OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Framingham Planning & Zoning Subcommittee Meeting - February 18, 2026

City Council — Wednesday, February 18, 2026
BodyFramingham, Massachusetts
SessionCity Council
DateWednesday, February 18, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:13:03

Transcript — Verbatim
0:39

Having reached the hour at six o'clock, I'm going to call the subcommittee on planning and zoning city council meeting to order.

0:48

And we are virtual tonight, and the information for the virtual meeting is uh to be found in the public meeting uh portal where all that information is held uh tonight.

1:01

Um I will call the meeting to order first because we're virtual.

1:04

Uh council and Bruno.

1:06

Yes.

1:06

Counselor Ivani.

1:08

Yes.

1:09

Counselor Long, yes.

1:10

We are in um now in order.

1:14

So tonight we will have uh first call to order, followed by the minutes, which I forgot to vote last time because we were busy reorganizing.

1:25

So the minutes of October 6th uh and December 17th, 2025, both uh followed by motional approval as presentation.

1:33

Second, I was gonna finish reading the agenda.

1:36

Oh public participation followed by old business order 2026 013, uh, which is upon request of Council Stefanini, a referral to the planning and zoning subcommittee uh for consideration of an ordinance to protect the integrity of our neighborhoods, zoning amendments to address large structures, uh followed by new business discussion on the knobscot uh Edmonds Road parcel, followed by memory reports and adjournment.

2:06

Now we'll take that motion on the minutes.

2:09

So move, madam.

2:10

Second.

2:11

Okay, all those in favor, Councilor Adviani.

2:14

Yes.

2:14

Councillor and Bruno?

2:15

Yes.

2:16

Councilor Long, yes.

2:17

So that's for both the minutes of October 8th and December 17th.

2:22

Okay.

2:22

Uh public participation and only if it's not relevant to what's on the agenda tonight.

2:29

Uh seeing no hands, I will go to the next order of business.

2:35

Uh the item of order 2026 013.

2:41

Um to have counselors' comments on that.

2:44

So basically, what's gone on with this is Councilor Stefanini presented an ordinance.

2:50

There were some issues with it.

2:51

Uh we I took it under review, as did the other members of this subcommittee.

2:57

And uh I know I spoke with uh our COO, who is a former building commissioner, as well as Fred Bray, and I did my own research and I came up with um some amendments to the table of uses under uh the G zone.

3:14

There's four categories that had to be changed to uh apply an 8A, a new section 8A in the table, or I should say a new footnote footnote 8A and the table of uses to uh prohibit any variance from being given on the property that's designated, and then under the dimensional regulation chart, we would change the FAR to a number that the council agrees on.

3:41

I recommend it anywhere from 0.35 to 0.40 so that it limits the size of the building um up to 40.

3:48

I think it's 4,000 square feet.

3:52

So do I have counselors' comments on that?

3:58

Councilor Adviani.

4:00

I'm I'm fine with moving it forward to the whole council.

4:02

I just I'd like to see that number a little bigger because if you think back to what you and Amanda did up at Clocks Hill, they're beautiful.

4:07

And those are all 22, 2300 square feet.

4:09

But they were a box, so they conform to zoning.

4:12

The garage was in the front, so they were built.

4:14

They didn't they didn't exceed, I want to say that most of them were 35 feet.

4:17

I don't even think they went to 40 feet, but they were 35 feet, they were tasteful, they look nice.

4:23

Um I I know why Council Stefanini is disappointed about Miller Ave as we all are.

4:28

However, I just I don't want to fix a problem that's going to help with that and take away all those other type of duplexes that we want to see in framing them.

4:36

So I'll just I'll go do a little field trip and take some pictures for our next meeting with the full council when this is on, and um we'll come up with a number that works for everybody, hopefully.

4:46

Right.

4:46

And those numbers are just recommendations.

4:48

Um they're subject to change.

4:50

And also don't forget in this zone includes commercial.

4:56

So G is not just residential, it's 40 feet for uh any kind of commercial building.

5:01

And I know counselor uh Stephanie had thought about wanting to change that, but personally, I would not recommend changing the height of a building for a commercial to reduce it to 35 because it's standard um throughout Framingham that all commercial buildings are allowed to be up to 40 feet.

5:21

So residential 35, commercial 40.

5:25

And then there's exceptions, obviously, in the uh downtown area, CB zone.

5:30

So having said that, I'll entertain a motion to recommend favorable action um to the council on this amendment to for a future public hearing date.

5:42

Second.

5:42

All right.

5:43

All this in favor, Councilor Leon Bruno.

5:45

Yes, Councilor Aviani.

5:48

Yes.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning████████████████████████████28%
Land Use Planning████████████████████20%
Community Engagement██████████10%
Public Participation████████8%
Parks and Recreation██████6%
Public Engagement█████5%
Education Funding█████5%
Senior Services████4%
Procedural███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Framingham Planning & Zoning Subcommittee Meeting - February 18, 2026

The subcommittee on planning and zoning of the Framingham City Council held a virtual meeting on February 18, 2026, to discuss two main items: an ordinance amendment to address large structures (Order 2026-013) and a conceptual residential development plan for the Knobscot/Edmonds Road parcel. The meeting included public comment, disclosures from councilors, and discussion of next steps.

Consent Calendar

  • The minutes of October 6, 2025 and December 17, 2025 were approved unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Herb Tasson, representing residents, stated that 165 residents formally opposed the 416-unit conceptual plan, citing traffic, infrastructure, and scale concerns. He requested a full impact review and alternatives consistent with existing zoning.
  • Stuart (resident off Carter Drive) raised concerns about lack of grocery stores in the area and the need for a comprehensive traffic study for the Knobscot corner.
  • John Mastrobatista questioned who decides to override the will of the people, stating the neighborhood overwhelmingly opposes the scale.
  • Jerry Bloomfield asked about the developers (J Co) and landowners, questioned the density, and urged preservation of open space.
  • Carol McGarry noted the property meets open space plan criteria for ecological, recreational, and scenic value, and suggested the city explore acquiring the land for park expansion.
  • Lisa Feldman (and later Scott Feldman) opposed density, questioned housing need given recent economic changes, and emphasized fire safety concerns in multi-unit buildings.
  • Elaine Murphy asked about the process for getting answers to unanswered questions. Councilor Long explained the meeting is preliminary and questions should be directed to appropriate authorities.
  • Bob Murray challenged the developer's student generation estimates (0.05 students per unit), arguing they are misleading.
  • John Brannigan supported more housing but stressed the need for pedestrian/bike access to the village center to reduce car dependency.
  • Mr. Epstein argued for detailed bedroom counts to accurately estimate school impacts and questioned whether the development would net revenue for the city, citing a cautionary example from Braintree.
  • Councilor Feeney (District 3) expressed concerns that the density (416 units) is too high for the village, asked for details on open space calculation and Knobscot Park expansion, and urged alignment with the city's economic development plan.

Discussion Items

  • Order 2026-013 (Large Structures Ordinance): Councilor Long presented amendments to the table of uses in the G zone, adding a new footnote (8A) to prohibit variances, and proposed a floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 0.35 to 0.40. Councilor Aviani expressed preference for a slightly higher FAR to allow duplexes like those at Clocks Hill. After discussion, a motion to recommend favorable action to the full city council was approved unanimously.
  • Knobscot/Edmonds Road Conceptual Plan: Attorney Jeff Roloffs presented the concept for a residential-only development on approximately 30 acres, including 416 units (mix of townhomes and multifamily buildings), 65% open space, traffic generation estimates (145–205 peak hour trips), and projected student generation (31–36 students depending on age restrictions). Councilor Long noted the need for less density and more ownership units; Councilor Aviani advocated for age-restricted, single-level units in the mid-rise buildings; Councilor Lee and Bruno supported senior housing and wanted fewer rentals. The subcommittee emphasized that the density (15 units per acre) was too high and asked the developer to revise the concept before preparing formal zoning provisions.

Key Outcomes

  • Minutes approved (October 6, 2025 and December 17, 2025) unanimously.
  • Order 2026-013 was recommended favorably to the full city council by a unanimous vote (3-0). The motion included the proposed FAR range (0.35–0.40) and the new footnote 8A.
  • For the Knobscot/Edmonds Road parcel: No vote was taken. The developer agreed to revise the conceptual plan, addressing concerns about density, traffic, open space, and unit mix (especially increasing ownership and senior housing). A follow-up informal subcommittee meeting will be scheduled once a revised concept is submitted.
  • Disclosures were read by Councilor Lee and Bruno and Councilor Aviani, each stating they have no financial conflict of interest and that prior ethics complaints were dismissed.

Meeting Transcript

Having reached the hour at six o'clock, I'm going to call the subcommittee on planning and zoning city council meeting to order. And we are virtual tonight, and the information for the virtual meeting is uh to be found in the public meeting uh portal where all that information is held uh tonight. Um I will call the meeting to order first because we're virtual. Uh council and Bruno. Yes. Counselor Ivani. Yes. Counselor Long, yes. We are in um now in order. So tonight we will have uh first call to order, followed by the minutes, which I forgot to vote last time because we were busy reorganizing. So the minutes of October 6th uh and December 17th, 2025, both uh followed by motional approval as presentation. Second, I was gonna finish reading the agenda. Oh public participation followed by old business order 2026 013, uh, which is upon request of Council Stefanini, a referral to the planning and zoning subcommittee uh for consideration of an ordinance to protect the integrity of our neighborhoods, zoning amendments to address large structures, uh followed by new business discussion on the knobscot uh Edmonds Road parcel, followed by memory reports and adjournment. Now we'll take that motion on the minutes. So move, madam. Second. Okay, all those in favor, Councilor Adviani. Yes. Councillor and Bruno? Yes. Councilor Long, yes. So that's for both the minutes of October 8th and December 17th. Okay. Uh public participation and only if it's not relevant to what's on the agenda tonight. Uh seeing no hands, I will go to the next order of business. Uh the item of order 2026 013. Um to have counselors' comments on that. So basically, what's gone on with this is Councilor Stefanini presented an ordinance. There were some issues with it. Uh we I took it under review, as did the other members of this subcommittee. And uh I know I spoke with uh our COO, who is a former building commissioner, as well as Fred Bray, and I did my own research and I came up with um some amendments to the table of uses under uh the G zone. There's four categories that had to be changed to uh apply an 8A, a new section 8A in the table, or I should say a new footnote footnote 8A and the table of uses to uh prohibit any variance from being given on the property that's designated, and then under the dimensional regulation chart, we would change the FAR to a number that the council agrees on. I recommend it anywhere from 0.35 to 0.40 so that it limits the size of the building um up to 40. I think it's 4,000 square feet. So do I have counselors' comments on that? Councilor Adviani. I'm I'm fine with moving it forward to the whole council. I just I'd like to see that number a little bigger because if you think back to what you and Amanda did up at Clocks Hill, they're beautiful. And those are all 22, 2300 square feet. But they were a box, so they conform to zoning. The garage was in the front, so they were built. They didn't they didn't exceed, I want to say that most of them were 35 feet. I don't even think they went to 40 feet, but they were 35 feet, they were tasteful, they look nice. Um I I know why Council Stefanini is disappointed about Miller Ave as we all are. However, I just I don't want to fix a problem that's going to help with that and take away all those other type of duplexes that we want to see in framing them. So I'll just I'll go do a little field trip and take some pictures for our next meeting with the full council when this is on, and um we'll come up with a number that works for everybody, hopefully. Right. And those numbers are just recommendations. Um they're subject to change. And also don't forget in this zone includes commercial.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com