Speaker 1: There we go folks. Thanks for coming. We'll get going. Same, same ground rules as we always have here. I won't belabor them 'cause we all know them before we get started. We have the public speak portion of the evening or any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda and it will 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 in any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. Does anybody have anything they'd like to raise that's not on the agenda tonight. Okay, seeing them, we'll jump right in.
We have the continuation of public hearing for five Auburn Street and application for Metro West Collaborative Development. The applicant request approval of a comprehensive permit under MGL chapter 40, sections 20 through 23, and the native zoning bylaws for a multifamily dwelling development and associated site improvements. Hello. Welcome. Welcome everybody. Thank you. Okay, so let's just see where we are right now. I know that I did get a presentation that we're gonna see. Is that right back here or there? Yes, somewhere. Okay. And so that's in the offing.
We also have the benefit of Attorney North who's with us tonight. Hello there. Can we just see if we can hear you? Speaker 2: Good evening. Can you hear me? Speaker 1: Yes, we can. Yes. Thanks very much. Yep, Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay, so why don't we hear from you? We'll see what you've given us. I might make some comments and then I think we'll turn it to Caris to tell us just sort of where we are in the process and what we can expect going forward just so we can have certain expectations.
Anybody here have any thoughts before we let that happen? No. Good, good? Yep. Good. Alright, I'll turn it to you then. Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you so much. Jennifer Deso Gilbert. I'm the attorney for Metro West and with me this evening is the entire team. We have the architects, the engineers here, and I'm sitting next to Kaitlyn Madden, the CEO for Metro West. With respect to what's on the agenda tonight, we did submit a revised plans. I just wanna go over some of the main changes. Changes were made with respect to feedback we heard.
So on the architectural plans, the standing seam metal siding was changed to fiber cement board and Batten. That was in response to the historic district comments that we received. The new building height had previously been measured from the lowest grade taking a conservative approach, but the dimensions have been updated and to reflect the definition and the way to measure a corner lot from the average grade at the center line of each, a budding street that's also been updated on the waiver list. With respect to the civil engineering plans that were submitted, there was a new fire hydrant added on
Auburn Street at a location that was co coordinated with the Natick fire Department. There was a path behind the buildings at the dumpster that was widened with respect to the fire department request. From 16 feet to 18 feet, there was some adjustments to shrubs and snow storage locations adjacent to the parking spaces one through six. EV sparking parking spaces have been adjusted and their location is now adjacent to the new building. The painted crosswalk de detail has been revised to show a six foot wide striping
and the sidewalk connecting the wheelchair ramp was revised to incorporate a five by five level turning area in order to provide adequate room from the stormwater system. Also, the up updates were made to the landscape design and the planting list in discussions with Amanda Loomis. And then before I get into the updated waivers, I thought I would turn it over to Kaitlyn to say a few words about some process and then I'll go over the waivers. There were some changes that were made at the request
of the board and based on feedback we heard, but lemme turn it over to Kaitlyn Madden for a few minutes. Okay, thanks. Speaker 4: Okay. Can everyone Speaker 1: Hear me? Yes. Speaker 5: Okay. Okay. Good evening everyone. My name is Caitlyn Madden. I am the executive director of Metro West Collaborative Development. And thank you to the board for having us again here tonight. I just wanted to speak a a little bit about the process to date for the project because there has been significant local input to date. So we've had a couple of community open houses.
We went in front of the Conservation Commission to define the air source area of resource delineation to make sure that we were clear on where that was located and make sure that we were planning our footprint of our new building around those boundaries. We've also been in front of the select board after the RFP selection a number of times to provide updates on the status of the project. We've been in front of this board a number of times to present our plans and talk through updates and go through peer review. I do think it's important to to point out, just
so people understand that all along the way this project has been under close review by the, the town departments and the various agencies. Prior to this, even our submission to the zoning board, we met with the department design review team, which included members of the staff of the various departments in the town. So kind of all along the way, those agencies have had the opportunity to weigh in on our project and as we submitted updated plans in October and then again in January, all
of those revisions have been made kind of alongside the departmental review. So we've had a, a very collaborative process to date. Just wanna remind folks that we were in front of the historic District commission and the planning board. Both boards serve in, in an advisory role in this process. But we were happy to go in front of those boards and get their feedback and incorporate those comments into our plans. In addition to the discussion at the zoning board and, and the other boards, we've, we've received numerous written comments and letters
that are posted to OpenGov. We have gone through the project eligibility letter process with the state during which comments were received. We've been through a review with the National Park Service, the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the Natick Conservation Commission, and we'll be back to them again once we wrap up with the, the zoning board of appeals. We've been in communication with the Natick Community and Economic Development Department, DPW, fire and Police Departments, and the Board of Health. We've been in front of the Natick Affordable Housing Trust
fund a number of times, and again, had a series of meetings with the Town Design Review team. We've also had one-on-one meetings with Abutters and have gone through the peer review process with McFarland Johnson, including an, an initial review and then responding to their comments. We believe those all have all been addressed at at this point, but I just wanted to make it clear that all along the way that the, the various boards and town departments have had opportunities to weigh in on this project. And I think, you know, Amanda can speak to the,
the current status of, of the departmental reviews, but just wanted to highlight that that has been happening throughout this process. And tonight we're planning to cover the, the updated waiver list and the updates that were dated March 20th, 2025. So, Jennifer, do you wanna Yeah, Speaker 3: Sure. Let me let, so we went over the waiver list at length, so I'd like to highlight the changes that were made. You've got an updated waiver list. You may recall that there was, can I Speaker 1: Stop you just for one second? Yeah. Just wanna make sure I'm looking at the right one. March 21, correct? Yes. Speaker 3: Yeah, March 21. Thank you. So at the, at the prior review,
there was waiver C that was removed that had to do with an old bylaw. That's is is since not in effect, it had to do with floor a ratio and sky exposure plane ratio. So I think that was raised and it was still on the website, but that's been removed in discussions with Amanda. It's no longer needed. Then when you look at waiver F, there was a lot of questions about how the height was measured on this corner lot. So the architect went back and measured in accordance with the bylaw
for this corner lot and has the heights there on the right hand column. Now, based on that measurement and compliance with Natick's definition of how to measure height on a corner lot, and the architect is here if there are any questions on that. The other change we made was, if you're looking at the waiver list dated March 21, if you go to m we just made it clear that that waiver is sought for not just the fire lane and the dumpster enclosure, but all of the off street parking and storage areas with respect to the buffering areas.
And it's further detailed on the landscape plan. And then if you go to what is now waiver q So there was a little bit of discussion on this and I wanna be very clear why we kept it in. We will submit signage plans at a later date to Amanda and the building commissioner. We don't have any signage proposed at this time, but the reason we kept you as the authority to make a decision is because if you see here on the left hand column in this residential district, you would only be allowed
to have one sign not exceeding one square foot. So in all likelihood we would need relief and we wouldn't have to, we wouldn't want to come here for a variance. So we'll go through the review with Amanda and the building commissioner, and then if it's more than one sign or it's larger than one square foot, we would have to come to this board and it would be a modification under the 40 B regulations. That's why we kept it in. So I added some language to clarify that. And then finally we removed, there was some discussion about the town's street opening
policy and whether a performance bond would be required. And we took that out, it caused some, a little bit of pushback and discussion and we decided that we will bear that cost and we remove that request for that waiver. And, and that's about it. So if there are questions, we have the team here. If not, we can go on and have the architect talk about the revisions that were made and the civil engineers here as well. Yeah, Speaker 1: I, I don't have any questions on what we've gone over so far. Does anybody? No. Okay. Yeah. So we'll go to the next step.
Speaker 3: Okay. So we do, we do have the plans with us and what we thought, if there are any questions on the revisions, the architect and the engineer are here to answer them. Speaker 1: I, I think it, is it possible, just because we have all these folks here who may or may not be aware of the changes that were made. I know you went through them in a narrative sense. Yes. Can you one, are they on there? Do we have the plans on there? Yes. And the architect can just point out or the, or the, or the engineer can point out what the changes are. Speaker 3: Sure, no problem. Yeah, they were minor, but we can pull them up. Sure. Yep. Speaker 6: Could you step to the other side? Sure.
Is this the only way we're it should come up behind? Speaker 1: There it is. Right there. Speaker 6: Go over here. Speaker 1: Yeah. Hi there. My Speaker 7: Name is Dan Ella with Neuro Engineers. And so just kind of to summarize a little more in detail of what Jennifer mentioned earlier, but the first item, excuse me, was the, the ADA a parking spaces originally were shown over here. The Aada a parking spaces. We've left the Speaker 1: Station. Oh yeah. I'm sorry. I'm gonna stop you just for a second. We're gonna get you a mic. Speaker 6: Thank you. I was about to suggest that. Is it, I'm standing on a cord here.
There's one on the podium there, Jeff. I wasn't terribly Speaker 8: At home. Speaker 1: Alright, thanks very much. Speaker 8: Good evening. Again, my name is Dana Alto Beo with Merrill Engineers and Lance Surveyors. Just to summarize the, the, the modifications, the first item was the a DA parking spaces for the EV parking or the EV spaces. Originally they were located next to the existing Elliot school. These have been relocated over to the front of the new building where they will be van accessible size spaces. So there'll be a minimum of eight feet wide as required by a DA requirements for, for van spaces. The ED parking spaces will be there as well.
And this, this layout actually meets the, the requirements of the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board recommendations for EV spaces. It's a little bit smaller and it, it doesn't, it doesn't require that we lose any spaces by doing it this way. It gives us a little more flexibility. So depending on what car is there, we have a left side, a left side, and a right side that'll be accessible to the ev charging station. So they'll be able to get, you know, either, either model that, you know, on the site or whatever it, it'll, it'll provide access to any car basically that's, that's gonna pull in there.
Excuse me. The, the next item was we updated the crosswalk detail just to maintain or to ensure that it's going to be six feet wide at a minimum. And we've also decreased the spacing between each, each striping for the, the crosswalks themselves as well. The next item was the curb ramps along Auburn Street. Were modified to ensure that we have the five by five turning area at the bottom of the ramps. And then we also have in added a new parking hydrant over in this area, which will be kind of in line with this space right here just
to provide an additional access point for the fire department if, if god forbid there's ever a fire on the property. And lastly, we have extended the previous paver parking area for the fire department access here. We've increased it from 16 feet wide out to 18 feet wide at a, at a minimum. And then we've just kind of carried it out to the face of the building on that side, just so we provide easy access to people exiting the building over from this area, from the rear access in that area. I think that's generally it for the civil changes. Okay. Speaker 1: I can, thanks very much. Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 1: But before you give up the mic, I'll just, I don't have any questions. Do you, do anybody here have any questions on that? Give up the mic. Alright, Speaker 8: Sounds good. Speaker 1: Other than that, there really were no significant architectural changes, correct? Except for Dimensional? Speaker 3: No, just the two that I mentioned. We recalculated the height Right. Put the detail in and then the board and Batten was added. Speaker 1: That's right. Okay. Okay. And, Speaker 3: And on the landscaping, the actual planting list was provided to Amanda and we had a discussion about that today. Right. Speaker 1: Okay, good, good. Alright, so we've got some
input here as well from, from engineering. I, I, I take it you've had the benefit of these as well? Speaker 3: Yes, Amanda, Amanda, Amanda to share those. I don't know if there's an update from Amanda, but Speaker 1: Just what you gave me, we have March 24th Public Works engineering. Yep. Speaker 9: So I provided you with the letter from the Department of Public Works, just reviewing and revising the applicant should have received that. Also, there has been discussions with the applicant and the fire department making sure that one, the fire hydrant, fire hydrant locations were adequate and then also just the circulation.
And I believe we have clean letters for both of those. They are working with conservation on one of the items, but they will have to go through the storm water permit. So that will be in that area. As I mentioned, we did provide comments regarding the landscaping plan, which they are taking under consideration. And then all the other outstanding letters of comments were either provided or were already addressed. Okay. And so what you do have in front of you is the DPW letter fire department memo. And then what was also in the black large binder clip was
just the information that was submitted back on November 1st as part of the application just showing like the feasibility of the project. Yep. And then you also received the printed out site plans from March 20th. Speaker 1: Okay. And is there anything in here that, that, that you think is un has not been addressed a significant way Speaker 9: From everything? From my standpoint it has, but I would refer to Attorney North if there was anything. 'cause she did ask me to print out specific pages of that black binder clip. Okay. Alright. And I can't remember the exact ones.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. Alright. So I think, you know, sort of we're headed in the right direction in terms of fulfilling the requirements of the, the town departments and peer review and and whatnot. And it leaves this sort of giant elephant in the room that's sitting behind you, no offense. And which is about, I think the two big issues are total number of units and parking. I think that was another big one. And so I still think I have some question about
32 units being the appropriate number of units for the site. And just in terms of the intensity of use, the number of bodies on site, the number of parking spaces that are gonna be available for those people, including vendors and delivery and guests and users of the, the, the open space and and whatnot. So I think tho that's still right for me personally, it's still a question. I, I know the response to that to date has been
financial feasibility. We need the 32 units to support this project as a whole. But, but we haven't been privy to those, those numbers yet. And I, I'm not sure, well, that's a question I have in my mind as I sit here today. Okay. I, I don't know whether anybody else in the board shares the same reservations as I do, I just know that I, I I have heard a lot, lemme say this. I've heard a, a, a lot from you folks and the project has really, it,
it has substantially improved as we've gone along through the process. And that means I, again, as, as people have heard me say, the process is working and I think a lot of the opposition at the outset has, has, has been mooted by a lot of what's being done has been done through this process. But a lot of what we still hear is about density. And that remains something that I have questions about Now that said, if, if it turns out that, no, I'll stop there for now. Does anybody else have any thoughts before I turn to cares
and tell us sort of where we are and where we're going? No, no, no, no, no, no. Yes. Speaker 10: I'd just like to reiterate that I, I share some of the same open questions about unit count and you know, I think hearing at some point, hearing more again about the magic number of, of 32 versus something that was potentially somewhat less is something that I've been thinking about as we've gone through this process. Speaker 11: Yeah. Mr. Chair also confer and your,
Speaker 1: Okay. Alright, so with that sharing of ideas, give care, do you want to tell us, give us some thoughts here and direction? Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely. So good evening everyone. I'm Caris North and I'm town council for the town of Natick. I think where you are right now is you're, you're bumping up on the 180, the statutory 180 days to review a project and certainly projects take more time. 40 B projects take more time. They take less time.
It depends on the project you have have. My understanding is you've gone through, you've had sessions devoted to each of the peer reviews, you've gone through waivers, you've talked about density and parking and size. So I think that you've discussed all of the significant issues there is, you know, you're, you're kind of at the point where the board needs to start making some decisions or formulating questions about where it wants to get this project at the end in a comprehensive permit.
We do have an extension through May 7th. So another hearing I, I think is Amanda and the applicant and I spoke earlier today, is in the works for the end of April. And then depending on how that goes, there may be another native hearing and, and, and another meeting and a, a further extension. But it, we're at the point now where Amanda has put together the first cut of a draft decision based on the application that was provided. All of the changes that have been done, the updated waivers,
the changes to the plans in engineering. I've done a first cut through it, the applicant has done a first cut through it, there is more work to be done on it, and then it will come to the zoning board after probably another turn between the two groups to take a look at. And so we need guidance from you all as to what you want this project to look like if it's something different than what has been discussed to date and whether that relates to, to density and number of units
and, and parking and, and particular waivers. That's where we, those of us staff essentially. And, and I, and to be fair to the applicant, need to understand what the board is thinking about and what additional information you need. It is my practice to keep the public hearing open while a a, a draft permit is being created so that if there is are questions or need for information, you can just come back at a meeting and get that information from the applicant
or any of, of their consultants or the town's experts, peer reviewers. So don't let you know if, if you need information, we need to know about it sooner rather than later. And, you know, we need to continue working on this collaborative process to produce a decision of some sort. And, and obviously that's ultimately the zoning board's determination. Sure. So, okay. Can I answer any questions for any of you? Speaker 1: That, that, that's very helpful. So I, I've expressed just my opinion about total density here
and we have a waiver here on the, on the total parking. We're already four under what the code would otherwise require for this, for this use in combination with the fact that we're, we're taking parking. I believe that your draft decision in accordance with our peer review is gonna shut down Auburn Street for parking. Am I correct on that? No. Yes. What? Hold on. Right. Speaker 9: No, so that would be actually a, a question
for the select board. The select board would be the group that would be able to determine that since they are the keepers of the street. Speaker 1: So do we have the ability to condition this on, look, we, we, we have, we have our peer review consultant says in order to get fire trucks in and outta here safely, you shouldn't be parking on Auburn Street. We don't have the authority to say no, there's no parking on Auburn Street Speaker 2: Or do That's right. So your, your condition would be refer to the select board to make that determination and the condition would be whatever the select board determines on that point.
Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. So, so you have parking coming off Auburn Street and you have Speaker 12: We doing Speaker 1: Well, I presume So Speaker 12: We're basically referring and Speaker 1: Recommending I look, I I presume that that's where it's gonna end up, right? I mean, unless the select board is gonna ignore the town's peer review consultant, which I think it's free to do. But I, Speaker 12: My, I I guess my, my, I mean I don't know if there's the appropriate time to talk about this, but my whole thing is that's a condition that exists whether this today before the project is built,
Speaker 1: You're talking about safety. Yeah. Speaker 12: I Speaker 1: Mean that building's there, those houses are there, Auburn, Speaker 12: They're not doing anything on Auburn Street. Whether they, whether this project goes forward or not. If there's, if it, if there's Auburn Street and it's current capacity and condition and configuration cannot accommodate a fire truck, that's that's ex condition that exists right now. Right, Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 12: Or after the project is built. Speaker 1: Yeah. But so I mean, it, it cares how does, how is this resolved? You know, we have our peer review consultants saying take
the parking off that street and in order to make the project that's being proposed safe as well as the four houses or five houses on Auburn Street, so that they're safe as well. And yet we don't have the authority to do that. So would we, what would the, what would the decision that you, you, you know, that's under your pen, say with regard to that issue? Speaker 2: Well, Speaker 1: I, Speaker 2: Sorry, so let me ask first, has the fire chief weighed in on this issue? Speaker 9: I do not, I don't believe this issue Speaker 2: Has gone to the fire department at all.
Speaker 9: There has been a conversation between the DPW town administrator myself. I think there was one other person there. Speaker 2: Okay. I, I mean I think that would be useful information to have. And then, you know, you can, I I think there are two ways to do this. There could be, I I'm thinking of a condition that would remove that parking subject to a vote or, or a recommendation to remove that parking subject to a vote of the select board based on the, the, the,
the safety issue. But I would wanna know what the fire department said about that before I, I drafted that condition. It is not in the current draft, but that's something we'll need to, to consider. Speaker 1: Well, I I'm not gonna substitute my judgment for that of the, the fire chief, but if Speaker 2: Yep. Speaker 1: Look, there's a certain amount of common sense that we're, we're able to inject into the process as well. And the peer review consultant has already weighed in and he is an expert. And I think my, my guess is that his or my sense is that his recommendations flow from
knowledge about the way fire trucks access properties. So again, my instinct says that the fire chief is gonna, is not gonna disagree with the, with with that issue. I, again, I could be wrong what that means. But the point, the point of that conversation is, what that means is that the parking then comes off of Auburn Street and then that makes the intensity of the use at the, at this particular locust more critical that there be onsite parking for all the residents, all the others who are going
to utilize that site, whether the in in some form or fashion, I'll just call them others. Those others are all those ones I went through. Right. Vendors and, and guests and visitors and, let's see, let's see, who else? I mean, staff deliveries. Staff, exactly. So, and we're already talking about a waiver for four spaces. So there's not enough parking to begin with. And then, then that brings me to the question about whether or not 32 is the right number or is there another number? Now I I, I know I've been here every hearing.
I, I know that anything short of there can be no building in the back is gonna satisfy the neighborhood, but that's, that's not gonna happen. That's unrealistic. But something short of that, that may make the project more feasible, at least from a parking standpoint, a density standpoint I think may be in order. And what is that number? We're talking about four parking spaces shy right now. So maybe four units to come off the top. So instead of 32, we're talking about 28. And if I, again, I'm, this is a bit stream of consciousness
and I'll acknowledge that I'm only one vote, but I'm throwing it out there to see what does that mean. Now we could go to the, we can go to the applicant Caris and say that's a thought, or we can go to the board and say, what are your thoughts? And then kick it back to the applicant to say, what's your response, if any? And if the response, if any is anything other than we can make that happen, then what's the next step? It's about, as I see it, feasibility, right, right. We've heard financial feasibility to date, but it's been just a, a word that's tossed around
with nothing to back it up. I understand the difference between this all affordable versus one that's only 25% affordable. And that does change the financial, it, it, it, it, it changes it entirely. But, but I don't, but I haven't seen the numbers and frankly I'm not equipped to even analyze the numbers if you handed them to me right now. But there's, there's an expert who, who can do that and we, we may have to hire them, but I'm not gonna, I'm gonna get to you. Who cares? What's my next step if that, if that's the way I'm thinking.
Again, I'm one of five. Speaker 2: Yeah, I, the next step is, well there, so in a discussion with the applicant this morning, they did remind me that in the, the pro forma documents were submitted to the town that as part of the, that were submitted as part of the project eligibility application were submitted to the town. So they are, and that's what's in the binder. And those are the pages that I had Amanda pull for you, just so that you could see that there is some financial data that's out there. But the next step is to, is
to talk about imposing a condition that the, the, the applicant then says is not financially feasible. And then we go down the route of doing an analysis of the financial feasibility of the project, which will require, as you indicated, some expert assistance. Speaker 1: I'm gonna put this to the other members of the board to see where their thinking is at. I I think that for the most part, you know, maybe a tweak here or a tweak there, you know, sort of all of the issues
have been substantially resolved. There may be a few others here or there that we could work out. And I don't think anyone that that, that this project is gonna fail as a result of, of any of those. And they might be the, the dimension of a parking stall or something like that. But other than that, and, and, and again, I may be wrong, you guys may disagree with me. You may say no, we have not, they have not met the requirements I think they have. And so I'm left with the issue I just discussed.
Does anybody here wanna weigh in on what I've just said and then we're gonna go to the applicant? Speaker 10: Sure, I will. I think that from emails that we've received, letters, we've received a lot of the great commentary and attendance that we've had here over the, you know, five or six meetings that we've had. You know, in my mind it's, you know, it's pretty 50 50 in the support versus some of the, the folks who would rather see it. It significantly changed in my
experience with this board, the, you know, the neighborhood feedback is taken seriously and it's, it's one of the things that we consider very important. So that's where I'm leaning in the sense that this is new, new to this process as far as this affordable housing, but not new to the zoning board. That oftentimes there's a compromise. You know, there's, and that, and that I would imagine in, in this sort of case that most of both parties being the general party of the neighborhood,
let's say, and and the developer, that one is coming into a process like this, assuming that there might be some level of compromise. So that's where I've been leaning towards of late is, is unit count of giving a nod to a lot of the strong support in other options that we've heard from the neighbors of reducing the size of the project. Bias is my own words, but by a certain amount as far as a little bit less traffic coming outta that street. A little less density. Clearly the goal would be
that it's still economically viable. So I think you can probably sense where I'm, where I'm leaning. Speaker 1: Anybody else? Speaker 13: I, I could just echo what I've heard so far. I mean, I think it's, like you said on in the details, it's a, it's a pretty good project, pretty nice looking project, but it's still the size and density that gives me some pause, especially with having to waive the parking requirements. I'm my main concern about the impact to the neighborhood, aside from traffic, which I understand, but is the parking and you know, to eliminate the parking on Auburn
to require all the parking to be on site and to be four spaces short causes some concern to me for the safety of fire vehicles and other vehicles that need to get in and out for the convenience of the neighbors, for other residents who might want to go down there and visit that lake, you know, the access point, all of that. I think if we could make sure that we had enough parking on site and, and it doesn't look like we can increase the spaces, but by reducing the number of units, that would make me feel a lot better about the project. Speaker 12: I disagree a little bit, but my end result is
roughly the same. I don't find this project aggressively dense. Keep in mind it, it may appear so at that end, but it's got the preservation of the open space when taking its totality. Part of the, part of the density is caused by, caused by that preservation. That's not to suggest I'm advocating paving over that open space to get more parking. As a matter of fact, I would be very strongly against that. But you know, also, you know, this is, this is a board post representative of the, of, of the town
and and hearing what they are, what they're saying leads me to kind of agree that, that that, that we ought to entertain, Speaker 1: Oh sorry. Hold on one second. Is your mic off? Mic on. Oh it is. Just pull it a little closer. Speaker 12: Thank you. Sorry about that. Understand that, that a reduction in units might be appropriate. However, in a vacuum, if no one showed up for these meetings, I would find this project Okay. As designed. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 8: So I'm also a similar mind. I thank you. I'm also of a similar mind. I would actually like to hear and see how the fe
economic feasibility of why there has to be this many units versus 28 or somewhere of that. I would like to actually see that and understand that and I will defer to you to like provide that for us. I know that's something that I've been asking for a couple of times and I haven't gotten the detail on how it is, but please help me 'cause I'm on the fence. So also I think we can, within our purview as a board recommend and refer the number of parking spaces for to the select board. Speaker 1: That part I don't think, no, I think we're in charge
of the parking on site. So Speaker 8: That's what I was meaning. Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. Speaker 8: Off, off Offite, can we not refer? Speaker 1: Yeah, so I think that's what we were talking about before. If we follow the, require the, the dictates of our peer review consultant. Yeah. We're gonna, I believe refer that issue to the select board to eliminate on street parking on Auburn Street. Okay. And that has a ripple effect on this lot, right? Because some of the people who would otherwise be parking on that street are not gonna park on
that street anymore. Right? We're it's already, there's not enough parking on site as in accordance with the requirements of the code. So what happens is, and I'll get to you, what happens is people park offsite, but now they, they can't park on Auburn Street, so they figure out somewhere else to park. Right? So that's, that's how these are interrelated as I see it. Speaker 8: I agree. Thank you. Speaker 14: No, I was just gonna say that I, i I sort of tend to align, I think with, with Jeff as well about, you know, I don't necessarily think that it's overly dense, certainly open to the sort of,
I think the assessment and the information that you could provide around the economic feasibility. You've done a, you know, the applicant's done a wonderful job I think of updating plans, providing lots of information about a, a litany of issues and whatnot that have, that have been put before the board. But I think, you know, certainly given the, the impact to the neighborhood of this development, it would be, it would be useful to hear I think more on that economic viability. So I would pick up my colleagues' comments on that. Speaker 1: Caris do you, do you want to say anything now about Speaker 2: I do actually. Thank you. So the process
by which you get into review of financial statements is essentially where, where you all are now in terms of, of the board can re and there's a, a process laid out in the regulations at seven 60 CMR 56.056. The board can request the pro forma only after consultant review has been completed, the applicant has had an opportunity to modify its proposal. The board has had an opportunity to propose conditions to mitigate the project's impacts and to consider the requested waivers. And the applicant has indicated that it does not agree
to the proposed conditions or waiver denials because it would render the project uneconomic. So, Speaker 1: So it, it probably is unfair to put that to the applicant now I, I would think, but is that what you're, is that what we should do? Speaker 2: Well what I'm saying is, is that there needs to be a particular proposal by the board. It's not just we think it should be smaller. Show us your numbers. It's, we think it should be reduced to X number of units because of this reason and,
and then show us whether it's still economic or not. So there's this particular target Yeah, sure. As opposed to, and, and you know, attorney Dopazo Gilbert may have a, a slightly different perspective on that, but I think that's generally the process that's laid out in the regulations. Speaker 1: We're gonna give her a chance to set, to tell you. Yeah. So before we do, I'm gonna throw out the number 28. Does anybody else wanna throw out a number and then we'll, we will hear from the applicant if they, if they choose to respond or we will see where we are
Speaker 10: In looking at the floor plans. I'm gonna throw out the number 29, meaning that it, it seems fairly a fairly light, potentially lighter lift to take off that rear unit if, I don't know if it's planned north anyways, the, the, the, the unit that's closest to the river and farthest away from Auburn Street, it's three stacked units. So think thinking about sort of the, the practicality of the design process and the coordination process, correct? Yeah, yeah. Do they have a name to that?
Speaker 1: Oh, if there is one, I can't read it. Speaker 10: It's the one that sticks out beyond the others in that, in that corner. Yep. So that's why I say 29 versus 28. I mean that, that's, that may sound slightly arbitrary, but, but not considering the amount of, you know, design effort and engineering effort, et cetera, that's gone into it thus far. So I'll leave it at that. Speaker 12: I don't know if it's appropriate for me to ask Andy as a architect. Yeah, for sure. Yeah, that one that looks like it would simplify the building and may have a outside sized positive effect on costs per the unit lost.
Might be hard to say. Speaker 10: Yeah, it might reduce the envelope a bit, you know, more than, yeah, more than taking out something else would amount I think that yeah, Speaker 1: I mean that, that, that, okay so Speaker 10: 29 20 29 and, and I, I don't mean to shrug meaning like 29. Speaker 1: 29. Speaker 10: I'm good with 29. Speaker 1: Jeff, Jason? Speaker 10: Yeah, Speaker 1: Ari, sure. Okay, so there's a number. Speaker 3: Okay, can I speak now? Yes. Okay. So I agree with the, the citation
that Caris read from the regulations. So it's premature for a couple of reasons. One that Caris said you needed to throw at an exact proposal. So now we've heard 29 units, but it's not just that we need to know overall what the other conditions of the decision will be because those would have to be factored into this pro forma that we would submit then to your expert for review? Speaker 1: Or, or or is it, do you also have the option of just a, a seating to the unit count? Speaker 3: No, I'm gonna tell you right now for the record that
reducing the number below 32 will make the project uneconomic. Okay. Alright, Speaker 1: Fair enough. Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay. So we're gonna, based on the proforma, currently the proforma is only gonna get quote unquote worse when we factor in all the other conditions and the design changes that have been made in response to historic planning, this board the neighbors, it doesn't get any better. Sure. So I can say clearly and with certainty that reducing it under 32 makes the project uneconomic. Now there are some areas, and, and,
and Carris will correct me if I'm wrong, that the board can't get into that are, that are only in the purview of the subsidizing agency. So for example, how many units are gonna be at 60%? How many units, right? So I'm just throwing that out there. We're, we're not getting involved that. So she can advise you on that. The, the, the, I wanna talk a little bit about the select board's jurisdiction on the public way. Absolutely right. But that shouldn't hold up or impact this project because it's a comprehensive permit. I might ask Caris to opine whether the board
can add that as a condition, whether the fire chief who has seen the plans over and over and over again and just recommended recently just a hydrant that was added. So we haven't heard any concern from the fire department, but the fire chief also has the authority to trump the select board and say this portion needs to be a fire line. Right? That's a, that's a fire department prerogative if it were a safety issue. But I, it certainly that issue alone shouldn't hold it up. We haven't, I thought that we had settled that on the traffic. There was no issue.
So I've heard a lot about traffic. Don't think no Speaker 1: Traffic. I, I I, I personally did I only heard one person mention traffic in this conversation today. Speaker 3: Okay. Maybe you meant, meant it with relationship to the parking. So with relationship to the parking on site, we do believe that both our expert and the towns didn't have an issue with having a request for what's a pretty modest waiver of four spaces. And that leaves one space per unit plus nine additional spaces that can be flexible for staff and visitors.
And then there's a drop off area as well. So that's where we are. So we need to kind of get to a conclusion with Caras on the, and and Amanda on the draft decision and the conditions. We did submit a pro forma with the application, so the town's had that since October. Caris now has it as well. And we're just gonna say that it's uneconomic to go below 32. Unfortunately. Unfortunately. And I know Caitlin wants to add a little bit more detail to that. Speaker 5: Sure. Yeah. So thank you Jennifer.
So I, I do wanna just say that, you know, we've been really transparent about the budget from the beginning of the process. So, you know, from before we even submitted a response to the select board and throughout the RFP process, we knew that the fewest number of units would be desired here. And that's why we proposed 32 because that was our absolute minimum for financial feasibility. And we've shared our, you know, budgets all along the way showing our sources, our uses, you know, why that's the case. I think some developers would've come into this process and said, oh, you know what, I know they're gonna ask us
to reduce the unit count, so we're just gonna say we need 32. And we'll say yes when they ask us to reduce it. We didn't play that game. We were honest about what we needed for financial feasibility. You know, I think I can talk a little bit more about that, but as Jennifer mentioned, you know, the numbers in the last two years have only become more difficult and will only continue to become more difficult as we go through our funding process. We still have a lot of steps before we can even start construction here after we get through permitting.
But I do wanna just say, you know, the all affordable development finance model looks at whether the costs to build and operate a development are equal to the sources available to fund the development. There isn't any concept of return on investment like there is in for-profit development. So the cost to build and operate the, if, if the cost to build and operate the development are higher than the available sources, the project just can't be built. You know, this affects both the upfront cost to build the building but also the long-term costs
to operate the building. Well, so, you know, we could be here for three weeks going through, you know, an affordable housing finance webinar. I know that that is too much to cover in the course of a hearing. But I do want people to, to understand that we've been really transparent about our numbers. This is a, a real assertion that we were making about financial feasibility and ultimately we're trying to meet the goals of, of the town, which is why we were selected to develop the property to into 32 units, which is what we said we were gonna do.
I can talk more about, you know, this idea of if we eliminate one unit stack, why does that doesn't work? Because it's probably all one's tight unit type, so it's probably all two bedrooms, which would throw off our percentages for our state funding. I can talk about what the impacts would be of adjusting any of the affordability, you know, any, any, I wish I could sit here tonight tonight and say, yes, 29 units, let's do it Because then we could move forward and I can't do that and I, we can, you know, talk more about why that is,
but I, I want people to know we're being honest and transparent about this Speaker 1: Carris. Speaker 2: Yeah, I was just gonna say, you know, this is consistent with the discussions that Caitlin and her group had with the select board during the, the negotiation of the development agreement. Right. And, and you'll see in the development agreement it says up to 32 units because the select board wanted Metro West to go back and sharpen their pencils as much as they possibly could and see if they could do anything less.
And I, I, you know, it believe Caitlyn, when she says they've, they've done that and I will just say there is a, take a look at the proforma that's in it's pages 24 to 49 of the, of the PEL application. That's, I believe with all the project documents. There is a construction cost worksheets and there are, there's a 21 year cost worksheet. I took a look at it today. I'm not a finance person so I'm not gonna comment on it,
but there are numbers out there that you can take a look at and maybe, maybe they'll be helpful. Maybe we need a consultant to take a look at them as well and advise. Speaker 1: What I'm trying not to do here is, you know, maybe solve one problem and create another. That is to say, you know, I don't think the, the reduction in unit count is unreasonable, but it might make it uneconomic, which means it's coming back. We all know that if that's in fact the case and I don't want to, you know, unnecessarily have this case
be appealed only so that we're sitting back down here again because the numbers were staring us in the face and we didn't analyze them. Okay. So, but again, I I I'll say I'm equipped to to to make that determination, but there are people out there who are, and if your numbers are what they are and, and somebody says it is what it is, I sound like my kid then, you know, I think the conclusion will follow. So let's, let's just stop there for a moment.
Does anybody here have any thoughts before I let the, the folks here who might want to be heard have a say? Speaker 2: I do have one more thought. Yes, Mr. Chair, which, which may be in the time between now and the next public hearing and as we're working on a, a decision that looks into the other conditions, perhaps it's worth for a sense of, of the board completeness, taking a look at the, having, seeing if we can find a consultant that would take a look at
the documents, the financial documents that have already been submitted to the board and seeing what if any questions they raise or what, if any determinations they help you get to Speaker 1: The numbers that, that the documents we have, you'd, you'd, you'd certify those as accurate today. Speaker 3: They were accurate upon application in October. As I said, they've only gotten worse. So you can use the, I mean I think you can use, use the proforma we've submitted, we'd work with a consultant if you're gonna bring one on hopefully expeditiously. Yeah, Speaker 1: We wouldn't wait. Speaker 3: The other, the, the, the only other point I just wanted
to remind the board is we were compliant on the parking. The parking was changed to increase additional open space at the request of the town and to reconfigure some of the circulation. So Speaker 1: There are many masters. Yeah. Speaker 2: And as as you said, Mr. Chair, sometimes fixing one problem creates another. So that's why you get to, that's why it's a comprehensive permit. Let, Speaker 1: Let's think. Yeah, let's, let's just hold that thought for a moment and we'll see what folks have to say. Who wishes to be heard. Come on up, mark.
Get my mic here. Speaker 15: Mark Den 32 Elliot, I'm at the corner house. Speaker 1: Is that, is that, is that thing on? Speaker 15: Is that on? Speaker 1: I check the green light. Speaker 15: It's on. Speaker 1: Hello? Yeah. Yeah, it's on. Speaker 15: I have to talk louder. Speaker 1: No, no you're good. Speaker 15: Okay. I'm affordable. I'm pro affordable housing. Get that right off the bat. Just not a scale of this size. I don't think this board has ever been approached by a developer. Even if the nonprofit, they have proposed to build such a project on a dead end street with one way in, one way out with four houses on the street.
It little has changed in the last 160 years except the school five AR street was built. It's a narrow street, 400 plus square feet. It is what it is. It's got beautiful views of the river. You can look down there, you can see the library, the bacon free library from the library yard. You can look down and see AR street. It's one of the last connections to South Natick Square. But that being aside, I just don't see how a variance for parking and not without knocking off several units,
the amount of UPS, Amazon, other things, visitors, contractors coming to repair, air conditioners, plumbing, all those things have to be taken into consideration. If this was a private developer doing a private project, this wouldn't have a prayer in the world, let's be honest. But you can't avoid safety and congestion and I think parking is a safety, it affects the neighborhood. They're gonna be spilling over. I don't know where they're gonna go. Water Street Lincoln all over the place with cars. But I wouldn't imagine this ever being asked for
in the history of A ZBA board. 'cause most towns restrict dead end streets of that length to like eight to 12, 14 units max. Here we are putting 32 plus the existing units that you can look, look up in the bo look up in the Massachusetts Commonwealth. It's, you probably won't find one district that has allowed this much density on a dead end street which doesn't have interconnecting streets. It's pretty much a big deal on a different note, you know, 40 Bs and this is a friendly 40 B from what I gather.
'cause we didn't need all the 40, 32 units to get it. We were, I think down 10. It's kind of a friendly thing once you go over that number. We have enough right now to meet the needs. I'm not saying I don't want the 10 or whatever it is, but we should be able to, as residents for the town of Natick, have a voice here. There's four houses you are adding by their projections currently metro collaborative, 103 more people to a street that has about 10 or 15 depending on who's got the kids home and,
and it's just the way it is. So a hundred more people, not a hundred more cars. It's just a lot of activity. And I don't imagine this would even be given one, one thought if it wasn't a non-profit 40 B project. Now I'm looking here again at a apartment comp project that was done in 2 0 3 in New Bedford. Stop. Let me just stop. There's different ways to fund Stop you for second. I'm sorry. Okay. It can be done. Speaker 1: Let me stop you for a second. Just please. It is not availing to say if this were a private development, I
Speaker 15: Apologize. Speaker 1: And why though Speaker 15: They wouldn't get zoning changes. Speaker 1: Well, because it's not, it's A 40 Speaker 15: BI understand that that's what Speaker 1: This board is doing. It is, it is. Looking at this project under the 40 B regime and day one, I opened the hearing Correct. With a very basic primer on what the future was gonna look like. And I'm no seer, but it's exactly as I anticipated. Speaker 15: I agree. So Speaker 1: I want you to, Speaker 15: I apologize if I did that. They get variances, but,
but I'm just gonna add traffic and congestion should be considered. And you mentioned that to start tonight's meeting. I respect that Speaker 1: It's being considered. I'm just, it's being considered. But, but the facts as we heard them from the developers transportation expert were basically echoed by the town's peer review consultant. So traffic is not an issue. I'm, unless you want to talk about parking as part of traffic. I'm not. I
Speaker 15: That's part of traffic. Speaker 1: Okay. I'm talking congestion. I I'm calling it parking. So Okay. It's parking. Okay. So if you, you have anything else that we haven't heard, then please Yeah, Speaker 15: I did speak since it was NA to us was selected with Catherine Coughlin a couple times, chair of the tic select board. And she just said, if it doesn't get approved, send it back. We'll come up with an alternative plan. Speaker 1: I gotta tell you right now, this project, as I said on day one, is not gonna come out of this board with a rejection that is not on the table. It's not on the table. We're talking about the width
of parking stalls, we're talking about the height of curbs right now. That's the level of detail we're down to. Not whether this project is gonna get built or not. Speaker 15: I'm not what I'm getting at. If you want to reduce it by a few units and they can't based upon financial, that means you won't do it. That's what I'm getting at the parking, parking issues. Speaker 1: We're working it through. That's, Speaker 15: That's what I'm getting at. So thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker 1: Who else wishes to be heard? Come on up. Come on, come on. Yeah, sure. Go ahead. Speaker 16: Cindy Bates. I live at five Lincoln
Street, apartment three. I support the project. I have a question. I was here once before, during the whole discussion about parking and egress and fire trucks. And my understanding is that presently there's parking on both sides of Auburn Street. Is that correct? Correct. And then when you talk about no parking, getting rid of parking, are you talking about on both sides? Yes. Would there be possibility of maybe discussing with the fire department about keeping it on one side? That's a question. Speaker 1: I think the answer is yes. Speaker 16: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. In the back. You know what I'm Sorry, did we get your
name and address for the record? I apologize. Yes, ma'am. Yes. Okay, thank you. Speaker 17: Hi, good evening. I'm Mark Oel Tover and I live at Five Water Street and there's public parking from my house. You know, we've known that the whole time. That's fine. Right now there's just some interesting things about how people use that. Parking. We have the, the, the big school, the Elliot School, that's across the Montessori school. It's across the way when they have events, our street becomes the, the parking lot for those events. There's a smaller Acrobat school directly across the street from me on Water Street,
and they, they're a seven day a week user. They have a lot of kids from Natick and surrounding towns that use it. They park on the street as well. There's a bus stop for a private school on the corner next to my house and they park. They're always there in the morning and like a lot of people, they back, they come into somebody's driveway, you know, it's fine. They turn around, they, they wait for the school bus, but the sidewalks on Water Street are, well, they're, they're aspirational. There's no curbing. They don't really provide protection
for people who use the street. For the kids who are going to the Natick High bus stop, also on the corner on 16, and people who walking their dogs. And, you know, my fear is that if we have this permanent overflow parking situation without there being any curb, it's gonna be driving people into Water Street and off, you know, what little sidewalk we have. So the, the parking is kind of important. You know, we, I understand I'm not gonna put cones in front of my house. No one would tolerate it to keep people from parking. But depending on how we use it,
I think it's important to keep it safe. And if we have enough parking on the site, however people get to it, you know, that's, that part isn't really my problem. I think that would be really helpful. There's a, there's competition for that parking in front of my house right now, and most people are really good about it. But I think the, the potential for impacting the heavy pedestrian use in front of my house, 'cause I'm right by Route 16 being impeded by people who don't respect sidewalks that don't have a curb. So you can't quite tell where they are. I think that's all very important, sir.
I appreciate that steps would be taken to improve the parking situation in the neighborhood. Speaker 1: Thank you. Sure. So next, hi, your name and address for the record, if Speaker 18: You, Stephanie Smith 15 Water Street. Something has changed actually since we met last time. The church that abut there's a little building that the Elliot Church just sold that abuts this piece of property. And it's been sold to a Seventh Day Adventist Church. So that now represents a whole nother level of parking because that building does not have any parking.
So whatever usage they're going to have, assuming like Sunday and Saturday services, those people are going to need a place to park. And currently that does not exist. And with all the overflow of everything else, just to be aware, that's the, an added element of another impact to the neighborhood. Thanks Speaker 1: Very much. Okay. There we go. Yeah, Speaker 19: Patty Malone, 31 South Lincoln Street. And I just wanted to say, I know some of the meetings that we've had, you know, it's been somewhat contentious
as far as just, you know, the neighborhood feelings, the passions from the neighbors. And we're all Nat residents. We all want the best for the town. And I firmly believe that I'm so happy to have chosen this as the place to raise my children. The one thing that hasn't been said, I think through this whole process is to thank you the board members and you chair jow. I feel like it's, it's been a hard process and I think hearing what you said tonight, you heard our concerns about just the size of the project
and, you know, that's been our concern all along. And it sounds like even when it went before the select board, perhaps it was an issue for the select board too. Just the whole, the notion of 32 units. So just saying thank you, thank you for listening to us and thank you for certainly, I know I've been here a couple times and thank you for listening to me. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Speaker 1: Who else was just to be heard? Yes, ma'am. Am Speaker 19: Hi. Deborah Brown, 44 South Lincoln Street. And I just wanted to thank the board for all they've done and for exam Exhaustedly examining all the issues present
with the five Auburn Street Project. You know, you all know the resident's concerns, the residents have been transparent from day one. Metro West does not have the lock on transparency or on the issue of transparency. We all win with this. We've all been very clear. And so as you're considering other changes that might be made or thinking about how that would be done, would it be feasible? Could it be done? I just thank you for putting all the time into it that this takes. Speaker 1: Thanks very much. Yes, sir. Speaker 20: Ben King, 19 Glen Street. I just have a, I made a question
through the chair to the Sure. Metro Development. Thanks for doing that with, we've heard a lot about the National Park Service getting as part of the funding and for part of this project, I believe. And also they're actually actually kind of putting some restrictions on the other school building from what I understand about the, what was, what is the auditorium That's right. That is not gonna be used for units. Correct. I'm wondering with what's going on in Washington DC about defunding certain things, if,
if the National Parks Service funding is pertinent enough where it's not enough through this entire project, but it would also would be able to increase the number of units in the Elliot School building from nine till to 12. I believe I heard from another development group that they were gonna put 12 units in the, in the LA school building. I just want to ask is, is that a, if something comes along and they're not able to get the funding, would they able to do that?
Which be a great thing? 'cause we, we all want to re repurpose that building. And affordable housing is wonderful for it. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 5: Sure, yeah. I can offer a, a quick response. So one thing to understand about the historic tax credits that the project is relying on, they come from both federal historic tax credits and state historic tax credits. But the authority of the government is to just review that our design meets their requirements. They aren't providing actual capital to fund the requirements.
They tell us, yes, your design meets the requirements, you can move forward with soliciting tax credits from investors to pay for the work. So it's a, a program that has broad support because it's not a direct allocation of federal funds from, from the government. I think, you know, the idea of foregoing the National Park Service Review, which might allow us to build units in the, the common area space. That space isn't well designed for units.
And if we put units there, it would disqualify us from both the state and the federal historic tax credits would, which would be several million dollars worth of, of funding for the project. Speaker 1: Thanks very much. Yeah. Speaker 20: And just another quick comment on from the historic District commission part. I, I'm not sure I actually saw of the view of the building from the rear, which had I believe hasn't changed. I mean there was some, there was some Speaker 1: There, there was, Speaker 20: There was some, Speaker 1: There was a Speaker 20: Front side.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't, from the rear. I think it's river. I think there probably wasn't a rear view. Right. That, not that I recall. Speaker 20: Well, it is, well I'm, my point is it's viewable from several places. Oh, pleasant Street. Speaker 1: Isn't this it here? Speaker 5: Yes. Yes. We presented a, a photo from the river. Speaker 20: Yes. It's viewable from Pleasant Street. The bridge. The bridge that goes over the river me Merrill Street and the ball fields. And as a public way, the river is a public way. So it's viewable from the public way. So I just wanted to bring that up.
That yeah, those are from the historic district process. I mean, yeah, Speaker 1: I mean, I, I think they've taken a good whack at it and we rely on their expertise. It's amazing to me, frankly, that, that they were able to get this building designed in such a way as to be relatively unobtrusive. I mean, when I say relatively, I mean like entirely unobtrusive because of where it's located and the way it was positioned on the land with the use of the open space and, and the river. And, and I think from that perspective, I just, I, I really,
I applaud the design team, the location of sighting and whatnot, because that, I don't think is a concern, not a valid one to date. Speaker 20: It is to me. Speaker 1: I appreciate that. From, I'm giving my opinion, you're giving me yours. I'm an Speaker 20: Old south native river at, and so I went to school in that building. I live there, I fish there, I go through there every single day and you will see the back of the building. And it's gonna look like, Speaker 1: I, I I, I'll I'll just say, and again, it's not a debate. I, I take Speaker 20: What I Speaker 1: I'm that up. Stay. I take what you're saying to heart. I really do.
But making the building disappear, I don't think is realistic. That's Speaker 20: What we're trying to do. Speaker 1: I know, I know. I appreciate it. Thank you. Speaker 20: Because the school building is repurposed would be great for just Speaker 1: For God willing. You will have tight lines after this. Speaker 20: And for people, actually, the other part is for the people who are gonna be living there. If there was, it was just that building, they'd have more open space, better views, the fenestration of that. Speaker 1: I'm gonna stop you there 'cause I think you know what I'm gonna say. Thank you. Yes, thank you Speaker 21: Wally. Soper 10 Matthew Court. My question's really quick. What about the economic impact? I've lived here for a while.
All I hear about is the dam changing all the environmental stuff. Pond Road went through some radical stuff, trying to change it into more housing. They defeated that and Wellesley. So any impact on the environment? And can we have a study about that? Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Think that's, yeah, I think we, we heard from con com here, and I think that the project is being built sensitively enough that those impacts are gonna be negligible Speaker 6: Even after Speaker 21: The dam changes the river, everything else. Speaker 1: And that, that, that part, I don't think
that the applicant's responsible for. No, I just appreciate it though. Thank you. Yeah, no thanks. Who else wishes to be heard? Yes sir. Speaker 22: My name is GaN Ram Chandran live at 30 Spring Street. Good evening, Mr. Chair members of the board. Tonight I speak to you as the chair of the Natick Affordable Housing Trust. As an urban planner, and most importantly, as a concerned resident. First of all, I want to echo the earlier speaker and say thank you in a time. And democracy feels fragile and civil discourse is often drowned by division. You have remained steadfast. You have led a transparent, open, and inclusive process.
You have ensured the consultants unpack the facts. Peer reviewers address community concerns. And the developers and the designers refine their design to reflect the neighborhood input. So this is what a good process looks like. Massachusetts, like the rest of the country facing, is facing an affordable housing affordability crisis. The Boston Globe in 2022 told the story of strong family. Two working parents, four kids, a stable home until one eviction unraveled everything. Their American dream turned into a nightmare overnight,
right here in Natick, a study by the Affordable Housing Trust, the, the housing production plan found that one third of households are cost burden, paying more than a third of their income for housing. And these are in strangers now. They're healthcare aides, social workers, special education teachers, the very people who keep our town running. Many town employees make less than $134,591. That's the average median income. There are folks like, these are folks who are away from one step away from financial distress,
and yet nearly 100 residents from across the Natick, along with the Natick clergy, the housing authority nonprofit leaders have voiced strong support for this project. It's all written, it's all in the email, it's all public record because they understand what's at stake. Seneca once said, every new beginning comes with some other beginnings end. And change is never easy, but it's necessary. Natick is not a town of exclusively single family homes. We are a community of modest cottages and McMansions, duplexes and triplexes apartment buildings
and condominiums. But the diversity of housing comes inevitable. Boundaries between different building types, boundaries that can be thoughtfully and articulately designed. And this project does exactly that. It respects the historic fabric of the neighborhood while incorporating smart transitions and preserving open space at approximately 12 to 13 dwelling units an acre. The development is also less than what the IMU MBTA Communities Act allows. It's close to 15 and it's also strategically located. It's about 10 minute bike ride from the train
station and Eric Center. These are some recent numbers. According to M-W-R-T-A, there were almost 500 trips that taken, that originated and terminated within a mile of the intersection of Elliot Pleasant and Union Streets. These are all using on demand service offered by the RTA. This suggests the area is currently served by public transit. And given the town is a major stakeholder with the RTA, it's funding more than $800,000 in FY 2026 per governor's current budget filing. There's surely the potential
for this to increase in the future. 11 years ago, I moved to Natick because it was affordable and it was a town that embraced diverse voices and families with varying income levels. Today I don't think I can afford the home I bought this project represent a small but vital step in keeping our town accessible to working families. Housing is a basic human right. Thanks to your leadership. The process has transformed an initial proposal into a vastly improved design without compromising the unit count necessary for financial viability. 32 families will have a place to live with dignity,
put down roots, and contribute to our community. So I urge you all to vote s on this project. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Who else wishes to be heard? Yes, sir. Speaker 23: Hi, I'm Ed Shuri. I live at eight Auburn Street. First I wanna thank you guys on the board for, for your patience throughout this rather very long ordeal. I have two procedural questions. Not substantive tonight. Procedural. When you take your vote, is it gonna be public? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 23: Thank you. Next, is your vote gonna be on, up or down or with suggestions? Speaker 1: It's not gonna be down. I don't wanna
put my little card before the horse. But that, that rejection is not on the, it is not gonna be on the table. It's gonna be a a, a amalgamation. It's gonna be some form of approval of the project. I, I'm speaking for myself right now. Okay. But the way I see it, it is, there's gonna be a, a motion to approve the project with certain conditions. Okay. And certain waivers. And there's gonna be a decision that's gonna be drafted that's gonna incorporate all that.
And we're gonna vote on that decision. That's the way this is gonna go down. And we're sort of massaging, if you will, what that's gonna look like. And that's what this, that's what's happening here. Speaker 23: Thank Speaker 1: You. Thank you. Yes, sir. Speaker 24: Hi, good evening. My name is Gonzalo. I live in Fort Pumpkin Pine Road. I'm a member of the NA Federal Housing Trust Fund. And I'm also an affordable housing developer, CEO for Summerville Community Corporation. I just wanna address the challenges financial and the financial feasibility that goes behind a lot
of the projects that we serve and the performance that we typically provide are really down to the last penny losing three units. It's not about the units, it's about three families. They're not gonna be able to live in Natick, maybe not even afford. That's a great opportunity. But for a developer, three units from a financial perspective, I mean, let's just say if you round it up, $2,000 a month, three units, that's $6,000 a month. Multiply that by 12, that's $72,000. Multiply that by 10 years to 720,000. It all adds up.
And, and the reality is expenses goes exponentially higher in affordable housing development because we have a lot of requirements. There's studies to be done, transportation studies, air pollution studies, density studies. We have to change and sign. Many times we have to hire specialized legal attorneys that understand, you know, the tax credits, whether historic, low income housing, tax credit, emergent tax credit. It all adds up. But the reality is this is a project
that is a hundred percent affordable housing. If it had, as I've seen in some of the slides, market rate units, yeah, the market rate units and the higher rents would support. But this is a hundred percent affordable because we need more units of affordability based on the studies we've seen and the average meeting incomes of the population that lives here in Natick. We need this project. I support this project. Thank you for listening. Thank you Speaker 1: Very much. Who else was to be heard? Yes, sir. One in the middle. Yep. Yes, ma'am. Oh, Speaker 16: My name is Susan. I'm at eight Auburn Street. And I just have a couple things.
You guys have brought up a lot of interesting information tonight that I appreciate. I would like to address, Jeff, if I could. Is that possible? Speaker 1: Yes, please. Speaker 16: Okay. Jeff, there's no problem with fire engines on our street now. My husband was in the hospital seven times, ambulances in 2023. We got in and out pretty easily. And part of the reason is that the Montessori, the old Elliot school had a very wide driveway so that they could turn around and go out.
Now Kaitlyn has added a wide driveway, but I don't think it's gonna be as wide as, as we had before. So it is changing. Auburn Street is changing as far as the fire department is concerned. It's, it's not the same. Just also I think that it would help the neighbors. We, on Auburn Street being the most affected to not have parking on Auburn Street. I I totally think that's a good option for us. It'll, it'll slow down the density
of the traffic for us. So I'm in agreement with you, with you guys going to the Board of Selectmen. I assume you can't do it yourselves, but I am concerned, and I don't know if everyone is aware of this, but because of all the rules, the funding sources put on Metro West, that this affordable housing is not gonna be just for Natick residents. Are you guys aware of that? Are you guys aware of that? Speaker 1: There's a local preference, right? Speaker 16: Yeah. Pardon me? Yeah, Speaker 3: The developer agreement has a local preference to the extent the subsidizing agency approves it.
So that has to be worked out. But it's absolutely in there. Speaker 16: Well, what does that mean? Speaker 1: I'm gonna let them address that, Speaker 2: Matt, that means Speaker 1: I think her comment was, what does that mean? Speaker 2: Sorry, are you, did you say you wanted the developer to address that? Speaker 1: Oh yes. If, is that not appropriate? Speaker 2: No, that's fine. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Oh, I'm Speaker 2: Sorry. I just couldn't hear you. Yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah. What, can you explain the local preference? Speaker 5: Sure. A local preference is a part of the lottery process for the units that are available. The maximum allowable currently is a 70% local preference, subject to approval by the subsidizing agencies.
So that is what is reflected in our development agreement and is ultimately going to be a part of the conditions of our comprehensive permit. But we would work with the town when we get to that stage to apply for that maximum allowable and go through the process of, of getting that approval. Well, Speaker 16: What, what would be the maximum allowable then? Speaker 1: 70%. 70%? Speaker 16: Just 77. 70%. So 30% are gonna be from out of town? Is that what we're saying? Okay. Well, Speaker 5: That, that's actually not necessarily true. Oftentimes, so people who are
don't get the 70% local preference are still eligible for the non-local preference units. So if they're not selected in the local preference pool, they're still in the general pool. And we find oftentimes people who, you know, the intent of a local preference is someone who has a connection to the town of Natick. Oftentimes those people maybe don't currently live or work in town, but maybe they grew up in town or maybe they've got adult children who live in town or had to relocate temporarily because they could no longer afford to live in town. You know, they still have ties to Natick
and I think in most people's minds would be considered local folks, but they would still qualify in the, in the general pool. Speaker 16: Okay. So my next question is, there are, from what I understand, Kaitlyn, and you can correct me if it's okay with you, David, there are two kinds of affordable housing in this unit where people who have no income or minimal, minimal, minimal income can go into these units. Is there a percentage? Speaker 1: Yeah, it's based on the percentage of a MI and the unit
and, and the affordability mix, I, I don't think is properly before the board. Yeah, it, it's not. But there do, can we share that nonetheless or no? Speaker 16: You can speak to what, Speaker 1: What the goal is. Yeah, we have heard it, but maybe we need to be reminded there's x at 80 summit. Speaker 5: Go ahead. So 50% of the units are at 30% of area meeting income, and those people could be working full time and still qualify for those 30% a MI units. Or they could be on social security and have a very low
and low monthly income. But what we call the operating subsidy would pick up the difference between the Sure. Speaker 1: The others and what they pay. So 50 at 30, what's the, what's, what's the rest? Speaker 5: And 50 at 60. Speaker 1: 50 and 60 of the, it's a so Speaker 16: I mean, you guys have recommended 29, 28. Is it possible to get more higher paying? No. Speaker 1: No people, no, that's not for the board. Speaker 16: No, we, we get that. But that's a factor for Speaker 1: What? No, let me, I mean, affordability, I'll just make it clear. We don't have the authority to dictate the
affordability within the unit mix. In other words, we can't say we'll give you 32, they have to be all at 60. We can't do that. Speaker 16: Well, I, I do get that, but is there a percentage of No, Speaker 1: We can't do it. Okay. Speaker 16: Thank Speaker 1: You. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to be heard? Okay. Seeing none. Caris, help me out, Speaker 16: Mr. Chair. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 16: How can I help you? Speaker 1: Okay, let me, we're gonna come back to you. I got a couple notes here in front of me. Some questions.
One, there's a question about, and this comes from the town department letters that I made note of one, snow storage, the locations where people will need to move their vehicles or will take out their infrastructure site plans. Not coordinated is the note. It's no storage on maybe the civil. Yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah. We thought it was resolved. Can you Speaker 1: Pull up, is it resolved? Amanda? I have a note. Speaker 9: Oops, sorry. Snow storage was basically, they just were gonna review it. The only area that I had a concern was, was where it was pushing up against a alternative transformer.
Speaker 1: Well, we would con we would condition it then. No, no bearing of the transformers or something like that. Yeah, that's fine. This is a non-issue. Okay. Bio retention locations not coordinated with landscape plan issue. Speaker 9: I believe it was been resolved 'cause we did receive a landscaping plan that actually has done everything on it. Speaker 1: Okay. Overnight, guests, staff drop off deliveries, maintenance visitors. So those are like the others, right? Non-residents, everything. Everybody else.
So maybe you could answer it now, maybe you can provide some feedback on this issue. If there are 32 or there are 29 units, there are gonna have guests, where are they gonna park? Where's the staff gonna park if they're on site? You have 9, 9, 9 additional spaces. And I know staff aren't gonna be there 24 7. Right. But when they come, where will they park? Is there a space for, for deliveries right now, when the landscaper's on site, when the plumber's on site,
when the HVAC guy's on site, when the roofer's there to fix the leak, whatever it is, where are they gonna park? Is the, the, the common area that we're not putting the units in the auditorium, is that for anyone other than the people who live on site? No, it's only for people who live there. Speaker 3: No, they're not gonna be concerts or anything there. Speaker 1: That's the question. Okay. Do you want to address those issues that I just raised or you want to Speaker 3: On how parking is going to work? Speaker 1: Yeah, like all those issues. Like, I think those, so those are not insignificant. Although they, Speaker 3: They were, I think they were looked at by the consultants, both our consultants and, and yours that found the parking was adequate.
Speaker 1: I still have questions. Speaker 3: Yeah. I I think that the nine spaces are going to be flexible for both visitors and staff. We don't expect there to be more than two staff there at any given time. And they come at different times. So there may only be one space in use or tops two, we talked about that a little bit today internally. And then there are spaces for visitors and guests and there is a, an area where an Amazon can pull over and go to the front door and drop a package. We can have the engineer sort of pull up the circulation
and show you again how that works. But we didn't see any red flags from the peer review or our consultant that gave us pause to reduce it by four spaces. Again, we were, you know, we were originally, look, it's like a balloon, right? You push the balloon, it goes out somewhere else. I it, so the changes that were made to ask for a parking waiver were to increase open space and, and add to the circulation issues. So improve them. Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that I, I, you know, from where I sit right now, sort of open space is a nice thing.
We all like it, but it's less impactful on the sort of usability. It's nice to have, but when you don't have a parking space, you can give a little bit. That's where, but okay. So here, Caris. Now I think we've, does anyone on the board have any thoughts, comments, or issues they don't wanna raise before I, we sort of figure out what the next step's gonna be? D first of all. Okay, go ahead, Caris. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: Tell me, tell me something. So Speaker 2: Next steps we're going to be continuing
to work on a draft decision. I think if the board wishes it, we could try to find a consultant to do a review of the current pro forma, to give the board some additional information about the feasibility of 32 versus 29. And I think that's something the board should consider and vote on tonight if it wants to move that on proper promptly. And then Speaker 1: Stop, stop right there for one second. Go ahead. Speaker 13: I would make a motion that the zoning board retain an
outside consultant to review the pro forma against a potential reduction. Or how do you wanna word that to review the pro forma with regard to 32 units versus a potential 29 units? Yeah, Speaker 1: With extreme haste. Speaker 13: With extreme haste Speaker 1: As amended second. Okay. So that you got your vote there. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 1: But that, that, in all fairness, that has Amanda, I'm sorry to do this, but in all fairness, that has to be done with a lightning speed. Speaker 2: Okay. Yeah. I, I don't know. I I, I, I've already reached out
to Mr. Erickson since he knows folks in the area to see if he has a suggestion and we're gonna have a call tomorrow to talk about it. Speaker 1: Fair. Speaker 2: And he understands that it needs to be someone who can do it with lightning speed. I don't think the proforma is so complicated that it can't be done promptly, but I, I don't know what anybody's workload is like right now. It's been difficult. So anyway, so, so that's a next step working on the decision and then really presenting that information at the next meeting, I think and,
and figuring out when that next meeting is going to be. I think we, Ms. Loomis and I have been talking back and forth and we may have some timing concerns. Speaker 1: I I'm gonna look at the, I'm gonna look at the waivers for a minute while we're here. Okay? Speaker 2: Yeah. And, and, and again, if there are any questions or issues about waivers, need to know that too. Speaker 1: That's what this is. Everybody get your waiver sheet out here and let's just rip through 'em real quick on our own. Speaker 2: Do you wanna go through them one by one or do Speaker 1: You wanna No, no, no, no, no. I'm just, I wanna see if anyone we're just gonna, we,
we went through 'em last week. Many of them were just, they're, they're, I don't think they're right for discussion because I think they're, they're obvious. Speaker 2: Exactly. Yeah. Speaker 1: So, so I, I just want to go through them on our own and see if anyone has any concern with any of the waivers that are being requested. So I, I'm gonna stick with where I started, which is I just have some questions about the parking. Okay. So Speaker 2: Waiver K Speaker 1: And i and I think that that's gonna flow from that, that that sort of dovetails with what's going on with the feasibility
to some extent. Anybody else have any comments about the waivers that are being requested? Speaker 2: Can I specifically ask about the one attorney de Paso Gilbert mentioned about the signage, which is waiver Q? Yes. Any issues or concerns with that since that's been revised since the last meeting? Yes. Speaker 1: So, so I, I think that makes, that makes sense. I mean it's for, for sake of efficiency, having to go through this entire process only to turn around and have to start a variance for a sign seems absurd. And so you, where your assign will not comply
with the requirements of zoning and thus you'll come back on a modification. Speaker 3: Yeah, we'll go to Amanda on the building commissioner first for review and comment, tweak it, change it, try to get it and tip top shape and come to you from modification. Speaker 1: That's fine. Yeah, that's fine. I, I mean that works. Caris, doesn't that work? Speaker 2: Yes it does. I think it works, but it's up to the board, not me. Yeah, Speaker 1: I'm, does anybody disagree with that? No, Speaker 25: No. Speaker 1: Not at all. Okay. Anything else, Carris? Speaker 2: No, I think the only other one, and I'm sure you talked about it last time, was y which is the temporary no disturbance zone
to relocate a foundation drain. I don't think that's a big deal. Speaker 1: No, we don't need, I I don't either. Anybody else have a problem with that? Speaker 13: Okay. I did have a question about that. I, I don't think the Conservation Commission bylaw is under zoning. So it's a separate, you still need to go through a hearing and get a permit from zoning conservation commission. Yes, we Speaker 3: Be, we'll be, we're going to conservation commission for full review and we will have an order of conditions and car and I discussed about making sure that was a condition in the actual comp permit that that was addressed. Right.
Speaker 13: Okay. Speaker 1: Garris. Speaker 2: But the comprehensive permit takes in all local bylaw issues, including wetlands, it doesn't matter whether it's zoning, it takes in historic preservation, it takes in Con Kong. So you do have the authority to grant that waiver. Speaker 1: Agreed. The waiver. We've agreed, then we've agreed to go Yeah. Condition it on approval by Con Kong. Yes. Yep. Yeah. Speaker 13: Caris, just from my education. Does it also provide a waiver to the State Wetlands Protection Act or No? No. So they local would've to get a permit from con com under the state law? Yes. Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 1: Which is why they're going, that's why we're going. Right. Got it. Okay. Okay. Garris, what should we do next?
Speaker 2: I think you should direct staff and counsel to continue on the process of working on the draft permit. Do you, are you ready to take a vote on the waivers or do you wanna wait and see because of parking? I think you need to wait and see. We'll wait and see where we land on density. Speaker 1: But, but we're, we're not gonna come back here next time and say we changed our mind on all those waivers, so, correct. Speaker 2: That's right. I don't, there's no, there's no
regressive decision making. Speaker 1: That's right. Please. I've seen, I've seen Charlie Brown. What, what's next Speaker 2: A date for the next meeting? Unless you have something else you wanna discuss. I think we've covered everything that I need. Do we have, do we have one, have Speaker 12: Addressed nothing on the, on the calendar, Speaker 9: So Speaker 2: We do not, so there was discussion about April 28th, but that looks to be a night when you're very busy already. It's one of your regular nights. Speaker 1: I I won't, I will, I'll be out of town. Speaker 12: Let's not do it then. 21st is Marathon Monday. Speaker 1: No. Good. Speaker 2: Right. Is Patriots stay on the 21st.
Would you consider two mm Tuesday the 22nd Speaker 9: Caris? Do we start town meeting that night? Speaker 2: No, we don't start town meeting until the 29th. Speaker 12: I'll be away, Mr. Chair on the 22nd. Speaker 1: Can you Speaker 2: Refresh my vacation week? Speaker 1: Week? It's yes. Speaker 12: Notices? Speaker 1: Oh no, the voting members. It's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. No, Speaker 12: Rob's Speaker 1: Oh, oh, oh. Rob isn't here tonight. Oh, that's right. But Speaker 12: He's, Speaker 1: Who is it? 1, 2, 3? Speaker 12: Yeah, Speaker 1: Rob four. Who's five?
Speaker 9: Was it Andrew? Speaker 12: I'm not Speaker 1: Sure. I think so. I think so. Yeah. I don't Speaker 12: Think we've designated yet. Speaker 1: Yeah, I think we did. Oh, we did, didn't we? I thought Speaker 9: So. At the very beginning. Speaker 1: I think we did. I think we did. Okay. Alan Hari, do you guys remember? Speaker 12: I don't remember number. Speaker 1: I think, I think we did because of this guy's particular expertise. Okay. Maybe we, we that's gonna be it, but, and okay, so now we don't have Rob's schedule. You're gonna be outta town on the 22nd Speaker 12: And the, that, that week is school vacation. Oh, okay. Speaker 2: It's school vacation week, which takes us
to Monday the fifth. I have a conflict that night. I have town meeting that night for another community. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 12: Tuesday the sixth. Speaker 1: Sixth Speaker 2: Natick town meeting. I Speaker 12: Can't do it. It's on the sixth Speaker 1: 12th. Speaker 2: We have an extension only until May 7th. I could do May 12th if we could get an extension to May 12th Speaker 1: Folks, Speaker 5: I think we're starting to, you know, bump up against our funding deadlines. But if the 12th works for everyone, I think we can do that. Speaker 1: Can we just scratch off the date on that extension?
Resign it, Speaker 2: Add five days. Got it. Speaker 9: I left it in my office. You want me to grab it? I scanned it. Speaker 1: Oh, did you? Speaker 9: I scanned it. So I left it on the table in my office. Speaker 1: I can go. It doesn't have to be done in, in an open meeting, does it? No. No. Okay, fine. So we, we have an agreement, but we'll get the papers. Okay. So we're going to, well, so we'll have a motion to, to continue to May 12, correct. Speaker 2: 6:30 PM Yes. Speaker 1: 6:30 PM Speaker 2: At town hall. Speaker 1: At town hall where we lie. Bill, I I would move that
Speaker 13: We continue the hearing until May 12th, 6:30 PM At town hall. Speaker 1: Andy, all those in favor? Okay. We'll see you on the 12th. Thanks everybody. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you all. Speaker 1: Are you gonna close the meeting? Motion to adjourn. Motion to move to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Andy. All those? Yep. Yep. Good adjourned.