[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6301620,"mediaKeyId","2486839-0d82b72def520d63613c0e527bdb97c8","parentId",2486839,"title","Union Avenue project revised to reduce compact parking and step back upper floors; hearing continued to March 6","audioSeconds",3248,"startMs",5959000,"endMs",9207000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2486839-0d82b72def520d63613c0e527bdb97c8&start=5959&end=9207","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2486839-0d82b72def520d63613c0e527bdb97c8/thumbnail_5959000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6301620/Framingham-City/Middlesex-County/Massachusetts/Union-Avenue-project-revised-to-reduce-compact-parking-and-step-back-upper-floors-hearing-continued-to-March-6","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6301620-a1597602e8d01cb4da4365c5ff2426b6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163594&Signature=PFPR2ZHUeEChsvwO~8dJZhcoQ9K8qOLkKjI0c5AqZFYu4Ox9IC1sM5jeVswLOycKjqpnpMTpiFeG9cxhy9dlP9h7maYUYtPocBcsNjm35P7g~QK4WDKWumLw9zgdm2FM1sabI-AHBrRa75YXVe46IhYLBktDGXNryUFpeZnUMfcAEglyVzyoKdO8RmWFzbBuk9jqtZMw6b3CRTYbPos0KAHxktQjUQfs5WZGCNhXfebwj1-4f3bv6eEA15gmXTVASQQRSP39CzKdGcmZrwHQSJJ05NZO49Sgyn8TVls51b4t7Ixv0iMmmj4dXimrnS-h1OYxWm6cuclITbp8dXoEUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Framingham City, MA","date","2025-02-20T00:00:00Z","article","The Planning Board continued the public hearing for a proposed residential project at 173 and 179 Union Avenue to March 6 after the developer presented design changes intended to lessen impacts on an adjacent house.

Developer Ray Bogus said the team reduced compact parking percentage, reorganized tandem spaces and increased the setback on upper floors adjacent to a neighboring property (167 Union Avenue). The project team described parking as 38 standard spaces plus three ADA spaces and a mix of compact stalls: two 8×18 spaces, two 8×17 and 16 8×16 compact spaces — for a total of 41 individual spaces and 20 tandem spaces. The applicant said assigned tandem parking will be managed so that tandem pairs serve the same unit.

Bogus described changes to the garage screening and ‘‘skirting’’ to lower the visual impression that the building is floating above pillars: the team lowered the garage skirt several feet and will install additional landscaping to reduce sight lines into parked vehicles from the street. He said the top floors were stepped back on the south side to gain roughly 5½ feet of additional separation from the closest neighbor.

Abutters and City Councilor Malik asked questions about scale and parking. An abutter, Susan (last name not provided in the record), asked about the distance between buildings and visitor parking; she said the neighborhood lacks nearby parks and expressed concern about the intensity of new residents. Councilor Malik suggested public artwork on a large blank wall as a mitigation option.

Board members generally praised architectural improvements and the parking management plan but asked the applicant to further examine compact stalls and the placement of certain spaces near the garage entrance. The board voted to continue the hearing to March 6 to allow the team to respond to comments.

Why it matters: The project would add dense housing to a predominantly low‑rise section of Union Avenue; neighbors worry about scale, parking and neighborhood character, while the city seeks more housing in the corridor.

What’s next: The applicant will refine parking dimensions, the garage entrance layout and facade/massing details and return to the board on March 6, 2025.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Framingham City Planning Board 2-20-25","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Board continued the public hearing for 173 and 179 Union Avenue after hearing revisions that reduced compact parking and pushed upper floors back from an adjacent house.","taxTitle","Framingham City, Middlesex County, Massachusetts","taxId",12558,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6301636,"Framingham Planning Board endorses ANR for 144 Old Connecticut Path amid neighborhood objections",1543,232000,1775000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2486839-0d82b72def520d63613c0e527bdb97c8&start=232&end=1775","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2486839-0d82b72def520d63613c0e527bdb97c8/thumbnail_232000.jpg","/articles/6301636/Framingham-City/Middlesex-County/Massachusetts/Framingham-Planning-Board-endorses-ANR-for-144-Old-Connecticut-Path-amid-neighborhood-objections","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6301636-fae7cfd987a47dd74b51d4fe275d4568/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163594&Signature=JEOaShs83sEASzk7ANmM7R18j3vq0l4Vb0BXn6F8l72FggUpo1h1h1bgTfXBOSmqjGNUnH6lx1dciNvpDwaGLe0rBMKcI7e7wD90-njwwZXDxkWtygE2f5X5yHTGU0-LiE6M~Xaj~cWIEw~mjdQp1d8m5RyuU1g0GzAI2yOx4~U2-7LpLMl2ognUitKMogExXeD9K~MtgS9oZpZJ8FNsDi~Zkkf2NNoFIPcF~VRBW1ZSgPRGRnuj16ZHP3ukKWmYb5LdQORSSrVNCyZVGjU4bInjnMBaxFzcGIeZPDGoF~4aqgIk4ON~IvIfFmEfvrjvQJaTkSIVyc2nwCH~avsfaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Framingham Planning Board endorsed an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan for 144 Old Connecticut Path on Feb. 20, advancing a procedural certification that the proposed two‑lot configuration does not constitute a subdivision.

The endorsement — a procedural finding that the plan shows existing frontage and therefore is not a lawful subdivision — was moved and approved by the board. Chair (unnamed) and staff repeatedly told residents the endorsement does not assume conformance with zoning or permit future building permits without additional approvals.

Neighbors, including Julia Murphy of 136 Old Connecticut Path and Mary Redgate of 134 Old Connecticut Path, told the board they felt blindsided by the filing and argued the proposed lots would be nonconforming. \"The proposed lots . . . do not have the right amount of 65 feet for the frontage,\" Murphy said, and said the proposed second lot \"has no means of egress.\" Maureen Dunn and Emily Ford, other abutters, raised similar concerns about notification and possible flooding.

Zach Glass, the surveyor for the applicant (Existing Grade), told the board the plan splits the parcel so Lot 1 will retain the existing house and frontage while Lot 2 will include the existing carriage house and is not intended to be buildable without further zoning relief. Glass said the proposed lot split does not increase existing nonconformities and that notes on the plan clarify Lot 2 \"is not to be considered a buildable lot without any sort of further zoning relief.\"

Board members and staff emphasized the narrow legal scope of ANR reviews. The chair explained that under state procedure an endorsed ANR is a certification of frontage and that if the board took no action the plan would be constructively endorsed after 21 days. The chair added that any future building, zoning relief or building‑permit decisions would be adjudicative and appealable processes where abutters would receive additional legal notice.

After discussion the board voted to endorse the ANR plan for 144 Old Connecticut Path with the explicit understanding that endorsement does not equate to zoning compliance or any approval of development. The board also recorded that staff had followed the statutory noticing requirements applicable to ANR filings.

Why it matters: An ANR endorsement allows the plan to be recorded and preserves the applicant's right to pursue subsequent permits; it does not authorize construction. Neighbors were assured they will receive legal notice and appeal rights if and when the applicant seeks zoning relief or a building permit.

What’s next: If the applicant pursues construction, zoning relief or building permits, those later hearings will include formal notice to abutters and will be subject to appeal under Massachusetts law.","The Framingham Planning Board endorsed an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan for 144 Old Connecticut Path on Feb. 20, advancing a procedural certification that the proposed two‑lot configuration does not constitute a subdivision.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6301625,"Planning Board approves 180 Franklin Street multifamily project, grants waivers and inclusionary housing special permit",1053,2507000,3560000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2486839-0d82b72def520d63613c0e527bdb97c8&start=2507&end=3560","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2486839-0d82b72def520d63613c0e527bdb97c8/thumbnail_2507000.jpg","/articles/6301625/Framingham-City/Middlesex-County/Massachusetts/Planning-Board-approves-180-Franklin-Street-multifamily-project-grants-waivers-and-inclusionary-housing-special-permit","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6301625-b2a5316ab3e5ac6cb56c670681787ce9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163594&Signature=Uj47vOWaZcyk1WvIzWMEzBZrLoYHf~soZzX5Y-Qs3cpCwM3-BjroQKfBNtPjuIodObYrf2RQri9cGHYq55bM7OfySWNPt7S9WPl8X7iEyNXGyIonLz1MoIZv~UTg3Crt05dOKSvG-zAots2hzxMl21tPLjRLZwkO4G-RUEx3-23S~I5mQHUAVKl7f-3WLi~aQ9mlghiwH2utauKjdDmjXOcueBELA6Gq2-V19eVF~veUQImz6T3rO9QJ0TYVwb3ffw6jBT~cJD4TAqLjq~zNB4DMDayU0jfXaJhJAzf1Ofe~fNCV93d~kd8gNw34gQeMIdSgrJQwnJsnJDLuOtlv2Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Framingham Planning Board voted to approve a package of permits and waivers for the redevelopment of 180 Franklin Street on Feb. 20, including drive‑aisle relief, major site plan approval, and inclusionary housing compliance.

Terry Morris, attorney for the applicant, summarized a set of design revisions made in response to prior board comments. Architect Jim Chen and owner Charles Zamuto were present; Morris noted the team increased active roof area, maximized solar panels, refined the building’s center core and revised the rear wall with landscaping and punched openings to reduce a blank parking‑wall appearance.

The board considered and approved the following actions in sequence: a waiver for the drive‑aisle width reduction, a special permit for multifamily use over 30,000 square feet, major site plan review (standard conditions), the inclusionary housing special permit, and a special permit to reduce parking by four spaces. Each motion passed after the chair asked \"All those in favor?\" and members responded affirmatively; the transcript records the votes as approved without a detailed roll call.

Applicant materials filed with the board show a six‑story building massing with materials and stepped elements intended to reduce perceived bulk. The applicant confirmed compliance with inclusionary housing obligations and said the garage aisle widths meet the conditions shown on the final plan, with a limited relief request for four parking spaces.

Why it matters: The approvals authorize a large multifamily redevelopment under the city’s zoning and inclusionary housing rules. The approvals include design concessions and waivers that will shape the project’s final form and how it integrates with surrounding properties.

What’s next: The applicant and staff will finalize permit conditions and coordinate any outstanding peer‑review and engineering details required by standard conditions; building and stormwater permits remain separate processes.","After revisions and board questions, the Planning Board approved multiple permits for the 180 Franklin Street redevelopment, including a waiver for the drive aisle width, a special permit for multifamily use over 30,000 sq ft, major site plan review, inclusionary housing compliance and a reduction of four parking spaces.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6301630,"Developers reduce 1 Howard/38 Park proposal to 98 units; Planning Board pauses for more work on design and drainage",2977,1837000,4814000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2486839-0d82b72def520d63613c0e527bdb97c8&start=1837&end=4814","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2486839-0d82b72def520d63613c0e527bdb97c8/thumbnail_1837000.jpg","/articles/6301630/Framingham-City/Middlesex-County/Massachusetts/Developers-reduce-1-Howard38-Park-proposal-to-98-units-Planning-Board-pauses-for-more-work-on-design-and-drainage","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6301630-73cb4b77947df7363bfca5339dbe6a4f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163594&Signature=ez-y5cQ7y2HluaqPykqK~y597Br1j3KhDqqHu0j4QBSp9iO1Jz7Qs66pgd2q4JbgT3q-8g5BYqrdQ1dP6k5Fbz2ggpVQsS9c0Hxh335bAVU8Rvr~PTUD4bh~QLzyfnA~Wo-rPSs~mXTiAr0mzIJgjx-u-4O~C8IadGrJ3-dTxYbVSpcBwHbBNZmqVX-lBg6dkSRLjTtbE9KmyuEHpztbxARYdhgrEGTXx5hf~nhcC1hB~LS7fs2fnwUBDnuvOeM7aQ2phNpP23fBzeQeeuO8oqgbROvv5yvtR6cw1x9qdcSwcG9vR9o8ex6hqgX0P3Mv7rt2b~fuIwwTUbVwCVvltA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Board continued the public hearing for a proposed multifamily development at 1 Howard Street and 38 Park Street to March 6 after hearing a substantial redesign and technical updates from the development team.

Attorney Paul Galvani, representing 1 Howard LLC, said the project had been revised in response to staff and peer‑review comments. The current submission reduces the unit count from an earlier 135 to 98 units and now shows two levels of parking deck with all parking inside the garage, the team said.

Architect Will Schalfont (KDI Architects) and civil engineer James Downey (Weston & Sampson) presented changes that the team said reduced impervious cover and increased on‑site infiltration. Downey said in‑situ soil testing and redesign of driveway rain‑gardens plus a green roof on a third‑floor patio reduced overall runoff; he also said the city peer reviewer had raised two final technical questions that the team addressed and the peer reviewer had no outstanding comments on the stormwater design.

The team described the revised program as follows: 7 studio apartments, 87 one‑bedrooms and 4 two‑bedrooms; building area 95,595 square feet; FAR 2.08; a six‑story building 62 feet, 10 inches tall. Paul Galvani and Will Schalfont said the project meets dimensional zoning standards for open space (proposed 33% vs. required 20%), lot coverage (62% proposed vs. 80% max) and parking and bicycle spaces; the team said parking would meet zoning without needing the previously filed reduction request.

Board members focused questions on stormwater certainty, site circulation and the building’s scale relative to the immediate context. Planning Board member Mr. Bowie pressed the team to point to specific infiltration measures; Downey pointed to two proposed rain gardens beside the driveway, a lined below‑driveway detention system, and the 2,000‑square‑foot green roof area. Bowie said he was satisfied engineers had demonstrated the system would function as designed provided the downstream system performs as assumed.

Other board members raised urban‑design and neighborhood‑fit concerns. Several members said the building massing remains large for the constrained site adjacent to the rail station and a congested intersection; some members suggested further step‑backs, material revisions and additional design work to reduce the perception of a continuous wall.

The development team requested a continuance; the board agreed and continued the public hearing for 1 Howard Street and 38 Park Street to Thursday, March 6, 2025, at 7 p.m.

Why it matters: The project would add significant multifamily housing near Framingham’s rail station and could alter traffic and stormwater patterns; the board signaled it requires more detail on drainage performance and design refinements before a vote.

What’s next: The applicant will refine drainage calculations, massing/architecture details and return to the board on March 6 with updated materials.","The Planning Board heard revised plans for 1 Howard Street/38 Park Street, including a reduction from 135 to 98 units and redesigned parking and stormwater plans. The board raised site‑specific concerns about drainage, massing and neighborhood fit and continued the public hearing to March 6 for further review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Union Avenue project revised to reduce compact parking and step back upper floors; hearing continued to March 6

Framingham Planning Board endorses ANR for 144 Old Connecticut Path amid neighborhood objections

Planning Board approves 180 Franklin Street multifamily project, grants waivers and inclusionary housing special permit

Developers reduce 1 Howard/38 Park proposal to 98 units; Planning Board pauses for more work on design and drainage