The Framingham City Council discussed a proposed zoning amendment to add the council as the special‑permit granting authority for very large developments — defined in the draft as projects or complexes with a combined gross floor area above a large numerical threshold (the draft references 75,000 square feet). Councilors and residents debated whether the change would improve transparency and public oversight or create permitting delays and additional costs that could chill development.

Proponents said the council’s direct review would increase accountability for projects that carry city‑wide impacts. Donna Kilcoyne (public speaker) told the council that large projects “impact Framingham — traffic, schools, public safety and quality of life” and argued elected representatives should have a vote on those decisions rather than leaving them solely to an appointed planning board. Ron Chick, a resident, urged council oversight to ensure “transparency, accountability and proper planning” for large projects.

Opponents, including the Framingham Economic Development Corporation, warned that shifting large special permits to the council could add delays and costs. Rick McKenna, EDC executive director, said planning and permitting boards develop technical expertise and that adding a council review layer would “create unnecessary permitting delays and increased costs, discouraging developers.” Several councilors also raised concerns about the potential for campaign influence when large developers seek approvals, and asked how consultant support and technical review would be paid for if the council took on the role.

Legal timing and process were discussed in detail. City Solicitor Fallon explained that the zoning process imposes formal windows: if the council fails to vote within 90 days after the public hearing closes, the matter must be re‑advertised and re‑run through the planning board process. She cited the relevant statutory language as presented at the meeting and said the council’s decision window begins after the public hearing is closed.

Councilors asked the planning and development director (absent at this meeting) to provide a list of existing and proposed projects that would meet different square‑foot thresholds and to make a recommendation on the numeric threshold. Several councilors said they wanted to hear the planning director and other stakeholders before making a decision. The council voted to continue consideration of the amendment to Nov. 18 so members could review additional materials and hear from absent staff and stakeholders.

Why it matters: The proposal would shift final decision‑making on very large projects from appointed land‑use boards to the elected council. Supporters say that gives voters’ representatives direct oversight; opponents say it risks politicizing technical land‑use review, increasing developer costs and slowing project approvals.

Action taken: The council continued review and scheduled a follow‑up discussion for Nov. 18. Councilor Bryant moved the continuation motion; Councilor Lee seconded (record shows support); the continuation passed by a unanimous recorded vote (9–0) in the meeting record.

Next steps: Staff were asked to circulate a short list of local projects by square footage, confirm whether consultants would be available at developers’ expense, and arrange for the planning director and economic development staff to attend the Nov. 18 discussion.