Speaker 1: Those of you following at home to comment or ask a question, use your raise your hand features. If you are on a phone, press star nine. An individual wishing to speak during public speak or during a public hearing must display their first and last name on the screen before their microphone can be unmuted. To make changes in your name as it appears on the screen in Zoom, click on participants to open the participant's menu. Hover your cursor over your entry and click on more. Click on rename and type in your first and last name.
So is there anyone here or online who is seeking to speak in public speak? Speaker 2: Kevin Speaker 1: And I don't. Seeing no one. We will then move forward with the, the first agenda item development and review the public hearing for 52 Everett Street and team. This is nice. We kind of we're equal size groups, I call it. That makes it a fair fight. So
Speaker 2: I count four on our side. Speaker 1: Well, Speaker 2: But that's almost equal. I mean when the, considering the Ben is Speaker 1: Such a, Speaker 2: He's such a personnel there in the level of personality I got. I Speaker 3: Got a bad wing though. You know, Speaker 1: We don't count your arms separate. Okay. So here we are. Speaker 3: Thank you. If it's okay, I'll just do a quick, quick update. I'm here with attorney Mark Kalac, Matt Stevens from Trask and I think Trevor O'Leary is out there for some plan updates. Yes. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 3: If you recall last time
we talked a little bit, we did our traffic report. At this meeting we have updated our plan set. I've had further discussions with the butters on both sides, both about landscaping, but also I've had abut discussions with the four butters on the offsite sidewalk. And some reason Speaker 4: This time my, my landing, Speaker 3: Sorry. And we did, in our discussions with the abutters and sort of our layout and our incorporating the landscape plan, we did go from 16 units to 15 units.
We changed one of the units out front to a single family. It's very prominent. It's not the longer unit on the east side, it's the, the 90 degree turn on the west side. And, but it's a very prominent view, especially as you travel west. So that was kind of in our thinking, some discussions with neighbors, so on and so forth. So we made that decision and we lost one unit and it was one of our larger units. We had four larger units and 12 of the 2000 square foot units, we now have three larger units and 12 of the
'cause of the, the 25% criteria essentially rolled that number down by, well Speaker 1: They'll call them the standard units. Speaker 3: Correct. And then I, at the last meeting we talked a little bit about sort of updating the, our opinion Mark Hale's opinion letter was submitted and put onto the record about the board's authority or review of the special permit for the unit count. And I'm happy to sort of turn that over to Mark or however the board like to handle it.
And then we'll proceed with the plan layouts with, with Trevor. Speaker 1: Okay. Great. Attorney Kala? Speaker 5: Yes, good evening. Mark Kala. As Ben mentioned in the hearing, the initial hearing back in August, there was a question about density and how did we arrive at this density and what authority does the planning board have to approve this density? And some of that question I, I think was coming from the audience participation at the time who expressed concerns about density so that it resulted in me drafting a letter of September four,
which has been submitted to the record. And where where is that letter? It's on the, the Natick portal. Speaker 6: It's not in our packet. Speaker 1: Lemme take, did you look sorry, Amanda's is is it, is there a copy in our, I'll look. Lemme take a second. I know it's not new today, but Speaker 5: No, it's, it's maybe, maybe two weeks a week ago. Okay. Speaker 1: Let me take a look. Speaker 5: It's about three or four or five up on the portal list. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 6: Didn't mean to interrupt Speaker 5: You. Sure. You wanna located or should I continue? Keep going.
No, please continue. The, so the, the, the, the genesis of density is, is reflective in the bylaw language, open space bylaw section three dash F, which has been amended over a period of time and we're now dealing with the most recent version of that. And the, the density calculation basically has two kind of criteria that I think are at issue here. One is the concept of rounding up, where does that come from? And the other concept is some type of density bonus.
So those are the two that are, I think are at play here. And they are, i I would say reflective of the history of the open space provisions. So the rounding up is a, is a concept that is currently in the bylaw with respect to the calculation of the required number of affordable units. And it has been a practice of this board in prior applications of this applicant and in other applicants in terms of, well what's the minimum
or maximum density allowed you go through this mathematical criteria and if you get a fraction of a unit, you have in the past rounded up and in the examples in the prior version of this by law that is in fact what happened. So I think it's a, it's a matter of practice, it's a matter of bylaw interpretation. And you have similar provisions for rounding up currently with respect to the inclusionary section of your bylaw. The second part of this is the density bonus. Again, that is somewhat reflective of the past history
of the bylaw. The prior version of the open space flexible development bylaw had various numerical calculations based on the square footage of the unit that you were proposing. And you would either multiply it by one or one point, 1.1 or 1.2 to come up with a calculation based on the, the, the, the square footage of the unit. And I think the idea was at the time, and the prior version of the bylaw was that if you were building a smaller unit, you were encouraged to build a smaller unit and you might get more units if you built smaller units.
That is not acknowledging in the current draft of the open space bylaw, there is not that type of numerical mathematical bonus provision. But it has been part of your past practice. It was part of the bylaw previously, it was part of permit decisions that you have issued more recently on the current wording of the bylaw. And it, and, and, and I think ultimately what you have in the current bylaw is a subjective discretion of the board to
grant additional density for projects that you believe meet the criteria of increasing housing production in the town while affording concern for mitigation to the neighborhood and the production of open space. So you are enabled under the current bylaw, which doesn't have these multiplying factors in it to grant waivers from the density calculation by a fourth fifths vote. And you would do it on a project by project basis if you thought that the, the project that is being proposed
provided for housing and met the criteria for mitigation to the neighborhood in open space production. And that provision is in the current version of the open space bylaw and it is at the tail very end of the section. So we would in fact be asking for a waiver here to go from the initial calculation to the ultimate number, which was originally 16, but is now proposed at 15. Speaker 1: Thank you. You stop there for questions.
Okay, great. Peter, Speaker 2: In rounding up when we get to, you're at 15, let's say you're going and and you're looking, you get to a number just above 15. Like if you're, let me use an working with numbers one through 10 and you are just one above the primary number. Do you go up to 10 if you only are at one as opposed to, let's say going up at, if you're adding up to five, do you go up to 10, which is that much closer to the 10?
I'm just, I'm saying this very poorly I think, but I'm trying to figure out at what point you can begin to, you can start rounding up when you are adding up and then you get to just over whatever. Okay. The primary is when do you Yeah, Speaker 5: Jump 'cause in, in in basic math class, if you were at 14.3 you would use 14. But if you're at 14.7, you would go to 15. Thank Speaker 2: You very much. Yeah. Speaker 5: So yes, the examples in the past bylaw have always
rounded up to the next hole integer. So if you were at a fraction over 14.1, you would go to 15. Speaker 1: Could I make Speaker 5: And the same would apply for inclusionary housing. If Ben triggers 2.1 inclusionary housing units, it would be rounded up to three. Speaker 1: Peter, may I just Speaker 2: Absolutely, I'm through. I I got my answer. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. I guess my question is, I understand why we round up on things like inclusionary units and that is because our goal is to have
as many inclusion arguments as we can. It is in, it's in the interest of our kind of mission with having this model as the, that we do. But I, I'm not sure I I see quite as clearly or certainly as strongly about kind of rounding it up because there's a practice, you cited the practice using affordable housing units. I get why we do it for that. I don't, I I am I'm not fully taken with the argument for something that is in fact not
and not in the mission per se of, of the, the particular project. Speaker 5: Well, I I I don't disagree that this is a discretionary provision. All I can say is that there's some value in producing housing units. It is a, it is a discretion that you have under the bylaw to award density. You have done it in the past and, and we would simply be asking for it here. I was just trying to give you some historical perspective on where this rounding up has originated and, and how mathematically it has been applied. In other words, 14.1 gets you to 15,
14.7 gets you to 15 and that's how it's been applied in the past. But in the end, at the end of the day, the only density we can argue by, by the, the core permit standards here is 12. Speaker 3: And I, I think we, we always recognize that, which is why we, for lack of a better word, we're embracing whatever improvements offsite that weren't necessarily a requirement. And I understand the logic if we were needing a variance on our open space requirement or needing a variance on our setback between units
or a variance setbacks to neighbors or some other variance. But I think we tried to make the argument that the project as it stands as it looks, will not be a very different project whether it's 12 units or 15 units. But the project, after we complete the sidewalk, complete the waterline extension complete the offsite sidewalk and the fact that there's only three of the larger units holds merit on its own. And which is why we explored some of the more expensive offsite things. 'cause we recognize it. It was an ask of this board
and we still recognize it's an ask. So, Speaker 1: And, and when you say, you know, 12 having the additional units is for all intents and purposes the same. And I take it you mean that someone go walking by casually would not necessarily reali it wouldn't be apparent that there are that many more units? Speaker 3: I don't think the scope of the entire project would change much. You want to, if someone walked through the project and counted units, it might change, but I don't think the scope of the project would change much, whether it's the 12 units or the 15 units especially.
'cause you're not adding any more larger units. We're well over the percentages on open space. So there's never an open space conflict. Right. There was never an abutter conflict because the treatment of the, of the two direct abutters wouldn't change. And that's why we kind of had discussion long discussions with both of them to make sure they were comfortable with the project and adding some screening. But yes, that was, that's kind of our, I mean it's similar into south, the south Main Street project in that the number of units at South Main Street, once you've got back in the woods, wasn't as important as all the other factors of the development.
And so when I read your interpretation of that project, I agreed with your interpretation. 'cause the blast work and, and getting back there to do the project is the, is the essence of that project. Not whether it's 10 units or 20 units once you get back there. And what I'm trying to do is make the similar argument here. It wouldn't work at every site, it's, it, it's a site specific condition. But we have a field, we're not ex we're not clearing more forests to add these more units. So that's, that's our hope, that's our argument for the, for the variance. And we, we recognized it was gonna come as a cost, which is why we went into the offsite sidewalk
and the water line, the water department asked us to essentially run the 16 inch water line right down the front. So Speaker 2: I got it. One little Speaker 1: P Peter. Yes, yes. And then I I my apologize, then I'll turn it over to the rest Speaker 2: Of the board. I just wanted to point out why I asked the question was because the layman listening to this and asked me, a couple of people have, a couple of people have asked me the question, how do they get from 14.1 rounding up to 15? And I think you've just mentioned the add-ons or the, the things that were asked of you to in expanding
the work in the project that is not seen, it's not known. It's it's there and it's improving the project, but it's such a subtlety that people can only deal, the layman can only deal with the hard number of 14, one goes to 15. But I think you explained how it works and how it works. Well. Speaker 1: Okay. You thank you Doug. Speaker 7: I mean, I guess I asked for the, for the written, you know, explanation here. And I, I appreciate you giving that. I don't know, it's hard to walk back precedent and I think two 16 to 18 South Maine was, you know,
like you said, it was a reasonably argued decision. So on one hand I, I'm fine with the logic. I I agree with it. I think I stated at the first hearing, I'm not one to, you know, haggle over one unit or two units. I think I, I am a housing advocate and I think we wrote the bylaw and the way we wrote it and you submitted a plan that I think complies with the spirit and the intent of it. And I'm fine. I just wanna make sure you feel it's a defensible argument.
'cause there are, you know, there are repeals and other things that, you know, would've to stand. So that's my comment. Speaker 5: Any understood. Okay. Yeah, I mean, just to be clear it, this, this density would require a waiver and we, that waiver needs a four fifths vote and that is part of the application. And, and with that we do feel comfortable. Andy, Speaker 8: Thank you. I I, this is the first time I'm seeing this memo. So I'm really frustrated that I, it looks like it was dated September 4th, but I'm reading it for the first time.
So I'm at a bit of a disadvantage. I understand that we start with 12 units. There can be a 10% waiver, which gets you to 13.2, then we round up to 14. Would you mind explaining again how we get from 14 with a bonus up to 16 and then down to 15? Could you just go through that bonus part one more time in Speaker 5: September? Yeah, so the, the additional two to go from 14 to 16 is solely based on the discretion that the board has to waive criteria under the bylaw. So that's in, in the, in the new bylaw wording,
that's section three F Speaker 8: 10, Speaker 5: You, so it, there's no, there's no justification for, for 16 that we can argue if you don't grant that waiver. Thank you. Speaker 8: Well, since I'm not really prepared, I'm gonna probably end up stating two or three contradictory things. One, I agree that a person driving or walking by probably won't be able to tell the difference between 12 and 16 units. 'cause I'm assuming that if the number became 12, the units would become larger to make up the, the, the difference of, you know, what you'd end up selling them
for, which affects the profitability of a project. And I still think this is a very clever design. So probably the truth is people won't end up knowing whether it is 12, 14, or 16 units. So I, I'm, I'm acknowledging that. The second thing I'll say is I, I really dislike this notion of this discretionary decision making. It's, it's very inconsistent. It's very subjective. It'll have a board like ours arguing amongst itself about what the right choice is. So I think I would probably be tempted to avoid the discretionary part where you get to
waive certain parts of it. And I think I would probably stick with the 10% bonus, which would get you to 14. And my justification for that is it is a nice project. I like the open space, I like the trails, I like the things that go into it. And I, I think that it is, I think it is justified to, to create housing. But I I I think I'm wrestling with the two additional because it's just based on a discretionary feeling and that's subjective. And one person can say yes and one person can say no. So I, I, I wish I had, the sooner that I could think a little bit more about it,
I'm leaning towards 14 as opposed to 16. But like Mr. Landry just said, one or two units doesn't affect traffic account. It, it doesn't, it, it really has no impact on it. May, maybe the argument could be made that the units would be a little smaller and maybe they would come to market at a lower price, you know, couple tens, 20 thousands of dollars. I don't know. So I'm, I'm interested to hear what my other board members think. I'll, I'll just say that I'm just not, I I'm not a big fan of the discretionary vote. I just feel like it's, it's just hard to make a concrete judgment on that.
Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. So any further comments to that or Sure. Or to Myers? Speaker 9: Yeah, I think so Doug, sorry. As far as the extra unit, I would've argued over it because I didn't just generally didn't like the fact of rounding then rounding on top of rounding. But I think the fact that now we have kind of dropped down a unit, I think I'm comfortably comfortable in general with the, I guess the original 13. So I probably would've been an argument with the 14, but I think 13 seems to kind of fit within our bylaw.
I don't know if we had justification to go higher than that. I would like more discussion about those extra two units between, I I think I'm in the same position of Andy where I, I feel like it would be, I need to be sold, I guess, or, or I mean maybe even other people on the board might have more experience. I'm the new guy, so, you know. Speaker 1: Well I, I will say that I, it wasn't, it wasn't like the first rounding up that that startled me. We've all done that. It was the kind of the iteration of rounding ups that, that made this such a,
such a significant difference. And I found it, I was very startled by it because I, I can only speak for myself, but I would say that certainly wasn't what I would have intended in the interpretation of it to kind of round up multiple times and, and build it up that way. And, and to my earlier point, I, it is different if, if it is gonna be rounding up that gets us more affordable units, then there's a rationale because of the principles that we're trying to follow.
So I, I have less of a, of an inclination to do that. But Speaker 5: So just a point of clarification because I think we're, as I've listened to the various board members comment, there's a little bit of a a, a subtle distinction between the unit count. So the unit count that we're entitled to based on strict math is, is 12. The initial roundup on that, which is 10% gets due to 13.2, which is 14, not 13. Speaker 9: I am sorry the, let me pull back up your memory.
You are at 11.17, correct? Right. Speaker 5: But because remember there's two issues at play here. One is the, the round, the concept of rounding up and that has always been always to the next whole integer. Okay. Okay. And then the other concept is this kind of 10% bonus. So, so, so we're at 12 10% bonus gets you to 13.2 rounded up as 14. Speaker 9: Yeah, I think that's taking it a step too far, frankly. Okay. You're rounding on top of rounding Speaker 5: That's entirely consistent with past practice.
That's, that's no discretionary subjective calculation there. Do you Speaker 1: Remember the case, the case for which that was, that you're referring to? And I'm just trying try 'cause I want Speaker 5: The concepts of rounding up. Speaker 1: That's where specifically that that that was something that we had done. Speaker 5: Not you've done it, you've done it for this applicant in prior open space applications. You've, you've, you did it on the application for 2 16, 2 18. You had it reflected in your examples in the prior bylaw interpretations. And there's nothing in the current bylaw
that says you've undone that practice. There's nothing in the current bylaw that goes through the mathematical analysis, which says that if you get to 13.4, you round down it's not there. So this would be, this would be a, a rewrite not only of the wording of the bylaw, but past practice and past decisions. Speaker 3: Yeah. And I think if I could, this bylaw, this new version of the bylaw has only been used once and that was two 16 South Main Street, which had I think probably about a 30% density bonus. And I understood the argument for that.
But it was substantial 'cause they had the same zoning, they're the same acreage in the same zoning district as I am. And that's a 32 unit project that does not, thes does not justify the means. And I recognize that. So when we looked at this project, we said this is not a 32 unit location. You know, if, if it's just not, we knew the environmental impact, but their RSB we're RSB, they're 7.5 acres, we're 7.5 acres. It's just, I understood they went for a smaller unit type and because they weren't not really street facing, it represented one thing.
I looked at our project and said, what a, you know, what is appropriate for this site and what can this site bring to the rest of Natick in exchange for this density? And that's when we started to look at the sidewalk. That's when we started to look at the water line extension. And these are not, these are three, four, $400,000 items at the end of the day that we now have gotten permission from the neighbors to do, which I think is a great improvement. And we knew that was gonna be a requirement if we were gonna have this ask, we knew there would be, what can we do for this particular area in, in exchange for this ask.
And I'm, I follow zoning rewrites and I think you, I think what you guys did at West Central is spectacular, but what you did, it's, there's no density calculations. Each unit has to have x it has to have open space, it has to have reserved open space. The project has to have open space and it has to have parking. You can do that in five units or you can do that in maybe 15 units. But what you specifically didn't do was take the square footage and divide it by X to get you a unit count. And I applaud you for that. 'cause that is the direction zoning should be going. If you can provide X, A, B, C, D, and E
and still not affect the neighbors, then it doesn't matter whether you do five units or you do 15 units. That's, that's sort of what that zoning will allow. And I think that's smart and that's kind of what we're trying to show here is this, this parcel fit 15 to 16 units. Well without touching the back land with having more open space and providing some amenities for, for that area, whatever we could do for that area. So Speaker 5: That Speaker 3: Was our argument. Speaker 5: Well, and just to follow up on that point, 'cause it, it gets to the, the concern that Mr. Meyer stated about this kind of second discretionary add-on
Speaker 3: Extra two units Speaker 5: Yeah. From 14 to 16. Yep. Which in this case now is back down to 1515 and, and that is that it's discretionary and does that present subjective issues for this board? Absolutely. But it also gives you the power which you applied in the 2 16 2 18 Main Street project and which you can apply here if you think it makes sense. In other words, has this applicant for this property in this project gone through design elements,
landscaping elements, offsite improvements, such that it really has mitigated the, the concerns that you have relative to the additional two units in this case. One to the point where you're gonna get another housing unit in the town and, and you still get a project that you, you feel is, is not only defensible but good and you make that decision and, and is it a subjective one? Yes. Have you done it before? Yes. Speaker 1: Have we turned people down for it in other instances?
Speaker 5: Yes. Speaker 10: Just, just to kind of get everything balanced. Yeah. Speaker 1: So Speaker 3: We Okay. Going through the plan now to sort of that would, Speaker 1: That would be good. Speaker 3: Yeah, I think so, right. Trevor's up. Speaker 11: All right, let share my screen here. Gimme one second. Speaker 12: Oh, Speaker 11: Alright. Can everybody see my screen? Speaker 12: Yes. Speaker 3: Yep. Alright. Speaker 11: Trevor O'Leary with MGD Plus we're working on the architectural side of this project. I I think everybody here is familiar with the site. You know, I think we've, we've come here for a few meetings, but just to give you kind of a, a scope of it, we're,
we're tucked in between Everett Street and Elliot Street. Again, the majority of the development work is going, going to be on the front side of the, the parcel with the back, getting a few new trails and public access space to utilize that back portion. As Ben mentioned at the beginning of the, the meeting here, there's been a few adjustments on the site plan. Most notably would be the reduction of the duplex that we had on the front right corner of the site along Everett Street that now has been reduced to a single family house in order to, to make the look
more consistent with the, the feel of the, of, of Everett Street as you go down the street, both the houses along Everett Street will be, will have front porches and we'll, we'll provide that historic farmhouse feel that, that both Everett Street and, and South Natick is, is is known for. As we can see, a couple other revisions that we have to the plan. We've also reduced the, the number of duplexes throughout the whole plan, splitting the other two units on, on the right side, which are a little bit more visible from Cottage Street.
By splitting that it does, it does two things. It gives the impression of Les density from the entrance point on Everett, but it also helps us to tuck the cars back in between the buildings, reducing the number of cars that can be seen from the entrance drive as you, you come into the development. From there, we've also made some minor adjustments to the, the front elevations and the architectural aspects, which we'll we'll get into in a minute on, on each of the units. Most specifically the two front facing units along Everett Street. As we look here, we've added a couple of different iterations of unit types
through the development in order to add some diversity to the housing types and unit types, both along Everett Street and within the, the, the development itself. As you can see, the two unit types that we have on the, on the bottom, those are gonna be, and then the top left corner, those are gonna be the unit types that are visible from Everett Street. You've got unit type H will be the single family home that was replacing the duplex. You can see from a scale and size, you know, it's, it's significantly smaller than the prior duplex that was provided in location before.
And then the, the top left corner is going to be the other duplex along Everett Street, which is gonna provide a nice end view when, when coming down Cottage Street. Looking at this development from a rendering perspective, you can see here we've got the two images, one from both from Cottage Street looking at the proposed development. In addition to the, the unit adjustments, which you can see here, additional architectural features have been added to these units to include more trim work, more col,
you know, more decorative columns, additional shutters being added to this to provide a more traditional New England charm to these units, which is more consistent to what we see along Everett Street. In, in addition to that, we've added landscaping elements to this to help screen the development from Everett Street. With this, we've added street trees along Everett that'll provide, you know, the consistent rural nature of the street. We've also added a few decorative trees, which will help provide a presence as,
as we enter the development. You can see here as, as, as Ben had mentioned, the overall scope and scale, the development of the development. It will remain the same again. We'll, we'll have our single family that's gonna be cornering the, the far right side of the development along average street. We'll have the two duplexes, which are, have the middle portion where our garages are that are rear facing and will be loaded in from the circle, but still provide a, a cohesive look that makes this look like two single families from the street. We've also spent some time putting together a,
a landscape plan for this. As you can see, there's, you know, the, the street trees that we've added along Everett Street is gonna help provide additional screening for these units while providing a more decorative nature to the street frontage. From there we've got a, a fieldstone retaining wall, which we had shown you from last time. That retaining wall is going to help provide additional screening from our properties to the, the neighboring properties on, on the left side. As Ben mentioned earlier in this presentation, the conversations with both neighbors on the left side and right side have happened and,
and additional screening through this plan has been added in order to help screen this development and provide privacy between both lots. In addition to that, the majority of this site is open field and very little wooded area will be disturbed with this development. Most of our wooded area would be in the back and access to that will be through this, this walking trail, which has been provided and will provide a whole loop in the rear portion of the site. All of our planting is, is consistent with planting that you would see along Everett Street.
Currently the intention here is to use native plants that are gonna grow well and, and be hearty within this area and will again provide a nice natural screening between these buildings and, and the streetscape. And from there you can see here the, the entranceway looking at the buildings again, looking at the New England style architectural vernacular, which is gonna be cohesive and consistent with the, the rest of the street and surrounding neighborhood. Happy to answer any questions that come up. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 3: I could just add one
thing, just a clarification. The stone wall in the front of the project does not really a retaining wall. It's, it's, we've done the drainage calculation so we know the elevation of the calex and the sidewalk when we put the new sidewalk in out front be at elevation 7 1 72 and right behind the wall is about 1 73 to 1 74 on top of the calex. And right now that's a a a field. So I think in our previous iteration we had more of a wall
of trees and we, we switched that up to more of an open field and that whole front field will be the drainage system, but it isn't really, the wall on the front's not retaining much. The wall against the neighbors is, that's a two and a half foot wall with plantings. We did switch 'em up from the ABER to, we've labeled a mixture of evergreens. So that will be about a two and a half foot retaining wall because of the water table going to the back of the property with plantings on it. But all the units are essentially flat. There's no walkouts, there's no exposed basement windows.
Everyone's got a patio, there's no decks. So every unit is about, the first floor elevation is about two foot higher than the ground elevation around the unit. So no, no crazy grade changes if you will. And just, I did talk to the neighbor on the right. We do have some significant maples in there that we're going to keep. And then I say I, I talked to them a little bit about once we took out the invasives, we would sort of replant underneath based upon warehouses. Were gonna sit between the two of us and they were fine with that. So. Speaker 1: So on the issue of decks, is that something that it will be in the HOA, like an HOA covenant?
Speaker 3: Well it's all built. So what we'll have is, like we did before, we had provisions against expansions of decks, we would allow expansions with board approval of patios. But we can also limit that too. That's not an issue on the condo docs, not really the HOA but, okay. Speaker 5: Yes. Would, we would typically put restrictions and standards in the, the master deed for the condominium Speaker 2: Is the ownership of the unit foundation. Speaker 5: So it, under the condominium structure it would typically be a walls in ownership
and maintenance requirements can vary condominium to condominium. So Ben and I haven't advanced that discussion yet in terms of whether the unit owner would be, would be responsible for painting the exterior, for example, in 10 years or whether that would be a condominium association responsibility. But typically it, the ownership is walls in. Speaker 2: Alright, I know that just mine, it's the, the painting, the exterior is association and I think that makes it a whole lot easier than having
some independent owner painters unit who knows what. Yeah, Speaker 3: Correct. Speaker 2: I thought I had another now that, that oh well the deck though, in our case, the deck would be an association at it would be belonged to the association. That's why the foundation, Speaker 5: So what is likely the case in your situation and will be the case here. The, the deck is considered a limited common element for which you have exclusive use. And so it's, it's actually owned by the condominium association and, and,
and it's to your exclusive use for your portion of the, of the deck. The, and so anytime you do modifications to that, like if you want to replace the pavers or expand it or, or, or, or, or build some type of gazebo on top of it, you would need, typically need the approval of the condominium trust to do that. And and that would certainly be the case here. And in a lot of instances, again, Ben and I haven't discussed this specifically, but in a lot of instances there would be a prohibition if
you had a, if you had a surface paved patio, there would be a prohibition on doing any type of vertical construction on that patio. Speaker 2: Well your primary floor is pretty much at grade level, just a little bit above grid, correct. Speaker 3: Yep, yep. Yeah. Speaker 2: So no one's gonna build. Well Speaker 3: No, but we've, we've run into that with people requesting structures and if it classified as structure now you're into offsets. And so we, we disallowed structures in our condominiums documents and, and, and we make sure that the landscape materials placement care is also condo
association so no one can wholesale change things or you know, remove things they don't like that sort of thing. But that's pretty typical for this type of project. Speaker 1: Amanda, any thoughts, observations, comments? Okay, thank you. Yes and yes Alan, Speaker 9: I just wanna talk about really the retaining wall along the, I guess the east side of the property in the south and mostly because it's right on the property line. So let's talk about the east one first. So are you, is your property higher or lower than the neighbors? Speaker 3: We are higher. We're right now we're slightly, we kind
of go down a little bit, but we're almost level right now. Okay. Speaker 9: So will this require any work on their property? Speaker 3: No, no. The wall will be, we'll treat the wall like we would a fence, which means we'll be one foot in. Okay. And I discussed with the abutter on that side, I said, you're gonna have one foot of grass that is gonna look like it's your grass. It's not, but if you don't cut it, no one else will. So they were fine with that. Speaker 9: Okay. And generally they're fine with the wall? Speaker 3: Yeah, there's an area in the back that there's trees and we sort of looked at that
and said we may adjust the wall if some of those trees are worth keeping. It was similar to the right where a lot of invasive, a lot of understory, we gotta kind of go at it together and we agreed to do that. Speaker 9: So, and that wall looks like maybe it's about three feet high or so, Speaker 3: It should be about two and a half all the way up. But it'll change in grade 'cause the land is, is traveling up. Speaker 9: Yeah, of course. Okay. And your land will be to the top of it or is it gonna kind of come halfway up or Speaker 3: We'll raise the elevation about two and a half feet Speaker 9: When you're done. Yeah, I mean what it is now when
Speaker 3: It's done. Yeah. Speaker 9: Right. Okay. Speaker 3: So we'll be about in some instances, you know, it's it because we're, the land kind of stays very flat, goes down a little bit, but then goes like this. Yeah. So some of it is actually a cut in, in the very back and you're sort of like a saucer pan that's gonna be more like a graph, a linear graph when it's done. Okay. Speaker 9: I'm just trying to, I guess, make sure we're clear what does it look like from either side? Correct. And then also is there an impact to the neighbors on either side? So the one on the back now that one's probably is gonna be about the same
height. And are you higher? Speaker 3: They're higher than I am. So that's, that's the other, that's the opposite condition. Okay. I'm dig putting a wall on my side because that, that elevation shoots up at that point. Speaker 9: But you're only digging your, you're not gonna go have to go onto their property to do Speaker 3: Anything? No, their property sort of flows two hours. So then I will put a retaining wall in. I have to put drainage behind that retaining wall. Okay. And bring it around to the system out front, which we have designed. So their drainage is gonna come onto your property? Well, which probably already happens right now, but with the wall, the, the, in the, in the, the north side,
which is the rear of the property. Yep. Is that is sort of the high point of the hill. Okay. And some of that probably the first 20 or 30 feet of their land flows to our property, but then the rest flows towards Elliot Street. Okay. So, but we do have to ca we do have to account for what's coming down through there the first 20 feet or so. Yeah. Okay. But you're bringing that, where are you bringing that? Where is that you, you said you, so the, you have drainage behind the wall? Yeah, we'd have to, I'm probably looking at the, there's a, there's an engineering plan set that was uploaded as well
and you'll see there's a six inch perimeter drain essentially around the back of the property. It's not gonna show up on Trevor's. I'd have to ask Trevor or Amanda to go into the civil files that got uploaded two days ago. That's fine. I just wanted to make sure they're there. It's counted for and as well as we in the civil plan is also there was a request for drawing out the trail in the back. That plan is in, in that location as well. I do need to confirm that with, we're doing a site walk next week with conservation and hopefully open space and because we,
Speaker 1: And hopefully perhaps Speaker 3: Some and that would be great too 'cause there's some discretion based upon invasive removal, wetland impact. And so I'd like to have the boards there on a site sidewalk to sort of position that trail before we lock that in. Okay. And I noticed, I don't think the engineering plans included the landscaping, did they? No, the landscaping is with the, this plan set. Okay. I just think that middle, that'll be great if you got great landscaping in there. I think that's gonna make a, a big difference. So you don't really see the cars and everything. Yeah,
Speaker 1: That's enough for me. Okay. Thank you. And Andy, I can't see you, but are, is there anything that you'd like to add or follow up on? Speaker 8: Well, I, I think it's a good design. I really do. And I appreciate there's a lot of thought and sensitivity that goes into, well typically with, with TR projects. So I congratulate you for that. I, I think if, if we are circling back to this number of units discussion, the difference in my mind
between this and 2 16 2 18 is that this is on Everett Street. It is a much more visible project if, if 2 16 2 18 ever gets built, very few people are gonna see it except the people that go up there, everybody's gonna see this. This is a pretty impactful project right on Everett Street. And I think it is the density that's being proposed is offset by the design, which is very important. I I guess the fifth grade math student in me continues to have a problem about how 11.17 rolls up to two A 12
and how 12 with a 10% bonus at 12.1 rounds up to 13.2, which rounds up to 14, which rounds up to 15. I, there's a part of me that feels like it doesn't make any difference, but on the other hand, I feel like I gotta justify that four-fifths vote of rounding up again and again and again. So I'm just wondering if we couldn't get to the point where we round up once, maybe use the one waiver, maybe we, maybe, you know, and I, I realize that there is precedent,
but I think there's also discretion. And as I said earlier, I'm still kind of hung up on the number. Ultimately it doesn't really matter because I get a sense of what this will look like and I think it will work well and I think it will look well. But I, I think we're in that point where we just need to figure out what the number is. That, that's really my last sticking point on this project. Otherwise, I, I am, I'm, I'm, I'm really in favor of it. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you Speaker 7: Doug. Yeah, just picking on the wall for a second again. So the back, the north side is a cut? Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 7: Okay.
Just trying to picture how that, how that transitions to the east side, Speaker 3: You know. And could we, Amanda could you go to the portal and load? I have civil plans that I put up about three. Yeah. So if I see them, I, I don't of course have at the top of my head and it's different 'cause one side of the north property line is different than the other. Yeah. Speaker 7: I mean it is what it is. I mean what whatever the It's a cut. It's a cut. Right. So what is the material because it's, it's contradictory a little bit on the landscape plan. It said it's field stone all the way around.
Now I see field stone masonry and then boulder on the backside on sort of the, you know, the cut side. What's it gonna be? Speaker 3: It's gonna be all natural stone. Whether it's, you know, when I do a retain that back property line, you know, might start as two to three foot or boulders and then have smaller stones put on top depending on where it is, how tall it may be. It's not gonna be very tall back there. Probably only two to three feet. But I can't, if I don't, I'm not gonna get the sort of grade away from the rear yard.
I'm gonna always be sending water towards the house and I may not need much of a wall at all back there, depending on exactly what I find at each property. But the walls will look consistent. Yep. Sometimes in these retaining wall situations, I'll use the big boulders first. That's all the only difference. Speaker 7: So let's make that clear on the plan though. What it is, what, what it's, it's gonna be, what it's purpose. Well is it storm masonry, is it propo, boulder, you know, let's, Speaker 3: It's all natural stone. So we'll make sure we note that. Speaker 7: And I'll, I'll ask the question again. And I think Alan asked it, but constructability just, you know, excavating
for the foundation of the wall and all on your property. Speaker 3: Yep. Okay. Yeah. And it's done it many times. It's, it's, we just go to the property line. I mean the biggest concern as you can probably imagine is making sure you don't build something that exacerbates a water problem. Yeah. So we have to set up for the drainage properly first. So Speaker 7: Is there a requirement for a fence or anything along the top of the wall? Speaker 3: Nothing will meet that requirement. So it, it shouldn't be needed. And I think I would, I don't think we'd put one in just
for looks and maintenance purposes. 'cause it, there's a landscaping up on top of the wall next. So the fence is sort of redundant back there. Speaker 7: But by code you're not gonna need it. Speaker 3: I'm not gonna need it, no. Okay. Speaker 7: And this is an import site or Speaker 3: It's slight import Mostly. 'cause there's a lot of asphalt out there now and a lot of concrete buildings out there. They're all coming out. Yep. And we have some solid holes that are now empty. We have great gravel out front. Tremendous, tremendously good out front, out back. It's the same material we have at Wendy Low.
So we're very familiar with it. It's a wonderful compaction, but it is not good runoff. That's all. Alright, Speaker 7: Last question. So buildings a one and a two, they seem to be moving forward backwards towards, towards Everett Street. Where is it settling? Speaker 3: Well, right now we have it 20 feet behind the cult tech system. So we designed the cult tech system and that was our driving factor in that. Okay. And we do need to do a deep water confirmation probably shortly, but right now that's set based upon keeping
20 feet off the call tech. Speaker 7: That 20 and a half feet dimension. Correct? Correct. Okay. Speaker 3: And that you had asked the question, I think at a previous meeting we are loading it from the back, but it will have doors in the front, but it'll orient to the back, so. Speaker 7: Okay, thank you. Speaker 3: And that's what, probably around 60 feet or so from the property line? Yeah, yeah, that one's about 60. Yeah, we have an option. I mean I, I'd like to have a basement in that unit, but you know, quite honestly that is not a decision I can even make yet until we see how much water we're gonna have in the system.
Yeah. If I don't have a basement, I can, I can move that unit less than 20. But it's a pretty small unit without a basement. That's my concern. These are, these are very small units without some sort of storage area. So I'd like to leave it where it is with a basement. Speaker 2: Terry, Speaker 1: So you, you done done Alan Peter Speaker 2: Back to the material of the natural stone wall. Is that dry? Speaker 3: Yeah, dry faced. Speaker 2: It is dry. Speaker 3: Face it, it's mortar but you don't see it.
It's like what we're doing at Okay, Speaker 2: But they're not loose stones? No. So that this is something dry. We're wet. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Speaker 1: Thank you. Now I know Amanda, we had mentioned the idea of taking advantage of, of the interest that the open space advisory committee and that ComCom have of, of actually visiting the site. Yeah. Speaker 13: I believe it was Wednesday five 30 that they were gonna be meeting and we could join them if we'd like to next Wednesday. Speaker 1: And just so that I understand,
because I remember having to tiptoe around this on another project that we, it's, it's a site visit, but we are not, we will not have access to members of the public. And that means that while we are on that site, we cannot speak to one another. We cannot get, get into kind of debate. Speaker 2: What can we say? And we, we can ask the applicant. Speaker 1: Careful don't step there.
Speaker 2: Well, that's a personal problem I may have going here, but nevertheless, Speaker 1: But I, but I think it's, it, it is very rudiment and part of why that's a problem is that it's you, you, you could say, well we were, we were just talking about voila conversation, but no one was close enough to hear, to know that that was the case. So as much as we can go through silently, perhaps sometimes pointing, it just is a protection for us. And I remember this from, from the previous project and it was just, it was the only thing we, we could do.
The owner property owner was not comfortable having members of the public on their land. And so we couldn't do it as a true open site. Is it posted as a meeting? Is the sidewalk posted as a meeting? I'm thinking Speaker 13: It's not posted. It's not posted as a meeting. It's just posted as a site visit that the group will be there, but the members of the public are not permitted to be on site unless invited by the applicant. But for liability purposes, it's typically only the planning board or conservation or the open space advisory committee. The members of the public can stay on the public land,
which is the public right of way. And then you can deliberate once you're on public property. But, Speaker 1: And presumably within accessible distance from any members of the public who care to listen. Not that I'm thinking there's going to be an army of people doing that. Speaker 2: But can we ex have an exchange with the applicant while we're walking through? Speaker 13: I think, I believe you can Speaker 1: Speak directly to, to them. I think that's Speaker 7: The point is to ask questions. Yeah. Speaker 2: So that's Speaker 13: Okay. You can ask questions of them, but you cannot, you Speaker 1: Can't Speaker 9: Can't deliberate Right.
Speaker 2: Probably correct. No, no deliberating. Speaker 1: But, and I would just try to, to be as careful with that as possible. I'm, I'm eager to see it because the things we're talking about today are in the abstract. Speaker 7: How much daylight are we gonna have? Speaker 1: That's what I It's not a big, not a lot. Speaker 2: It's the following Saturday. I think that the time changes. Yeah. Speaker 9: Product fact getting dark about six 15 now. Well it's probably pretty dark at six 15. Speaker 1: So bring, bring flashlights. Speaker 9: So we have to make sure we don't have a quorum or Speaker 13: No, we'll post it. Speaker 1: No, no, it's, yeah. Okay. And, and because it's not, we're trying to take great care
that it is not deliberation, it's not deliberative, it is observation and understanding the physical site beyond, you know, the, the plans that we, that we've Speaker 8: Seen. Can I ask a question? Speaker 1: Yes. Andy, Speaker 8: The last one we did was North Main Street when we were looking at that rezoning. Yes. Did something change between that and this? Speaker 1: No, but there we were on the public way the whole time. Speaker 8: Right. But we, I mean we, we didn't we post draw any conclusions or deliberate any, but we did look at it and there were members of the public that looked at it too.
And I mean, following that format, I'd say we're still, I just wasn't sure if like some case had changed what we did then between then and now. Speaker 1: No. What we, what we did then was stay on the public way Speaker 7: And that was a rezoning not a Yes. Speaker 1: Site plan or Yes. And, and so it, it was, it was in the public way, members of the public, we were accessible both audio and people. So it wasn't yeah, it was not as complex because Yes, it's, it's it's not physical changes
that we're observing as much as or or in that instance. So, and I, I would think that this would be, and I'm glad that we, that at least some of, some of us are going. And I'd say if you just let Amanda know if you are planning to, to be there, I will. And if we do the best places that you would recommend people park Speaker 3: Right out in front of the White House there on Everett Street. It's a pretty big parking area. So, Speaker 2: Okay. How's the terrain side? So Speaker 1: On the south side, on the Speaker 8: Side, Speaker 2: On the side, how's the terrain for
Speaker 3: In the field? Very flat. Heading back towards the wetland gets a little Speaker 2: Tougher. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 1: What, Speaker 7: So we're heading towards a continuation here. Speaker 1: It would, because I think it'll be helpful just in terms of what we've talked about tonight and in previous hearings and to kind of apply it to the parcel. And I'm one who is interested in also understanding how the broadly how the, how the trails will run, what the open space that is such a key part of it actually has, has to offer.
So Terry? Yes. Speaker 8: Would it be helpful to tip our hand a little bit and let Mr. Stevens know what we're individually thinking about these various calculations that are heading up to 15 units? Is is now the time to imply that it might be good to have a plan B that has a couple less units on it? Or, or do just wanna kick that can down the road till some future meeting? Speaker 1: You know what, I think that, you know what, I think that that's, it's a fair point to do that. So if members feel comfortable to be able to,
you might wanna wait until after you see the site. Oh, I think the but the sheer, so the sheer number numbers that people, if if it's going be not so much about numbers while on the site it will, but it, I Speaker 2: Think it's, I think we've already acknowledged and I think we're all in agreement that the difference of one unit is not gonna walking through the site, you're not gonna, you're not gonna pick it up and not, I I don't think you will. Speaker 1: I'll question. Well there's the principle of here's the formula here is how that it's been, it's been applied.
Is is what we are kind of getting for our decision worth that the value of Speaker 2: Oh, that's the principle of the whole thing. That does, that's what I'm saying though is I don't know is seeing this walking the site, I don't think it's is gonna pick up anything's point. Maybe it's, if it's something that should be put on the table now, well it's on the table and, but I, I wouldn't leave that one item for not as an item to consider seriously when you walk the site. Speaker 1: So, and I, but I think it makes, it probably makes the most sense to have
that more substantive discussion once we, once we have seen the site Speaker 2: Fine. Speaker 1: Because it just gives us a different set of eyes to look at. Speaker 2: That's fine. We're going to the site. Okay. And Speaker 1: It's fine. So, yes. Speaker 3: And if I could, because being a resident down there, I leave Everett Street every morning and I know how many people take their life in their hands on Everett Street walking their dogs walking period. So while we're down there, I hope everyone takes a good look at the sidewalk connection and, and recognize the value because it is a trade off.
And I recognize that. And it's, I have to relocate a catch basin out of one of our ponding areas down on Everett Street, which is not gonna be fun. And I, and I have all new curbing to do and I've got five different driveway aprons to do. And I've got probably eight significant trees to take down that I've negotiated with all the neighbors. So it's not a simple lay, lay down sidewalk. This is a, this is a quarter million dollar sidewalk. And I recognize that as a value to the area. And, and that's why my ask for 15 units. So Speaker 1: The last thing I, for tonight, I think
that I wanna mention Amanda Scenic road hearing. Speaker 13: Yeah. So I had to reach out to Caris, sorry, tongue council because there's a question that I have because they're not removing any scenic trees. There's actually no trees along the edge of this property. There's also no stone wall. And then the driveway is almost in the same exact location as the proposed roadway. So what is the scenic road? What are they modifying on the scenic road? So therefore, I'm just waiting for her to get back to me. 'cause we, they were removing trees.
It would be straightforward if they were moving a stonewall, it'd be straightforward. But they're really not altering the scenic nature of the way. Speaker 3: I, I think I'll need, I will need the scenic road filing for the sidewalk. That's what's gonna happen. True. Because some of the trees straddle the property line. So, and I did talk to art a little bit about that and I think no one could really render an opinion, but I think it would be safer to file the scene once we lay down what we know, what we're doing for the sidewalk. We couldn't come in with those trees in the tree removal.
'cause that's part of the scenic road filing. Speaker 1: And are those trees that will also there, some of which will be replaced? Are those trees in question? Speaker 3: Yeah, some of 'em, I talked to the neighbors and you know, I said I'll put back in whatever you want. Some of 'em are significant spruces, but I, I don't know what the bylaw requirement is. I didn't get that from art, but I sort of talked to the neighbors and said whether you want, you know, three more maples or three more oak. I kind of know what art approves for street shade trees. They won't be in the town right away. They'll be on private property at that point. Yeah.
Right now they're kind of straddling the property line. So Speaker 7: Are the streets have been removed in the public right of way? Speaker 3: The problem is that right of way, we have one spot, we have five feet, one spot. We, we kind of go in and out and our survey showed three or four of the trees right on the line. So instead of arguing who owns the tree, we felt it easier to get permission to remove the tree, replace the tree, and then put it in the scenic hearing for the sidewalk itself. So, Speaker 1: Oh. And not to, not to reference tho those trees in particular, because they're not completely in the right of way
Speaker 7: Or Speaker 3: I don't have any trees to remove for the project itself. Okay. The only trees that need to be removed are either in front of neighbor's houses for the sidewalk. Got it. Partially on their land, partially on townland or fully on townland. I need to meet with Bill out there because we have places where we can't do curb three foot grass trip and sidewalk. So he and I have to make a judgment call on, do we want to go curb sidewalk and leave some of the trees or do we want to do curb grass, strip sidewalk, but adjust where we don't have the, the land. And I've been waiting to have that conversation with Bill
until I talk to the three abutters who would be affected. So they have an idea what, what was coming to them. So, Speaker 1: So at least there should be some documentation for the trees that come down. Yes. So that, because in, as part of the scenic road, public hearing with the sidewalk, but also bringing that in there since they're kind of Right. Run down the middle of the line. Right. I'd rather, I'd rather have it safe and, and, and talked through than have someone come back and demand to know. Right. Why we didn't address that. So,
Speaker 7: So I'll move to end of the public hearing. Speaker 1: Yes. To Speaker 7: October. I'm sorry, November 5th, 3rd of October. November 5th. Yeah. Second. Speaker 1: Okay. Motion made and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Peter, Speaker 7: None and aye. Aye. Or aye. My aye. Speaker 1: Evans. Aye. Alright. So we will, we may see you out there on Wednesday. Speaker 7: Great. Speaker 1: And then we'll be back here on Guy Fox Day guy. Speaker 7: Thank you. Have to look that one up. Speaker 1: He tried to burn down the houses of parliament. Oh God. Trust me. He's still still celebrated.
Alright, so Amanda. Yeah. Do you want to say anything about town meeting about where we are? Speaker 13: Not really, other than it's looking like we're gonna have our zoning articles coming up tomorrow night, I would assume. I sure hope so, but I can't guarantee 'cause we're not first, but we're pretty close to first. So that's all Speaker 7: We have. And are we, is the, what are the motions? I mean, well, are they, are we making, are you making the motion? Speaker 1: I'm making a couple of motions. Okay. Speaker 13: So and Speaker 1: And then the others fin com is making Got it.
Yep. And then there are a couple that fin com voted referral and they were all, for intents and purposes housekeeping business. So that it wa it wasn't worth kind of protracting town meeting to go through. One was the, I'm, I'm not gonna the wet, not the wetlands, the Speaker 13: Flooding, Speaker 1: The, the flooding article, which really was a house, a housekeeping Speaker 7: Referral. Speaker 1: They voted referral Speaker 7: On what grounds did they vote referral Speaker 1: Because they, they had an open question as
to the impact of removing this. Amanda spoke, what's Speaker 7: The financial implication of a floodplain? Speaker 1: El Amanda spoke eloquently to the subject and said, we have language in there that's stronger than what we want to take out. And it did not, I I actually, I it wasn't so, and it didn't, it wasn't taken up. Speaker 7: Is there, where was, I'm I'm serious. Was there a financial implication to the conversation? There was Speaker 13: Concern that if that was removed then abutters to a property might be adversely impacted
and that there would be nowhere for them to appeal to or with. Speaker 7: Okay. But that's not the case. Speaker 13: Correct. But, Speaker 7: So Speaker 13: I couldn't come up with the exact citation. Speaker 7: Why is the finance committee in a position to argue a technical zoning issue? Speaker 1: Because they are charged with reviewing every article for tele meeting. It is not limited to financial. So, and then the other one was the zero Worcester. The, the Monticello Monticello. Speaker 13: It was the rezoning of the Monticello from residential RSA
to commercial two. Speaker 7: And Speaker 13: That one got referred Speaker 7: Back. Why? Speaker 1: And the other thing I'll say is why did they get referred back? Let me just, let me just say we were, we were being heard at the end of a long testy evening for fin income, which I, I think probably didn't help the conversation. They, they had a bit of a challenge understanding that if you were going to change this piece of the property to commercial, that it would not adversely affect the residential properties that adjoined it.
Because there's about two stories of height difference between the two Speaker 7: Properties. So why, why, why isn't that conversation here in right here? Why isn't that conversation in this room before this board rhetorical? I don't know. But why isn't that happening here? Well, we were the board, Speaker 1: We were the board presenting it. Speaker 7: Understood. But, but Speaker 1: We could have it here. But the charter says this is what they are charged with, what the fin comm is charged. And it is not limited to financial matters. Speaker 7: Time to change the charter. Speaker 9: So the word that residences the residential nearby is
gonna be negatively impacted. Speaker 1: I I think it will have Oh that, I think there was concern of that. But when one, you know, a commercial unit is here and the residential is here, they are approximate. If you're looking at them in an aerial photo, yeah. They really don't have a vertical proximity. That makes a whole lot of sense. We, we chose to pick and pick our battles. Well Speaker 9: It's a very unique site that you go, well you can't really go to vertical on that site anyways. Speaker 13: You can't go vertical site specific on the site
because the RC or regional center overlay district permits prohibits you from going over 30 feet if you're within 50 to zero feet of a residential zoning district. So that was the RC overlay district. Yeah. Basically keeps a hold on the development. Yeah, it was just, we were trying to take a commercial use out of a residential zoning, just cleaning up the map like we've done elsewhere. But it's okay, we'll bring this back as a different, 'cause we're gonna be looking at the whole golden triangle anyway. So, and Speaker 1: That actually that will work very well because there will be, that's not just a one piece
of property, it'll be much kind of much broader. So that is the peculiarity of town meeting. And I will entertain, oh actually Amanda, do you have anything else? Speaker 13: If you'd like to see something that's not on documents, just waiting for it to load. So what we did do is West Natick, we did have brittle with Jeff Sassier, which is, oh here we go. Great. Take what the planning board actually created with the West Natick corridor and put it into a graphic.
So I don't know if you're gonna be able to see this, but what they did was, on the far left you can see the Framingham native municipal line traveling along West Central Street. You've got Boden Lane, middle Mill Street, speed street, you have the different types of the center hub, you have the open space, you have everything, which is all in color as you remember. S two is not being populated this time. So this is what we are looking at. This would be the build out at the, the maximum of what they could or could not do. This is just the access tilted just a tad bit. So you can kind of start to see more of a 3D rendering.
But what these next few slides do is actually, if you can see section 1, 2, 3 and four, what we did is use a 35 foot datum, which is the maximum height in the West central corridor that you could be. And when you actually look at it, so here's section one. You have Clarks Hill, which is in Framingham, which is over by Jack Abbey, the Framingham Natick municipal line, which is right here. And this 35 foot datum is the maximum height, which is that peak. 'cause this is where Wendy's is. This is that peak of the height that we've always been kind
of talking about 35 feet up, which is what is allowed today is this line. As you will see, even though we are allowing 50 feet and less in the other S four and S fives, the 35 feet is actually never hit. So the only time it's actually the 35 hit is when you're at the peak of the hill at the 35 foot. When you go into section number two, here's the Natick T Stop, Bowden Lane, mill Street is down here. You can see this is where we actually allow for 50 foot.
And these guys actually never brush the 35 feet at, which is at the peak of that top of the hill. And then when you get down to S four, it continues to drop down, but you can see the landscape and the topography, which changes throughout. So it keeps actually everything pretty consistent, which is what the goal was. Then you can, coming into three, here's Mill Street, here's Speed Street. Here is the open space that is at the corner of Mill Street. Here is the open space where it's at the corner of Speed Street as well. And so as you can see, we do continue to rise up the S five, which is where Mill Street was and Speed Street.
But again, they don't hit that 35 foot datum. Then when you get into section four, the dog park is right out here with a lot of the water areas. Again, you have 50 feet and then I believe this one's 40 feet. You never hit that 35. So when we were looking at it trying to create that tier down system, it actually was able to achieve that. And so that's what this graphic shows. Speaker 1: That's all I had. That is, that's terrific. You plan to present that. Yep. Speaker 13: Yeah, we just, but that's based off of the writing and all the final additions. Renditions.
Speaker 1: Okay. So now we, we've had our motions. We voted and shall I declare that this meeting is closed? Moved to adjourn. Oh, I thought didn't we do that? No we didn't. No, you're right. I You are right. I just did the, someone second. The next date. I'll second the motion to adjourn. Second. Alright, those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye, aye. Aye. Have a good night.