Leominster's City Council on Dec. 8 declined to revert MU‑2 zoning rules that had been amended earlier in 2025, rejecting petition 9‑26 by a 6–5 roll‑call vote after a lengthy public hearing and council debate.

The petition would have restored the MU‑2 zoning text in place before petition 15‑25 (the January 2025 amendments). Councilors and dozens of residents and stakeholders debated whether reverting the text would restore procedural protections — such as special‑permit review, larger buffers and abutter notice — or would block urgently needed housing. Supporters of 9‑26 argued the 2025 changes removed critical protections: they cited reductions in rear/side setbacks (from 100 feet to 15 feet), removal of minimum landscaped buffers (from 50 feet to none), and a substantial by‑right density increase residents described numerically (for example, a 12.45 to 21.78 units/acre comparison was raised during testimony).

Opponents of the petition — including attorneys representing developers and others advocating for more housing — warned that undoing the text would chill investment and noted legal protections (site‑plan and site‑specific grandfathering) for projects already under review. Council members also debated whether the petition, as written, would actually stop the Orchard Hill/Orchard Park site plan currently before the planning board; attorneys and staff explained that once a site plan receives certain approvals and a definitive subdivision plan is filed and approved within statutory windows, subsequent text changes may not apply (grandfathering and zoning‑freeze provisions under Chapter 40A were cited).

Public testimony included a peer‑review stormwater critique paid for by neighborhood residents and repeated concerns about wetlands, topography and traffic. The legal affairs committee recommended granting petition 9‑26 to revert the zoning, but during full‑council debate several members said a reversion alone would not address stormwater or sewer capacity concerns; others said it would restore notice and special‑permit tools and 'pump the brakes' on high‑density build‑outs. The roll call concluded with a 6–5 margin against adoption; the motion to grant failed and the existing MU‑2 text remains in effect.