2026年6月4日弗拉明汉规划与分区小组委员会会议:Edmonds Road开发概念审查
2026年6月4日弗拉明汉规划与分区小组委员会会议:Edmonds Road开发概念审查
2026年6月4日下午6点,弗拉明汉规划与分区小组委员会召开会议,主要讨论J and Co.和Robert Foley联合提出的Edmonds Road地块开发概念。会议批准了3月18日和4月1日的会议记录,听取了开发商代表的全面介绍,包括交通、财政和基础设施研究,并接受了公众的广泛评论。小组委员会决定在6月10日继续讨论分区提案,并考虑将其提交至全体市议会。
同意日历
- 一致通过2026年3月18日和4月1日的会议记录。
公众评论与证词
- Tony(直接相邻业主):支持年龄限制社区,但建议全部改为自有住房;要求交通研究覆盖Edmonds Road超过Gennardi的路段,以准确反映高峰时段的拥堵。
- Carol McGarry(Edmonds Road居民):质疑密度比较,认为与Millwood Preserve等低密度开发更可比;批评项目将导致大量林地消失,呼吁保留南部14英亩林地并连接步道和公园。
- Herb Chasen:质疑180万美元年收入的可靠性,称其基于脆弱的学生生成假设,且未经城市独立验证;要求城市先进行收入回收审计,并考虑其他收入方案。
- Dan DuBay:支持项目,认为交通和学校影响较小;呼吁提升自有住房比例;希望确保开发承诺在后续得到落实。
- Kate P.(直接相邻业主):强调开发商已倾听社区意见,赞赏植被缓冲区和年龄限制设计;认为分区和开发协议应锁定关键特征,否则无法接受。
- Matthew Brown(人类关系委员会):询问哪些特征会通过分区和特别许可强制实施,哪些可能被更改;得到回复称分区、开发协议和特别许可条件将提供法律约束。
- Lisa Feldman(McAdams Road居民):询问180万美元占城市预算的比例,并质疑是否有其他更好的商业开发选项。
- Steve Kruger:引用人口数据,认为弗拉明汉已是周边密度最高的社区,不应再增加住房;呼吁全部年龄限制和自有住房,以降低学校和交通影响。
- Gail:担忧项目爆破对邻近房屋的影响;市议员Long解释了标准爆破缓解措施,包括预先检查和事后修复。
- Donna:支持尽快将方案提交至市议会进行信息性讨论,以澄清项目性质并区分于之前的MBTA提案。
讨论事项
- 项目历史与现状:市议员Christine Long介绍了项目背景,最初以1100单元出现并遭遇负面反应,后经MBTA分区讨论失败,现已缩减至357单元(200套年龄限制公寓、157套联排别墅)。她强调城市面临财政危机,需要经济发展和住房供应,并警告州立法趋势可能削弱地方规划控制。
- 开发商陈述:律师Jeff Roloffs代表项目团队,概述了开发概念、社区外展过程及提交的研究报告(交通、财政、基础设施)。他表示当前阶段仅寻求分区授权,而非项目批准,后续将经过特别许可和现场规划审查。
- 财政影响分析:Kyle Talente(RKG Associates)展示分析,预计项目每年为城市带来180万美元净财政收益,敏感度测试显示即使学生生成率高于预期,收益仍为正值。
- 公用事业评估:Nick Scully(VHB)表示水和污水管道容量充足,项目将形成管网环路,且该地块无湿地问题,雨水管理可在后续许可中解决。
- 交通评估:Rob Nagy(VHB)报告高峰小时新增115-132车次,现有基础设施基本可应对,但建议后续研究覆盖更广泛区域,包括Gennardi Road和McAdams Road等。
- 议员讨论:
- 市议员Ottaviani:支持项目,强调应通过谅解备忘录(MOU)锁定承诺;认可开发商信誉。
- 市议员Feeney:赞赏开发商调整方案,但要求更广的交通研究、扩大Knobscott公园,并确保开发协议的铁定约束力。
- 市议员Bruno:回顾MBTA分区错误,认为当前概念已大幅改善;强调信任已重新建立,但必须通过绑定协议保护居民利益。
- 市议员Arviani:同意项目改进,呼吁继续对话并确保分区和协议的可执行性。
- 下一步争论:在是否立即将分区提案提交全体市议会的问题上,小组成员存在分歧。最终决定6月10日(星期三)再次召开小组委员会,讨论分区文本,之后考虑提交市议会。
关键成果
- 小组委员会一致同意在2026年6月10日(星期三) 再次召开会议,专门讨论开发商提交的分区提议草案。
- 会议后,小组委员会将考虑将分区提案转发至全体市议会进行正式公开听证。
- 开发团队明确表示,分区一旦通过,所有后续开发必须遵守特别许可流程,且可通过开发协议锁定关键设计参数(如自有比例、公园改善等)。
- 本次会议未进行任何投票或做出具有约束力的决定。
Meeting Transcript
Haven't reached the hour of six o'clock. Um, I'm going to, and I believe just make sure we're recorded, and there's nothing going on here. Uh, yeah, okay. So we're in recording. All right. So I'm going to call to order the meeting of the planning and zoning subcommittee. Today's June 4th at 6 o'clock, 2026. Um, we have uh minutes of March 1st and April. Approved. Well, can I read the agenda first? Oh, that's right. I forgot you have to read the agenda. Yeah. Oh, wait a minute. So we have the minutes of draft minutes of March 18th and April 1st. So you should this incorrect notation here. Uh, followed by public participation, which will not include anything we're discussing tonight. Uh, and continue by the only reason we're meeting tonight, really, is old business J and Co. Edmunds Road concept plan, um, which um the attorney Jeff Roloffs will be doing the presentation, and uh then I will solicit public comment, mummer member reports and adjournment. And so on that note, I will ask for a uh motion to approve the minutes of motion to approve the minutes as presented. Yep, and I will second that. So all those in favor, Janet. Yes, yeah, Christine. Yes, so approved. And on that note, I'm just gonna preclude the uh well, we're here tonight to uh allow the developer's attorney for Edmonds Road parcel that is uh a joint venture with Jay and Co and uh Robert Foley to present uh all the information that's um has not been disseminated to the public. Little history on this project. I think the reason why this has gone off the rails from the get-go uh precipitated from the bad advice someone gave them uh to bring this in with 10 signatures on a petition to the city council years ago and to use an attorney that wasn't all that successful, typically with planning board matters or getting things done uh further to advance a project that had at that time I think it was over 1,100 units, which no one was interested in entertaining. So then we I'll go off to the MBTA zoning fiasco that the planning board brought in with the uh planning board member, former planning board member that recommended that Jay and Co. bring in 1,100 units back onto this site, which that failed miserably. So I think because the way this came across initially has created a lot of the negativity in the public. And I wish people and I want people, this is a listening session to learn and to make informed decisions because this community needs to do some planning. We have a very serious situation with a budget and with uh lack of revenue, lack of economic development. We have multiple studies that over the last five years have pointed to this parcel as being for multifamily housing. As probably all of you know, the state has been promoting that we increase our housing stock. And apparently, you know, we do need more housing. We need senior housing, we need housing that's affordable for younger people to move into for ownership. I think one of the problems with the presentation uh the last time we brought this forward just for the public edification. There's 357 units, but 200 of them are being promoted as uh rental. And I clearly let the developer know as a subcommittee also that we still would like a little bit of a reduction in the unit count if possible, and to flip the numbers on the rental and to create more housing that's for purchase that's affordable. And I know you know, value engineering, even with that, it's gonna be difficult getting um housing built that people can afford, but we've got to do something to fix our revenue problem. We have to work on economic development, and that's the former planning board chair and the planning board and the planning and zoning subcommittee chair, and I do planning where I work and work in development. Our zoning is outdated. Our master land use plan has not been updated. It should have been updated in 2025. Market conditions since all these reports have been made in 2020 and 2018 and 2019 have changed dramatically. But even then, they were pointing to multifamily housing on this particular site because that really is the highest and best use. And I know no one wants to hear that, or like a lot of people might not want to hear that. But this is a parcel that should be developed for housing. Having said that, if we don't take an opportunity to work with the developer as the public, as a residents, as a community members, we're going to lose the opportunity to create what we want on this property. If you leave it to chance, you may get something you really don't want.
openpublica.com