Speaker 1: At 5 35 while meeting into order, I will now be asking for a executive session. So the, the motion is to adjourn from into the executive session for purpose of litigation in the case of pillow et al versus vjo guilty et al 21 MISC oh oh five two oh. In and from this executive session, you'll not return. So can I get a roll call vote Second. Motion. Second.
Thank you for seconding a ud. Yes. Terry Evans. Yes. Meyer Aye. Speaker 2: Nots and aye. Speaker 1: Over you. Speaker 2: Okay, so convening the, let's see, it's now 5 36 of the meeting of the zoning board of appeals and I guess this is a motion to go into executive session with regard to litigation associated with the case of Paolo et al versus V Realty et al 21 Miscellaneous five 20 out of the land court. Once we adjourn, adjourn into executive session,
we will not reconvene. And second Aye Jeff and all those in favor, Speaker 1: You have to take a roll call. Vote for Speaker 2: Session. Speaker 1: Doing Lynn Shy. Speaker 2: Ari Speaker 1: Gottlieb. Alan Levins Aye. Yes. Aye. Jason Ky. Yes. Speaker 2: Andy. Speaker 1: Andy Enright. Speaker 2: David Jack was aye. Welcome. Let's see, what are we doing here? Six 30. Okay, we have five Auburn Street Public hearing. I'm sorry, this is not the normal language that I, I see.
So we'll move to open the hearing. Five Auburn Street. It's under MGL Chapter 40 B. Let me just look here. Am I missing something? No. Okay. Before we start, we have a public speak portion of the, of the evening where any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda and it it'll be taken under advisement by the board. There will be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. This section of the agenda is limited to 15 minutes and any individual addressing the board during this section, the agenda should be limited to five minutes. Does anybody have anything that they'd like to raise that is not on the agenda tonight?
Okay. Seeing none, we'll just get I, I I went out of order but we're on now five Auburn Street under MGL, chapter 40 B and I know we were gonna let you folks say something, but before we did to Jeff, did you wanna mention something or we gonna hold that? No, I did. Okay, so let's go ahead and have you, do you Speaker 3: Want me to wait until I say public speak? I'm happy. Speaker 2: I think there's, I think I saw nothing. Oh, we did the public speak. No hands went up. So you're on. Speaker 3: Very good. Thank you. My name is Jennifer Gilbert
and I'm permitting counsel for the West. Speaker 4: Better? Yeah. Okay, thank you. Start over. Jennifer Deposit Gilbert. I'm counsel for the Metro West team. They are here with me this evening. Caitlyn Madden, the CEO Sharon Small Project Manager and Chelsea Gaylord. Also here this evening is our 40 B consultant Dave Aiken, the architects Cliff Bower and Anna R. Scott from Davis Square Architects and Dana Al from me Merrill Engineers. We were with you on March 31st about six weeks ago. At that hearing, the board discussed whether the project
could be reduced from 39 32 to 29 units. Metro West indicated that that would make the project on economic. The board then asked for a financial review of the pro forma to see if the project could in fact be reduced to 29 units and we were told we would see a draft decision the following week. We waited for weeks and the town was unable to get a financial peer reviewer to conduct conduct that review to assess the 29 unit request. In fact, as as as on Monday of this week,
we thought the town was still seeking that peer reviewer. One business day before this hearing last Friday, we got the draft decision that indicated the board wanted to go to 28 units and the email said that the board no longer would conduct a financial review. The draft decision attempts to connect the 28 units now not to issues of financial concern, but to matters of local concern that would allegedly outweigh the need for housing. In my opinion, the record simply doesn't support such a
finding or conditions that would render this project. Uneconomic 28 units certainly would make this project uneconomic. You'll hear briefly from Sharon Small on that in a moment because we did pull together some numbers for you. The decision we received on Friday also raised several brand new matters which would if implemented, also render the project uneconomic and again are not supported in the record to be matters properly before the board or are supported by the record testimony and the town's own peer review reports as matters
of local concern that would outweigh the need for housing. First we heard a suggestion that the Metro West should change the unit mix. I note that this was already addressed in the developer agreement with the select board. It is not a matter within the purview of this board in so far as the state already issued a project eligibility letter letter, the lenders only will lend on certain unit mixes and the project meets the state's requirement of 10% of three bedrooms. All housing types are desperately needed in the state
of Massachusetts, not just three bedrooms. Studios and one bedrooms benefit the elderly and the disabled and two bedrooms also serve families. The town's own zoning requires more parking for three bedrooms. So the suggestion to add more three bedrooms seems illogical changing. The unit mix also results in significant design changes to the new building, but does not re result in a reduction of the footprint or massing as it would be interior to the building. Second, the parking now has gone from 45 required to 47.
The new reference to office space in order to increase the parking demand to 47 is based off language that applies to professional and medical office use. This office space is accessory and related directly to the residential use and development. It creates no additional parking demand. The peer review report by McFarland Johnson, which included a parking review notes that the required parking was 45. It was never raised since the application and the waiver list was submitted in the fall of 2024
and was never raised in any meeting with town staff. In fact, just the opposite. The peer reviewer confirmed the trip generation models were accurate, which were based on residents, visitors and deliveries and the office and community space. The DPW memorandum of March 25th reports that the engineering division agrees with the traffic impact analysis, which again included parking and feels the report is appropriate and accurate. Compact space sizes were increased and now meet the standard compact sizes and DPW signed off on that new increase
to the compact space size. The peer reviewer recommended expanding the proposed on street restrictions on Auburn Street and Metro West had no objection to providing signage at the direction of the town. Should this be an issue, the waiver list would need to be changed to add this new use professional office medical and not an accessory use. And the parking waiver would also need to be changed to 47 first. As I noted in the zoning use table I dash two is
for professional and medical office use, administrative, clerical and statistical and use I one is for business or professional office. This would be a use that would require a waiver in this residential general district. We had it as an accessory use as the offices are specifically for this residential building. And the re the waivers would also reflect we did increase and provided a plan and added one. We were able to find one space. We think that's a de minimis change, but I know that Amanda recently sent out an email saying,
why are we just getting this now? If it's an issue, we're happy to withdraw that with the addition of an extra extra space that would now be 10 flexible spaces instead of nine that metro intends to use for visitors, for management and for deliveries. Third, there seems to be a new issue of a 25 foot con con buffer issue. We're not asking the board to waive anything under the con com regulations. We said repeatedly that we would go to the Conservation Commission and other than a waiver for the temporary relocation of the foundation drain, we intend to go
through an entire con com process. So ZBA need not take jurisdiction of that issue. In fact, the letter dated March 4th from the con com administrator, Claire Elli, notes that the applicant received an order of resource area delineation delineation in March 24 and will refile with the con com again for the remainder of the work and the Conservation Commission will work with the applicant during the review and required mitigation for the 25 foot Noe disturb zone. Finally, the con com letter states that conservation staff do not feel waivers from Article 97
are necessary for the work to move forward. The DPW letter of March 25th also notes that the storm water will be reviewed in full by the con com During the notice of intent filing, Metro also agreed to remove the waiver for the Aquafyer bylaw even though it didn't have to because it wasn't in effect when this project application was filed, but we will completely comply with that aquafyer bylaw. Finally, we saw a new condition to require Metro West to widen Auburn Street with respect to access to the site
and site driveways. The town peer reviewer in his report notes that an independent analysis was conducted and concluded that the site driveways are adequate so long as the trees are trimmed at the corner. The peer reviewer concluded that the turning diagrams shown on the site layout can accommodate vehicular circulation. The fire department has also signed off on the current plans DPW notes in its March 25th report that the engineering division agrees that the traffic impact analysis is appropriate and accurate. Please, we see no peer review report
or staff report that mandates the widening of Auburn Street. In fact, the chair and Amanda Loomis have indicated at past hearings that this is something that would be taken up by the select board who control the widening of public ways if needed in the future apart from the current project proposal. Finally, there have been numerous concessions made and we have gone through excessive voluntary public process, both prior to filing the comprehensive permit meeting with neighbors and stakeholders and then during this process going to the planning board several times the historic commission
and other stakeholders that were interested. We've met with the board, we've taken the feedback and numerous concessions have been made to the design, which we believe makes a better project, but there are costs associated with that. Some of the changes were to make a more complex footprint and roof line, add larger windows, increase the building envelope, expand the parking and the landscaping plan, change the placement of rooftop mechanicals so they can't be seen by the abutters and additional architectural landscape. Materials and civil engineering expenses were incurred
and will be incurred for construction. Then with respect to the preservation of the historic schoolhouse, the open space and the view shed must be preserved. They are preserved. That creates another design expense to have two buildings. There is an extreme historic restrictions and local TA tax credits, which in fact one was recently granted for the preservation of the school. So Metro West is actively trying to compile all of the financial resources to move this project forward.
They've already missed one funding round and now they're at risk of losing the second funding round while the school sits vacant. It increases costs to restore and maintain the pro proforma and cost estimates are now far worse than the original ones that were submitted to you. I don't think that comes as any surprise. No one wants to have to take this to an appeal to have to go to an of housing appeals committee, but doing less than 32 units you'll see in, in one moment. There are some basic numbers that you can look at, makes this project not feasible.
In fact, at the last hearing we were informed that the departments had signed off per Amanda's report. I wanna turn it over to Sharon to briefly go through some numbers that support the financial analysis on the uneconomic position. Speaker 5: I'm just gonna give it a second to put the number, put the numbers up on the screen. My name's Sharon Small. I'm the director of real estate at Metro West. Yeah, is that better? Yes. Again, I'm Sharon Small, I'm the director of real estate at Metro West. So if you could just go to the next slide. I just very, very briefly want to walk through the summary
of the budget that we submitted to the zoning board of appeals in with our application in October, and then briefly go through an estimate of the financial impact of reducing the project down to 29 units. So this is a very brief, broad summary of the budget that we submitted with our application. I wanna make two overall points about it. One is that it's the original budget. It was put together for the project eligibility letter application to the state May of 2024, and then submitted to the zoning board of appeal in October, 2024. Since then, general construction costs have only gone up
and some of the costs of building the project have gone up. We've, as we've made changes through the comprehensive permit process, which Jennifer just listed. So that's 0.1. And then the over the other overall point I want to make is that here in this budget uses equal sources. So we've estimated the cost of 21.8 million and available sources of funding are also 21.8 million. And as a nonprofit, that's the way we determine if a project is financially feasible. We ask do the available sources of funding equal the costs to build the project and in this budget they do.
So just to briefly walk through the sources and uses, so sources are in three big buckets. One is tax credits, 13.7 million. That includes low income housing tax credits and historic tax credits, federal and state. Then we have subsidy that includes state and local subsidy, 5.4 million. And then we have permanent debt or senior debt, 2.7 million and that's a traditional loan. The way we figure out how big of a loan we can take out is we estimate the rents, we'll have the income that we'll have, we look at the expenses that we'll have,
and any extra income that would be coming in would go to make payments on that debt with an appropriate debt service cushion. So that's how we figure out how much debt we'll have. So when you add those sources together, you get the total of 21.8 million. Then looking to uses or costs, we have construction costs 13.8 million. We have general development costs, 5.7 million. Those are costs like design, survey, permit, legal costs, construction, loan interest, finance costs, marketing costs, kind of all of those costs.
And then we have reserves and fee 2.3 million. Those are reserves that the project is required to hold by lenders and payments to Metro West to cover our costs. And all of those reserves c and fee are set by formula from different lenders and funders. So that's just a formula going into the 2.3 million. So you add up those three buckets of costs and you get 21.8 million in costs that matches the available funding, 21.8 million in funding and the budget balances and we have a feasible project. So that's the overview of the budget that we submitted.
And then just to do a back of the envelope exercise, we looked at the estimated impact to the budget if we were to go down to 29 units, because that's what we heard at the last meeting that the board was talking about 29 units. So if we could go to the next slide. So this is the estimated impact to the project. If it were to go down to 29 units, and this is, we just did this exercise to show what we mean when we say that the project would be financially infeasible. So this assumes that we would remove one one bedroom apartment, one two bedroom apartment, and one three bedroom apartment.
And we have to do it that way. We can't remove more one bedroom apartments because we need to maintain the mix of two and three bedroom apartments required by the state to provide funding. So that's the required reduction. If we were to make a reduction and if we went down to 28 units, the impact would only be worse. So to go through the impact again, kind of category by category. So the sources we would have available to us would go down. So the tax credits we would get and the subsidy from the state are both allocated on a per unit basis.
And so if we reduce the number of units, we would have less of those types of tax credits and subsidy available to us. So the tax credits available would go down by 1 million and the subsidy available would go down by 0.5 million. Then the permanent debt that the project could sustain would go down by 0.8 million. And proportionally, that's a relatively high amount of the debt because the cost of running the project are, a lot of them are the same. The cost to maintain the elevator, to plow the snow, to landscape it, to maintain the stormwater infrastructure on and on. But we'd have less rent coming in
and so we would have less extra money on an ongoing basis to make debt service payments. So the permanent loan would be reduced by 0.8 million. So all overall we'd have 2.3 million less in sources of funding available to build the project. Then in terms of changes in uses, it would be a smaller project, so it would be less expensive. But because smaller projects are less efficient to build, the costs wouldn't go down by as much. So for construction, we've estimated that the cost would go down by 400,000. That's not a proportional reduction because it is less efficient
to build a smaller building per unit, but it is a significant reduction. Then general development costs would only go down by about $50,000 because most of those costs are on a per project basis. So the cost to pay legal fees, the cost to pay, financing fees for setting up the loans, things like that, the cost to survey the site, all of those costs, we pay the same amount, whether it's 32 or 29 units. So it's only a small reduction. And then reserves and fee, like I said, are all set by formula from lenders. So the formula dictates those would go down by $75,000.
So overall costs would be reduced by $525,000. Significant reduction, but a smaller one than the reduction in the amount of funding sources available of 2.3. So the difference between those two is $1.8 million and in this scenario, we would have a gap in the budget of $1.8 million. And what again, what it means that we would have that gap is, you know, our bills to build the project and to develop the project would be $1.8 million higher than the sources of funding available to pay for the project. And we wouldn't have anywhere to get, you know,
dependably get that $1.8 million. So we could not afford to build the project and it would be financially infeasible. Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you. Just a reminder to the board that we have some of the project team here, the architects, the engineer, so if there are questions Yeah, Speaker 6: Andy, do you have information? I'm, I'm sure you do somewhere, but cost per square foot for the portion of the school then cost per square foot of the new construction. So basically how you break down that 13.8 I I think Cliff, Speaker 4: I think Cliff you did work those numbers.
Why don't, Speaker 6: Yeah, it'd be great to get hard cost and or square footage first and then, and then we can figure out back into the numbers. But Speaker 7: You wanna take one? Yeah, yeah. Speaker 8: Just on this part, this Speaker 9: So estimate, but, so these I think are slightly newer numbers that are higher. A little bit higher. Yeah. Because we've continued to do cost analysis and the numbers have gone up from what Jerome was outlining. I'm sorry, these numbers have Speaker 6: Gone up. Are the numbers you're about Speaker 9: To discuss have gone up? The numbers that I'm about to give you are the latest
cost estimates we've been getting through, working with the contractor and reviewing the project. So the square footage of the new building is 26,216 square feet. Okay. And the old building is 14,048 square feet. And the current current costs, and I say current, they're actually not that current 'cause we haven't bid it. So we don't really know for sure. The square foot cost in the new structure is $350 per square foot.
The square foot construction in the historic building is $423 per square foot. And I think what's most notable when you look at numbers, you know, the effort it takes to really do something like preserve a historic building, the square footage cost is more and you're getting less, there's no elevator in the new building there. It's not passive house, it's not possible to have the same kind of performance. So you're not spending that money. But there are multiple, you've got a foundation already,
you've got lots of structure already and it still comes out to $423 a square foot because it's a historic renovation. But that's, that's some of the analysis we've, we've done. Speaker 6: Thank you. And then as it relates to the, I believe it's the Park service that, or the National Parks Park service that has some skin in the game in that o in that school project? Yes. Is that funding related or shown here on the previous slide? Just wondering how much they actually contribute to help that.
4 23. Speaker 5: Yes. The federal and state historic tax credits are shown in the tax credit, in the tax credit equity line here. Speaker 6: Okay. How, how much is it? Speaker 5: So the total line, Caitlyn, if you could go back, a slide should be 13.7 million and the tax credit financing is about 2.4 million. Of that Speaker 9: 2.4 million is the Federal Parks contribution, Speaker 5: Federal and state historic tax credits, historic. Speaker 2: And the rest is Litech, Speaker 5: Federal low income housing tax credits and state low income housing tax credits. Yes. Speaker 2: Is in the sub, in the middle subsidy 5.4 million.
Is the native affordable Housing trust monies in that number? Yes. Is that, no, you're carrying that number at six Speaker 5: $600,000. Speaker 2: Yeah, so I just, I I, the planning board indicated that a couple things. One is that six is not available right now to our knowledge. To my knowledge that it's more the nature of four 50 plus or minus right now. Amanda, maybe help me, what was that? I'm talking about the Natick Affordable Housing Trust funds. Yeah, those funds are coming from a payment in lieu from a developer.
I think it's maybe Windermere. And that project hasn't fully funded the Nat Affordable Housing Trust yet. Their number is four 50 at, oh, well here we go. Oh, I think Speaker 5: Mike, I'll let Speaker 2: You would like to, oh, you want him either way? Okay, go ahead. Speaker 10: GaN Chair Natick Affordable Housing Trust, the trust has committed $600,000 and we have a legal agreement with them and it is conditional upon the trust receiving in LEO funding.
So that's, that's the agreement. That's an agreement that has been approved by the Trust counsel. Speaker 2: We have. How much now? Speaker 10: So in the trust. Yeah. Can I give you a little bit more background? We have already paid $200,000 to this group. To this group, and we are, we, I don't know the exact balance in the trust right now. It's, it's a little less than 200 K and we are also expecting close to 350 or $340,000 by 1st of May, 2025 per last correspondence. That's, Speaker 2: That's, that's a date that's passed.
Speaker 10: Yeah, but I haven't, I have, there's been email exchange between me, Speaker 2: But So you have 200 grand on you, you're into the thing for two, you've got two in the bank, you're getting three any day now. Speaker 10: Exactly. So Speaker 2: The sixth then is fully funded Speaker 10: As of now. But I haven't seen the check for the 300. Speaker 2: But it's on the way. Yes. Okay. So, and that two that you're sitting on is not committed elsewhere? Speaker 10: No, Speaker 2: Two in, two in the hand, three on the way. You have five and you only need four of it to fully fund this. Speaker 10: That's right. Speaker 2: And within days you'll have all
that money ready to go. Speaker 10: I'm not sure about the 200 because we do have some standing commitments that, that we have right now. Speaker 2: That was my question. The two is not for this project. Speaker 10: Not immediately. It's a pre-development. I'm Speaker 2: Just trying to understand. I'm not trying to trap you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm just trying to understand whether they, they can, that $600,000 that's in that number is, is a reliable number. Speaker 10: Oh, absolutely. Over the course of pre-development. That's a very realistic and reliable number because we are also expecting a second tran coming in
from Winder from Trask around August. That should be close to hundred and Speaker 2: Then on sales though, right? Speaker 10: Depending on the certificate of occupancy. Speaker 2: Okay. Yeah, the, do you know how many of the projects are fully constructed and waiting on cos Speaker 10: I would defer to the planning department. Speaker 11: So the Windermere project, everything that they would've had is in the agreement that would be paid, I think at the end of this August. So everything would be up to date. Speaker 12: And where, Speaker 13: When does this subsidy money come in During the, during the phasing of construction?
Speaker 14: I can answer that if you'd like. Speaker 5: So we'll draw on the funding from Natick Affordable Housing Trust as it's available in pre-development. We have the flexibility, we, we like to draw on it in pre-development, but we don't have to, we have other sources of pre-development funding then typically we draw in most of our funding at the start of construction and then a small amount of it at the end of construction. So in terms of these sources of funding, you know, we consider this, these sources of funding that reliably will be available when we start construction several years from now. So, you know, we're totally comfortable assuming
that Natick Affordable Housing Trust will have the $600,000 and several years when we start construction. Speaker 13: So, so the, it goes to subsidies, the various subsidies, and then tax credits go in after the subsidies and then debt generally the, the order of funding, Speaker 5: There's a kind of complicated layered order, different amounts come in and different installment plans. I can get into the details of that if it's important, but it would take a little while. Speaker 2: Does, I know the planning board had some discussion with regard to limiting your ability
to utilize the $600,000 in pre-construction because if for whatever reason the project was never built, the $600,000 would then just be in the ether. So I, what I just heard was a thought that we like to, but we don't have to, I I don't know Karis, do you know if we have the board has the authority, does the board have the authority to restrict the $600,000? No, I'll just hear from our lawyer if I can
Speaker 15: Your board? Yes. I don't think your board does, but the planning board may. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 15: The planning board may, and I'm still working with them on that Speaker 2: Question. Is that's something you'd agree to? Speaker 4: We're not gonna agree to that here with this board. You don't have any jurisdiction over that? I'm Speaker 2: Asking a question. Speaker 4: Yeah, I think you wanna answer that. Speaker 16: I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind the request. I, Speaker 2: I thought I gave it but I'll, I'll give it again. If you have $600,000 and you draw all $600,000 in pre-construction costs and the project for whatever reason, who knows,
some unknown eventuality occurs and the project doesn't get built, then the natick affordable housing trust, $600,000 essentially is evaporating the ether with no affordable housing that results. And so by delaying your ability to draw down that money to sometime in the future, I, I don't know exactly when, let's say after you're fully permitted, you're fully financed and you're on your way shovels in the ground, then you can start to draw down that money. The chances of the project not coming to fruition are substantially reduced.
Speaker 16: Right. Well I think, you know, part of the idea here is that this is, you know, town owned property. It's a town, a project that is done in collaboration with the town and the state and other folks see it as an important indication of local support to have that funding in early. So I think Speaker 2: The commitment or the dollars, Speaker 16: The commitment and the funding, let me tell you why the dollars coming in early matters because it saves the project a lot
of interest over the life of the project. If we use our other loan that we have for the project, there's a high interest rate associated with that and it can cost, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars between now and when we close on our construction loan. So if we can save that interest, we can put that money towards benefiting the project and having a higher quality outcome, which I think, I think the town and all the neighbors. And we certainly want Speaker 6: A question. So just in general then, tax credit subsidy, the, the senior debt essentially, is that the money
that you borrow from a bank? Speaker 16: It's a traditional mortgage, Speaker 6: Yes. Okay. And do you, do you know in in general what those terms are or predict what they would be like as far as length of payoff and things like that? Speaker 5: Sure. So typically we'd have amortization over 35 or 40 years. We'd have a term between 20 and 40 years. Interest rates obviously change week to week and month to month. We've projected an interest rate in the 6% here with, you know, with a cushion on the rate at the time we made the budget. Speaker 6: Okay, thanks. Speaker 2: May sound, oh sorry,
Speaker 17: Can I go back to the cost for one second? Yeah. The cost per unit, I'm coming out with 681,000 at 32 and 760,000 at 28. Is that the same numbers that I would you Speaker 5: 681,000 at 32 and Speaker 17: 60,000? Speaker 5: That, that sounds right. I'd have to double check math. That's just Speaker 17: Construction. That is not the loan, that's not the land. Speaker 5: That's the all in cost, land cost, Speaker 17: That's the whole thing. And is that Oh, development, yeah.
Instruction's like four, four ish. It's 21.8 million and I'm just yeah, thinking commercially. Speaker 2: So is there at 32, is there an operational surplus annually Speaker 5: There? So we take rent, we subtract operating expenses, we get a certain amount of money. We assume all of that money will go to pay debt service with a little bit of cushion of 15% just in case there's, you know, it fluctuates in either side. Usually I don't have the number off the top of my head. Usually that's a small amount of money every year in the,
a couple thousand dollars range. And if we did have that surplus, half of it would go back to the state. Typically Speaker 2: You're Speaker 5: Gonna Speaker 2: Pay Speaker 5: Down the debt, the $2,000, Speaker 2: You're gonna pay down the debt with whatever surplus you have less this Yes. Couple thousand dollars. I, I neglected to say you did, you, you mentioned it in your opening comments that we did say we were gonna have your numbers checked and I, and I think the, I think the, the sort of motivation from the board's perspective was that we have the density issue at 32,
not sufficient parking. That's what I said in the hearing. However, let's look at your numbers, have them peer reviewed so that we don't sort of unnecessarily have to send this thing up to hack with the inevitability that it gets kicked back. Right. That's what I said. If I didn't say those words, that was the import. Okay. And which is why I said we're gonna check on your numbers. If it turns out that our peer review confirms your bonafides, then
that may change the board's perspective. Right. IE if, if hack is going to undo what we've done and send it right back down here and cost the town an unnecessary amount of litigation expenses and time, then you know, maybe that is not such good administration of the zoning board under 40 B. The town used Herculean efforts to attempt to get a peer review consultant to look at your numbers. We couldn't do it. I was blown away.
But we are where we are and we have senior numbers, we have seen this demonstration and it is, you know, it's, it's, it seems clear on its face only I'm no, you know, development consultant and I don't know if the board is either or are the board's lawyer or the planning. So we're caught betwixt in between. That's where I am. But as for some of the things
that may have appeared in this decision, I, I think, you know, once you put pen to paper and start creating this document, things come to the fore and I, I don't think there was some orchestrated plan to try to to, to, to torpedo the project by coming up with a bunch of, of new things. This may take some tweaking here. Un I think unquestionably it will, but we're still left with this inevitability, which is whether or not 32, 28, 29 30
i, I don't know, is what is best for considering everything this board has heard, including your presentation and the comments from the people behind you are peer review consultants, the comments, et cetera from the board. So that, that's, I don't know what I, that's all I have for now, but does anybody else have any thoughts here before we let the folks in the assemble talk? I just, Speaker 18: I have a question on something. Yeah, if I could. I'm just curious, how much does much of US housing project litigating appealing this would cost
to the land court and where is that funding coming from? Speaker 4: Well, we're not gonna, we don't need to reveal sort of the source of funds for litigation. But, but Speaker 18: Mr. Chair, Speaker 4: I mean experience, it would, Speaker 2: Hold on one second. Speaker 4: Quite expensive I think for both parties. No one wins if it goes to the HAC, we will spend the money on the litigation, which means money, further delays, loss of another funding round, and then all of the design changes that were made that add expense would have to be revisited
normally the HAC. And they did so in a case in Edgartown where the developer was asked, it was a non-profit developer and they were asked to take out three units in the project and the HAC reversed the board's decision and said where it's a non-profit and a lender won't lend that is also deemed uneconomic. If that were to happen, the HAC would likely approve the original design that was proposed. Something that we think is not as good take risk, Speaker 2: We might, we might take that risk
Speaker 4: Not as good. We don't agree that it's not as good, but all of these things would have to, Speaker 2: I'm concerned about that. I, I mean I think that's an idle threat. I really do. I don't appreciate Speaker 4: It. It's not intended as a threat. I think it's, there are a lot of con I think it's, well, well it's not intended that way. Speaker 2: That's the way I take it. Speaker 4: Okay. Well it's not intended Speaker 18: That way. It it does present. It does as a threat. It really does. Speaker 4: Yeah. It's not intended that way at all. It's the reality of the situation. Speaker 2: Alright, anybody else? Speaker 6: Yeah, just an observation that, you know, based on the, those cost per square foot numbers that, you know, it just is what it is in a lot of ways, but it's a shame that the most sort of the, the units that most people agree on
or probably almost everybody agrees on, is having units within the school are by far the most expensive. I mean, you know, 423 for, you're probably replacing windows, I'm sure you know, things like, so there's some is there is some envelope work, but for mostly just interior work, it, I mean that just doesn't strike me as affordable. Speaker 17: It's because you're trying to stay within the constraints of historical Yeah. Constraints. Speaker 6: Yeah, no, I mean I I I get it. I just sort of like, it's unfortunately, yeah, it's a nature, it's a, it's a nature of the project.
Yeah. So meaning that I can see how, you know, trying to pull off a few units from the least, the less expensive building doesn't help that much. So just an observation, just thinking aloud. Speaker 4: No, I will say that we really looked and looked and looked and looked at ways to save costs, but they have gone, gone through the roof. So Speaker 6: Yeah, Speaker 13: My thoughts are that going from 33 to 29 isn't particularly meaningful.
It helps, it helps with the density. It, it, it doesn't, it's it's the same, it's essentially the same building. You'd be hard pressed driving by to notice whether that building has fewer unit 29 units or 30, the project has 29 or 33, it's three fewer parking spots that are needed. But it's not, it's not a meaningful thing to the project. And having done a few affordable housing projects and understanding how they work and how they're funded, you know, it's,
it's not like, it's not like a private development where the developer makes a little bit less profit and can make then make a decision whether he's gonna go forward or she's gonna go forward. It's a decision whether if it's off by a dollar, the budget doesn't balance and you're done. And, and when you have that binary cliff 29 and 33 to me doesn't seem like a, or, or 33 rather, it doesn't seem like a compromise it seems like is whether you're on one side of the cliff or your, or not or the other. And, you know, having, I was really hoping
that we would be able to see a peer review, but on, on the other hand is nothing in the numbers. To me, with a small amount of the experience you guys have, but enough to be dangerous. Nothing is jumping out at me is unreasonable on, on, on your, on your numbers and the interpretation of 'em and the reduction in the rent, you know, affects the debt service and what you can borrow, it affects the amount of tax credits that you receive and you're still looking at the most expensive units. Long way of saying is like it's going from 33 to 29
is essentially going, is throwing up our hands and saying, I don't think we're doing it. Or 32 units rather. It's not a, it's not a compromise in my, in my view, Speaker 2: In, in other words, there there's really no tangible benefit there. Speaker 13: There's not a meaningful benefit. It's three units out of 33 and I know that's 10%, but it's not, it doesn't, it's not gonna, it, it, it, if, if, if you agree that something can go here, whether it's 29 or 33, 2 doesn't,
or 32, sorry, I'm not trying to bump it up by a unit. Doesn't, it doesn't move the needle in a meaningful way. So the impact impact Speaker 17: On the scale isn't great, but the impact on the financial feasibility is enormous. Speaker 13: Is 100%. Is that what you're saying? It it? Correct. Exactly. It's 100%. It's you do it or you don't do it at that point. I think Speaker 17: This goes right to the very part of the issue, which is putting a nonprofit project with constraints on preserving a historic building and not Speaker 9: Putting a nonprofit in a position of constraining them on,
you must restore a historic building and you can't build up front and you have to build on back, squeezing 'em between the back of a building and a river. You know, you're, you force their hand into an untenable, non winnable situation. That's just my impression. There's no options here. You know, and add in, there's no mass transit and we have all kinds of mass laws to promote mass transit. We got hoops, we got all kinds of laws where we're trying to promote more density around our transportation and we're putting it behind a house next to a river.
Just the combination of things seem really outta whack to me. Speaker 2: What's the, I I'm not sure I understand. What's the, your conclusion as a result of those comments? The Speaker 9: Conclusion, a result of the comments is it's, there's much better places that are more consistent with what the towns, Speaker 2: But this is where the project is going, right? So we're way, we're way past, whether it's going here or somewhere else, it's going here. I mean, I mean, why are we there? We've been getting lots and lots of comments. Your your comment is, is is well taken. But that's a fundamental issue that has been long since resolved.
Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 2: I, we've been getting emails galore from Abutters and folks in the neighborhood saying, you know, let's limit this to one building that's completely unrealistic. I mean, you can see what we're struggling with here is whether or not this project gets a small haircut and the board is struggling mightily under the reality of the, the current state of the law in Massachusetts. And to raise issues of we don't want the second building
and we haven't had an opportunity to be heard through this process. It, it really is not accurate. It's not true. Let's change the location of the ingress and egress to, to route 16 from Auburn Street late in the process. This was the idea that came up. Again, the peer review consultants were absolutely clear. They agreed with the proponents peer engineers that the traffic impacts of this are gonna be negligible. The parking issues what gave me some concern, which is
what raised the issue of potentially reducing the number of, of, of units. But I am not unmoved by what we saw here today combined with some of the comments we heard. Does anyone, any, does anyone else on the board have any comments? I, I would like to hear from the folks who are here and then we'll kick it back around. Go ahead Caris, you want to go now or should can or I can go after the board speaks. Yep, go ahead. Speaker 19: I was wondering, you've said before, sort of the reduction in units, what's two or three? And I, I sort of agree with
what Jeff had said about not being a meaningful change, but the effect on like the services administrator for the building, snow removal, things like that, how the reduction in in size sort of affects those. And I was, I was wondering if those were reflected in those slides in any way or if you could speak to perhaps what the change would be and like what you could do, couldn't do as you moved forward, right. With a reduced number of units for the services offered in the buildings. Speaker 5: Sure. I'll, I'll try to answer your question and you can tell me if I answered it or not. I mean, I, I think from Metro West perspective, when we build a building, we have to commit to maintaining a certain level of service, a certain level
of staffing and a certain level of maintenance. And so when we're looking at going down to 29 units, we can't say, oh, well the budget's different, we're going to not cut the grass, you know, or we're not gonna provide services to the residents. So we have to maintain the same level of services, which is why there's that impact on the permanent loan. So, you know, we no, no matter the size of the project, we have to maintain that certain level of services. So instead of reducing services, we'd have to cut the, the permanent loan. Does, does that answer your question? Speaker 19: No, I, yeah, it does. So that would the money to pay for those services would be part
of the loan is what you're saying? So you would sort of have that, that's what would fund that and that's how the impact, Speaker 5: So we, we have a certain number, a certain amount of income coming in from rent, and then we have a certain amount that we'll spend on expenses and the rent coming in, which is coming from residents and from operating subsidy from the government pays for those expenses. And then anything left pays the payments on the loan. So it's the question of what's left. Speaker 2: Okay. Yeah. But, but I think another way of saying or adding to that is that the costs for like to mow the lawn are fixed, right? Whether there's 32 units or 29 units, whether the lawn the lawn,
it's gonna cost the same no matter what to, to, it gets bigger at 29 units. It may be, it may be maybe the snow plowing is the same whether you have 29 or 32 doesn, right? Yeah. So, and your income is reduced. That's the, that's the concept. I'm sorry, go ahead. Cares. It's right. I I Speaker 15: Think to follow up on Rob's comment and, and your comment Dave, and to sort of put a final nail in the coffin about this is the location. Don't forget this all came about because of an RFP process. The applicant chose to apply for this project, put together
a, you know, a, a proposal that the select board decided was the best proposal, had the credentials to do it, and then negotiated a development agreement with certain conditions, including leaving the front open and putting the building in the back. So, you know, I think, don't forget that they have expertise, but those constraints were entered into voluntarily as well. So I just wanna be clear that no one said you must apply for this project. You have to build this project here. It was a voluntary decision on behalf of the applicant and supported by the select board. But
Speaker 9: I think the point is, is that the big objection in addition to the parking and that safety of the roads is the mass and scale of the building. And it is those conditions which are driving, but that was all the mass and the scale of the Speaker 15: Building. I don't, I don't mean Speaker 9: To cut you off, did the board know that that was gonna be the mass and scale when they approved the go ahead to go ahead and build this? Did they know the details of they Speaker 15: They can't approve to go ahead and build it? They didn't have the comprehensive permit application, but they did have a response to the RFP that looked at a certain size and scope
and the comprehensive, the development agreement should be in your materials. It was part of the application and it did say up to 32 units. And it did have discussions about, you know, maximizing open space. It did have discussions about, Speaker 9: But there were no numbers to maximizing open space as a concept. Speaker 15: There's a concept, there is not a number because they, they can't insert themselves in your space. But again, my point is you gotta take a step back up one and, and remember that this is the site,
this is the location, this is the project, and that's not changing. And just to support what your chair was saying earlier and, and it isn't gonna change unless something catastrophic happens. Speaker 2: Oh, okay. We'll come back here. Okay. Just a quick one. Yep, go quick one, it, Speaker 6: It's may seem a little bit of a off the rails, but how many students used to come to this school when it was a school? Does anybody know offhand? Like, what's sort of like the density of when this school was in its heyday? How many students there? Speaker 3: So for the last decade it was a small,
I'm sorry, go to the mic please. Do you want me to come to the mic? Speaker 6: Sure, please. Speaker 2: Can you just give us your name for and affiliation? Speaker 16: Yeah. I'm Brooke Hopkins. I'm the head of school at River Bend School across the street. So this is a little bit of a complex answer because for many years we occupied both sides of the street. The school at its highest has been 2 0 5, but when it was just occupying that side of the street, it was closer to a hundred. Speaker 6: Okay. Pick up and drop off by parents or buses or No buses. Speaker 16: Buses. No buses. We have no buses. Speaker 6: Yep. So it's all parents. Speaker 16: Anything else you wanna know about River Bend while I'm here? Speaker 15: But that's not when it was a public school.
That's just when Riverbend had the lease for the property Speaker 16: And it's, I mean that went back a number of years. Speaker 6: Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Were you going Speaker 2: To answer the question about the similar? Speaker 3: I Speaker 2: Apologize. Yeah, no, no, no. I does anybody Were you asking also about when it was public school? Yeah, Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean that, that would complete the answer. Yeah. Speaker 2: Does anybody know that? Yes ma'am. Well, I Speaker 3: Think if we knew Speaker 2: The number Can we get you over here? Speaker 3: Sorry, put your phone away. Speaker 2: I know we know you, but your name and address again. Speaker 20: Susan Roy. Eight Auburn Street. I happened to have moved in in that neighborhood.
I was just asking kind of how many classrooms are there, Speaker 3: How Speaker 20: Many classrooms are there? Do you know when Speaker 3: They were over there? 20 kids in a room? Yeah, 25 in the building. Were they six or eight or so hundred students? I mean it's, it's evolved over the years, so it's a little bit of a tough question. Also, Montessori is mixed age classrooms, so they're, they're bigger than other classrooms. So Speaker 20: Yeah, I I mean I would say well over a hundred when it was a public school. I mean, we were there when the buses, I don't know if they had buses at that point, but Speaker 2: Hadn't been invented yet. I'm kidding. They're angry about Dave. Okay. Okay.
Okay, we're good. Does anybody else here have any questions before we go to the neighborhood? Okay. Who would like to be heard? Yes sir. Come on up. Speaker 3: Come. Speaker 21: I just got 40 Water Street talking to legal counsel here. If we get addressed through to the chair here, please. Have we resolved the situation where the select board gonna approve this project has resolved that they're responsible for the parking in the area. We had the peer review board saying shouldn't be any parking on the street and it was supposed to be in the hands
of the select board to determine the outcome of parking. How do we d how do we approve a project before we know the answer to that question? And as noted that they've just sold that building. That was the, the white building that's across the church used to be a church hall, is now gonna be a church in the past month. I've been watching traffic there and they've been parking actually on that street and in the circle area to work on that building that Well
Speaker 2: There won't be, they won't be in this project, Speaker 21: But there will be people attending that church. Let, Speaker 2: Let me see if I can answer the questions on Saturdays. Right? Let me see if I can answer the question. Sure. It's up to this board to determine parking period On the site. On on the site. On the, on the site? Speaker 21: No, no, I'm talking about Auburn Street for the, for the Speaker 2: Oh, okay. Speaker 21: For the safety of, of the neighbors. Speaker 2: Okay. So let me, let me tell you, I'm gonna just tell you what my recollection of that. The evolution of the, the parking issue was on Auburn Street when we first came in here. The, the, the word from the neighborhood was very clear.
We are very concerned about emergency vehicles having access to that site. Correct. Ambulances, fire departments. There was the host of horribles. What did we do? We responded to that concern, the neighborhood's concern by saying, you know what we're gonna do, we're gonna make sure that emergency vehicles can get down that, that street and get out of that street. And you're welcome. We said no parking on the street. Right? In response to the concerns that were specifically raised by the neighborhood.
And now that we've done that, that you want us to pay for that you want us you, you wanna accuse us now of doing something to hurt you? Speaker 21: No, I, I, what I'm addressing is, I was told at, I think it was the last meeting here, that the select board was responsible for the parking on the street. Speaker 2: I'm sorry. So lemme Speaker 21: We couldn't, couldn't do that. You're Speaker 2: Gonna say we're, we're gonna, if this decision is that we, we we, we don't have the authority to say there can be no parking on Auburn Street.
Correct. 'cause we don't control offsite, right? Correct. But what we're gonna do is we're gonna ask the Board of Selectmen to that. We're gonna tell them that during the process of the decision for the 40 B at five Auburn, we made a commitment to the neighborhood to reduce the parking or eliminate the parking on five on, on Auburn Street to allow emergency vehicles ingress and egress from the site. We have it on very good authority that the Board of Selectmen will support that, that decision.
Speaker 21: Alright. Speaker 2: I think that answers your question. Speaker 21: That answers that part. But I do wanna mention during the Speaker 2: Carris was I right, Speaker 21: I got the thumb during the process of having the full presentations of the group and the prior, you know, authority as to end up with this group and the fir and, and in the end, Speaker 2: I'm, I'm gonna stop you 'cause here's what I'm gonna stop you for a second. This group was chosen a long time ago. This board had nothing to do with that. No, Speaker 21: But the select Speaker 2: Did and they were selected. Hold on, we're not going back there. Speaker 21: No, no. I just want to let a point that was addressed
that you probably are unaware of. And, and I just wanna make this, it has to do Speaker 2: With the Speaker 21: RFP. It's safety. It's safety. Safety's first has Speaker 2: To do with this project, not the selection of this developer. I'll hear you. Well it has to do with this project, Speaker 21: But Catherine Kauflin of the select board said they were gonna widen the street that 30 feet and then this gets approved. That was, that's on the record. Okay. Alright. Go check. We're not unfamiliar. Don't check the tapes. Speaker 2: All I know is that the town's peer review consultant, okay. Along with every department of the town that's had a crime, the guy who drives the fire trucks had no comment.
At least as regards the issue you're talking about. That has not been a concern, which is why it's not in the decision except to say no parking. That's what we, that's the commitment this board made to you. Speaker 21: Sounds good. But Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 21: Hopefully we don't have to evaluate that later on. Thank you. Yeah, Speaker 2: Thanks. Who else would like to be heard, sir? Ready? Go here first and then we'll get you in the back there. Come on up. Thank you. Yes, sir. And this has nothing to do with the comments that are about to be made, but we will not enter, entertain comments about
how Metro was collaborative ended up being chosen as the developer. This board doesn't have any control about that. So let's leave that out of the discussion. Go ahead. Speaker 22: Two points I wanna make, sir. Yes, sir. First, are we privy to seeing the draft decision? Speaker 2: No thank you. Speaker 22: Question, which brings me to this point. Why not Speaker 2: You, you basically know what's going to be in it. We're talking about all the, all the various points. Speaker 22: Okay. Thank you. And I accept that really the other point that I'm objecting
to is a question was asked by one of your board members, where's the funding gonna come from? Or something to that effect. Could I have that answer again? Because I may have a follow up. Speaker 2: Okay. Let, let, let, let me, let me say, let me just say something. One, and cares, correct me if I'm wrong, the, the, the conversation about funding that by the board had to do with whether some of the determinations that the board was making
were gonna create an uneconomic project and the town would end up having to spend lots and lots of taxpayer dollars to litigate a thing that we pro that, that we, we could not win. Right. Or perhaps could not win. And I wanted to check that. I wanted to check that. 'cause there's a certain pragmatism that we have to consider the project. It's under this, this guise, this 40 B scheme, which is a very, very strong statute. Which was, which I said on day one, right on day one.
It's the first thing I said in this project. Speaker 22: I remember that, sir. Speaker 2: Thank you very much. So I said, let's check these numbers. If what we're gonna do is create a project that is undeniably uneconomic, then we're not gonna do it. We're not gonna do it because why, why would we wanna waste everybody's money just to come back down here and approve that, which we should have approved in the first place, knowing what we were doing was gonna make it uneconomic. But that was the question. Other than that question, I don't know if it's the board's purview
to determine whether the building, whether the project is financeable. Like, I don't think it's up to the board. It's not, Speaker 3: Yeah. Let's just be clear. The financing of the project is between the state and the developer, and the board has no authority over that whatsoever. So it's really not worth having a further discussion about it. Speaker 2: There you go. In my opinion, oh, sorry. Go ahead. I, Speaker 22: I'll accept that. I don't agree with you, but I, I will accept it. Thank you. Plenty of people Speaker 3: Have not agreed with me Speaker 22: Before.
Welcome to the club. Fun. Speaker 3: And I survived. But thank you. I appreciate your Speaker 22: Feedback. And sir, you didn't, you didn't correct me. I did not identify myself. Edward Ry 8 5 8 Auburn Street. Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Yeah, ma'am. Oh no, I'm sorry. I promised this gentleman here. I'd go into him. Yeah, please. Thanks. Hey. No, no g glowing at the board. Speaker 22: I think that was directed to me. I'm not g Speaker 2: Glowing you, g glowered. Speaker 22: I just complimented him Speaker 2: With a glower. Speaker 22: I wasn't sure what it was. Go
Speaker 23: Ahead. Speaker 2: Your name and Speaker 23: Interest. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Cody Jacobs. I, I live in Natick. I live at 16 Tamarack Road. I appreciate the, the board's careful deliberation of this issue. I think it's really important. We, as we've recognized throughout this project, both the proponents, even some of the opponents and you know, some of the folks on the board that there is a housing crisis in Massachusetts and in Natick specifically. But I think it's important to recognize that a housing crises like this do not arise out of thin air. They come from the result of many distributed decisions over many people all over the
country and all over the state, including boards like this one. And the decisions that you make about this, while it might seem small of, you know, one unit, two units, the parking, things like that all will affect whether or not the project is viable and actually goes forward and provides the housing that people want. You know, we've heard a, again, we've heard from the proponents over and over, this has been, you know, it is been gone over why the, the necessity is there of having the 32 units for this project as opposed to anything lower. 32 is already a compromise. That's the lowest possible that could be done economically.
And even that, it's a little bit worrying to me frankly, how close to the margins that is. If anything, it should be more units, but they've, they've compromised down to this. And I think it's a reasonable compromise this board should accept so that we can move forward with this. As a community, I think it's important to look at the big picture and to really think about not only the people that you hear from over and over in your email boxes and the people that come to these meetings over and over again, but the people who are not in this room, who will benefit from this project and the residents who want this project, as has been discussed, the select board agreed to the,
to this project, agreed to the proposal. It's within your purview to decide the issues that's within your purview to decide. But the select board did agree to this proposal in a pub, in, in a series of public me proceeded by a series of public meetings. It was very controversial. And in fact, two of the members who were responsible for approving this proposal were up for reelection in an election just this past March where this issue was one of the central issues in that election. They were reelected overwhelmingly, the people want affordable housing, they want this to go forward.
Please don't stand in the way. Please approve the 32 unit proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 2: Yeah, your choice. Speaker 24: Hi, I'm Rose in at six Auburn Street. I don't need a response, but I guess I just wanted to Speaker 3: The mic. Speaker 16: All right. How's that? Better? Okay. I just, him feeling like this is a separate board from the select board for a reason, and I, I do understand the environment 40 B, the state support of it in general. I get it. And there might be nothing to oppose that,
but I can't get over just the concept that like, you can never say no to a 40 B project. Like, can you really never say no? What if they wanted to build a hundred story skyscraper there? Would you never say no? And so just because the select board approved it and chose it, I don't see why that means you have to also approve it. The, there's a reason that you are a separate board. And then Speaker 2: Can I stop you there just for a second? Yeah, that's a valid point. I, I'm gonna have Caris just
talk about not this project necessarily, I'm not gonna talk about this project just 40 B and hack, okay. That's the housing appeals committee. When the, when a zoning board either denies or limits or conditions a project in such a way that is offensive to the developer for whatever reason, on, on economic, et cetera, the housing appeals committee gets it. And then what happens happens. But we have the history of that, that knowledge so cares. Speaker 3: Sure. So the legislature and,
and I'm gonna, I'm gonna give you a big picture here. Speaker 2: Your mic, I think your mic's off. Oops. Speaker 15: The legislature made a determination. What? That, that when communities don't meet a certain standard of having a minimum amount of affordable housing, the need for affordable housing outweighs what's called the local concerns, which are the health environment safety. And that level is 10% of your housing stock at that is determined at the time a project is submitted
to the town clerk. So the only thing I'm gonna say about this project is Natick was not at 10% when the project was submitted. That means it is a uphill battle, assuming the project is reasonable, and nobody is going to try to build a hundred story unit in a historical structure on the Charles River. Okay? The projects are mostly reasonable, sometimes they're not, and then they're dealt with in the hearing process if they're not reasonable. But the, the Housing Appeals Committee has then enforced the law once a decision is made,
if either a denial or a decision with conditions and looks at those conditions and decides whether or not those conditions on that project outweigh the local need for affordable housing. And since the seventies when the, the law was passed, I've done some of this research, there have been less than 10 decisions of the Housing appeals committee and the appellate courts that are reviewing them, that have upheld a denial for local needs where the community didn't meet their 10%.
So it's a difficult battle. We've looked at the cases, we've advised our boards, and I, I have this conversation with boards all over the commonwealth about this question. It's challenging. And, and yes, there is, you know, a, a preference for affordable housing because the state has made that policy determination. Speaker 2: Thank you very much so, but I just want to add to that and then I'll let you continue. You have that as the backdrop. And then what you heard in here, except for a little bit around the edges, right?
Parking being one of them, everybody who's had a crack at this thing, except for the folks in the neighborhood have said that there really is nothing here to be overly concerned about. Right? The first day you remember it was traffic. Oh man, this is gonna be horrific. It's impact on traffic. And then the town's own peer review consultant comes in and says, it's just not, the numbers just aren't there. It's gonna be infinitesimally an increase, but not enough to,
given the standard which care has just indicated. And you can carry that sort of logic through each facet of it. I'm left with the parking and that's why I raised it. And although the more I hear from the board, from the town, from the developer, it, it, my concern about parking is waning. But you're on, again, Speaker 16: I think the, the only additional thought is think of ranked voting, right? There's always one, one major concern that you express
or one major person you, you vote to elect, right? But once that one has been addressed, there's 10 more behind it. So one other theme of this project is that it's taking things away from the existing neighborhood without giving anything back. So as an example, my friends park on the street when they come to visit me, that is a right that a lot of people in Natick have that goes away because you are addressing another concern. That was foremost. There was also a public playground because it was a public school for the kids in the neighborhood that has been removed.
There is an open field where people bring their kids to play, they walk their dogs. It's so, Speaker 2: I don't forget these things. I, I just, I gotta address 'em one at a time. The parking thing we've already talked about. We're trading safety for convenience. But these other ones, that's just not the town's land anymore. They sold it, they gave it away. The town, the board of Selectmen did that. Right? And, and now it's their land and this is what they want to do with it. And now we're into the 40 B. Right? So it's unfortunate that you lost a playground
or you lost this or that. I, and, and I get it. I'm not suggesting that those aren't valid concerns, but that happened somewhere else Sure. At another time. And what's that's done? And now we're here. And so I ask you, I ask anybody here, I ask you, people will come to that mic and they will say, it's too big, it's too dense. And then I have to say, what is it about the size and the density that falls within the purview of this board
to allow this board to condition it in some way as to reduce that impact? And I just haven't heard it. If, if, if there was a significant risk of fire, of cares, gimme something here. Speaker 16: Was there any discussion with the fire chief about, like, I had he approved that actually was one of, I know he approved it, but about a second egress, like one he's not concerned. No, Speaker 2: No. But like some legitimate concerns about a project
like this might be Speaker 25: Environmental to the Speaker 15: River, right? Environmental concerns, storm water, that's water that's gonna snow storage, you know, things like that that are related to the infrastructure really. Speaker 2: And everything associated with those issues. Those legitimate concerns that a board of appeals has over a 40 B project have been addressed to the satisfaction of the town's, departments and or peer review consultants. Speaker 16: Okay. Speaker 2: Appreciate it. Thank you. Who else would like to be heard? Yes sir.
Speaker 25: Okay. Speaker 26: Mark Den 32 Elliot Street. You know this board has a huge role to play in the town, in every town. And I know you adopt chapter 41 from the Massachusetts general law and the board is charged for protecting the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the habitants in the town of Natick. That's a big thing. I think this is not going to add to making things more convenient. Adding a hundred people on a small street that's goes to a dead end river. There's four houses combining a whole long street into one
to two buildings, couple buildings in a dense area does not achieve that. The other things, the board, your adequate access to all lots in the subdivisions, safe and convenient for travel. I think it's gonna be challenging. I know cars go out one at a time, but I think there will be more risk of people getting stuck in this, this ongoing parade that was today from three 30 to six 20 on my way here today. That doesn't end. So people will probably grow impatient. I'm only projecting Amazon trucks, people pulling out, you waited too long, you're waiting for another light cycle
and accidents will be more likely to occur. Therefore, I don't think we're adding to any kind of safety and security for the area. And I just think a project of this scale would create a much greater risk than a smaller project with fewer cars. And I agree. I agree. 40 B is a tough pro, tough thing to overturn and we're not looking to overturn it. And you're gonna hear me and you're gonna have a dispute at the time of this. Whenever the select board approved it, Natick was down 10 units, not 32. So in reality, we could still go back
to that date. In Speaker 2: Reality, we can't. In reality we won't. So move on. Speaker 26: Why? Why won't you? We're Speaker 2: Not doing that. We we're, we. This qualifies under 40 B my friend. Okay. And that's why this, we've spent an a lot of time very carefully analyzing the project. Okay, Speaker 26: Last month, just let me speak. March 31st, you, Speaker 2: No, we're not going back. Speaker 26: Oh, I'm gonna speak for one minute. This probably be the last time. There was concerns on the board about density and parking. Those are issues which are under the guidelines of the board.
The ZBA board. They are, I don't think they changed since March 31st, any of this stuff. And now there's no concerns because they state that they can't afford it. There are plenty other ways. You can come up with 10 units, 12, 15, 20 mixed use, get your, get 10 units in there and it'd be better for the neighbors. They, they, we had a lot of meetings with the folks there never talked with us. They talked at us. They might've talked, we might've talked about trees and bushes. But never once was the basic density allowed to be discussed
and really didn't get really heard last until last meeting on March 31st by the board when you brought it up. You have concerns. That's been a long time. And that was our issue from day one. We don't care about affordable housing. Welcome it. It's the number and number number. And this could be rejected and sent back. That's what the select board told us early on. If it doesn't get approved by the ZBA, we send it back. Thank you. Thank Speaker 2: You. Who else would like to be heard? I see your hand. We're gonna get back to you. Hold on. No, no, yeah, sure.
Right behind you. Sorry. Speaker 26: Good evening. Hi Speaker 2: There. Speaker 26: Good evening. Speaker 20: Does that work? Yes. Jeanette Redder, precinct four. Former town meeting member, longtime community volunteer. First of all, I'd like to thank each member of the board and each member here who've taken the time to talk about this incredibly challenging yet important issue and to commend the professionalism of both the members of the board and the presenta presenters this evening. I rise to speak this evening because having been a more than 40 year resident, probably almost 50 year resident of the town as an
as a carpet bagger, I've fallen in love with this place because of the care that we extend to each one of our residents. And I think it's vital that the initial reason for the 40 B project be kept in mind. We are talking yes about cars and traffic and density. And I get that I live right near where the Big Madera project was, replaced the paperboard. And believe me, many of us attended many meetings and fought hard for an additional stoplight
because those people, there were gonna be traffic problems. They're not, I couldn't believe it. And yet it worked out. And so I have learned the lesson to be not as judgmental in my first opinion and to listen. And it wasn't easy, trust me. But I've come to see that what's most valuable are the lives of the teachers, our children, our healthcare workers, our service employees that need this. And I feel that my inconvenience
with the more people living Moderna at the Madera settlement is comparable to slight changes and maybe major changes in the South Natick area. I would simply commend each of us for thinking hard about this challenging issue and encourage us all to move forward thinking about what is best for overall in the town. Because we are all in this together. If we didn't live in New England, we wouldn't be having this conversation because the county would've decided and they would've plopped something in regardless of
what we wanted on our three little streets. And so, as difficult as change can be, I think it's vital that we recognize the community needs, that we recognize the diligence of the decision makers in this process, and that we work and enable our families, our neighbors, our fellow workers that add to the quality of life in this town, which is what everyone raves about, will be served by this project. I think we can serve as a model for other communities on how
to settle things with diplomacy, with understanding of fellow neighbors. And let's continue to recognize that stable housing leads to better health and job income and education for families and individuals. And let's continue to lead with compassion and common sense. This housing is needed and overdue. We need to move forward on this and keep re making recommendations for improvements to the process. If you hate 40 B, take it to the legislature.
But let's provide housing that we need for our neighbors. That's who we are. In n in Natick. We are champions. Let's show that in every field of endeavor. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 2: Hold on one sec. Go ahead Roger. Okay. He gave it to you. Speaker 12: He yield the floor. I yield my Speaker 2: Time. Speaker 21: Roger Scott 40 Water Street. And counter to that statement, this is all gonna be people who are employees of the town that was introduced into that last statement. According to our town administrator,
they only can control 70% of who gets into this housing. There are two sex offenders in town and apartments in town, and there's a school across the street. And I don't know how you're gonna control the other 30 person of who's gonna live there. You come out of prison, you don't have an income, we can give you a house, lemme help Speaker 2: You. Let me help you. Speaker 21: Yeah, Speaker 2: Please. There any apartment owner manager is going to have a set of tenant selection criteria that they're gonna use to determine whether or not you are or not suitable for living there.
And without even asking them the question, that would include income, credit, landlord, tenant references, background checks, criminal background checks. And there's laws associated with this. So, and they have to file the law, but that's the way it's done there. That's how you determine whether someone can move in. I don't know anything about the sex offenders. Speaker 21: Look it Speaker 2: Up. Doubt anyone will allow a sex offender in voluntarily. Speaker 21: It's on the record. There's Speaker 13: Also felons living in single family homes throughout Eastern Massachusetts. Thank you. Speaker 21: But on the other note, so who determines the 30%?
Do they determine that 30% or does that the town have anyone to say? No, Speaker 2: They're gonna determine, I think you're talking about whether there's a local preference. There may be a local preference for certain people who live in the town, but in determining whether or not they qualify to reside, there will be entirely up to Metro West Collaborative. Speaker 21: Thank you. Speaker 2: And correct me if I'm wrong, Speaker 15: There'll be a state requirement for affirmative fair housing marketing plan that Metro West will work with, with a consultant who handles all of that.
It's obviously an extensive process with, you Speaker 2: Know, to determine whether or not you qualify once you, if you Speaker 15: That, but that's part of the, there's a lottery process, but you have to be qualified to even enter the lottery. Okay. And so you've gotta meet the affirmative fair housing marketing plan requirements to get into the lottery. The 70% local preference is, is if the state approves up to 70%, it is for Natick residents, Natick employees, and employees of businesses in Natick. So it's a very broad cross section of the community.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I, I Speaker 22: Ed Shago eight Auburn Street in Natick. First to you, Mr. Chairman, you misspoke. There was a sex offender living right opposite the congregational church. Speaker 2: I said I wasn't gonna speak Speaker 27: Mr. Personal preference. This is out of scope of the board. Speaker 22: I'm just correcting you. I, that it was, that he was there and nothing was done about it. Speaker 2: I don't know anything about it. Speaker 22: This I do Speaker 2: Well outside of our proof. Speaker 22: Okay, second point. Are you folks gonna push to have the finances of Metro West reviewed? Speaker 2: No. Speaker 15: No. Not in the purview of this board. Okay.
The state already has done that and determined that they're qualified, Speaker 27: But if they're Speaker 22: Not, okay, thank you. You're welcome. I appreciate that. Yeah. I forgot my third point. Speaker 2: Fair enough. Speaker 27: Yeah. Place to live, don't you? Yeah. And it's called under 10 in the field. Speaker 10: Isha 30 Spring Street chair of na, affordable Housing Trust, here to make three points. One about transition and density, one about the subsidized housing inventory, and the third about the Metro West Housing
collaborative collaborative development. So when a property borders a single family homes on one side and a state highway on the other, a church library and some shops and offices on, on the other end, and one of the busiest intersections we should call the property for what it is, that it is a transition zone. It is not a property right in the middle of a single family district. It transition and whenever property transitions there is gonna be change. And the, the, the goal here is to effectuate the change in the most reasonable
and the compatible way as possible. Just to go over the numbers, the site measures 2.84 acres, 32 units would yield the density of 11.27 dwelling units an acre. Just put this in context with a higher density multi-family development in downtown Natick, which a lot of folks have compared it to. Case in point, a proposed 54 unit mixed use development in 48,000 square foot site by Stonegate. That's the density of 49.1 dwelling units an acre.
So that's like four times the density of what's being proposed right now. So in terms of density, the proposal by Metro West is 78% less dense compared to the Stone Gate development. The second point is about the subsidized housing inventory. I made this point before, but it never ceases to surprise me. Only 55 to 60% of SHI are truly affordable. The current numerator, that's the total units in the SHI, it's 1,550 six one hundred and thirty seven ownership units and 1,419 rental units.
And of this, it includes 476 market rate rentals within the SHI because that's how the state calculates it. So if you don't count it, the actual percentage of affordable housing units in Natick is less than 7%. And finally on Metro West, they're the only certified community housing development organization c currently eligible to receive home setaside funds administered by the Westminster Metro Home Consortium, a regional planning body that includes the town of Natick
as a member and receives funds for housing development. And they have done everything the board has asked them most things, the community has asked them, and even the trust, what we have asked, you know, they have listened, they have followed the process. And what you have on the table, what we have on the table is a vastly superior project than where we started. And that's thanks to the board and thanks to this collaborative process. So I wanna take this opportunity to thank you all for your continued engagement. Please vote for this project and let Natick have another 32 affordable housing units. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 20: I I have a question about the numbers Speaker 2: One time just for the record. Speaker 20: Oh, Susan Shago, eight Auburn Street. Sorry, I forget that Speaker 2: I was gonna get let another KO get away with it Speaker 20: And, and I I think I'm addressing you through you go ahead. Okay. The numbers that we have shown tonight are totally for Metro West Collaborative. They are, they are. The gospel we're taking, you guys are, you're not taking it as gospel. I mean, it seemed to me that we need peer review about the numbers. So you Speaker 2: Remember last week, last time we were here, Speaker 20: I asked Yes, I know
Speaker 2: We tried to get one, but we, we, we couldn't find anyone to, to peer review them. And, and at, at this point, having Amanda and her and her department having used, I would describe as extraordinary efforts to find someone to do that work and not being able to find one. Basically everyone said, we're not gonna do it. We won't do it, we can't do it. We're otherwise engaged. We just ran out of options. And at, at this point, I, I think it's unfair at this point to, to say we,
we are gonna delay this thing even further so that we can get it peer reviewed. I also think based on everything that this board and there's ly talented people on this board. There's architects and developers and lawyers and, Speaker 13: And Rob and Rob, Speaker 2: I'm Rob that I, I think, you know, I I am not a a, a real estate developer, but you know, every, everyone here is like reasonably intelligent and, and,
and I think I'm personally convinced that these numbers are true. And so Speaker 20: That's gospel. Speaker 13: Mr. Mr. Chair, can I, can I ask a few questions? I the applicant that, that might have helped address this. Yep. So you guys still, you have the project eligibility letter and stop me where I go wrong please. Funding applications need to go into the state. Those have, there's gonna be an estimate attached to that from a qualified contractor based upon drawings that are not the level of drawings we have now,
but they're gonna be well advanced construction drawings. There's going to be term sheets from lenders. There are going to be term sheets from tax indicators. There are gonna be contracts, not proposals, contracts from architects, designers, civil engineers, lawyers, all these things. These are gonna be in the budget. There's gonna be a pro forma, there's gonna be a rent roll that's gonna say, here's the amount of rent we're gonna get. There's gonna be, they're gonna say, okay, we,
we think we're gonna get a 5% vacancy rate. And the state may say no, you're gonna get an 8% vacancy rate. The state is going to look at all of their stuff before they award one iota funding. The lender is gonna look at it before they award one iota of funding. Furthermore, as they said, a lot of the stuff is formulaic. They can't charge more than X amount of fee. They have to have x amount of debt service coverage. They have to have all of these things. This us looking at this stuff is the first step They're gonna go through the, the amount
of process they still have in front of them. I feel bad for you guys. They're, they got a lot Can Speaker 15: I, sorry, when you're finished, Jeff, I'm done. You, you, Speaker 13: You please stop me. Speaker 15: Yeah, no, you guys are actually not the first step. You're the second step. The, the pro forma has already been submitted to the state and the state looks at those numbers when they review the project eligibility and determine based on their vast experience, whether a project is, you know, financially sound or not. And they wouldn't give project eligibility
to an unsound project. And we rely on that. And we rely on that because the state has said in the regulations that hand that lay out the process for a 40 B project that financial feasibility is not a, and a peer review of that is not part of the jurisdiction of the board. The only reason the town was looking to, to check those numbers is because the applicant agreed and they submitted their proforma in their application. So it's in the public documents for all of you to take a look at.
I'm not suggesting that you should look at it and comment today, but it, it's, it's out there. It's been looked at, it's been looked at by all of these folks because the applicant in order to advance the project was saying, you know, it's not, and I remember attorney Dopazo Gilbert saying, it's not really within your jurisdiction, this is a fine line, but if that makes you feel better and helps us move this project forward, we're not gonna object if you, you know, find somebody to take a look at it and get back to us at the next meeting. Ms. Loomis spent the entire month talking to people
and she copied me on most of the correspondence. And most of those people wrote back and said, not in our jurisdiction, not anything a zoning board should be looking at. We aren't gonna do this work because we can't, the only time this gets looked at is down the road if financial feasibility gets raised in an appeal, it doesn't get raised at the zoning board level. So there is no basis for the town to do a peer review of the financial numbers. And, and those numbers I do not know 'cause I just saw them tonight.
But there's the proforma and you can look at those numbers. I imagine that they're consistent with the proforma. Speaker 20: So why did the town of Natick draft something for 28 units, I guess is my question? No, no. So I Speaker 2: Would, so that was, that was, that was me. And, and oh, I didn't draft it, but it was, it was basically generated based on the comments that I made in the last hearing. And I said I would feel comfortable at 28, I think it got bumped to 29 and we started to have a sort of a consensus at 29.
And the comment that was made by the applicant was, it's un economic at 29. And then I said, alright, let's check it, let's double check it. And if it turns out that it is uneconomic at 29, then you know what? We're not going to, we're not gonna give it that kind of haircut. This is what I said, because it's gonna go up to the board. If we all agree it's uneconomic. In other words, our we peer review it and it's uneconomic at 29. Would Speaker 20: We be, that's what I'm asking for. Speaker 2: Would, wouldn't we've, we tried and failed. I know.
Wouldn't we be fools then in, in, in the face of that to nonetheless give it the haircut, send it up to hack, knowing full well that hack was gonna send it back down and in the meantime spend all of your taxpayer dollars litigating an issue where we know the conclusion it would be foolish of us. That's the pragmatism I was talking about. But you know what, it was a good idea at the time. I agree, thank you very much. But it failed because we couldn't get anyone to give us the review. And so now we're left to do it ourselves and so
Speaker 20: Far I'm just a proponent of a few more would make a big difference to the neighborhood. Speaker 2: I I Okay. Alright, thank you very much. Anybody else? Last call? Okay, well here we are. Caris, Mr. Chairman. Now, now, so what we have here is we have a draft decision help help me. We, we could close the public hearing right now or maybe we have to talk about waivers. I don't know, but we could close the public hearing and then issue a decision within 40 days and that decision will be what it will be.
I can tell you right now, I'm, I'm not gonna, I'm not, I I'm, I'm not going to arbitrarily reduce the number ba based on ev all the comments I heard today, the input from the applicant, the input from the members of the board. So I'm off that. Okay. Okay. But that's me. I'm, this is one vote. That's where I'm at right now. I'm moved by Jeff's comment about the impact of that reduction against the economics of the project. And so that, that's where I am.
I don't know if everyone has to tip their hand or not, but I don't know that we need anything that I need anything more from the applicant, from the consultants. Okay. I think we're, we're done Speaker 15: Then If you are done and you're, you're board agrees that you are done and you have sufficiently discussed the application, the size, the conditions and the waivers, then you can vote to close the public hearing and you can direct Amanda
and I to complete a decision to be voted on at your next meeting whenever that is. But within no more than 40 days and preferably a little less than that. Yeah, yeah. Just so we have some buffer time, you know, with the direction the, the draft decision has a couple of numbers in it with respect to units. So we need some direction on the number of units and Amanda, is there some, are we okay on, are, are they okay on waivers? Is the, the last waiver that came in
and then came out again, is that correct? They'll Speaker 2: Have to check it themselves. Speaker 15: Okay. Speaker 2: I'm not sure what that was The only thing on the Speaker 4: Waivers, the only thing on the waivers was the new issue we heard about on Friday, which was this is a professional medical office. Yes. So we would have to add that to the waiver list if that is the determination of the town. Speaker 2: Is it or is that a It was a considered position I think at, but one way or the other it will resolve itself.
Either it, it is and the waiver gets increased or it isn't and the waiver stays the same. Speaker 4: Right. We had it in our waiver list as the office being an accessory use to the residential. Well in my opinion it's what we had in the waiver, but we found out Friday there was a difference of opinion. So Speaker 2: The 42nd space is in there. Right. Speaker 4: We submitted a plan that added one one more spot Speaker 2: 42. Yep. So if it's 45, it's three. If it's 47 it's five. And these other issues, Caris that are in this decision right now that are,
that are commented on and we can resolve those. Speaker 15: I think that's a council to council to staff conversation to resolve. I think they're not major to the board's determination unless any board members have questions about any of them, but we can certainly resolve them in a, you know, internal discussion to get a final determination draft to you all. Speaker 2: Did you want to, so no, I was just looking forward to like move close consideration of public hearing. Say it again? Move to close publication.
Oh, we'll get there. We'll get there. Okay. I withdraw. Speaker 28: I was maybe a question for Caris, but I was wondering how much detail we need in this draft decision before we close the hearing. How, how much wiggle room do we have to negotiate the final conditions after we close you? You get Speaker 2: Most of the comments that grow out of this draft deal with the number. Speaker 15: Okay. Speaker 2: Correct. O other than that, Speaker 15: If you've heard all the evidence that there is to hear, then there's nothing else that is needed
and we have the ability to discuss and revise and resolve a final determination a Speaker 28: A hundred percent. So like we, we, we could delete half of these conditions or add a bunch of new conditions that maybe we haven't even talked about, but they were based on the input that we received. Speaker 2: I I think there wouldn't be anything that's not in here that would really go in here. It would just be a little bit of redlining and tweaking of what's in here. Yeah. I'm Speaker 28: Just wondering how free we are to alter this draft. Speaker 15: So it's, you know, a little bit of a balance. Okay.
I I think that to the extent there are alterations that need, if you feel that there are alterations to the draft that need considerable change and discussion, then we should have a conversation and, and be back in front of the board in a shorter period of time. Because once that public hearing is closed, the statutory 40 days, unless, if you think that there's significant work still to be done to satisfy the board, then the other option is to leave the public hearing open for another round,
have further discussion and have a sort of discussion of the draft at the next meeting to sort of find out what the board's concerns are or deal with them. I don't know what the applicant's position is on extending the public hearing any further. Speaker 2: I can ask that question just Yeah, because I wrote the decision and I think it is almost all of the comments grow out of a number issue, right? Well, Speaker 12: Some, some like, but for example, one of the conditions or one of the findings is access
and egress of the property requires modification to Hub street. Is it Speaker 2: That's coming out? Speaker 15: Well no, that, but that's Speaker 12: Kind of my question. Oh, no, Speaker 15: I'm sorry. That can can be a Speaker 2: Not widening. Okay. I'm sorry. I heard why Speaker 12: But modification. I don't, we don't know exactly what that is. Well, Speaker 2: We're gonna recommend to the Board of Selectmen that they eliminate the parking on Auburn Street. That's the modification it speaks to. Speaker 15: And, and that would be a condition I thought Speaker 2: It's not a physical modification Speaker 15: That would be a condition where the board as a condition would recommend to the select board that no parking be allowed on Auburn Street.
Very simple and straightforward. Okay. It's, it's a condition, it's a conditional condition essentially. Yeah. Speaker 2: Okay. Yeah. Any anything else? Speaker 12: No, I mean, and, and I think I agree with you most of that stuff, I don't know the, quite the difference between a substantive change and a wordsmithing Speaker 2: Change. I'm not, I'm not sure I do either, but Carris does and Amanda does. Speaker 15: I mean, substant changes are changing anything in the configuration of the site changing anything that, that would result in a change to the site plan. Those are the things, anything
that is an unanswered question that might require additional testimony or evidence. Okay. Those are the, the sort of, if if, if you have questions or issues that need that much input, then we should either be back in two weeks or get a continuance. Speaker 2: Go ahead. Speaker 28: I was just gonna say to clarify though, it's more about the schedule and the timelines than it is about the, the ability to change this. We can change it, but it can affect our schedule and the deadlines is yes. Is the main concern. Speaker 15: It can be changed. Absolutely. Alright. And it's just a, a question
of whether it fits within the 40 days or whether it Okay. The changes might require additional time. Thanks. Oh, Speaker 2: I'm just gonna say one, one, oh, I'm sorry. Alright. Speaker 5: Cindy Bates five Lincoln Street, I, this is my third meeting and I support the project. I'm a little confused about this not having any parking on Auburn Street. I heard one resident today say that her friends park on the street and last week I was on my bicycle and I visited the little flagpole in the little park at the end. But if I was in a car
and there's no parking on Auburn Street, then I'm gonna have to par. I don't know, what am I gonna do? So I would encourage the sec select board or your recommendation to, to maybe just limit the parking to one side of the street. Speaker 2: Okay. Thanks very much. So I I I, I neglected to say that I, I do think that over the course of these many hearings, that the input from the neighbors, the neighborhood, despite, I think your thought
that this board has essentially abandoned you, I don't think is true. And the reason I don't think it's true is because the project that came before this board on day one is not the project that's being built. What's being built is substantially, dramatically better than what was originally proposed. And why did that happen? It happened because of your input, because of the neighbors and the neighborhood's input. And this board listened and the developer modified the, the, the project to something that I think is that the town can be proud of.
And it is. And that's what this process yielded. So I think you, the neighborhood for your efforts, the applicant for their efforts, the board for its efforts, and particularly Amanda for her efforts on behalf of the board who did yeoman's work in trying to deal with a very complicated, complex issue and dealt with, I mean, this is 20 pounds of material right here and not only one guy. So thank you Amanda for that.
And thank you cares for your, for your guidance throughout the process. So that's it, that's just my, my take of the situation. And so now we're left with what's the next step? I think we have a choice, right? It is. We can close the public hearing, which I think we can do and have Caris and Amanda and counsel work out the details. I, that'd be my preference again on one vote. Who, who's voting on this? Speaker 28: Mr. Chairman, who's voting? Speaker 2: I don't know. We, we've decided a long time ago. I've, Speaker 28: I've attended all the hearings so I can vote.
Speaker 12: I can vote Speaker 28: As of I Speaker 2: It's gotta be Rob Speaker 28: Because he's a full member. Speaker 2: Yeah, it's 1, 2, 3, 4. Who do we say was gonna be the fifth vote? It was, I think it was, it was, it was you Andy. 'cause of your particular expertise. Expertise, yeah. Yeah. So, so that, that, that's it. So I, I, well listen to everybody. My, my preference would be to close and, and let these guys go to work. Rob Allen. I would prefer to close and actually decide. That's not gonna happen. Can't I?
Speaker 28: I'm ready to close. Speaker 12: Close, Speaker 25: Close, Speaker 6: Close. But question to everyone as far as the numbers, what is Speaker 2: That get? 32. Speaker 12: 32. Speaker 2: That's it. 32. Okay. So Karis, we're gonna vote to close the public hearing. Got it. Do we need to do anything else? Nope. Speaker 28: Motion to close the public hearing on five Auburn Street 40 B Speaker 2: Application. Second. Second. Andy, you want a roll call? Vote Speaker 28: No. You want me to Speaker 2: Roll call, vote. All those in favor? Yes. All a aye.
A motion to adjourn. Speaker 12: I'll make that motion. Second. Speaker 2: I right second that motion to adjourn. Second over here? Yep. Somewhere. All those in favor? Okay. Thank you.