Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Process Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Several Framingham development hearings continued to Feb. 20 after venue-complaint concerns; 180 Franklin presentation began then paused
Summary
The Planning Board continued multiple public hearings to Feb. 20, 2025, and adjourned Feb. 6 after members raised concerns about switching the posted hybrid meeting to fully remote.
Get email alerts on the Process Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Framingham Planning Board continued several public hearings to its next meeting on Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025, and ultimately adjourned following concerns about a potential Open Meeting Law complaint after the board shifted the Feb. 6 meeting to a fully remote format.
The board granted continuances for public hearings at 173–179 Union Avenue and 550 Worcester Road to Feb. 20, 2025, at 7 p.m., after applicants requested later dates so a full five-member board could be present. The board also continued the hearing for 1 Howard Street and 38 Park Street to Feb. 20; Paul Galvani, attorney for 1 Howard LLC, asked for the continuance after learning a board member was ineligible to vote under the board’s absentee rule. Roll-call votes to continue each matter passed unanimously (4–0).
The board took up a continued public hearing for a proposed five-story multifamily building at 180 Franklin Street. Attorney Terry Morris, representing the owner 180 Franklin LLC and principal Charles Zamuto, presented revised design materials and described changes including a lighter-colored fourth-floor treatment, expanded rooftop outdoor area and revised rear elevation plantings and windows. Morris said the team had responded to previous board comments and that consultant Western and Sampson had recently delivered correspondence that largely signed off on the revisions.
During the 180 Franklin discussion board members raised a separate procedural objection: several meeting participants questioned whether shifting the published hybrid meeting to fully remote that afternoon created an Open Meeting Law violation. The chair said the city solicitor (referred to in the meeting as Molly) had reviewed and approved the venue change before the board met; Molly confirmed she had come into the office that afternoon and advised staff about notices. Board members expressed differing views about proceeding. One member said no formal complaint had yet been received but cautioned the board could face social-media scrutiny; another member urged a formal written advisory from the city solicitor about future protocol.
Given the uncertainty — and at the applicant’s request not to press forward if the board was uncomfortable — Morris said he would accept a continuance. The board then moved to continue or adjourn the remaining public hearings and voted to adjourn the meeting. The board instructed staff to secure formal guidance from the city solicitor on how to handle late changes from hybrid to fully remote meetings in inclement weather and to circulate any written advice to other municipal boards that routinely meet in hybrid formats.
Actions taken: continue public hearings for 173–179 Union Avenue, 550 Worcester Road, and 1 Howard Street/38 Park Street to Feb. 20, 2025 (each continued by unanimous roll-call vote); adjourn meeting (unanimous).
