Speaker 1: Folks are you do, do you need another second here on this? Do, do we need more time on this? I'm good. You're good? Okay, great. Yeah, sorry about that. We had a little, some, some minor technical difficulties. We couldn't find the technical, we couldn't find the tech. We found it. Speaker 2: That Speaker 1: Was the difficulty. That was the difficulty. Okay. So before we get started, we have the public speak portion wherein any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda and it'll be taken under advise 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 of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. Does anybody wish to be heard in anything that is not on the agenda tonight? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go right into it. Tonight is a continuation of the public hearing for five Auburn Street, an application for Metro West Collaborative Development. The applicant requested, I'm sorry, requests approval of a comprehensive permit under MGL chapter 40, sections 23 through 23, and then ex zoning bylaws for multifamily dwelling development and associated site improvements.
Tonight, hearing is limited to waivers. So with that, I think I'll just turn it right over to you. Thank you, Speaker 2: All of you. Thank you. Jennifer Depa, Gilbert, permitting Council with me this evening is the team that you've already met from the Metro West Collaborative led by Kaitlyn Madden, and we have the architect, our architects and engineers here. I thought I'd go through the waiver list and if you wanna dig in a little deeper, we did bring the plans and can present them and the architects and the engineers are here to sort of get into the weeds if there are any specific questions.
But if that's okay with the board, we'll pull up the list on, on the screen and Sure. Just go through it one by one. Speaker 1: Yeah, that'd be good. Yeah. You know, let, let's just set the stage real quick here for a moment. Oh, I guess we can do this afterward. And I'm sorry to go out of turn here, but so what, what I have here is I have the list of waivers. I also have your traffic consultant's response to the peer review. Okay. Is, is I guess more or less a question than a comment? Yes. Speaker 2: I believe that was submitted after the last hearing. Okay. Speaker 1: Yeah, I think this is the first I've seen of it, but in any case, it does.
It's dated February 19th, so it appears we've had it for some time. To my knowledge, our, our consultant has an opportunity, has not, he may have had an opportunity to see this, but has not weighed in for the board's review. Any comments to this? So that'll be coming. In addition, we're waiting for specific comments from most of the departments. So that's where we are. That seemed to jive with where you are. Speaker 2: We, we had several meetings. I believe the team met with the interdepartmental folks, with Amanda. We weren't expecting any more comments,
but if there are more, we'd love to hear them. I, Speaker 1: You, you may not be you, you're probably ahead of us. Okay. We don't have the comments, so we don't have their response to anything that you folks may have agreed to or, or, or their comments to you. We just don't have them. So we will try to get them. Speaker 2: Okay. And any anticipated date? I know that there was a directive at the last hearing to begin the draft decision. Just wondering when we might receive a copy of that. Speaker 1: That is, is being handled by our council and the folks in the development department.
The, the board has not had a hand in historically in drafting it. So I mean, obviously we have to look at it and we have to review it and approve it, but, so I can't specifically say where that stands, but is it fair to say it's, it's in pro it we're commencing that effort, but I, I think I i I would suggest that, that the boards where we stand right now in relation to the project is we, we don't have enough. Not from you. I think you guys have done yeoman's work and,
and so have the, the, the folks who are, are the neighbor and the neighborhood, and I think the board's done okay. We just don't have the, the town's comments on, you know, we need their input to make, to, to, to draft the decision. Speaker 2: I, I, I couldn't agree further, was hoping that we would've had those within the 30 days of submission. Speaker 1: Busy town. Yeah. Here we go. Okay, Speaker 2: Here we go. Alright, so Caitlyn, if you could pull up the first page. Would you like me to stop after each
or go through the whole list and then go back? No, Speaker 1: We, we, we'll, if anybody has comments here on the board, we'll just raise our hands so that we, we can stay within each box. Speaker 2: Fine. And, and like I said, our whole team is here, so if we wanna pull up plans or anything. Fair enough. All right. So the first one is under the use regulations. That's section three, A two and a four of your zoning bylaw, which the requirement only only allows a one family detached dwelling in this Speaker 1: Specific, we can skip that one. We can skip it.
Speaker 2: Okay. And the next one is the multifamilies. And so we're seeking waivers from those two uses to do the 32 dwelling unit. Speaker 1: Skip that one project. Speaker 2: Okay. The next one is the, your inclusionary housing. This would also be covered by a hundred percent affordable and the 40 B comp regs. That was B waiver B. So we, we will be, Speaker 1: We can skip that. Speaker 2: Okay. The next one is three A seven and that is actually one error that's not use requirements in the subject line. That's actually the regulation of land and structures,
but it is three A seven and that has to deal with floor area ratio is only a 0.17 in this particular district. And the floor area ratio proposed is 0.32. And the next one in that section is the sky exposure plane for the building is a one and one one ratio and this is just less than one. One. Okay. So that's C. Yep. Then we go back to the use regulations. B five is for an off office. Sorry, Speaker 3: Three A seven.
Is that aquifer protection district? Speaker 2: No. So if you look at page three dash 40, Amanda of the actual bylaw, which I have in front of me, it's Roman three A seven at the top of page three dash 40 in the bylaw. And it's regulation of land or structures for purposes, otherwise exempt from permitting. And that deals with the intensity regulations and floor area ratio. So Speaker 3: That section was actually completely deleted. Speaker 2: Wow. Okay. It's still online waved. Okay. Waived. Great. Okay, I found that online. No problem. You
Speaker 3: Deleted seven, amended five. Speaker 1: So three A seven, we're gonna cross off. I didn't even know what sky exposure plane was. I had never Speaker 4: Heard of that and I thought we didn't have FAR, so Speaker 2: Okay. So we either, Speaker 1: But I was like, okay, Speaker 2: Taking care of that. Thanks. Oh, that was, so it's still online, just so you know, that wasn't easy. Okay, so three B five, that's for an office or, or a, or a studio and the waivers sought so that, that there can be a community. Skip that. Skip that. Okay, good. We're good on that. Then three J is the historic preservation. This puts you in the permitting position.
So we've already gone to the historic district commission and you are now the authority. Skip that. Okay. And then we go on to Roman four A one general requirements, no more than one dwelling unit on any single lot skip. Okay. And then the next one is G, those are the intensity requirements. Speaker 1: Four, A five. Height of building in four a 0.1. Speaker 2: Oh yeah, we, that's a footnote. Ah, and we just wanted to footnote it. That's if for information purposes only,
that's what's exempt. Roof tanks supports ventilation, air conditioning, it's, it's exempt from the height calculation. Got it. I just noted it for transparency and clarity. Thank you. The next one are the intensity requirements. That's waiver G. So the required front setback is 30 feet, the rear setback is 25 feet. And on the right hand side you'll see the waivers that we're seeking. The required side setback is 12 feet or one third of the height of the building. And then on the right hand side, you'll see what we're proposing.
Height requirement in this district is three stories or 40 feet. And we've done, and the architects are here to explain it, but a very conservative calculation on the height. And you'll see that the building height proposed is three stories, but approximately 47 feet, eight inches to the roof structure from the lowest point of the existing grade adjacent to the building. The height of the parapet is 41 feet, nine inches. And the waiver is requested to height to the extent it's measured from the average of the grade at the center line of each street,
which re result in a calculation in excess of 40 feet. Speaker 1: Alright, hold on one sec. Yep, sure. So yeah, our code as in certain cases, average grade plane and if it's on a corner allow us to go to the center line of the street, right? Yes, that's right. So, so the the proper way to measure would be to the center line of the street? Speaker 2: Yes. And that would bring us below these measurements the architects measured from the existing grade adjacent to the building. So that actually is the more conservative approach. Okay. Just, just Speaker 1: So you know, so, so using, using the, the,
the, the strike that. Using the street grade, are you compliant? Speaker 2: No, just over the, just over the 40 feet. Speaker 1: Is that the 41 9? Speaker 2: So the 41 9 is the height of the parapet, the very top? Yes. So just over. Speaker 1: Okay. And that's using the, the the grade at the street? Yes. Speaker 2: And then the 47 8 using is, is, is the roof structure itself. Okay. Roof structures, yes. Speaker 1: Oh, but but is each one both the 47 8 and the 41 9 is using what? As the, as the base?
Speaker 2: It's using the lowest point at the existing grade. Adjacent to the building. Speaker 1: Okay, so that is, so that's gonna give you a is a larger number. Yes. But if we went to the street, what are those two numbers result in? Do we know? I'm good to Speaker 2: Ask Anna for that. Speaker 5: I mean, I think you Speaker 2: Need to get up to the mic. Speaker 5: I think I need your site plan to get, so I'm not sure that we have ex like accurate enough data from the street. I don't know that our survey has that information. I believe it's about three feet above, but I would want Dana to verify what that
that street number is at Auburn Street. I think it's about three feet. Speaker 1: I'll tell you what, just to keep moving, why don't we let these folks dig out that number? We'll, we'll swing back around with this one. Okay, very good. Okay, so we'll just, Speaker 2: So let's go on to H then. Waiver H is under special regulations V two in the zoning bylaw. And that's for an extension or an increase to a non-conforming use or a structure. And this is a waiver sought to allow a multi-family development. Okay. Yep. The next one is I, that has to do with accessory uses solar energy systems in
a historic district. And we are building this, at least the new building, we'll have solar ready capacity. And so we're looking for a waiver and allowing you to be the permitting board for that particular solar Speaker 1: Array. Can can, similar to the Speaker 4: Earlier one where we become the special permit Speaker 2: Bearing authority. Yes, yes, exactly. Speaker 1: Can, can I just ask if historic has weighed in on that specific issue? Do, do you, when you presented to historic, did you indicate that Speaker 2: Anna? Speaker 3: Yeah, we did. Speaker 1: And historics position at that time, if there was one,
Speaker 2: I don't believe they had any comment on the new building having solar. It Speaker 1: Won't, it didn't show solar though, right? It showed solar capable, Speaker 5: Yes. But it's also below the height of the parapet, so you wouldn't be able to see it in any, in any of the views that we showed. Speaker 3: And part of the building code, all buildings that are newly constructed do have to meet like solar ready. So Okay. Kind of is required by mass General. Speaker 2: I think that's under the newest stretch energy, right? Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Yep. Speaker 2: Thank you. So the next one is J and that is the minimum parking space width is nine by 18.
And we're asking for a request to allow nine compact spaces measured at eight by 16. Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 2: Okay. The next one is required sidewalk curb heights are at seven inches. We're asking for a waiver to allow a six inch curb height in that particular location for storm water design and for storm water infiltration. The next one is L also having to do with off street parking. And this is the count. And you'll see here for a one bedroom or a studio, one spaces required and there are 11 one bedrooms or studios.
So that would require 11 for those for two bedrooms you require 1.5 per unit. We have 17, so that would give you 26. And then for three plus bedrooms it's two spaces. We have four units and so that would be eight for a total of 45 required. And we'd like a waiver to allow 41. Speaker 1: Those numbers you were just reading off, they're not in this chart, are Speaker 2: They? They're not in the, in the waiver? No, they're on the actual site plan. Yeah. Speaker 1: I'm just gonna write it in my box here. So should Speaker 2: I, let me read it again. Speaker 1: 1 11, 2 17 3, what was the number? Three?
Speaker 2: Two bedrooms is one and a half per unit. Yeah. And we have 17 units which would equal 26 required spaces for the two bedrooms. Yep. Three plus bedrooms require two spaces each. And we have four, so that would be eight. So it's 11 26 8 equals the 45 required. And we're proposing to provide 41 spaces. Yep. Speaker 1: Okay, thanks. Speaker 2: You're welcome. And then the next one also has to do with off street parking. It's for surface and drainage. The perimeter of all parking areas shall have a machine
formed curbing at least five inches high or precast concrete bumpers, safety curbs, or other protective devices here in order for the storm water to flow into the treatment facilities, we're asking for a waiver to allow the curb height of six inches. Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 2: Okay. Onto N, this has to do with buffer areas and a waiver is sought to permit a proposed fire lane and dumpster enclosure, which would restrict the ability to provide the 10 foot landscape buffer and to permit landscaping and screening as proposed in the landscape plans.
L 1 0 1, which are dated January 23rd, 2025, which we went over with our landscape architect. The next waiver is O, that's for the interior landscaping. And here your bylaw requires off street parking areas, which cover 20% or more of the total site area and at least 10 square feet of interior landscaping for each parking space and parking islands with a curb of five inches. The waivers sought to allow the multifamily development with more than three dwelling units.
4,100 square feet of interior landscape would re be required under that formula. And 1500 square feet is proposed and also a waiver is sought to allow for a six inch curb, again for the stormwater design. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: The next waiver is P, that's a general one. It has to do with administration and procedure and review of off street parking. And again, this is a waiver like we've discussed to substitute the board as the reviewing authority. Waivers and modifications is the next one. That's waiver. I'm
Speaker 1: Sorry, I apologize. Interrupt. Oh, no problem. Substitute for who on that one. Speaker 2: So that's for the building commissioner. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Speaker 2: And then the next one is Q and that's also administrative in nature, waivers and modifications in your bylaw at V dash E. Any increase or decrease in any of the regulatory factors, findings, limits or prohibitions? We're looking for a waiver from the rules in their entirety so that they can comply with the comp permit regulations, subject of course to any conditions on mitigation that you might impose.
Okay. RI wanna be clear on this one. This has to do with signs or advertising devices. We have not submitted any proposal for any signage yet that's in VH of the zoning bylaw. But all of this is asking for is that rather than going to the sign officer of the town for review, we would come back here working with Amanda to review any future signage. Do we have a Speaker 3: Sign officer? So there's that might actually be lengthier. So the building commissioner is the sign officer
and if the signage is compliant with section NOAL five H, then it's just a straight sign permit that goes right through the building permit. If it is non-conforming that it would come back here. So if it actually complies with section vh, it's faster just to pull it as part of the, the building permit. Speaker 2: Okay, so you're saying that and I'm, I think I'm fine with what you're saying. Go to the building commissioner first. If it complies, we're all set. We get the permit. If it doesn't, we come here anyway. Yep. Okay, so we'll strike that. Okay, fine.
No problem. Okay, the next one is noted as S, and this has to do with outdoor lighting and it's section V dash one of the bylaw and it speaks to the requirements for outdoor lighting. So there's two, two things here. There can be no glare perceptible to persons on any street or any abutting lot or parcel. And it also requires all outdoor lighting to not be illuminated between 11:00 PM and six. And we're seeking a waiver to the extent that there is, there is a 0.1, as I understand it,
and Rebecca is here to get into the more details if you need it. A 0.1% glare that goes out onto Auburn Street. My understanding is this currently street lighting there and this hits the driveway and and Auburn Street. And also we would seek to reduce the lighting between 11:00 PM to 6:00 AM with dimmers because there's a concern that the lighting code requirements require certain areas to be lit, even if dimly the parking lot, for example in the walkway. Okay. Then the inclusionary housing requirements
of the affordable housing, it's again noted in VJ dash one again this is a waiver so that the 40 B regs can be substituted. Of course it's a hundred percent affordable anyway, so we just list that there. Then the next one is U, and this is procedural special permit procedures and site plan review. And again, this is a waiver to allow this board to be the reviewing authority rather than the planning board. The next one is the, again, this is administrative in nature board of appeals appeal process and voting requirements.
And we're asking for from a waiver insofar as they conflict with the comp permit regulations, which allow a majority vote of this board to approve a permit. And then the next one is W, that's the floodplain district permitted uses. Now I will note that we are going anyway to the conservation commission and we have already removed all of the wetlands bylaw waivers that were in the original submission, but we added this one in or kept this one in because from time to time the federal FEMA maps do change. But we are going to the conservation commission anyway.
So that's why that one's in there. Alright. And Mr. Speaker 3: Chair, we did just receive the reise Google maps. They are going to town meeting but the, I don't believe in this area there was any change. Claire was reviewing those. Thank you. Speaker 2: Okay, thank you. And then the next one are the, this board has its own comprehensive permit rules regarding procedural requirements and to the extent that they conflict with any of the 40 B regulations, we're asking for waivers there. That's that. Do Speaker 1: We have a, is there a fee waiver? Do we have a fee that's not in 40 B? Speaker 3: They've already paid the fee, so I don't believe
that they were requesting wait for from the fee. Okay. I correct on that one. Speaker 2: You've already paid? Yeah, we paid the application fee. The next one is again, historic district commission. Just to substitute this board is the authority permit granting authority. That's why the only wetlands protection bylaw you'll see is in Z. And it's only for a temporary disturbance required to permit the relocation of the existing foundation drains for about 306 square feet of area.
The area then will, that's in order to do the stormwater work and then the area gets restored after the work is complete. So it's just temporary. Speaker 4: That's something that shouldn't be there technically that you're taking out. Speaker 2: Dana, do you wanna Speaker 3: Speak to that? Speaker 4: Something that ordinarily would not have been there allowed to be in the Speaker 7: Dana Al Beo from Merrill Engineers and Lance. So this is currently, there's an existing foundation train off the, the existing Elliot school. It's going right through where the, the new building is going. So we're just rerouting it around the, the new building but it'll, it's basically gonna function the same as it does currently.
It's just re relocating it so it's not going through the structure. Gotcha. Sure. Speaker 2: Thank you Dana. And then finally the last one is aa. This is the town policy on street openings. We saw this waiver included in a relatively recent 40 B that the board approved and it allows the applicant to request a waiver from performance guarantees associated with approvals by the DPW or the town engineer. That's a cost savings. Speaker 1: Was it assurity like a bond? Yeah, Speaker 2: It's a performance bond. It's been waived by the board
before we've paid all the other fees. So we, we added that but, and I think, I think that's it. There's a catcher, there's some catchall language at the bottom that's pretty standard, but we believe we've caught all of them subject of course to any comments that Amanda or the building department may have. Speaker 3: And then Mr. Chair, I do have some comments collected already. So the fire department has reviewed, they said no issues identified by the fire department regarding the requested waivers. So therefore we would have a clean letter from the fire department. Yep. Conservation has reviewed it
and they just were questioning as to why the foundation drains needed to be located within the 25 foot no disturb zone. Under the local bylaws, there were more appropriate locations grading wise and wetland buffers for the outlets for the foundation drain to be located. It should be pulled back into the 40 foot no build at a minimum, which will minimize tree removal in the no disturbance zone and prevent prevent slope destabilization. The reality is that this is a riverfront area project. So regardless the conservation commission can require those
under the regulations of their local jurisdiction. Speaker 2: Understood. And we'll work with them on that when we go through that process. Speaker 3: And that's what Claire said. So that was the only comment that she had on the waivers. And then, 'cause she has everything else. And then the only other one is the peer review did get to us today, just their concern of going eight by 16 for the EV spaces. Just 'cause it gets tight. Speaker 1: 'cause of the charging. Is that, are those just Speaker 3: 'cause of the charging units? Speaker 1: Not, it says nine compacts sparked those that are eight by 16. But are are those, are those electrical all electrical, Speaker 3: This is what Speaker 1: We're in J
Speaker 7: Yes. So they're all, you know, set to be EV ready at some point and we'll have two to start. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. I see, I see. So compact two, two Speaker 4: To start are the full size, Speaker 7: There'll be eight by 16 as well. Speaker 4: The two EV specs will be eight by Speaker 7: 16. That's correct. Speaker 8: And the town is recommending Speaker 4: The date, Speaker 1: Not recommending nine by 18 is the requirement. Speaker 3: He did say he did say so Wing did say the only response that could affect the site layout is a recommended, recommended dimensions for the accessible EV charging spaces.
The applicant's response is that they prefer to keep the stall dimensions eight by 16, 11 by 20 is recommended as shown in the current site plan as the site as a change would result in the loss of an additional parking space and orbital location Speaker 8: 11 by 20 is for accessible ev not Speaker 3: Not the other ones. Correct. Yeah. Speaker 8: And what's recommended for regular ev do we know? Speaker 3: Wasn't it the eight by or eight by eight by 16 for the regular, Speaker 7: Traditional Speaker 1: Nine by 18 Speaker 4: Is standard. Speaker 3: Right? But weren't you also dropping that whole row?
Speaker 7: Yeah, so that was going to be some compact spaces, which we've, you know, in, in the past with the AV spaces, the, the vehicles are of times a little bit smaller. So you know, we're able to, you know, mix the, the compact spacing with the EV spaces as well. Speaker 1: If we split the difference, you're gonna still lose the space, Speaker 7: We'll definitely add a lot more pavement. You know, it's just gonna push everything back deeper into the site, you know, if we make that bigger. So it's, we're balancing Speaker 1: That. Can we just take a quick peek of where this is on, on the site so everyone knows? Can you pull up the plan? Sure. Speaker 7: That would be these spaces on in this area? Yep. Right
Speaker 1: Here. Yep. Speaker 4: And all of those are compact? That's correct. Eight by 16. And that's the best place to put the ev just because of where Speaker 8: Power, Speaker 7: Yeah, for power and accessibility, you know, gives a little bit of both the reasonably gotten to by the residents, the power. We we're hoping to be a transformer here or here. So that gives us easy access to the, the conduit and then, you know, they, they work well for accessibility to the buildings. Speaker 4: Okay. And that was the comment from our civil, not a town department, correct? That's
Speaker 3: Correct, yeah. That was the only comment that he had sent. Speaker 1: Yeah. And, and and engineering hasn't weighed in Speaker 3: So the only, the, I have a clean letter from basically fire department conservation. I do not have one from GPW or police or health. So I'm waiting on those ones. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Does Speaker 3: Anybody have, but just so you're aware, none of the waivers really did impact health or the fire department or the police department, Speaker 1: So Yeah, yeah. No, I think that's right. Does anybody here have any questions about these? I mean some of them are, the ones I skipped are obviously
entirely intuitive, right? It's so, and and I don't think there's anything in here that's tremendously controversial. Does anybody see anything here that's problematic? I mean, I guess we'd want to have to the extent possible, get some in, get some feedback from the town departments. But Speaker 8: The thing that I recall was we had long discussions about off street parking last time the number parking space is declining. I'm not sure whether the Speaker 1: Ev no. That that, but that's the same number as they were here on last.
Yes, same number. This is just the formalized waiver. Got it. But the number hasn't gone down. Correct. Speaker 8: It's still a 41. It was with the smaller compact ev. Speaker 2: That's right. Speaker 8: And if it's that much smaller, are we burdening people who need accessibility with difficulty getting in and out? Speaker 2: No, we have, we have the accessible spaces as well. Speaker 8: Okay. Yes. I thought they were, Speaker 1: Is there, is there an within that, that row are there, I can't see it from here. Accessible ev or are those elsewhere? Those
Speaker 8: Are all, Speaker 7: That's right. These two right Speaker 1: Here. Oh yeah. And those are and those are what? Speaker 7: Those are also eight by 16. We Speaker 1: Do have the, well you have the, Speaker 8: But you have the the, the Speaker 1: Clearance. Yeah. You have the aisles. Yeah. Speaker 7: Yes, we have the, the five foot loading Speaker 1: Zone. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Alright. Good enough. Thank you. Speaker 8: Alright, work. Speaker 1: Does anybody, does anybody have any thoughts on, on, on the waivers? Anybody? No, Speaker 9: I think they're, that's what's reflected on the plans that we looked at already. So we're just seeing the, you know, the verbal version of the graphic that we've already think that. Yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah. Well let's see if anybody else has
any, do you have any other comments? Speaker 2: No, that's it for us. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Speaker 1: Does anybody else here have any thoughts that they'd like to share with the board on the waivers only? Yes sir. Come on up. Yeah, please. Yeah, just your name and address for the record, even though we were fast friends here, Speaker 10: Mark Bugden 32 Elliot, the corner house seems like every square inch is being maximized plus a little bit more. And whether the, Speaker 1: Which, which, which waiver specifically are we talking Speaker 10: The parking. Parking and the parking Speaker 1: Spaces, number Speaker 10: Spaces, numbers.
Speaker 1: So hold on. Yes, we must be specific. Speaker 10: Well, what's normally 45? They're trying to go 41. Right. So, Speaker 1: But let, let me just be clear. Speaker 10: Yes. Speaker 1: The, the, the code would require 45, they're gonna give 41. If the, if we were to require 45, that would be more black top, that would be more impervious. Right. So I'm Speaker 10: Trying, is it practical mean what Speaker 1: I just Well I'm saying what's the comment? Is the comment you're saying maximize? Speaker 10: I just think it's a little bit oversized project. Oh, okay. That's what I'm getting at. Okay. If I was thinking, I don't know if 32 is the magic number.
When you asked the question last time we met, could there be fewer two bedrooms and more singles? Because that would maybe reduce the overall building size, square footage, ad spaces, less visitors, less cars, less everything. We again, give a little history, I'm not gonna get off topic. It started off with all singles. Randy, you had a nice, you came up with a plan 19, then he grew it to 32 because the economics 32 singles.
Okay. You know what I mean? That's one thing. Then it grew to 32 with 11, 17 and four larger. All that add-on is adding the density. It adds more pickups, more cars, more visitors, more everything. So I was thinking if they have to have 32, if you folks feel it's 32, reduce the unit sizes, we would have some space, maybe have a little bit more that green not to have as many waivers
for going right to the whatever they, whatever the comments were earlier. Like for the green space or building towards the edge and the 25 versus 40 feet. And it would just be less density on the street, less people. Again there's four houses on the street. It's a neighborhood hasn't changed in probably a hundred plus years. And to add 32 with a lot of extra larger units to, you know, some larger or have small. But I would just ask that the board consider reducing
that we can reduce the footprint of the buildings, add a little bit more parking maybe, and just overall help with the traffic getting out of the street. All the above. So I just wanted to put that out there. If the magic numbers 32, could we have more what the original plan was? Singles have some tools have a four, I don't know what it, what it threes, whatever you need, but reduce the vast number of people, reduce the building size, it would fit better back there and it would just be a better overall project for the neighbors.
We've been patiently coming for years. We started off with 11 to 14 units to 19 to 32 singles and then it grew to the existing one. So that's a lot. Again, there's four current homes on that little dead end street. Nothing like this as far as I know, has been attempted in natick. Not 'cause it's affordable housing, just the scale, the number of variances involved, waivers, all this stuff. Not, not in that, in this, this zone has been changed for that.
Correct. The downtown commuter rail area. That was a 40 B. Hmm. That was a 40 B down there. Right, right. Okay. But we don't have to go 32 units for 40 B because we're only short 10. Am I knocking the number? I'm just saying the density of this doesn't have to be that large. I think that was brought up last time. We were only short like 10 units by town. I'm not knocking we, we have to have a 10 unit or 12 unit. That's not my point. The point is, if it is a 40 B and we had to comply to it, could we make it easier
for the existing people? Again, it's not about who lives there, what, it's the numbers for me, for our neighbors, for homes, we wanna comply. If this is the magic number, can we simplify it? Have the 45 spaces, whatever we need to have the 40 have a little bit less density. And I think it can be all accomplished. We haven't gotten, we've gotten some redesigns of big giant buildings. No one's really coming. You're listening. I think we've made some progress. I mean we haven't, it's through this process, it's been healthy. But no one's really said, oh the neighbors,
you know, I'm glad you brought it up. David just is sort of like, what, what's gonna happen here? And we, again, we were talked about 11 units singles. Oh that's kind of nice. Park out back, nothing changes. Then it went to 14 maybe then 10 19 with, with a plan, 19 to 32 with a couple duplexes out back. And that's what Randy's plan was. Okay. Still we would've had ample parking. We wouldn't be all this stuff. We wouldn't be, you know, I I whether we should have, you know, we won't be on street parking.
That may not be a bad thing. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but there would've been fewer changes to the street. This has been basically unchanged. My house was moved there in 1970, so there were three houses there for probably 150 years, all in the 1850s to sixties. And that's a neighborhood with a neighborhood school that was built in the thirties. Nobody had cars around here, then kids walked to school. So we're taking that historic building, using that as the catalyst to put a big housing development in the back. And I just, we never dreamed that would happen.
It was always what's gonna happen with five Auburn. The building is, could a school come in, could an office come in? Could condos come in? Could it ever come in? And then it grew to an oversized development if you ask me. And again, it's a dead end street. Historically, you don't let this stuff happen. All that stuff. So anyways, thank you for listening. Thank Speaker 1: You very much. So I, I think, I think we're, we're, we're, you know, fairly deep into the process, but we might as well ask the question, which is how do you come up with a mix, the 1117,
is it 4 11 17? Speaker 11: Four? Yeah. So the unit mix, the number of one, two, and three bedroom apartments that we've included here is driven by the state funding requirements. They require a perce, a certain percentage of each unit type to be eligible for funding. So that's what we have, have built our plans based on, and if we were to not meet those requirements, we would not be eligible for our state funding Speaker 1: Specifically. Which funding is that? Speaker 11: About 90% of it. So that would be the low income housing tax credits, all
of the state subsidy sources. So substantial portion for, Speaker 8: For Speaker 12: Discussion's sake though, that's a percentage. One, one could say that that could, the overall number could shrink, but the percentages would stay the same and still meet those requirements. Speaker 11: Right. So if there's fewer units, you would still have to meet those percentage requirements. Right. Speaker 8: We have a long discussion about number of units being needed for financial feasibility or something. Financial information Speaker 1: Yeah. Which has been provided. Yes. Only it hasn't to my knowledge, been analyzed
from municipality's perspective I to to date. I haven't, I mean, I, I, I don't have the, the expertise to run those numbers and, and make a determination of whether if you took a unit out, it was no longer gonna be economically viable. So some, somebody I presume somebody on behalf of the, the town or a peer review consultant has run those numbers. I haven't seen any, anything one way or the other feedback wise Speaker 8: Here. Speaker 1: Does anybody else have anything else? Else? Yeah, come on up. Just your name
and address for the record, if you would. Let's stick to the waivers. Yes, Speaker 13: Thank you. My name is Sonya Ross. I live at 12 River Street in Natick. Hi, I'd like to just make mention on the waivers for the landscape buffer. Yep. Apparently you can't meet the landscape buffer requirements. You just Speaker 1: Give do do you have the letter Speaker 8: Letter? Speaker 13: Was it n Speaker 1: Let's take a Speaker 8: Look. I think with an add in it. Speaker 13: And there was a comment that it can't be met because of the requirement for the dumpster and the fire lane. Yeah, Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah it is. Then Speaker 8: I have that on my notes to ask what Speaker 13: The plan. So to me this kind of tag teams with the issue
with the lighting and the glare. So as, as was mentioned a few minutes ago, this is built on the edge of a riverbank. It also is a wildlife area as well as being a wetland area. We have bald eagles in the neighborhood. We all get to enjoy the bald eagles. This is going to be a 24 7 right now. Or in the past it was a school that didn't have lights on 24 7, didn't have mechanical operations 24 7. And what you're doing now is you're impacting the environment in addition to the additional storm water, which is a whole other issue. I'll stick to the waivers here,
but you're impacting the environment on a river, especially with the dam coming down. That's additional impact on the river, although albeit positive. But we will see a change in migratory bird habits in that area and have engaged the Audubon Society to help look into this for us. And just asking that you consider that given the proximity to the river, if you go down on, on your way home, swing down the end of Auburn Street. Look how nice and dark it is. The birds love it. The swans love it. The geese love it. The the eagles love it. People love it. The people love it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 14: Hi, Randy Johnson, Natick resident for about 40 years. Current member of the trust, actually a charter member. Before that I was on the conservation commission for about 20 years. I just wanna address the reference. A previous speaker made to the proposal with all one bedroom units as if it were a sequence of proposals that have come in front of people to review. This was a proposal the trust submitted during the RFP process and it was not accepted. So I just wanna make a point that we're not talking about
that proposal now. We're talking about a specific proposal that has, in my opinion, a suitable density. It's a very spacious site and it, and as you see from the architectural drawings, it's a well designed proposal with that number of units. So I just wanted to set the record straight with any reference to previous one bedroom proposals, really as an applicable here. And thank you, thank you again for your time. Thanks. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yep. Right here in the back. Speaker 15: Roger Scott. 40 Water Street. Just wanna, this, this 90% state funding, is that
what you have on this project? 90%? Is any of that state funding getting delivered through the federal government, through the state, or is it just from state taxes? Speaker 1: I, I don't know. I'm not sure that's necessarily relevant, but I'll let you respond if you, if you know. Speaker 11: Right. So our final sources are to be determined as we move through the process state funding process with, with the state. But as, so we've submit for a specific number of sources and we are awarded a specific number of sources. And if there's any change in availability of funding our,
you know, expectation is that the, the state would make other funds available. So we are not aware of any funding gap at this Speaker 15: Point. So there's no federal funding in at all involved in this. Like if they decided in Washington to cut back on state funds that this would jeopardize the project and door everything into a conundrum. Speaker 1: I'm not sure that's necessarily relevant, but to, as we sit here today is, is there federal funding? Speaker 2: No funding is guaranteed ever for any project.
Speaker 1: Of course. Is there federal funding? Speaker 2: The federal, there are federal funds that flow through the state, of course with any type of project like this. So it remains to be seen. If there's a conundrum, we don't anticipate one. And if there is one, we expect the state to step up and fill in the gap or make other funding sources available. Speaker 15: Thank you. Thank Speaker 1: You. Does anybody, I thought Yes ma'am. Speaker 16: Hi, Patty Malone. I'm at 31 South Lincoln Street and it addresses the waiver of parking because this is something I'm really stuck on Speaker 1: Specifically the number or the Speaker 16: Size.
So specifically when we get to the fact that there's the 11 bed, 11 one bedroom, 17 two bedroom Speaker 1: Floor. Oh, I'm sorry. I, what I meant was, is that about the number of The Speaker 16: Number? Okay. Because the, the number, so there's, it's, I know it's right now at 41, correct. But it's 32 for designated for the, Speaker 15: So we're Speaker 16: On the actual residence even, even that's, that's the issue. It's just doesn't compute with me. And I have to speak to this parking issue came up, of course the last meeting.
And I have to speak to a concern I had when I left that meeting and it's been sitting with me ever since. I have not spoken with any of my neighbors about this and I am speaking purely for myself in my personal capacity. But it was utterly shocking as a resident of the town of Vene to be a witness to the exchange between a member of this board and a and abutter to the proposed develop development. Mr. Ed Shari, Mr. Shari expressed utter delight when the board member shared
that he had gone down to Auburn Street on a site visit. But alas, as we soon learned, that wasn't the point of this board member telling Mr. Uri that he had visited the neighborhood. The board member turned Mr. Shari's smile into a frown when he had literally no comment about the actual development and the neighbor's concerned concerns about its size relative to that site and the small dead end street on which will be located but had much to say about Mr. Sugar and his neighbor's privilege. The ZBA is statutorily charged
with certain considerations when reviewing a project such as this development. As far as I am aware, none of those considerations involve the so so-called privilege of how long the driveways are of the people living in the affected neighborhoods. Indeed, none of those legal considerations should ever involve something personal to a voting board member member. It was made personal and I found it very insulting. Appointed officials are charged with following the law that of the town and the state. And none of the legal considerations involve insulting the neighbor neighborhood and insinuating that
because current residents of Auburn Street have driveways the size of this pro proposed project and its lack of sufficient parking to accommodate the a hundred plus likely future residents of the development is therefore appropriate. I don't know where you live or how much money you have or how long your driveway is, but if you went to a public authority to communicate your position a matter of public importance, would you find it appropriate If any member of that authority insulted your background or question your motivations and made it personal? It sets us all back. When town residents appear here in good faith to share
where the government authority their position on a matter of local import. And what they get in response is government officials questioning their motives, questioning their backgrounds, questioning the money they have, questioning their privilege. How are those matters appropriate of concern for a member of the zoning board of appeals? This is not about rich versus poor. We all believe in affordable housing. That is what I do on a daily basis in this neighborhood. On Auburn Street you have retired pub, a pub, retired public school teacher, a nurse. The neighborhood has several teachers, retirees, truck drivers, trace people, many of lived who've lived here
for near for 30, 40 or 50 or more years. You don't know who I am. You don't know what crosses I bear what my upbringing was. Yet I feel like judgment has been passed. We are, there's a certain amount that we've been dismissed as privileged because we live in this neighborhood and it's improper and outright galling that our backgrounds and housing choices are used as weapons as if we're somehow against poor people. Especially when town authorities sold this valuable property, a multimillion dollar town property to a developer
for a mere a hundred dollars. And now that those same authorities are asking town residents to support a multimillion dollar budget override to fund town services and questioning residents good faith when they come to this board regarding the size of the development, the last meeting showed that to make the project work on Auburn Street, the butters will lose any on street parking they currently use when family members or friends come to visit or stay over the holidays. And because of the town's action in giving this property away to a developer, the neighbors who will bear the brunt
of this irresponsible action will then also be forced to pay hundreds, if not a thousand dollars more in yearly real estate taxes. If this override passes in the development agreement, the town executed with this developer, there's a reference to the quote, robust employer base in Natick Center and along the Route nine corridor. But we have been told that there is one parking space designated per household. Some of the proposed residents, as you know, are three bedrooms in a multi adult household without a car,
with no public transportation in that neighborhood, in in all of that part of town. That means at most one job per household, it just doesn't compute. It's a very, very long walk to Route nine from Auburn Street. Put simply, this developer is selling this town in the neighborhood a pipe dream. When they attempt to earnestly convey that those occupying the residents will have only one car, most households will have more than one car to get to work. And that second or third car even will be parked along the streets further into the surrounding neighborhood. Everyone knows that even when rent is affordable,
it's still rent, it still has to be paid and to pay you have to work. We can't take back the gift the town made to this developer. The deal as to the sale is done. But this board, I hope, and I hope for my neighbors on street, really does its job and takes a really long, hard look. I know many of you watched Cinderella at a young age and probably some of you likely watched it many a times with your own children. As that story teaches us through Cinderella's stepsisters, a size 12 foot can't be squeezed into a size six shoe,
no matter how many which ways you try to make it work. Thank you for listening to me. Speaker 1: Thank you. Does anybody else wish to be heard? Yeah, come on out. We're gonna stick to the waivers. Okay. Speaker 17: I I, I am not gonna stick to the waiver, but I just need two minutes of your time. Alright. I'm recent here in Natick. I live at 11 River Street. My name's Valerie Kovich. And from what I've heard here tonight, it sounds like you're trying to fit a square into a circle. This project seems much too large and it's trying to accommodate funding as opposed to space. And I think you all need to think about that. And if you lived in this neighborhood, I think you'd realize it's the wrong fit.
And I think it should be considered seriously because the town in Natick is a wonderful town. It has a wonderful space. There are a lot of spaces for this. Whoever sold this property for a hundred dollars was probably a bad move. Why it was done, I have no idea. I don't have the history. But you really need to think about where you put the si this size project. It's wrong and I hope that you truly consider it before you approve it. Thank Speaker 18: You. Thank you. Speaker 19: Thank you Mr. Chair. Ganish. Ramadhan in 30 Spring Street. This is in response to a previous speaker's comment in the,
this project was authorized because at that time we were less than 10% of subsidized housing inventory. And the previous speaker's comment was, we were only a few units less. I just wanted to use this opportunity to kind of elaborate on how s HHI are calculated. If there is a 50 unit project of which 10 units are affordable housing units, the entire 50 units would be calculated within the SHI. So when we say as of 1st of March, about 10% of Natick housing stock
is subsidized housing inventory. So that is about 15 1,556 units of 15,563 units. This is the latest stats from two days ago. So of which you have 137 ownership units, affordable ownership units, 943 affordable rental units and 476 market rate units. So within our 10% SHI 473 are actually market units. And the number is more close to 6.9% and not 10%.
Just wanted that to be on record. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Does anybody else wish to be heard? Okay. And board, have any comments? Speaker 20: One last thing. Speaker 1: Sure. Stick to the waivers. Thank you Speaker 4: Mr. Chair. Yes sir. Can we see the landscape plan? I wanna see what the buffer, yeah, Rebecca. Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, she, I think that's great. Speaker 4: Kind wanna kind of walk through that. Speaker 2: Point out the lighting, Speaker 20: Right? I can't see it. So I'm gonna go off. You can go screen. Can you hear me if I stand over here? Yes. So the lighting, the areas we're concerned
with are requesting the waiver for are at the driveways. They go above 0.1 and Speaker 4: 0.1. What? Foot candles. Foot candles. Speaker 20: So I feel it's very, Speaker 4: Is there an example of Speaker 20: Like the sun is a million, like a Walmart parking lot. It's like a hundred thousand foot candles. So one foot candle is holding a candle, Speaker 2: One Speaker 20: Actual lit candle Speaker 4: A foot from your face. Speaker 20: Okay. So I think the twilight is 0.1 to Speaker 4: 0.5 when you walk on, when you walk on a dark street with a, with a, with the moon out, right?
Speaker 20: You're in like a 0.1 to 0.5 ish. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 20: And then the only places of spill we have, because we are, and we didn't, the photometrics, when they do the calculations, they can't account for a fence or planting. So we have spill at the driveways where there are some street lights existing. So it is probably not going to be very noticeable because you already have the street live by the street lights. So these lamps will be on our property only 16 feet high. They're def they're down lit dark sky. But that will result in some spill out at the entrances
and then along the little existing drive between the existing church and the existing school building. Because we have a walkway, just a sidewalk for residents to go from the parking lots to any of the buildings or units. We do wanna make sure that it's lit. If there were only the driveway, we might eliminate that because the car has headlights. But because you'd be walk here, we do have, we've actually reduced it to Ballard lights. Okay. Low. But it is showing spill. I've shown planting. But that strip existing is really narrow. So it'll allow enough into the firetruck.
We've gone to the Ballard lights, we've shown the planting. If it really came to become an issue, we could add some ing there as we've done at the loading zone. The fire zone, because we just really didn't have the space there. And that speaks to the buffer. The only reason we need the buffer is because we're trying to keep the building away from Auburn Street. We could have the landscape buffer on this side where we're really just screening an existing parking lot. But it would move the building still in compliance with this buffer. But it would be closer to Auburn Street. Speaker 4: So, so the buffer is several feet,
six feet, two feet. It's non-existent. Speaker 20: Pretty much non-existent right here because of the fire access. If the fire department didn't require that you would have 20 feet. Okay. That we could landscape and Speaker 4: It's, it would be only screened from, it's screened from everything else except for that existing parking lot. Yeah. And the lighting along the riverside. Is there anything other than, we don't have any lighting other than Windows. It'll Speaker 20: Just be windows. And there's actually currently, there's a floodlight on the back of the existing school that in an early meeting,
a resident from this side had said it's constantly on, it's constantly flooding their window if like, so that'll actually be removed because we'll redo all the lighting on the site. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 1: Anybody else have any thoughts? Yep. Speaker 21: I'm Ed Shago. I live at eight Auburn Street. First I wanna thank this board for the attention they've given us. I think it's really remarkable. However, I have a question, and I don't know if I'm outta line and I hope you say I'm not, I'd like to know the funding sources candidly, sir, so I can give input to those funding services
and sources about this project Speaker 1: And not relevant for us. Speaker 21: Why not? Speaker 1: I just don't think it is. Speaker 21: I I beg to differ with you. Speaker 1: You can find out the funding sources for any project and make phone calls to the state. That's not the board's business. Okay. But, but Mr. Sugary, while you're up there Yes Speaker 21: Sir. Speaker 1: The comment that was made earlier, I I, I was here for that. I I didn't think there was anything untoward about it at the time. I still don't. I think it wa the comments that were made were, were really, it was more of a a, a back
and forth about parking, where it was gonna go. Where, what were the options of people if parking was gonna come off the street where people might expect cars to be parked. And we may disagree about this. Yes sir. The point of my comment is to the extent that, that you believe those comments were personal or offensive, then I, I apologize on behalf of the board, despite the fact that I don't think that they were, but no offense is intended. Speaker 21: That said, could I ask the board by poll who's been to that site?
Speaker 1: No, you cannot. Speaker 21: Why not? Speaker 1: It's not relevant. Speaker 21: Sure it is. You're voting on a vital thing. Speaker 1: You asked the question, I gave you a response. We, we'll have to live with that. Speaker 21: No, you have to live with it, sir. Speaker 1: I will. Yes ma'am. Speaker 17: That's not really fair. Speaker 1: You gotta come up to the microphone. I like you. Speaker 17: I don't mean her. I don't mean to be a troublemaker. You're Speaker 1: Not. You know, this is the, this is the process. I, your name, your name addressed for the record again. Speaker 17: Oh, Valerie Vasca. It's 11 River Street. Yes, ma'am. You know, I really think that each one of you should visit a site if you're going to approve it. Speaker 1: Alright. This is about waivers, but thank you for your input. I know,
Speaker 17: But you guys, ma'am, when, when are voting on this? Yeah, when does this get voted on? Speaker 1: Well, I don't know, but but, but this is not an, the, this, the process is not one that, that you're gonna cross-examine the board. It's just not the way it works. Speaker 17: I'm not cross-examining Speaker 1: It. Is, this is, it's important. I, we appreciate your input. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to be heard? Come on up. Your name and address for the record, if you would. Speaker 22: Susan Chiro eight Auburn Street. And I want to address the fact that we do know some
of the funding sources and they are government. I'm not sure it's important to waivers, but what happens, and I'm not sure you guys can answer, but I'd like to bring it up just one sentence. What happens if they don't get the funding? Speaker 1: They don't build the project. Speaker 22: Do they start the project with some funding? I don't know the answer to this. These things, Speaker 1: This, every project, every house that gets built, every apartment that gets built, every condo that gets built, every dwelling unit that gets built starts with some sort of funding and, and we hope it gets finished. So every project that gets built in the entire
in the world, there's funding and then there maybe there's no funding. People go bankrupt, developers go bankrupt. Some buildings get finished halfway Speaker 22: Well, in this project, are they gonna start? It's not before they have the funding. Speaker 1: It's not the board's inquiry. Speaker 22: I know, I know. Speaker 1: So Speaker 22: We, but it's just a, a, a kind of a basic question. Speaker 1: I I think it's, I think it's a, it, I think that it's not a a it's not a relevant question for the board's work. It's Speaker 4: Not within our purview. Speaker 1: Right. We, what we don't do is we don't make sure that they have every dollar lined up
as part of this process. IJ it's just to my knowledge, it's not the board's purview. Speaker 4: The process requires, the funding process requires that you have evidence of site control and evidence of entitlements and evidence of all these things. So it's a chicken and egg. So as they're going through the funding rounds, they need to, they need to also go through this process in parallel. Well, Speaker 22: The park service is part of the, I mean, our government now, I mean, park Service is part of their project. That's one of the funders that's government federal.
Speaker 1: It is, but it's not, it's not this, it's not this board. No. I just, we don't have jurisdiction over that issue. So I I, I mean, I understand what your concern is. Speaker 22: Yeah. I don't want a hole in the ground and, and not have enough funding type Speaker 1: Thing. I, I get it. Except this board just does not have a Speaker 22: Jurisdiction. I understand that, I guess. But it's just a Speaker 1: Question. I thank you. Speaker 4: We have a waiver question. Speaker 1: Yeah. Come on up and just, just have you repeat your name and address for the record. Speaker 13: Sonya Wa Sonya Ross 12 River Street. This goes to the question of funding and the question on the waiver about a waiver
from performance guarantees. You shouldn't waive a bond requirement with speculative funding given the environment that we're in. Okay, thank you. That is my 2 cents Speaker 1: On that. Thank you. Speaker 4: So, so my question actually is on that Go ahead, Mr. Chair. And the, the, the performance guarantee with DPWI don't think has anything to do with completion of the building and project of itself. It's the Speaker 1: Street open, Speaker 4: Right? It's the street open. Correct. What, what, if any, is I was kind of surprised to see that in the waiver list, if I'm honest. Any, I didn't realize it was part of the,
that's not part of the zoning codes. Town policy zoning bylaw, excuse me. But where, like, what, what would our power, the town, not the zoning board. What would our enforcement be if the street isn't filled in properly or Speaker 2: There would be an action against the contractor and the contractor's general liability PO policy rather than a performance bond. And this was, I believe, granted by the board in the Stonegate 40 B. And so we added it here as a, as a potential cost savings. Okay. Speaker 1: Do we have any idea what bond, excuse me, what the size
of the, the bond would've to be? Speaker 2: No, but we can find that out. We will have our civil engineer look into that and get you that number. Sure. Speaker 1: Can you also, as long as you're at it, just give us the premium for that bond. Sure, thanks. Yes ma'am. If you could, I only because it's being picked up by the, by the mics, we can hear you, but the cameras cannot. Speaker 13: I do insurance for a living. I'm a licensed insurance consultant, and general liability would not cover that. So again, require the performance bonds, please. Speaker 1: Thank you. Does anybody else wish to be heard?
Okay. Do you have any thoughts you wanna share before we wrap it up? Speaker 2: No, we're, we're done. We're, we're looking for approval of the waiver list and minus the bond question, of Speaker 1: Course, we're, we're not gonna be able to, to, to do it. I mean, the app appro, the approval of the waiver list I think is gonna be in the decision. Okay. Yeah. I don't think we'll, we'll, I, I still think that we need some input on these things and so I, I don't think that's, I mean, we, Speaker 2: So we'll take it up again on the 31st. That's our next hearing date, I think. So take
Speaker 1: It up again? I think so, but I, I suppose we could just supply that, those numbers for the, this if, oh, yeah. Did we get those? I'm looking behind you. Did we get the, the elevations at the street? Yeah, yeah. I'm sorry, I'm looking at the wrong place. And Speaker 5: Our scout with Davis Square Architects. Yeah. Hi. Hi. So the, the elevation that we took, it was one 19, the elevation at the middle of Auburn Street is 1 21. Okay. So two feet. So any number, it's two feet. But that doesn't, it doesn't really change the waiver. Right? We would, we would still need it, Speaker 1: But, so let's, let's just make sure here.
Sure. So it's really 45.8 and 39.9. Is that right? Speaker 2: Two feet, right? Speaker 5: Yes. Just not a decimal. It's the inches. Just Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's right. Yeah. Not 0.9. Yeah. But yes. Inches. Yeah. So the site Speaker 23: Is somewhat depressed about two feet. Is that what I'm hearing? Speaker 2: Well, where, where Speaker 1: She's no, the measuring Speaker 2: From, Speaker 1: From the middle of the straight the streets higher. Yeah. Towards the river. That's right. That's right. Slightly. But that's the, that's, that's where we measure from. That's the proper place. This corner lot or a It is, yeah.
Yeah. The corner of corner lot. Yeah. Corner of Auburn and, and Everett. And Elliot. Elliot, yeah. Okay. So let me just move a note here. Speaker 12: Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. It would be helpful for me and maybe for others too, just to review the next steps. We have a meeting on the 31st, but in general, when do we vote, et cetera, et cetera. I'm just not sure really where we go. I would appreciate knowing where we go. Speaker 1: Yeah, it's, it's, it's, it's, well, well put, I normally answer the question, but, but maybe a mannequin.
Speaker 3: So I did actually add a second line of review approvals by the department. So which would trigger them to provide the second letter on the reise plans, the waiver list. And I also did send an email and I also sent an email to the applicant team so they could just send it in a cloud because there is 85 documents now in the open gov file. Just so it's on top of their emails, even though they do have it. So I'll work on getting those, drafting the decision as previously directed, and then looking to close up any outstanding items
that we've heard or hear. And then the next one would be if anything comes up between now and then, we do need to have the board address or the applicant address and then start reviewing kind of what, what is outstanding of the project or what is needed, and then going through conditions. So that would be for the 31st. Okay. And from there, I don't know. Speaker 1: Okay. Is that you? Yeah. Sorry, I've done talking today than you. No, go ahead. Speaker 4: One of the, several of the items don't have much to do with the proponent, but have to do with the town and how,
and how Auburn Street gets treated, especially with regards to parking or on street parking, rather. The, the fire department access and things like that. Now the box, pardon the box, the traffic box, the, the traffic box and all these offsite things. And some of these could be conditions placed upon the, the developer. For example, if we want 'em to paint a box or something like that. And some of 'em are more town decisions, off street parking. And if we choose to go off street parking,
I'm not suggesting other, any way they can put the signs up themselves, that's, and that can be a, a condition on them. The question is how do we decide whether things like that get dealt with? Is there any street configuration that needs to be dealt with for the fire departments? And I'm not expecting the answers, I'm just wondering when that gets addressed, how it gets addressed and or does it get addressed outside of this zoning process, but in another EPW or offline? Speaker 3: Yeah, so now that we have the, so the applicant
provided traffic and a site civil documents, right. Our peer review has reviewed them, provided their comment letters. They've gone back. Vanessa has provided a comment letter, which was dated on the 19th, I believe it was. And so our consultant needs to now go back, finalize anything that they want. So it's kind of like, it's a back and forth situation right now between them. So hopefully they're getting that wrapped up. But then from that, they would be the ones, our peer review would be working with their engineer to see what needs to be done. And then our peer review be,
would be the one recommending any types of mitigation that should be or should not be required. Speaker 4: So, so for example, the off street parking, our peer review recommended, we don't do off street parking. Right. I'm not sure how well it was received, but, and there might be good reasons to do it, but honestly, a lot of those reasons have nothing to do with this project. So, for example, that, that might be a, you know, something and just 'cause the peer review, does it? Who, who makes that decision? Is that us? Speaker 1: No, we don't have the juice for that. Speaker 3: No. So that's the select board. 'cause the select board is the keepers of the streets. Okay.
As long as it's a public way. If it's a private way, then that's, so, Speaker 1: So just to be specific here, the what the peer review consultant said, we don't think you should allow public parking on Auburn Street. That's what you mean, right? Correct. Speaker 4: The, the, the, the pyramid said you should not, you should not allow public Speaker 1: Emergency access. Speaker 4: Right. Because of the emergency access, which by the way is not a direct result of this project. There might be more fire trucks and there might be more parking as a result of this, but there's still parking on that street. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 4: How does that get Well, Speaker 1: The, Speaker 4: And I don't want to argue the point, I just,
I'm wondering how that gets resolved. Speaker 1: Well, it's gonna have to be DP W's gonna weigh in. We don't have their comments yet. Okay. And I think if DPW says, yeah, no parking on no parking on Auburn Street, then DPW is gonna run it up the, you know, the, the municipal flagpole if you will, right? Speaker 3: That is correct. Yeah. But Speaker 8: How does DPW know what issues to address if we don't give them that list? Speaker 1: Well, they're getting the stuff from our peer review. Speaker 3: Yeah. They get every, yeah, they've gotten everything. And anytime we've had conversations with the peer review, DPW has actually been involved
and they've been on all correspondence with them. Speaker 1: Good. Speaker 4: I'm good. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 1: Anybody else? No. Okay. Alright. So I think we'll just adjourn for the evening, right? Is that we're gonna do a motion to adjourn or motion to continue. What do we do? I don't motion Speaker 12: One, one sec. What do we do, David? Move to Speaker 1: Continue. Move to continue. Not yet. Hold on. Yeah, go. Speaker 12: How do we, how do we address, and again, I don't know if it's in this committee, but how, on some sort of level, and maybe it's documentation that's either we already have or we could ask for, but how do we address
that essential question? Because it really speaks to the number of units of is this only viable at 32 units? Do we have the, do we have the construction estimate? Do we have the kind of proforma that shows how all the numbers work? Is that, are we privy to that? Speaker 3: So based on that information, you're not supposed to make your decision based on financials. Yours is on site. So if you find that the site does not have the capacity to hold the 32 units, that's what you would be conditioning it on. If it was going into the wetlands,
not providing enough parking, those kind of like site constraints that would prohibit. But the lack of funding is not under this purview. You're looking at it from a site plan and project. Speaker 12: No, not like a lack of funding. But the, you know, is it, is it, could it be viable at 28 units versus 32? But I do understand it's the same answer to that. So, okay. Speaker 8: The point is, if we don't think 32 is sustainable, it's too intense. Yep. Then we vote it down. Yep. Speaker 1: Okay. Go ahead. One more time. And Speaker 8: One, one Speaker 1: Last question. Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 8: There was a design review, which was much improved design. How does that get factored in smart decision? Do we, does that design, does the design does an approval contingent upon that specific type of design? Well, Speaker 1: Unquestionably, yeah. What's being proposed is what, what would be approved? The first line of the decision is that it will be built in the course of the plans that were submitted. So Speaker 8: Those, those designs were submitted as a formal part of the plan. This Speaker 1: Is the design. Oh yeah. They're Speaker 8: They're not doing the old one. The Speaker 1: Pardon?
The old one's gone. Yeah. Good. It's been replaced. Anything else, Jason, Speaker 9: Move to continue the hearing to March 30. Speaker 1: One second, Jeff. All those in favor? Okay. We'll see you on the 31st. Thank you very much for your time. See you then.