Residents and councilors press developer to scale back Central Square overlay; hearing continued to April 15

A drawn-out public hearing at the Woburn City Council on March 18 focused on a proposed Central Square Overlay District and a pending development by Gustavo Realty (referred to at the hearing as the Tocci/Hitachi proposal). The council opened a broad public comment period that included detailed concerns about density, traffic, flooding and the condition of existing homes on Main Street.

The planning board forwarded a favorable recommendation on March 11 that included edits and conditions. Attorney Joseph Tabby, speaking for the applicant, told the council he would prepare a response with changes that could include fewer units, more on-site parking, limits on ground coverage and an elimination of ground-mounted solar arrays other than roof-mounted systems. Tabby asked the council to continue the hearing so he could submit a revised overlay and supporting materials; the council voted to continue the public hearing to April 15 so the planning/ordinance committees can review the petitioner’s response.

Why it matters: The proposal covers roughly six acres around Wyman Green and would substantially change the Main Street streetscape if approved. Neighbors, preservationists, and multiple councilors said the current proposal is too dense and would worsen traffic and flooding. Supporters said the project could revitalize a run‑down area and bring mitigation — such as intersection reconfigurations and stormwater improvements — that would not happen without a coordinated redevelopment plan.

During the hearing, residents and neighborhood advocates described persistent flooding on Hart Street, claimed long-running neglect of several Main Street houses now owned by the petitioner, and warned of worsening traffic on Clinton, Eaton and Main streets. John Hessel of Clinton Street, who described himself as a third‑generation Central Square resident, urged the council to adopt the overlay so the community could require mitigation and community benefits; others argued the overlay would be “spot zoning” and too permissive on height and density.

Council members pressed the applicant for concrete changes. Councilor Simone (chair of the ordinance committee) asked the petitioner to reduce height and density; Councilor Popolato and Councilor Demers asked for clearer commitments on parking and stormwater. Councilor D’Amambo and others urged more community meetings and stronger limits in the ordinance language so the overlay would not be used to approve a plan residents find unacceptable.

Tabby told the council the applicant would prepare a formal response to the planning board’s recommended edits, including revised renderings and a reduced unit count, and asked to move the hearing to April 15 so the city and the public could review the updated materials. The council granted that continuance and also directed staff to share the planning board recommendation and the petitioner’s forthcoming response with the ordinance committee.

Ending: The council did not vote on the overlay itself. Instead the hearing was continued to April 15 to allow the petitioner, Joseph Tabby, to submit revised plans in response to the planning board and council questions and to allow committee review and additional public input. The council also requested the petitioner’s updated materials be circulated to councilors and to planning staff before the next hearing.