CHICOPEE — After hearing from multiple residents, the Zoning Committee denied a zone change for a Mill Conversion and Commercial Center Overlay.
The Zoning Committee met on July 31 to discuss a zone change application for a Mill Conversion and Commercial Center Overlay for the entire property located at 0 Chicopee St. and 445 Chicopee St.
Rebecca Li from R. Levesque Associates was at the meeting on behalf of the applicant, Chicopee Management Property LLC, to discuss the application.
The discussion about this property has spanned over months and has been broken into parts.
The original discussion took place at a May 29 Zoning Committee meeting where the property was approved to be changed from Business A and Residential A to Residential B.
Under Residential B, single family and duplex housing is allowed.
The Mill Conversion and Commercial Center Overlay change was also passed at the Zoning Committee meeting on May 29 but when sent to the City Council on June 4, it was voted to be sent back to the committee to discuss it again.
The zone is designed to help reuse or preserve underused or abandoned industrial properties and allows a variety of uses. Its purpose is to promote the economic health vitality of the city by encouraging the preservation, reuse and renovation of underutilized or abandoned industrial properties and commercial centers through mixed use development.
The change to a Mill Conversion Overlay district would allow for other buildings or businesses to be built on this property besides a single family or duplex.
Some past project examples that have been permitted through the same overlay district include the Assisted Living Facility next to the Senior Center, Chicopee Falls, redevelopment of the Baskin parcel, the Uniroyal property, former Belcher School property and recently a 14-unit condominium at 105 East St.
Multiple residents spoke during public comment to express their concerns with the proposed zone change. Concerns stated were about potential subsidized housing, rental housing, not knowing what will be built on the property, increased traffic. They all said they wanted it to stay Residential A.
During the public comment, Risa Teall, who is the personal representative to her mother’s estate, talked about the property. She said since 1965 the property has been commercial and when they put in 391, the traffic flow changed and it was difficult for the business to survive.
She added, “We have been paying taxes on this property, we have problems with the paper road, we’ve been doing everything we can so we can sell this property. That’s all we want to do. We do not have plans; we just want to sell it so we can close the estate.”
Teall said she was practically begging for the zone change so someone is enticed to buy the land that they have been eagerly trying to sell since her mother passed away three years ago.
“We have land, we want to sell, we work hard, we’re business people, we have a residential home there. Just let us sell this land. Someone else buy it so they can do all the planning they have to do to make that property something that this community can benefit from. I am hoping you do the right thing so we have closure,” Teall said.
The Zoning Committee ultimately voted 4-1 against the zone change. The property will stay Residential B for now.
The unfavorable recommendation from the Zoning Committee will be sent to the City Council and will be on the agenda for its Aug. 6 meeting. The City Council will have the final say on approving or denying the overlay district.
City Councilor At-Large member Timothy Wagner said he was “mostly” in agreement with the residents and said why he voted against the overlay district change.
He said, “With regards to how these properties are zoned now, I’m fine with leaving it Residential B, taking other options off the table. I think this is just a problem with American urban planning where we focus too heavily on cars and suburban neighborhoods and homes, and we don’t think about the people that need housing. People need people to live.”
Ward 8 City Councilor Gary Labrie, who originally voted yes for the overlay district at a past meeting, said he was going to vote against it after hearing the applicant is trying to sell the property and doesn’t want to develop it.
“I’m willing to keep it as Residential B so if someone else does buy the property and wanted to do something with it, then they would have to come in and see us,” Labrie added.
