Leominster public hearing on MU2 zoning draws residents who urge rollback of recent changes

Leominster City Council held a packed public hearing on Nov. 10, 2025, on petition 9‑26, a proposal to amend the MU2 zoning district. The hearing drew residents, property owners and attorneys who said recent ordinance changes removed the special‑permit review and increased by‑right density, leaving neighbors and city boards with fewer tools to manage large developments.

Chair of the Legal Affairs Committee Susan Shalafous Zephyr opened the hearing and read a written protest from the law firm Goulston & Storrs filed “pursuant to section 22.14.0.14 of the Leominster Zoning Ordinance” and citing a state‑law vote threshold. The letter, filed on behalf of multiple MU2 property owners, said owners of more than 20% of land in the district signed the protest and argued the petition would undo careful recent zoning changes and harm housing and economic development.

Residents described how the January MU2 amendments have already changed what can be built. "The changes made to the MU2 zoning in January have already had a major impact," said Haley Bridal (200 Carbridge Street), representing neighbors who say a developer can now move forward with a large apartment project "by right" without the city’s ability to negotiate mitigations.

Architect and resident Liz Macarello said the earlier MU2 rules provided safeguards — including abutter notice and a 50‑foot vegetated buffer — that have been weakened. "This process has been remarkable for its lack of transparency," she said, asking the council to restore guardrails so boards and residents have meaningful input.

Property‑owner counsel Chris Ranier (Goulston & Storrs) urged the council not to adopt the proposed rollback, saying the recent MU2 amendments followed a planning study and were recommended by the Montachusett Regional Planning Commission and the planning board, and that reversing them would chill investment and undo months of study.

Wood Partners’ counsel, Spencer Holland, told the council the developer has pursued the 86 Orchard Hill Park Drive project through a lengthy site‑plan review with peer review and changes; he warned that ad hoc zoning changes targeted at a single project undermine reliance on the ordinance and would penalize developers who followed the rules.

Councilors and speakers debated numeric examples presented at the meeting. Councilors cited prior by‑right density figures of about 12.4 units per acre (rising with special permits to around 17.4 units per acre) and said the recent changes allow higher by‑right densities (council discussion cited 21.8 units per acre), which residents described as a dramatic increase on large parcels.

Several council members asked the clerk to re‑invite key staff and consultants — the planning director Elizabeth Wood, MRPC consultant Joe Boyle, and the planning board chair — for the next session. The council unanimously agreed to keep the public hearing open and continue it to Nov. 24, 2025 (6:00 p.m.) so those witnesses can appear and the full council can be present.

The council did not take a final vote on petition 9‑26 on Nov. 10. Next steps: the council will reconvene the public hearing on Nov. 24, 2025, and the public may again present testimony, after the city requests written answers and invites the planning director and MRPC consultant to the table.