to a zoning scheme that demonstrably does not work.”
During the council’s discussion following the public hearing, President Mark Bodanza pushed back on residents’ claim that MU2 density had increased by 75 percent. “I don’t think that’s a 75% increase,” he said, questioning how the figure had been calculated. “How do you get 75% from an addition from 25 and 75? Add those up and divide 75 by 300. I don’t think that comes up to 75%…The math doesn’t work for me.” In response, Chalifoux-Zephir maintained that the by-right increase was correctly characterized. In her view, “the density change…was 75% of an increase by right,” noting that the number of by-right units rose from roughly 225 to 308 under the zoning overhaul.
Bodanza said the development potential in the MU2 district has existed for more than a decade. “All I would say is I think it’s been borne out since 2012,” he told the council. Bodanza noted that under the zoning in place at that time, “this project could have been constructed with 225 units by my calculations. Twelve and a half by right per acre. No special permit required. That math, if it serves me, is 225 units.”
Bodanza argued that the most consequential zoning change was not related to density or permitting, but to ground-floor requirements. “What happened here, and some of the speakers pointed it out, the significant or most significant thing that happened is the removal of the requirement that the first floor be used for commercial purpose,” he said. Adding, “That’s the most significant thing that happened. When we were trying to save North Leominster from the requirements of the MBTA project or law [i.e., MBTA Communities Act] imposed on us by the state, we considered requiring that those units have commercial use on the first floor and we were told it’s a little aggressive because you’ll never build a single unit.” As a result, he said, “we moved a lot of that housing out of North Leominster to South Leominster into the western side of Leominster.” In his view, “the most significant thing that happened is the commercial use was eliminated.”
As the discussion wound down, Chalifoux-Zephir recommended pausing deliberations so Planning Director Elizabeth Wood—who requested legal counsel be present and was unable to attend the Nov. 25 meeting—could appear at the next meeting. “The planning director is going to join us on the 8th,” she said.
Council President Mark Bodanza added that extending the hearing required a procedural vote for “further time.”
The Legal Affairs Committee then issued a unanimous recommendation for further time, formally continuing the MU2 hearing to Dec. 8, when Wood and her attorney are expected to appear.
