Commissioners describe planning‑board items: congregate living appeal, 190 Elm shelter, and a developer gap‑funding request
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Planning and zoning items discussed included a controversial congregate‑living proposal at 22 Hazel Street, the announced site for a mayoral homeless shelter at 190 Elm Street, and a developer seeking gap funding for a Willow Street affordable project; commissioners had limited information to act on the funding request.
The commission heard updates on several planning and zoning matters: a contested congregate‑living proposal at 22 Hazel Street, the city’s announced location for a homeless shelter at 190 Elm Street, and a developer’s request for housing trust or gap funding for a planned Willow Street affordable project.
Commissioners recounted that a recent planning‑board hearing on a proposed congregate‑living conversion at 22 Hazel Street drew strong neighborhood opposition. Neighbors and attorneys spoke against the conditional use permit, and the planning board tabled the item rather than approving or denying it. Commissioners said the proposal had been presented as a shared‑house alternative to apartments with roughly 14 private rooms; residents described concerns that it could operate like a sober living home.
Separately, commissioners noted that the mayor’s plan for a homeless shelter and medical respite will be located at the top floor of 190 Elm Street (the former train‑station building where Thrive operates). That announcement had been made at a recent mayoral meeting, commissioners said.
Commissioners also discussed a developer who has a variance for an affordable Willow Street project but lacks funds to finish permitting and site plan work. The developer sought gap funding from the city’s housing trust or a similar source to cover permitting and site plan costs estimated to run in the tens of thousands; commissioners said the developer did not provide detailed figures in email responses and that the commission does not control the housing trust purse strings. The commission requested more project details before taking any formal action and planned to note in its records that the request had been discussed.
No formal commission decisions on these planning matters were recorded at the meeting; commissioners asked staff to circulate additional materials where available and to invite applicants back if they seek formal commission assistance.