The Leominster City Council Legal Affairs Committee continued a public hearing on petition 9‑26, a proposed amendment to the city’s zoning ordinance affecting MU‑2 zoning, after residents urged councilors to study the changes further.

Committee Chair Susan Shalifu Zefer opened the hearing and said the item had been held to await input from the planning board and staff; she recommended keeping the hearing open to gather additional information. "So this hearing is on petition 9‑26," Zefer said, noting the planning board had continued its review and that committee members had received a forwarded note from the planning director.

Why it matters: Petition 9‑26 would change allowable density in MU‑2 zones. Residents said the change could permit many more housing units in areas near existing neighborhoods and could add to already heavy traffic on Harvard Street and nearby Route 2.

At the podium, Haley Bridal of 200 Harvard Street told councilors she had not understood the practical effect of the zoning changes until a proposed project showed the numbers. "Seeing 308 units allowed in such a small area in such close to residential districts..." Bridal said, adding that the previous 50‑foot buffer between residential districts could become a maximum at the planning board's discretion under the proposed language. Bridal also said a specific parcel of 17.95 acres could be subject to a formula that, if unconstrained by wetlands and other physical limits, might allow up to 408 units on that parcel; she noted the land itself limited that total "because of wetlands." She urged councilors to "really look into it because it's impactful. It's a lot of—it's a huge change."

Al Wenning of 194 Ridgewood Drive said traffic is already congested near the Route 2 interchange and nearby commercial development. "It's impossible to get around there," Wenning said, and added that additional development would be "impactful on those that are already there." He said he did not intend to tell landowners what to do with their property but asked the council to consider traffic impacts.

Councilor Bridal asked that planning staff — specifically MRPC representative Joe Boyle and planner Mr. Souza — be asked to appear at a future meeting so that councilors could get technical answers in public. Legal Affairs Chair Zefer said the committee planned to invite the planning director, MRPC staff and others; the committee set a continuation for Nov. 10 at 6:00 p.m. and encouraged councilors to submit written questions now so staff could prepare answers for the public hearing.

The hearing remains open; no ordinance amendments were adopted and no formal vote on the zoning change occurred. The planning board's recommendation was not yet available; the council noted that the planning board had continued its hearing to Nov. 3 and that the committee would reconvene after the planning board's action.

The committee also discussed scheduling related agenda items for the Nov. 10 meeting, and a separate public hearing on battery energy storage systems was later scheduled for December after further planning board review.

Ending: The public hearing on petition 9‑26 was continued to Nov. 10 at 6:00 p.m.; the committee asked staff and MRPC representatives to appear and suggested councilors submit written questions in advance so answers can be available to the public at the continued hearing.