Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rezoning of small Brooks Pond frontage after debate over assisted‑living rules
Summary
The City Council voted 6–3 to rezone several small frontage parcels at Brooks Pond from commercial to residential C, a change developer Peter Bovenzi said simply aligns map and use. Some councilors opposed closing the record without the building inspector’s written recommendation, citing possible state assisted‑living implications.
The Leominster City Council voted 6–3 on June 8 to grant petition 48‑26, rezoning six parcels on Central Street and Brooks Pond Road into the Residency RC district to align the zoning map with the existing Brooks Pond multifamily/age‑restricted development. Developer Peter Bovenzi told the council the parcels are largely built out and the change is "more of a housekeeping" step to make underlying zoning consistent with current use.
Supporters said rezoning a narrow strip of frontage — together a small fraction of the overall Brooks Pond acreage — removes a mismatch between the zoning map and what is on the ground. Councilor (Ward 3) noted that most of the development is already residency and that changing the map reduces the chance of future regulatory confusion.
Several councilors urged caution, saying they would have preferred a written referral or in‑person appearance by the building inspector, who had asked the petitioner to pursue the change. Opponents argued the petition could have unintended consequences if the change altered how the project is categorized under the state’s assisted‑living rules. Councilor Romero said he could not support final action without the building inspector’s clarification.
Bovenzi described Brooks Pond as a largely completed, age‑restricted multifamily project that provides optional services for residents (transportation, housekeeping, dining options such as the on‑site "Anna’s Table"), and he said no physical expansion or increased capacity is proposed. "We provide services that people want when they want them," Bovenzi said, adding that rezoning would not force additional services.
After debate the council took a roll‑call vote: Ardinger, Romero, Bridal (council president), Cormier and others supported the petition; Noseworthy, Shalifo Zephyr and Robbins opposed. The motion carried 6–3. The council chair noted the change covers under 1–2 percent of the overall development acreage and characterized the vote as bringing the map into conformity with current development.
The developer and council members who supported the measure said they expect no immediate changes in operations; those who opposed said they wanted a clear record from the building department and, if needed, a legal opinion on whether the rezoning could trigger different state requirements for assisted‑living facilities.
Next steps: the rezoning was approved by the council and will be processed per city procedures. The building inspector’s office was asked during the meeting to provide written clarification for the record but had not done so by the time of the vote.
