[{"_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",6116512,"mediaKeyId","2732768-2bc83da991ae667e9e180201382c3cb0","parentId",2732768,"title","Votes at a glance: ANR plans, continuances and waivers approved","audioSeconds",388,"startMs",678000,"endMs",1066000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2732768-2bc83da991ae667e9e180201382c3cb0&start=678&end=1066","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2732768-2bc83da991ae667e9e180201382c3cb0/thumbnail_678000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6116512/Framingham-City/Middlesex-County/Massachusetts/Votes-at-a-glance-ANR-plans-continuances-and-waivers-approved","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116512-4836c4dc76c2a6a1288e1b88e4777fef/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146719&Signature=oS90zWSooezuyLyYTK-62J~ezLkeV6CqJ7zUhw8Ir0AhUR943mJiakHaEYTeo20S9QxVEeOFes7RvNT86hzsWqmfqNNsaXtAkwCVPSHGPAKm9gJQOJ~DB4sVz8hwSCOZsQYa0iSFUXDxGGOtsmRYaR~Exe1xaCUEOVK1tUqsJRUsy9qzjxeaKLhRbQ0d7~gD9HRjLGVq0wS9NlJSci-RpyJiCooCHbpkf6L2OrogP2Jn-Erx6rbwgqahtL4b8zNNIkcUmjL8PSWIBWaEFUU1m7FoM5Hutvx5kDaLrQ53Z2vbUebH8adhucmnAyvgg-oJo6I00D1znOg53r-UGjdlTw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Framingham City, MA","date","2025-03-06T00:00:00Z","article","The Planning Board on the March meeting handled multiple ministerial items and short votes summarized here.

- Continuance: The public hearing for 1 Howard Street and 38 Park Street was continued to the planning board meeting of March 20, 2025. The motion to continue passed.

- Approval Not Required (ANR) plans: The board endorsed an ANR for 61 Dow Street (endorsement recorded; the board recorded one opposition and one abstention during the vote) and endorsed an ANR plan for 936 Central Street. The 61 Dow Street endorsement proceeded because the plan did not show a subdivision; the board noted the plan memorializes existing lot lines and triggers a three‑year zoning freeze under subdivision control rules.

- Aisle width waiver: For the 173–179 Union Ave project the board approved a reduction in aisle width from 28 feet to 24 feet by motion.

All ministerial approvals and continuances carried; more substantive items were handled in separate articles.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Framingham Planning Board 3-6-25","oneSentenceSummary","At the March meeting the Framingham Planning Board endorsed two Approval‑Not‑Required plans, continued one public hearing, and approved minor waivers (aisle width reduction) and other ministerial actions.","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},6116517,"Planning Board adopts 72‑hour rule for applicant pre‑submission materials; public not held to same standard",476,189000,665000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2732768-2bc83da991ae667e9e180201382c3cb0&start=189&end=665","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2732768-2bc83da991ae667e9e180201382c3cb0/thumbnail_189000.jpg","/articles/6116517/Framingham-City/Middlesex-County/Massachusetts/Planning-Board-adopts-72hour-rule-for-applicant-presubmission-materials-public-not-held-to-same-standard","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116517-90a62eca80735dcd1637057f396db078/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146719&Signature=Q4OGKfK4aT6~YXyiQvbp~OQgNbH68r1zRNnPKLIhH6A2r1pNJ-sHTqkCvLYT92enlHYG7vtPuXH-2NNamAd8Kub9CMXW6-vOfXPjzDJiKrvGzOmPhmEqLzDEfl9BkrE1x-SEGon-cET44orYn~MmzwSs4a-luA4Z91Nl1aY1PopHz~rmtH61UPdY8kpQEOS-tbyVll2lSFjxaGqyk22NHiASAk~4L2oLX3DJDaUWzAN00asRGFcI2YZBV57pd-SsrkHBXo7UmM23q5Ce~6YFyZBrykzEY3eJ65RQwIAoneLswPvM-VmrIaPO9A0tJZV2MNkWPcm3GSAGkdKbYMgh6g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Framingham Planning Board voted to adopt a minimum 72‑hour submission rule requiring applicants to provide substantive presentations and supporting documents to planning staff and the board at least 72 hours before a scheduled hearing. The board emphasized the rule is aimed at applicant‑filed materials (presentations, peer review reports, substantive plan changes) to give members and the public reasonable time to review them.

Board members discussed alternatives including 48 hours and 7 days; several members said 72 hours is a reasonable compromise that allows a “night” for review while remaining practical for applicants. The board agreed to retain staff discretion to accept minor clerical changes within the 72‑hour window but said substantive materials that materially affect deliberation should be subject to the deadline or require a continuance. The chair also clarified that members of the public are not held to the same 72‑hour deadline for submitting comment letters; public commenters may present comments at the hearing, but if substantive documents arrive close to the hearing applicants may request a continuance to have time to respond.

The board directed staff to codify the 72‑hour expectation in rules and regulations and to enforce it more consistently. Several board members expressed concern about due‑process implications if materials are not available to the public; the board distinguished that public commenters may bring materials to the meeting but applicants should not introduce substantive new evidence at the last minute without providing time for review.

The motion to adopt 72 hours passed by voice vote.","After debate about late‑filed application materials, the Planning Board voted to require applicants submit substantive presentation materials at least 72 hours before a hearing; the board clarified the public may submit comments near hearings but applicants must seek continuance if they cannot respond.",{"_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},6116522,"Planning Board approves parking lot for dealership at 550 Worcester Rd with neighborhood conditions",1355,5065000,6420000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2732768-2bc83da991ae667e9e180201382c3cb0&start=5065&end=6420","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2732768-2bc83da991ae667e9e180201382c3cb0/thumbnail_5065000.jpg","/articles/6116522/Framingham-City/Middlesex-County/Massachusetts/Planning-Board-approves-parking-lot-for-dealership-at-550-Worcester-Rd-with-neighborhood-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116522-39fb487c261e2c11d65090a7a1863a46/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146719&Signature=B8JuxB2Sd5EeD1iVPBPfet54pgC9CRl0OofDHdxaKcMr~oxY2UPGtqfJSozRutiLn-Syk2YCu4CA0BT6J-3xEjigRdBAHCZiqoveDAr77Ej85LdOaDRMnFbkVMfcLQok1f2zEQKUlVK6PAjlgLGKzsU1lp6ZMlk84IBLqnvi9Dvl5mO3sJ3r8oi9cAxJHhVLsF2JKm3fu0eDCB9Kk0zIgj00OiJ4dXw9zkTo1jc0CR0RvbTn3Bkay4aprWDbyHXkES~zge1H0Y49cM8FOBGLZNwnZ9SEhiUuhJmDIZokfAcxUmEt4ZWgPiWCgjAksb2fDVZRDmOh5VR24a6mQeZTrQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Board approved a minor site plan review and related special permits for 550 Worcester Road that allow the applicant to use the cleared lot for employee and registered‑vehicle parking, subject to conditions the applicant committed to during hearings. The approvals include a ban on loading/unloading and storage of unregistered inventory on the parking lot and a prohibition on using the adjacent residential streets (Frasier Road and Oaks Road) for loading activity; the applicant also committed to work with neighbors and the traffic commission on signage and enforcement measures.

Attorney Brian Grossman, representing the dealership, told the board the applicant revised the site plan to remove the loading area and modified the Frasier Road entry so trucks cannot turn into the stub driveway without crossing a curb. Grossman said the dealership will not store inventory vehicles on the lot and will cooperate with the neighborhood and municipal traffic authorities on truck‑access limits and signage.

Neighbors said the delivery trucks and occasional overnight truck staging on Frasier Road have been a longstanding nuisance and a safety concern. “We never have a problem,” said resident Alex (21 Frasier Road), describing repeated occasions when trucks blocked the roadway, including during snow events; he asked the dealership to ensure trucks are routed to Route 9 and to participate in neighborhood traffic calming. The applicant’s representatives said they do not directly control port or carrier practices but will support neighborhood efforts to implement codified signage, size limits, and enforcement through the traffic commission and police department.

The board approved the site plan review and special permits (auto dealer use; relief for parking/landscaping and front setback parking) with standard conditions and the added restrictions: no loading/unloading on Frasier Road and Oaks Road, no storage of unregistered/inventory vehicles on the lot, no overnight parking of unregistered vehicles, and a commitment to assist with neighborhood efforts to secure codified traffic/parking controls (signage and enforcement). The board closed the public hearing and approved the permits; final decision will be filed and is subject to the usual appeal period.

The applicant said proposed landscaping along Route 9 will include multiple trees and taller shrubs to screen the lot; pavement will be conventional asphalt (not permeable pavers) due to maintenance concerns expressed during the hearing.","The board approved a site plan and special permits to allow an existing dealer to use a recently cleared lot at 550 Worcester Road for employee and registered‑vehicle parking, with conditions banning unregistered inventory storage and loading/unloading on the nearby residential streets.",{"_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},6116526,"Planning Board approves 173–179 Union Ave site plan and multiple special permits with design conditions",3895,1063000,4958000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2732768-2bc83da991ae667e9e180201382c3cb0&start=1063&end=4958","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2732768-2bc83da991ae667e9e180201382c3cb0/thumbnail_1063000.jpg","/articles/6116526/Framingham-City/Middlesex-County/Massachusetts/Planning-Board-approves-173179-Union-Ave-site-plan-and-multiple-special-permits-with-design-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116526-386dab7be6a674dabcc4bf54d18a6245/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146719&Signature=R~kF9wxQIq6Cmq4LWgCfx5osLsjJMtMYR7EdCOBlYPkwL5v9dj9Gq~8gXXutZR09xGBywcquYCG6Y~AokpF3DV3yexsrWZBK72YAHywng~emU1erUGceL1GDnfLOtxu9jBvfEZgZAlQbvh~1xlwZZwLcZn73XU-ahLcrOuUY1R4u9qoVMR7XsAhwk8xOE2i9qJssDnYYFadvWc6aQYiqKRztk7aCX2nF58Sysu4YdzRfuEORhnasyr6iIr3vKJ2fKVK2c~Q3nNve3wf-kVYW2QkAcaUwNKDb8bCeoMh2S1esRmjdcbRX8ufOms8uBtDHmh~r3sunyfpbUFNZGz14iQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Framingham Planning Board on the March meeting approved a major site plan review and three special permits for a multi‑family development at 173–179 Union Ave, including relief for compact parking spaces and for a building larger than 30,000 square feet. The board voted to adopt a set of design and operating conditions — recessed balconies, elimination of a loading area on the south side, added landscaping and a retaining‑wall shift, transformer screening, and one compact space reserved for building staff — as part of the approvals.

The action matters because the project prompted extended debate about scale and neighborhood fit while complying with current zoning. Neighbors and several board members said they were troubled by the building’s size and proportionality to adjacent houses; other members said the revised design and additional buffering made the proposal acceptable under the existing CB zoning.

Applicant representative Ray Bogus told the board the design reduces compact parking and tandem sets from the prior submission. “We now have 72.13% standard spaces and 27.87% compact spaces,” Bogus said, adding the plan shows 44 standard spaces and 17 compact spaces and nine sets of tandem parking (18 tandem spaces).

After discussion the board voted to approve the major site plan review with standard provisions and the following special conditions: exterior balconies recessed (recessed two‑foot projection on exterior balconies), removal of the loading zone on the south side with that area converted to landscaping, relocation of the retaining wall away from the property line toward the building to increase the landscape buffer, the architectural bump‑out to remain, a large non‑invasive tree and additional planting in the landscaped area, one compact space closest to the building entry signed for building staff only, and landscape screening around the transformer’s final on‑site location. The board also approved the special permit for multi‑family structures over 30,000 square feet, a special permit granting compact parking relief, and a separate inclusionary housing action under the City of Framingham inclusionary housing bylaw committing six affordable units (about 13% of the project). The board voted to reduce a required parking aisle width from 28 feet to 24 feet for this project.

Board members debated proportionality and context: several members said the site is adjacent to downtown and other multi‑story buildings, while others said the project’s massing is out of scale with immediately adjacent single‑family homes. The applicant emphasized design changes from previous hearings — stepped fifth floor, recessed balconies and expanded landscaping — and said construction costs and current building codes limit the ability to shrink the project further without jeopardizing feasibility. Several board members praised the applicant’s responsiveness and the design improvements while noting continuing concern about scale.

The board closed the public hearing before voting. A 21‑day appeal period was announced; the approvals become final when the executed decision is filed with the city clerk.

Votes at a glance: major site plan review — approved (yes:5, no:0, abstain:0); special permit (multifamily >30,000 sq ft) — approved (yes:5); special permit (compact parking relief, including tandem) — approved (yes:5); inclusionary housing provision (six units) — approved (yes:5); aisle width reduction (28 ft to 24 ft) — approved (yes:5).","The Framingham Planning Board unanimously approved a major site plan review and related special permits for a five‑story, 46‑unit residential project at 173–179 Union Ave, imposing conditions on balconies, loading, landscaping, the transformer, and parking configuration.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: ANR plans, continuances and waivers approved

Planning Board adopts 72‑hour rule for applicant pre‑submission materials; public not held to same standard

Planning Board approves parking lot for dealership at 550 Worcester Rd with neighborhood conditions

Planning Board approves 173–179 Union Ave site plan and multiple special permits with design conditions