Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Mu2 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council to revert MU-2 zoning; developers warn change would chill investment
Summary
Dozens of residents urged the Leominster City Council to reverse recent MU-2 zoning changes that remove special-permit review and abutter notice, citing lost protections and flood/stormwater risks. Developers and their counsel said reverting the code would undermine projects already permitted and chill future investment; the council kept the public hearing open and scheduled further discussion for Dec. 8.
Leominster — At a lengthy public hearing on Nov. 24, residents near Orchard Hill Park Drive urged the Leominster City Council to revert amendments to the city's MU-2 zoning district, saying recent changes remove planning-board tools such as buffer requirements, abutter notice and special-permit review that protect neighboring properties.
"No one here wants to stop housing," said Haley Brady, of 200 Harvard Street, at the council podium. "We just want the basic allowances that every other homeowner in this city is afforded." Brady asked the council to restore buffer and special-permit protections so neighbors could avoid stormwater discharge and other impacts on decades-old properties.
Supporters of the zoning reversion also challenged the process that produced the MU-2 changes. "The careful and professional planning process did not involve any residents of the city," said Liz MacArello, an architect and neighbour, arguing that abutters were not notified and that the adopted changes increased density from about 12 units per acre to roughly 21, while eliminating review tools.
Developers and their lawyers gave a contrasting account. Spencer Hall, counsel for Wood Partners (the applicant pursuing a multifamily project at 86 Orchard Hill Park Drive), said his client relied on zoning amendments adopted earlier in 2025, spent months and significant sums on design and site-plan approvals, and that a retroactive change would put permitted projects into nonconforming status. "To change the zoning now, after my client has done everything the city has required of them and thrust the project into nonconforming status, would undermine confidence in the city's permitting process," Hall said.
Chris Renier of Goulston & Storrs, representing landowner Greg Lascotti, similarly urged the council not to adopt the revert amendment, saying the earlier MU-2 revisions followed a formal planning process intended to encourage housing.
Residents raised technical and environmental issues as well: speakers noted certified vernal pools, a high water table in parts of the MU-2 parcel, and a local flood two years ago as reasons for additional oversight. Several commenters said they had paid for independent stormwater reviews after finding inadequacies in developer submissions and asked the city to preserve the planning board's existing mitigation tools.
The council did not vote on the amendment at the meeting. Legal affairs committee chair Susan Shalifu Zephyr said Planning Director Elizabeth Wood will appear at the Dec. 8 meeting to answer detailed questions, and the council voted to continue the public hearing and schedule further consideration. The public hearing remains open and is set for Dec. 8 at 6:30 p.m.
