Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Franklin ZVA come to water. Recording in progress. There we go.

A note to residents. All citizens are welcome to attend. This is a new thing that I've been reading after 30 years. So I got to give you uh [snorts] 10 public meetings in person. To view the live meeting, citizens are encouraged to [snorts] watch it uh live stream on Franklin Town Hall TV YouTube channel of the live broadcast on Comcast 9 of Verizon 29. To listen to the meeting remotely, citizens may call in using this number 1 192920599. [snorts and clears throat] To participate in the meeting remotely, citizens may join uh a Zoom webinar. So I don't think that's it. So it's not a web, just a Zoom. Uh anyway, there's a if you go to the town's website and get on the agenda, it'll have the Zoom link to get in. Uh any participants who wish to speak during the webinar must enter their full name and email address when joining the webinar or when joining on Zoom. I don't know if we got that ability to do that. Do we get your name and address? Okay. All participants will [snorts] be automatically muted upon joining the webinar. In order to speak, participants will need to select the raise hand function to request to be unmuted. All speakers will be required to state their full name and street address before commenting. Uh, okay. Number thing, number one on this new agenda we got here is the announcements from from the chair. I don't have any real announcements to make at this time. Citizens comment. Citizens are welcome to express their views up to three minutes on a matter that is not on the agenda

in compliance with uh general law chapter 30 section 20 and the open meeting law. The zoning board cannot engage in a dialogue or comment on a matter raised during the citizens comments. the zoning board asked the department director or other to review the map. Uh first now the next thing on the agenda is approval of the minutes of November 6, 2025. Members have been provided properly in a motion to uh approve. So moved. Second. Motion made a second. Any discussion, any deletions, additions, anything else?

Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I I All those opposed. That's done. Okay. Uh we're going to move to general business first. Okay. Sorry about that. We have a petitioner that's been here for 10 years trying to get the project started. I guess they finally see the light of day. So, good evening, Mr. Chairman and [snorts] members of the board. This is Matthew Watsky. I'm Matthew Watsky. I'm here with the applicant, Richard Wington,

on behalf of uh MV Cottage Development LLC. Um, I've submitted a a letter and plans to the board uh to get you up to speed on uh where we are now that we've had an an appeal of the D superseding order of conditions and we're in negotiations with the D to settle that and we have a revised plan. I can display it on the screen if you wish. The the the basics of it is that the D uh let's say preferred as we're in the settlement discussions that we not do any uh alteration or the absolute minimum alteration to an intermittent stream. And rather than take this through a hearing and have to wait a year or more for a decision, we've made modifications to the plan. The basic modification of the plan is to cross that intermittent stream two times with culvert bridges and um and then have the the project uh mostly the same as it was as you approved it. The the difference is that it's decreased the number of units from 32 to 27. So there's a reduction of five units. Um I can display the plan right here. I think that'll come up.

[clears throat]

I thought it was going to be the colored one, but um Can we Can I have a Is there a pointer? Let's see. Are you able to see the cursor? Here we go. There's the cursor. So, the stream basically is along this line here. And the concept had been to to to fill it and then relocate the stream and instead of filling it relocating it, the stream is going to remain exactly where it is. And we'll have a crossing of it here on the left side and a crossing of it here on the right side. And then the units located in the middle of that of that loop of the driveway. So um under the 760

[bell] [snorts] under the provisions of the

under the provisions of the the uh 40B regulation 760 CMR uh [clears throat] 56 um this qualifies as a minor modification. The the key criteria is is that it's not an increase in the number of units and the overall design is basically saying the same. So what we'll be doing with D if if the board votes as we're asking tonight uh to declare this a minor modification, we will go ahead and complete the negotiations with D, we'll provide them with a detailed set of plans with storm water management um and um and have that approved and then I would expect we'll be back with you to show you the the final uh detailed engineering plans including all the storm water.

Okay. So, how many units did you uh remove? I five units are being removed. So, there'll be one less affordable unit. We'll go from eight affordables to seven affordables. How many three bedrooms, how many twos? Uh the mix has changed as well. Used to be 14 threes, 18 twos. We are now if I remember correctly. 8 10 14 16 18. We are now at 18 uh threebedroom. So that would be nine two bedroom.

Why did we move? We reversed it. It used to be 14 threes and 18 twos. I'm pretty sure that's how the original decision was. Um hinted into Oh, I'm sorry. This is the uh original plan we are right now. [clears throat] There you go. 1 2 3 8 10 12 14 18 20. So we have uh 20 threebedroom, seven twob.

Mark, how does that Excuse me, Mark. They when we originally approved it, we had 14 threes and 18 twos, I think, if I'm correct. Yep. Now they're gone to how many threes? 20. Uh, there are I said. You said 20. You just said 24 20. Yeah. 20 20 and seven. 20 23s and 72. You flip it around. Seven threes and 22s.

So what's the change from and two again? Well, when we originally proved that they had 40 something units or whatever, they went down to 32. They had 14 threebedroom units and 18 twos. Okay. Now they got 23 bedrooms and seven twos. I don't know. You if he's looking to get all this the same number of bedrooms in, maybe that's how it works out. I don't know. Well, there's a section, as you know, in the Housing Appeals Committee Regulations that talks about substantial Are you asking me whether that's a substantial change? Well, I don't He's reducing the units. So, right off the get-go, I figure it's an insubstantial change.

The focus the focus of uh the rule is whether the units will increase, not the bedrooms in the unit. Okay? Not the total number of bedrooms. So it's an increase of more than 10% in the height of the buildings, an increase in 10% in the number of units proposed, a reduction in the size of the site by more than 10%. Change in building type, change from one type of tenure to another. In other words, rental to sale or sale to rental. So that wouldn't trip any of the substantial changes mentioned in the reg.

Right. If I may, Mr. chairman. So the the next section of that regulation is also directly pertinent and that's subsection D in paragraph 2 specifies that a change in the number of bedrooms within individual units is not a substantial CL change those that's an example of an insubstantial change. You still got to come back to us with the changes anyway, right? Yes, we do. would we have the opportunity to change the number of bedroom the the size of the units from threebedroom to two bedroom at that time?

So the way these things are usually handled is that the applicant writes a letter listing the specific changes that they want. If there's a sheet of the plan that needs to change as a result of the the ask that they have, they would give you a new sheet to substitute in the plan set for the old sheet. That's the package for the alleged insubstantial change which they want you to determine. If you're okay with it, fine. Um, do we need to make that now or do we do it when they bring in the final uh plans? I I don't know what they've actually submitted, but my normal practice would be to ask them to submit a letter detailing this information and then a couple of sheets of

Yes. And that's what we did. We we submitted the letter listing listing these changes and and the plan to show what it how it would lay out. And we've asked for you to determine that this is a minor trying to get to the bottom of it. If they if they if we determine that this is an insubstantial change, then it's done. Then it's done. That's it. And they come back with the 22 threes and 72s or can we do we have the opportunity down the road when they bring the final plans? If you're going to determine that it's an insubstantial change, before you do that tonight, talk about tweaking it. Yeah. Because once you determine that it's an insubstantial change, it's deemed done. Okay. So,

what can you do on it? Well, since since we lost five units, y after 10 years, it it actually helps us on a financial basis to offset that by having more three bedrooms. Well, we're not the reason why you wrote 10 years. Well, I think we approved it on the first go round. Um, we had 16 actually on the first go round on the three bedrooms. Three 16. I thought it was 14 and 18. It was that mean that equals 32. 16 and 16. Okay.

Do do we have an appreciation for the number of bedrooms that were approved in the first [snorts] round versus the number of bedrooms? 16 and 16 it would have been 32 and 48 threes and 22 right 22 twos too fast for me I'm not good at math the question ultimately in the rule is is this is this a change of more than 10% is well the three bedrooms went up more than 10% no just the over in the overall price all the bedrooms themselves all the bedrooms going up by more than 10% no it probably stayed the same or went down if it doesn't go up by more than 10% the rule says it's Okay. Ordinarily not a substantial change. Okay. All right. I get that out of the way. You all set?

Yeah. Joe, any questions? Almost. Thank you. Got you. So, uh, when you [clears throat] state that you're going over the stream, I guess you're going to do some extensive engineering, put a bridge over it with some [clears throat] it would be a it's going to be a box cover. They're they're they're pre-fabricated. [clears throat] There there are certain calculations that we have to provide to D. uh to demonstrate compliance with their stream crossing standards. There's openness and height and the like, but uh but those are very basic calculations and then you just purchase the the the the box covert that fits that criteria.

Okay. They did that one on Lincoln Street. I think they had to put a a bridge in cover the street probably widely train just it's got rocks on it. cobble on each side of it. I think that's the last time I looked at it was a long time ago. The actual drainage ditch that's in the or river stream, whatever they call it, ended up calling. I'm having river if I'm not mistaken. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I mean, uh I don't have any further questions. Just so everyone knows this, this was a prior 40B that was approved 10 years ago that uh was appealed by the residents um and uh overturned by the state I guess right

by the courts by the courts and they have their approval. Well, they had a problem with the wetlands issues with the concom and they went to the D and got superseded. So I have no further questions. Megan, any questions or comments? Uh, no questions or comments. Okay. No, with the reduction in the units that reduces the number of affordable units. You said that goes from 8 to 7, correct? Could we keep eight? When you're done, sorry.

Okay. Uh, I don't know how does it come out. If it comes out anything over, the number goes to the next unit. So, I didn't do the math in my head. You get 20. 7 and 20 27 and what there's well there's 20 there's 27 units altogether it's 23 bedrooms and seven two bedrooms. Yep. So and out of that it's actually 6 point something and we're rounding up to seven which is a minimum. So I guess I'm asking to keep that extra one in of the 25% is it too affordable.

Yeah. No keeping this up. That's not a substantial change, is it, Attorney Bowski? Is a reduction in the expected affordable units. I'm sorry I wasn't listening. I'm looking at something else. A reduction in the expected affordable units. it that's all just based on the proportionality of the project. So one of every four is affordable. If the math changes the number goes down it goes down automatically. You can't hold them to the original number when it's one of every four is required to be affordable. Actually you're giving one. So if it goes from 12 to 8 it goes from 3 to two. Is one of four a minimum?

One of four is a minimum. Yes. 25% 25% minimum. Right. Not just so like for a developer for example who submits a a five unit or a sixunit project has one of the first four and then the very next one is always another affordable. So that's why you don't see anything but multiples of four. Usually two affordables out of five is a lot different economically than one out of four. Plus they round it up also. That's what I get through the number work out. So they round it up from 6.2 to 7.

Yeah. Yeah. But the next the odd unit, if it's a fifth unit or a sixth unit or a seventh unit, it's always an affordable unit. So the math changes because one out of four is supposed to work, but two out of five is different. There's a different world. And then what's the breakdown between the two bedrooms and the three bedrooms as far as affordables go? Wow. Oh, it would be the same mix that we had. So, 25% of the I mean 25% of the three bedroomedroom, 25% of the u two bedroom units. Okay. Which one you going to which one comes out to be the extra one that it sounds like you're going to have seven? Oh, you're going to have 20 and seven. So, it would be the seven you'd have.

Right. That mix we just planned on coming back with you when we're presenting the final plan that says here's what we're proposing for the mix on the uh Okay. All set. Yep. Any questions from the audience on Meline Village, a 40B that was approved 10 years ago? They're back now. Anybody online? General, you see a hands up? No, I don't see any hands up. All right. Yep. I have my hand up. I'm sorry. Sorry, I wasn't [clears throat] showing on the right. [snorts] Jennifer, you want to just identify yourself for the record, please? I would love to. It's Jennifer D'Angelo, 34 Watch Street. Okay. [clears throat]

I would um just like to speak on this. Um so I've been following this um for quite some time now. Um and I think that there's several um other elements to this project that have have been concerns. I'm looking at letters from the conservation committee, the fire department, the Franklin planning and community development. Um so though, um there is an appreciation for leaving the stream the way it is, I think it still does not address some of the issues that have been reported and studied over the course of the last 10 years um that talk about the significant concerns that multiple agencies within the town and the state have expressed for this project. On top of that, there have been several citizens who have taken legal action separately, but also wrote to D, attended meetings and expressed their concerns for this project. Um, so I just want the committee um to be aware of those issues as well um that are impacting those of us that do live in the perimeter of this project.

Okay. This has all been adjudicated, correct? Okay. It not to my knowledge. Well, according to the people that are here shaking their head saying yes. So, um, okay, cuz I spoke to D the other day. Um, so I would I would appreciate that in writing if that is the case because I have not seen that. All of my documentation and my communication with D does not indicate that it has all been resolved.

Okay. I'd be glad to address that. No, I I I thought when you were asking, have those things been adjudicated, you were referring to concerns by the the fire department and her other lit laundry list of of issues. No, as we've said when we came in here that we're in front of D on an appeal of the D's decision. We're in negotiations with the department in the context of the adjudicatory hearing process and uh and we have a a conceptual agreement on this design that uh that led us to come back here to get the board's uh approval that this is a minor modification and with that approval we will go ahead and finalize the plans with D and deal with all of the the details such as storm water management and any of the other concerns that the department has.

Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. Gus Brown, building commissioner. Because of what we've run through with some other projects lately and third party inspections, it would be my wish that the proponent be required to have those inspections done unless something's already been set up. It's usually in the decisions and I think Mr. Babowski, attorneys wrote the decision. So, you think that's in their theory view for the construction? Say it again. I'm still looking at something else [laughter] here. This is not a case that I expected to be called a They asked about uh peer review. Yes.

And uh usually put that as a rule in your decisions that there's peer review that we can get to do the inspections on an insubstantial change. Huh? On an insubstantial change. No, the question just came up from the building commissioner. You know, we can't change any of that stuff now. We can when the stuff comes, they got to bring the new plan. That'll be the time if the fire department because I'm sure the fire department hasn't looked at this plan and I'm sure nobody else in town has looked at this plan, right? This has just been through [clears throat] the courts of DP. If I wrote the permit, normally I put in it that any post permit inspections are paid for by them. Yeah. Okay. I I just couldn't find I I got a lot of stuff on Melan Village.

I remember looking at another one that you and I talked about recently and I did find it and I think I sent it back. Yeah. No, we're all settled down. Anyway, so uh Mr. Angelo, I guess that's the answer. You know the uh it's probably in the decision. I don't have it in front of me. What's the decision? So,

so I just I just ask. So, yeah. So, there is no decision. I will tell you that. But I also will tell you that some of the issues that were addressed in these letters from various agencies including you know beta review and all that was a concern for the significant amount of storm water runoff and the ability for the site to handle um the proposed infiltration. So again, without any of those documents, I I find it really difficult to approve it based on the minor modification of not moving the stream because there were so many other issues that were impacting the site development.

Yeah, you're under the apprehension that we're going to approve something. All we're going to do is make a decision whether this is an insubstantial change or a substantial change. If it's a substantial change that the board thinks it is, then it would go they'd have to file for a hearing. They'd have to come back again and everything else. If we consider it an insubstantial change, they'll move along with the plans that they worked out with D or whatever, and then they'll come back. They have to come back to us with a final drawing before they do construction anyway. So, I'm not really concerned about that. So, okay. All right. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you so much.

Yep. Anyone else? Hearing none or seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the I don't know if this is even it's not even a hearing. It's just a discussion. I'll entertain a motion to consider this an insubstantial change. So moved. I second it. Motion made and second. Any discussion hearing? None. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed? None. Good. Thank you. Thank you folks. Okay, Ted.

Sorry to keep you away. Oh, no problem. Wait. It was interesting. Go ahead.

Okay. Thank you to the chair, members of the board. um Ted Cannon on behalf of the applicant uh owner trust uh the beneficiary of which uh is a disabled uh veteran who's um in pretty tough shape and and hopefully counting on this being a buildable lot to help with his care. Um by way of background, we're talking about the middle lot, lot two. Um these three lots were um shown on the plan in 1960. Um right around the time that the current uh R1 zoning went into effect uh because they were held in common ownership. Uh they fell under chapter 48 section 6 fourth paragraph second sentence. Uh which means that um they uh were grandfathered up until January 1, 1976. Um despite that uh well after that uh lot one has been developed, lot two has been excuse me lot three has been developed um had uh my client not been so severely uh injured um uh he may have developed this around the same time but he had hung on to it and hope to utilize it at someday. So um we've been here the concerns from either from lots one and lots three that we had heard was hey there's a lot of ledge there and we don't want any blasting. Um and that certainly is fine as a condition to not blast. The other concern we heard was hey there's a lot of runoff there that was stripped there's ledge and uh you know this is going to make the runoff worse. So um we were continued for quite a long time to get some drainage work done which has been done and submitted to the board for its uh review if I may. Uh let's see. Okay.

So um the uh drainage analysis that was done submitted to the board. This is the plan that um if the board is inclined to uh grant and again the the application asked for again just by way of background a frontage variance. Um this lot has actually the most frontage of the three lots. Um virtually identical to lot one but slightly more. Um and we had initially asked for a side setback variance. the [clears throat] the request uh suggestion of some members of the board the design was changed that uh was eliminated. So now the only uh relief we're asking is for the frontage uh relief. Uh so the other concern again we had heard from lots one and lot three was drainage. Uh we finally after quite some time had the drainage work done along with this drainage plan. Um and the findings uh in summary were that the current condition uh is um uh that there's really not that much uh or it's sort of neutral. Uh they did a uh but they did a pre-develop excuse me they did a pre-developed and postdevelopment study and found that there would not be any uh significant change to the the runoff as a result of that. But um not being satisfied with that, the um builder who the applicant is working with uh had gone on to improve uh the conditions there with some um suggested uh improvements that could be conditions again if the board were so inclined. Um the uh the um while the analysis shows and I'm just reading from the first page of the uh the summary report uh that the pre and post conditions already did not increase flow nor volume to the abuing properties. Revisions have been made for additional mitigation. Fine grading and additional spot shots have been added to the back to more clearly show that flow coming from the

wooded back half of the property is intercepted and directed around the house. So, it's funneled into the center of the lot and then out through the center of the lot towards the street. Fine grading uh elements have also been added to the driveway to show a gutter line and a 2% cross slope that prevents storm water flow from draining off of the driveway towards the west and lot number 35 Elm Street. Uh that would be to the left of the lot as we look at it. Um a swale has been added on along the limit of the work to the east side uh to further ensure flow is directed away from 31 Elm Street which is to the right or lot three in the subdivision plan. Um and the proposed uh okay the roof drain infiltrators connect to the downspouts have been added to the sideyards and those are the um sort of squares that you can see. is one here, another over here, and then those drains essentially come to the middle center of the yard to go out towards the front towards the street. Um, in the form of Culttech contractor 100HD chamber units surrounded by 18 in of 3/4 to 2 in crust stone. The emergency overflow outlet pipe from these infiltrators are directed towards the center line of the lot. the foundation the foundation drain outlet has also been revised to dischar dis discharge towards the center line of the lot. So um the concerns that the applicant is aware of through this hearing process from the neighbors on either side uh we don't want blasting which could be a condition and hey we have concerns about drainage and so the applicant is proposing that if the u relief were granted with a condition that this drainage plan be implemented that could actually improve the drainage for the lots on either side. Um so uh with that um I know I have submitted u

with my initial filing the grounds for a variance. I would suggest that um it meets the grounds uh for a variance uh because uh this lot is unique because of the lots on the other side have been developed. this slot has not um and for the other reasons mentioned in the uh in the memo um that um uh a little enforcement of the bylaw would cause a substantial hardship. Again, this gentleman is really counting on the ability to sell this as a buildable lot. And again, just by way of facts, and I know it's not a criteria for a variance, but it is part of the facts is um he has been paying tax on this as a buildable lot for many, many years. Um and um that if the relief is granted, it won't harm the public good or substantially deriggate from the bylaw's purpose. Um, again, it would have uh virtually identical uh frontage to lot one to the left, have about 24 ft more frontage than the lot on the uh right, both of which are developed. So, for all of those reasons for the the law and for the facts, I would uh urge the board to grant the relief requested.

Thank you. We'll go to the board now. Joe, any questions, comments?

Okay. I spoke out on this project in the past. I like to pass these down to my members. It's just an idea of location of the lot. I pretty much spotted out every lot that is smaller than this lot in the area so you get a sense of how this fits in with the character of the neighborhood. Um, being on the planner board, watching uh, ZVA meetings over the years, I've always heard the saying, well, you created the lot. Sub, uh, developers come in, they put a subdivision in, they purposely set a lot to the side. It's not a buildable lot. Years later, they come in, they want to build it, and I do agree they created their own hardship because they created the lot. In this particular instance, I I did some studying on this. These three lots were approved as buildable lots. Down the line, lot one came in and got a building permit. It was legal. It had the frontage at the time. Then lot three came in years later and mistakenly the building department issued a building permit on that lot when at the time it did not meet zoning by the town allowing that house to be built. The town created a non buildable lot by issuing that building permit to lot three which should have never been issued under the current law at the time. Again, I did some homework. The lot exceeds 90% of the neighborhood size lots. Had this been going to the planning board for an 81P to divide it off as a legal lot, I've never seen the planning board

ask anybody to come in with drainage calculations. It's it's a legal size. It fits. It's fine. This applicant has gone overboard by proving to us that they can hold the drainage. There's been a lot of push back lately in Franklin with larger developments, apartments, subdivisions, but at every one of those meetings, everybody says, "Why can't we just build single family homes?" Here is a perfect opportunity to have a single family home that would allow a family to come and experience the town of Franklin. It's only 10 and something foot wide lot. This is not going to be an 8,000 foot, $2 million home. this may be something that'll be affordable. Uh I just believe in this instance a common sense decision would be to allow something like this to be built. This is why I go on the ZBA for particular situations like this and we take one at a time. It's not a blanket policy and I think this fits in with the character of the neighborhood. It gives the chance to have a single family home, which again, everybody wants to see a single family home. They're against multi houses and big projects. I live a mile away from this on that side of town. There's very low traffic. This is not going to cause traffic in the area. Uh I guess I'd like to see what everybody else says, but at this point, that's my opinion right now.

Thanks, Joe. Aie, do you have the square footage of the house?

Oh, golly. Uh, I should in the other plan. Uh, let's see. Just uh blow this up if I could. four bedroom. Uh, let's see. It might be in the notes. I'm sorry. I thought it might be in the uh post fourbedroom slab. Um well, it's uh could again math not my strong suit, but uh the proposal is 39 across. Um including the garage, 55. Um, so that gives a sense of the footprint, but I don't have the actual full square footage.

Do we need to call into the size of the structure? The size of what the structure? No. As long as it fits meets the 40 foot setbacks on both lines. [clears throat] Um, so you came in looking for side yard relief originally, correct? No longer looking for that. Correct. Meeting the setbacks. So, uh, thank you for that. Um, we're on town sewer, town water, and we asked you to look into some drainage and you went ahead and did, you know, you took care of it. You actually went above that. Um, I do not have any further questions from all fours.

Megan, any questions? Um, I just like to comment that Joe Yeah. made some really great points about this, you know, fitting in and, you know, and these other lots were built. Um, so yeah, that's all I want to say about it. Thank you, Janelle.

I appreciate the changes to center the structure on the site and to add the storm water management. Um, I was curious if anything else had been considered or proposed for the erosion control barriers on the sides. Those are It looks like those are those kind of sandbag things with stakes. Would those be needed as part of this design permanently? Temporarily? They say they're just temporarily.

Uh I would I would think um that erosion control would be during construction. Uh and we're certainly happy to have erosion control during construction and then once it's stabilized to remove it after the fact. and whatever the board's preference, hay bales or silk screen. And then the intent for the applicant is to basically get approval for this to be a buildable site and then sell it that way. Correct.

Correct. He's severely handicapped. He has to live in a facility. Um so he this would not be for him. But um obviously if it's not a buildable lot the value is substantially less. Um so if it is and he's able to sell it as a buildable lot he can realize that much more to use towards his care. Okay. So then we could um approve the waiver but with the conditions of the storm water management. Correct. Yeah. You could maybe you can present the plan you know you could say you want to put that installed. We haven't looked at any. We haven't had anybody check to see before Michigan. So as the plan

as this plan with the state [clears throat] and there is some landscaping here that he's putting on here next week as well that will be in there. Yeah. If we approve the plans no further questions. All set. I just want to point out these lots were created when? 1960. Correct. You had a certain amount of time until it was reszoned. I'm not sure when the reszoning happened. Uh shortly or almost simultaneously, but just afterwards, right? So they had and it went to zone one. R1. Correct. R1. Yes.

That's the thing. You would have had they had protection for eight years when they did this from when it was uh when they had the subdivision of this property into the three lots. they had eight years after they changed the zoning over to it. This lot doesn't meet the frontage requirements. It doesn't meet the circle requirement. And uh you know, this is just one of those things. I mean, somebody screwed up by issuing building permits for the other two, but you know, just to make it uh I like to be consistent. We haven't approved any lot that didn't have the required frontage. Now, if this was a 10acre lot and you needed to get into it, that's one thing. But it's, you know, it's it's not that big a lot, you know, and it's got a lot of problems on it, you know, with the ledge and the water running off and anything, but I'm sure we're going to hear that from one of the butters. But anyway, I guess that's enough to that's enough for now. Anybody want to speak? Sure. Just identify yourself.

You can go over to the speaker. I don't want you sitting too close. I like Ted. Ted and I are colleagues. Um, so as many, uh, sorry, Andrew Rubenstein, uh, 31 Elm Street. Uh, as many of you know, I'm an attorney by trade and I work with Ted on, uh, frequently. Um, and therefore, I'm I'm often uh, want to see both sides of uh, of matters. In this case, admittedly, and it's self- servingly, but I find it hard to make a viable argument that this should be granted only in that it simply doesn't meet current zoning requirements. It doesn't even come close to the frontage as as you said. Um it's and it's seen by many as one of the most important requirements is that frontage. Again, the 10acre lot if we needed access or something like that. Furthermore, I'm concerned that the precedent this would that this would set by future builders like a couple of my other neighbors that would love lots like this to go uh to be able to come to this venue and uh take uh take opportunity to get lots that don't conform through the through the ZBA to indeed conform. But this is no longer uh no longer uh an option given the updates to the zoning that have been in effect for what I I think what 40 50 years at this point. Um just to sandwich more housing in. Um I have plenty more to [snorts] offer in in uh support of denying this permit, but unless you feel it's necessary, leave it to the simple fact that I think it's the wrong venue, the wrong and the wrong process to allow a change of this magnitude. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Anyone else? Joel. Yes. Evening. Joel do Franklin 72 Dear View Way. Am I under the impression that this is a pre-existing non-conforming lot at the present time? Yes. Okay. And historically, it was an approved building lot back in 1960. Okay. And the lot to the left and the lot to the right have been built on. Yes. But it was quite a while after 197. All right. So, so somehow they slipped through the cracks.

Be that as it may, to me, I I'm not on the board, but I see the pre-existing non-conforming aspect of it because at one point in time it was. And somebody's looking for a house, a single family house. I would speak in favor of it. That's just me. Okay.

Anyone else? Sure. Um, Steven Arnold, 520 Maple Street. I remember 1960 that I think the property you're talking about belonged to the Witerowskis, Henry Witarowski. And um, years and years ago, the was the Pigory down there. And um also when my dad sold the land in 77, they weren't going to put a house next to our house, but they granted a waiver. So that it was maybe against the law, but I think dur in 1977 they allowed it a waiver for them to build a house next to my dad. So that's about all I can add. And I think is that where the handicapped man lives and he's uh disabled? Is that what you're talking about on Elm Street? Elm isn't very big by sin gays.

The presentation hasn't been made that he's going to live here. He's just selling He's just selling the land because he's held it for a long time. Uhhuh. That's all I know. A little history that I think. Anyone else? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. I'm sorry. Hey, this is Kinsey Dmore. I live at 35 Elm Street. Um, I bought my house from Dave in 1990. Um, I just we got this 77page report two days ago, so I've been trying to digest it really quickly, but um, I'm looking at the map on page seven. It shows the storm water drainoff. I don't know if you guys have a copy of the map there that you can see.

We got a copy of the plan that shows the house and where it's going to go. Right. Do you have a copy of the the storm the drainage report? No, I don't think so. Hanland. If it is, I can't read it because awful small.

My my my concern is that it's showing the path of drain water runoff, storm water from the back right corner of this lot coming in right about where the uh the 478 ft 19 in mark indicator is on my lot. And it does I think that's uh very astute, but I I look at that. The storm water then comes down my lot and runs back into the middle lot, the lot three here or lot two, whichever you want to call it, um, right into the brand new proposed retaining wall. Now, I don't have waterfront property. I'm really hoping I don't, you know, I don't want to have waterfront property, but if the storm water is all diverted from the middle lot back into my lot, um, I I just that's a concern. I don't know. Yeah, I I see that. That was one of the concerns we had to begin with. Now, that's a storm water report.

This is the pre-development condition. So, this is showing. So, we're looking at the um the water management storm water management report that was put together. Correct. It came out two days ago.

Yeah. I don't know if you have that one. if you could pull it up on the on the screen, but I found the page you were um referencing, Mr. Dinsmore. And this is the pre-development um plan, which shows the existing condition. So, what they're proposing is modifying this to manage the storm water and run it out the front of um basically control it and run it out the front of their lot. But I'm looking at the revised uh proposal and I still see the retaining wall there. And I don't see any I see the the roof drains to collect the rainwater and the the catchment. What do they call these things?

Catch basins. Yeah, the the catch basins for the roofing the gutter water. But I don't see any mitigation for the storm water runoff. It goes up this side. This goes like this hill. That all runs into the wall. It can never go off. So, it's the wall you're concerned about. Yes. I I think that wall is going to just redirect the water back into my lot. It probably would because the water will become the water would be coming down here and when it hits this retaining wall through the through the chair. This site

is lower than both sides. The retainer wall it doesn't show the height but I don't believe the retainer wall is a 10ft retainer wall. It goes it's probably a 3 or 4ft wall that surrounds the buildable area within. So the water would never it's about a 4ft wall, right? It'll never go backwards uphill. If the water ran down your lot to that wall, it's never going What he's talking about is the water that comes from up here. Once it gets to here, it's not directly. Well, there is no wall up here. The wall there's no wall. No, but it comes down and follows the wall here and then eventually it's going to push out on this side. Anything that comes down off the top of the lot. If you look at the topography of this center lot, it's lower than the two left and right side. It's always going to flow into this area. It's never going uphill.

It's not going to go uphill, but it's going to go back into my lot. If the top of the the wall is at 194 ft, his concern is down here at the bottom there. Prevent the the the wall here is going to prevent the water from carrying over into the center line. It's going to hit his hit the wall back and go in on his the stuff that comes down from up high. So his So what you're saying is his water is going to go back on his side. Yeah. But it's going to pick up the water. That's basically what we're saying. It's going to pick up the other. But it's coming from the middle lot initially. It comes from the middle lot. It drains onto my lot, but then it goes back to the middle lot. It doesn't show that on this map on page seven.

Yeah. No, I can see where you're starting. Yeah. Because if you if you overlay that arrow of the the water drainage, it basically any of the mitigation efforts are downstream of that. So it's already dumping on to the next site because the wall starts like here, right? But anything coming down is going to go behind that wall and continue on to that wall. Right.

Even though they're not showing before they show drains going out onto the lot and draining, you know, draining on the other to the chair. My question is the height of the wall is 4T. Yeah. What is the height of his land 5T away from that wall? I don't know. They didn't put it on the plan. They got they got Yeah. There's not a 4ft difference. Well, even if there's a 6 in difference, it's not flowing though.

Yeah, I see what he's talking where it comes down and hits this wall. There's only a little space here. It's going to go. The water is going to go down this little trough here. It's more than likely just going to lead out over there. But it's nothing that's come out of the driveway. Obviously, it's being caught and it's being put in the driveway and down for the wherever it's going to go. I don't even think they pick up any of the driveway. They just let that run them up down to the street. Anyway,

if the to the chair, if that's the only dis only just issue on this project and we basically can give the fell a nod that it looks good, could we get them to go back and bring this back to show us exactly what this uh neighbor is talking about so we make the right decision? have the engineer here. I'd rather be more educated than just deny something based on thought. What else you want to do? Continue the hearing until uh December 18th. I'm sure Ted's not going to in this line already. When do we stop this? April, I think.

So, what about removing them al together? Well, that was a question. But anyway, all right. I think we should move along some. So, I Yeah, I'd be will more than willing to talk to anybody that wants to come out. I mean, I I work from home. My office is in the corner of the house and I overlook that uh where that water drains off. So, I see it daily.

Okay. If the if the board is sort of leaning towards one direction, um you know, we certainly could have the engineer speak to this gentleman, go over the drainage analysis with him, and come back on the 18th to Okay, entertain a motion to continue this until December 18th at 7:30 p.m. 7:30 p.m. second. Motion made second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed? None. Thank you. Thank you all. Happy Thanksgiving. Appreciate

it. Do you know how to eject? Do you know how you eject it? Pull it out. Well, it kind of messes it up for the next person. There's like two main like strings. Oh, here here it is. Let's see. I got it. I got it. Thank you.

Okay. Y'all tell me to do a

All All right. Time being approximately 7:35 7:35 p.m. Uh 444 East Central Street, TAG Central LLC. Applicant is seeking a building permit to construct a 264 unit multif family development. The building permit is denied without a comprehensive permit from the ZBA. Go ahead, gentlemen. Mr. Chairman, can you hear me? I'm remote. Peter Freeman. Yes, Peter, I can hear you well.

Thank you. Um, [clears throat] so we are here tonight. Uh, I originally thought that I couldn't be here because I had a schedule conflict uh at the last minute earlier today. That particular hearing was cancelled. So expecting that I wouldn't be able to be here, uh, AJ and I talked and we brought in a colleague of mine who also is an excellent lawyer at Dane Torpy does 40B law. So we're both here tonight. Jesse Schmer is there with AJ. I'm just going to leave off briefly. The rest of our team is here. AJ Alves, of course, Kyle Quinn from Allen and Major, Chris Rataroli from Goddard Consultants, and I already mentioned Jesse. So, the status of the process where we're at, we think, is pretty much ready for conclusion, and that we have updated peer review letters. uh our experts are here as I said to answer any questions but we believe that and I'm not going to speak for Joe Pez Nola but with his latest letter uh just to everything is satisfied there are a few things that can be uh addressed by conditions I just want to before turning it over to AJ for a brief summary of that history and where we are now and of course I'm sure you want to hear from Joe I just want to briefly address one thing which I'm sure you're aware of which is the town council vote. Last week, we became aware that there had been discussion emails with Mr. Krella and the folks at the state agency executive office of housing and livable communities. Uh, and the correspondents indicated to us that we didn't think it was accurately stating the situation in terms of the local initiative program. So, with my duty to represent my client,

I brought in Jesse. Jesse and I spoke to the folks at EOHLC, the legal general counsel and some other staff people and we discussed the situation and that resulted in the letter which has been submitted from EOHLC to the town which basically and this is our position this is what we have said and I absolutely believe that it's correct is the town council certainly unfortunately from our viewpoint but the town council last night voted to revoke their support for the project. We don't think that there were any sound reasons to do that, but be that as it may, uh the situation tonight we don't think has changed as a result of that because the project eligibility letter still stands as the state agency said in that letter. So I just want to address that, not in any way try to avoid it. I believe that that's the correct legal position. Uh so we would now like to move on to AJ's brief summary uh and any updates from our team and of course from Joe Nuller I presume. So AJ if you

can somebody read the letter that they sent out just because there's people in here that don't know what you're talking about. So if somebody read the letter Yeah. Does somebody have it handy to uh I don't know if it can be pulled up or just read. I have it. Peter Jesse has it. Great. Thanks. Would you like me to read the entire letter into the record? Okay.

So, um, Mr. Chairman, for the record, attorney Jesse Shmer, Dane Torpy. The letter is dated November the 18th of this year. It's from, uh, the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, uh, specifically Daria Samadei, the general counsel of the OLC. Attorney Samati says uh addressing town administrator Helen, "I am writing regarding inquiries received by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, EOHLC, within the past several weeks relating to the proposed local initiative program project at 444 East Central Street in Franklin. Specifically, we received questions on the demonstration of local approval that is required for a LIP project application. In response to these questions represented to EOHLC as quote hypothetical, we provided general information on this topic in an email dated October 31st, 2025. And then she refers to an attachment which is that correspondence. Uh, it has come to our attention that this communication, while not intended to provide specific legal advice or opinion, has resulted in confusion and misconception about the LIP process as it applies to 444 East Central Street, which we now seek to clarify. EOHLC received a completed LIP application for this project on October 31st, 2024. The application included a letter from the town's chief executive officer confirming town support for the project together with a copy of resolution 24-16 dated June 5, 2024 in which the Franklin Town Council voted to support the project. She refers then to an attachment two which is that uh vote of support. Following a review of the application and in reliance on the good faith representations of the town, EOHLC issued a determination of project

eligibility PEL for the project on February 12, 2025. And she refers to attachment 3, which is that binding of project eligibility. The PEL is a prerequisite for any application for a comprehensive permit and is conclusive evidence that the project has satisfied all project eligibility requirements. As noted in our October 31st communication, if there are any material changes to a project after the issuance of a LIP peel, EOHLC must be notified immediately to secure an amendment in accordance with the LIP guidelines. Material changes may include changes in a project's unit mix or development team, or any changes sufficiently substantial such that the project is no longer consistent with what was previously approved by the chief executive officer and EOHLC. Continuing on page two, based on information available to us, we understand the Franklin Town Council is considering voting on a resolution to withdraw its support for the 444 East Central Street lift project based on recent changes in town council membership. Please be advised that EOHLC does not consider turnover or change in a municipalities council or board membership to be a material change that would require an amendment to a previously issued PEL. It is also not considered a change substantial enough that the project could no longer be considered consistent with what the Franklin CEO and Franklin Town Council approved on June 5, 2024. The following paragraph is in bold text. Accordingly, regardless of the outcome of any potential town council vote to resend support based on council membership changes, EOHLC will not amend, withdraw, or resend the PEL issued for this project on that basis. Therefore, the project sponsor is entitled to continue

the public hearing process before the Franklin zoning board of appeals. EOHLC firmly supports this project moving forward with its current review process before the zoning board. We emphasize a key component of LIP is the fact that the developer and municipality are working together in concert on a proposed project. Local public officials are expected to act in good faith and to not unreasonably withhold local support for proposed projects or project changes. We understand affordable housing development can be a complex and sensitive issue for municipalities. We hope the developer and local officials continue to work together to ensure the comprehensive permit process proceeds as required. Sincerely, Daria Samati.

Thank you. Okay, AJ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of One second. AJ, do you have the latest peer review from Beta? I just saw it on my computer and now it's dated today. It it just came in and we did. I think AJ forwarded it late in the day. We just got it, I think, this afternoon. Okay. check.

Sure. Uh AJ Alvisos with the applicant tax central LLC. Good evening. Um joined here uh just because uh Peter didn't have the chance of introducing the rest of my team here. Carlton Quinn of Allen and Major Associates, our civil engineer, and Chris Rderi from Goddard Consulting. Um since our last hearing, we um have been uh working hard with the conservation commission on pushing that process forward. Um in terms of uh peer review with with conservation, we received um what looks to be uh final letter from Beta uh indicating no further comments. The um conclusionary paragraph states, "Based on our review of the NOI submittal and project plans, the applicant has addressed Beta's comments related to compliance with the act, Massachusetts Protection Act and the Massachusetts Storm Water Management Standards. Um there is an updated form that is uh specifically related to our notice of intent application called a WPA form 3 which will submit to them prior to our hearing uh on the 4th. Um but uh regarding the zoning board um I I only mentioned the beta letter because of their uh review of the storm water aspects of the project. Um, and I know that was was obviously important and something we've been discussing with the board as well as um, Mr. Peznola of Hancock. Um, we also received a letter from Mr. Pesnola of Hancock dated November 19th um, which indicated uh that the items were all the items were closed but for his additional commentary uh, including uh, some proposed conditions of approval. Um, but I will not speak for Mr. Pisnol and and what's

in his letter. Um, so as far as uh we're concerned, we believe, you know, we we all showed up here tonight. We brought our entire team just to make sure we answered any questions um that you guys might might have and um uh however you'd like to hear from us or take it next, we're here. So, thank you. Okay, [clears throat] Joe, you want to start off? Are you all set with all your reviews?

Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Um, we did review the the latest plans and documentations sent. Um, and just run through the the high points of that. Um, one of the issues that we talked about last time was the waiver that they requested from the conservation commission um, regarding the submission of an alternatives analysis. Um, so they did um, take from their the work that they did they did with the conservation commission under the rivers protection act that's under the wetlands protection. um that requires an alternatives analysis. They took some of that language and they kind of made it applicable to the alternatives analysis that's required under the local bylaw that they originally were grant requesting a waiver for and they um they presented it um to to this board for your consideration. So, so that waiver can now be um removed because they have submitted that. They basically looked within that alternatives analysis at a no build um and a a fivestory option and a reduced a further reduced parking option. And obviously the no build is not equivalent. So there's really no it it it really isn't isn't an alternative. The fivetory option. Um their argument is that it flies in the face of the plans that were originally approved by town council under endorsement of the lift and what was presented here and

what has been the source of a major um major discussion at this board with regards to the visual impact to the neighbors. So they discounted the the five-story option and said for those reasons that that alternative is not possible with regard to the last uh in parking reduction. Again I think their explanation is that there's been much discussion on on parking and whether the parking is sufficient um and therefore they they discounted that as and anytime you've got an alternatives analysis that's kind of the process that you work through. What what are the alternatives? Do the alternatives make the project better and provide direct mitigation for issues at hand or do they while still meeting the project goals uh which is providing the housing and uh the the affordable housing. Um so in in my opinion they they've gone through an alternatives analysis presented that to the board and gave them the rationale why those alternatives are not possible to be implemented. But ultimately, as this board is sitting in the seat of the conservation commission under the local bylaw, it's [clears throat] your your job to to determine that that has been satisfied. Your criteria for for deciding whether or not um the the alternatives are are there kind of go through go back to the overall your overall premise. the need for affordable housing outweighs local concerns, which is a little different than what the conservation commission would consider. Um, I think that comes into play when you ask the question, why didn't you

look at an alternatives analysis that was just reduced units? And that then goes into the commission could ask that. But but this board could also ask that. But you have to look at that within the framework of the 40B rigs. Um which again is going under the presumption that the need for affordable housing outweighs the local concerns and that you can't condition anything that would render the project uneconomic. So I'll leave that with the board but safe to say that they've we've asked for and they have given uh the board that um that alternatives analysis. Um the next issue

can I ask uh super quick through the chair um what is the file name that includes the alternatives analysis? I assume we have it. It's posted but I don't there's been an onslaught of files this week. So I just it's a correspondence from Goddard Associates. Um I think that's the it's not dated. AJ when was that submitted? And then it's got plans from Allen and Major. Yes. And it has the upper zone impact plans.

Okay. It's just a one one page document and it it appears to be an excerpt from a larger report. Correct. Through the chair. Go ahead.

That was a document that I had prepared and submitted to the conservation commission. Uh it is part of a document in our proceedings with the conservation commission titled regulatory compliance analysis. I believe the version that you had received in the last couple days or week or so was essentially a screenshot and an excerpt of that that was uh copied into another correspondence elsewhere. response. I mean, well, no, this this isn't that I

if if we are assuming responsibility for saying there has been an alternatives analysis done, we should have it. But that's why I'm saying like I don't I don't recognize a file that has alternative analysis that shows a no build and a fivetory. And uh hey Jay, can you identify when it was bent and what cover letter or other part of a document?

Sure. Um we're [clears throat] looking right now. And it was I think it was an attachment. Who wrote it? Alan Mages or God? Got it. So So Goddard had written it initially and then the version that you had received in the last couple days which I believe was in response to a comment that Mr. Pasnola had made was excerpted from my document and added to a document in response to the alternative. Sorry,

he was talking about the alternative thing, right? Yes. Yes. That was taken from my document.

The the confusion lies because the alternatives analysis itself, the analysis is on Goddard Consulting letterhead. The response that we submitted to the board was on I think Allen and Major letterhead. That's what we're trying to confirm. [clears throat] So, in the in the um Allen and Major letter um dated November 13th under the list of waiverss, [clears throat]

and it's called a it's called 2025 11:13 a.m. response to comments.

Yes. on page two. It says for brevity we we ex ext extracted the alternative analysis section only from the notice of intent application attached to this letter. It was submitted uh on 1113 in response to uh Mr. Pasnola's letter um and it was an attachment to the Allen and Major response letter dated also November 13th.

It's on page two of 10. You said page two of 10. Um the Allen A&M response. Yeah. And it speaks to the um comments as [clears throat] um okay that one too. For brevity purposes we extracted the alternative analysis section only from the notice of intent application and is attached to this letter. It says that on page two up down in the bold bold um paragraph second paragraph. Okay. All right. Copy the alternative analysis.

I think since we sent that on the 13th, we then received a reply from Mr. Peznola um of Hancock indicating he did receive the alternatives analysis. Yeah, I saw that.

That's not just

um You're all set on that one? Yeah. You all set?

Yeah. So the um the next issue that that we um brought up was just um with regards to that southeast corner and again we commented that it said the board's discretion as to whether or not the visual mitigation is sufficient with the retention of the uh trees and those rework of the parking lot and the added um added supplemental vegetation. You mean the southeast corner of the disturbed area?

The southeast corner of the of the the whole idea of dropping that building to three stories and and and four stories. So there was some additional commentary and then uh again we're we're ultimately deferring to the board on the sufficiency of that mitigation. The next issue had to do with um the parking and snow surge um in that southeast corner. We had commented that the parking around those two buildings, you know, may not meet that that that 1.52 spaces per approximate to the buildings.

And their answer was that they feel it's at least I think 1.47 47. Um, and they're they're p 1.49. They're pulling in some of the parking that's related to the to the clubhouse and the amenity space. So, it's a we agree to disagree that the parking is sufficient proximate to the building. It's all a matter of how far people will park will park and when will they start to um not park where they should be. And so our our answer to that is is basically saying um a couple of things. Number one, just informing the board our opinion as to how a parking shortage would manifest itself in this case and and why should it be important to the board. Um we think it will manifest it in in people parking where they shouldn't. parking on, you know, on the grass or parking out parallel in that that lane that's on the east side that's um that's only single loaded. Um or and they will complain to management that there's not enough parking. So, it's not really going to externalize itself and become a town problem. On some sites where where the buildings are are closer to public streets, you worry about people starting to park in in where they shouldn't in in public streets or parking on other people's property. That's not going to happen here. So, I think we can res we can resolve ourselves to say that it's going to be an internal management problem. Um, still we think that snow storage is um is a is questionable in that area as well and that's only going to make the pro the the issue worse if snow is not managed properly. Um so we

think that coming up with a good snow storage um condition is is important um to to make sure that they understand that snow can't be stored in in in take up parking spaces but it also can't be snowed stored in places where it shouldn't such as approximate to the wetlands in accordance with the conservation commission restrictions. So there that that condition may also include some signage addition that to that helps the plow drivers that says don't don't plow snow here or put snow here whatever whatever that be but ultimately it's a management decision about

ult ultimately it's a manage management decision and then the the last last point I made was if that management decision escalates to a point of them having to come back to this board and say we got to add parking. The most sensible place to put it is on that single loaded east drive aisle. And I would just suggest to the board that um forecasting that that would be a substantial change in that the reason that parking got removed was part of the mitigation to the visual impact to the neighbors. Right. So um so that is that and and again I I think that can be handled through uh conditions working with attorney Bowski. Um how about that one acre they wanted to donate to the town? Can they keep that and put snow out there? They they could I think that condition is going to require also that when when and if snow storage is exhausted that they truck it off site and they dispose of it in a um in accordance with implicable regulations.

Well, I'm just wondering what the town's going to do with an acre of land that's halfway in the swamp as opposed to taking it off the tax rolls leave. they can't put the snow there or I think I think the conservation commission would have have an issue. The balance of our our comments that were um were technical issues that that they have resolved and we've noted that in our letter as as um item closed. So,

uh, you mentioned I I when I read through [clears throat] some of the things like the waivers's request and stuff like that, especially what you were talking with the conservation about, you made reference to, uh, uh, 121 Gro Street that you're only looking for stuff that we gave them. Okay. We gave them a a mitigation bill for $950,000. How close are you going to come to that?

[clears throat] I'm I'm sorry. I I was just I think our response um with with the waivers was just to say that these are similar waivers that are consistent with other 40B projects

and consistent with other 40B projects, we get some mitigation money from them. And you know, Mark, just tell me if I'm going down the wrong road here, but you know, Gro Street gave uh 900 900,000 anyway. I think maybe a little bit more. That threw in some stuff that they were [clears throat] going to do on the sewer. They wanted to take that out of the 750 they wanted to give us, but we didn't take it. So, initially they given us 900,000 or 950,000, whatever it came out to be. So, I'm thinking that if if you guys wanted to help out the town and be a real friendly 40B, you might come up with a million bucks that could go towards engineering for uh the the Roster boat down in King Street or at least getting [clears throat] a a plan done, a study done, a plan done that maybe we could submit to the state for maybe some grant money to take care of some of that stuff. So, I guess

Mr. Chairman, if I could just some questions. I understand that that is often discussed sometimes imposed. Uh the legal requirement and naturally you will ask Mark is there has to be some causation and proportionality between the requested mitigation and what this project is really relating to in terms of the areas that you want to mitigate. So, in the spirit of cooperation, uh, it wouldn't come to anywhere close to $950,000, but you just mentioned perhaps paying or helping to pay for some design studies and things like that. If we can flesh things like that out, uh, that might be acceptable. But, um, you know, I I'm interested in what the impact that you're talking about in proximity to the project because that really is the justification, not just on a 40B project, but on any permitting for any project. You know, what is the impact that's being mitigated? What is the pro what is the proportionality?

I didn't mean to step over the line. I just thrown it out there to see it different. If if I could add, we're we're certainly willing to consider mitigation contributions. Um, absolutely. So, once we get to the point, I think of of looking at a draft condition of a draft decision, we're happy to look into that. Um, this is a large project. Uh, we're happy to talk about mitigation. How do we usually do that? We get it up front. No. Um, generally the town manager's office has uh prioritized potential mitigation and communicated that to me and I've communicated it to opposing council. Okay.

All right. So, we touched on that. What else are we going to touch on?

Could we just touch on the sewer pump station? So, with regard to the the sewer pump station, I I think there's there's at least general acceptance um by the town engineer that similar to 121 Grove Street. And I think that's the similar condition that that they're alluding to. Um that the that the sewer study that that uh the town engineer is calling for could could be conditioned post permit. Um, I think in this case they have a a mitigation plan or a backup plan, if you will, if those costs come in too high. Uh, and that would be to install an on-site um on-site storage tank and then pump off peak. Um, so they're still on on board for the study because I think that would be import important um to the town engineering's off office to understand what's happening with that pump station currently. How is it running? What is its capacity? So forth and so on. And in the best case scenario, there's capacity there and they can flow to it. Um, in the in the middle ground, there would be some work that needs to be done and the applicant would fund that. And then again, in the worst case scenario that that if the upgrades were too much, they would put that on-site tank on, but at least engineering department would know what what maybe needed to be added to their budget down the road should they implement those suggested upgrades. Is it possible to get this site into that pump station by gravity? Because I don't think it can, but maybe I'm wrong.

Um, the current design currently shows it running by gravity into the pump station. Really? And the backup plan would be if across the street down in the hall. Correct. Okay. Mr. Chairman, can I follow up with a couple of questions? Sure. What is the scope of the study? Is there a cost? Um, when we did Grove Street, I think it was 150,000 cut off point because this is pump station there like there's a pump station here. Yeah.

I don't think they'd have to be that much work then because they did most of the work when they in increased the line you know the pressure line used to be like a 4 in. nine off. Is it 6 in, 8 in, 12 in, whatever it is, but they tunnneled underground, you know, right right past here, you know, what, right? But the the scope of the study itself would be to assess the the current flows going into the there would be some flow monitoring of what what's happening to the pump station on a weekly basis, right? To understand the capacities to take to to take more flow

and the efficiencies of the of the pumps, right? um and and then to add air flows to those uh capacities to see how what how much it tax that station. If it just overburden the station, then that's too much and they would implement but they would either upgrade the pumps if that was cheaper than the on-site tank, right? Um so I don't I don't know what the cost of that study is estimated that

if I could, Mr. Chairman. Um, we coordinated Carlton Quinn, our civil engineer, and myself. We coordinated directly with the, uh, Department of Public Works and the town engineer, Mike Maglo. Um, he indicated the cost of that study was, I think, $32,000 if I recall. Um, and we are amendable to funding the study, looking into it. Um and then the second part of the condition which we just need to work out the details of but I think it'd be a similar condition as to the other projects

and just to follow up in that call he he was provided a scope and fee from their peer reviewer to do this study so we have the scope of that study or the DPW does no that would that would be done by um Mike's on board um engineering company that is already under contract to work for the town and knows the Is that where they get the scope of work from? The company that works for the town. Yeah, it's it's the DPW's engineering company.

All we all we can say is he he he let us know Mike uh the town engineer let us know that he got a proposal for it and that it was x amount of dollars. Um so I I can't confidently say who he got the proposal from. I I don't recall if he gave me that those details, but I'm sure someone he works with. And is that scope given by the uh sewer consultant firm part of the record? Um I'm sure Mike could produce it for the record. I don't know if it's part of this record to be honest with you. I don't remember it being brought into the ZBA. We haven't got anything.

Anybody got it on their email tonight? We will you will do a study is hardly precise instruction. No funds by someone else. Perfect. Well, sure. Yeah. Yeah. But for a million bucks, we can cover study.

Mr. Chairman, just briefly and uh I I never disagree with Mr. Prowski. I would just clarify that I think Joe's letter and his explanation tonight provide the details. So it's not just quote do a study. I think that the scope of the study and parameters and purpose and all of that could be easily adapted with Joe's help uh in the condition. I don't disagree. I I was listening to Joe carefully, but if there's something in writing, I'd prefer that. I I actually found the exact email with with the the scope and the fee. I can email it right now to uh Casey. Yeah. Yep. Thank you.

No problem. What else do we have to talk about? You did. Um, no, but there there is a correspondence from the conservation commission regarding the con specifically to the conservation commission waiverss. Um, and might be worth running through those. Just coming today.

No, it's I mean it's dated October 3. Okay. It's I mean in in summary they're recommending not granting some waiverss. They're granting they're they're suggesting that they retain jurisdiction on certain which attorneys can discuss that. Um, in in my experience, that's that's not something that you can do. You can't transfer back jurisdiction.

Well, I asked Mark before about if the Concom's going to give them some waiverss because they've been going almost in concert with us. I guess they're pretty close to making a decision from what I understand. So, if they were going to make a decision, I don't know how they can make a decision or they can make a decision, I guess. And then it's just up to us depending on they're they're only making a decision under the state act. So the waiverss that you've been that that have been requested

they passed. Yeah. But we haven't voted on it yet. right? You know, we have this this correspondence from the conservation commission is is assisting you in deliberation on the waiverss and I think some of it is some of is on point with regards to process such as the alternatives analysis which which they've seemingly now complied with and we'll have to withdraw that. But with regards to the um the setback waiverss which are you know things that you can tangibly get your arms around and say okay they're asking to go inside the 25 notice or they're go they're they're asking to to put structures within the 50 they're asking for exceeding the 30% of you know impervious in the in the buffer. Um the jur the conservation commission is saying give us jurisdiction of that. Let us retain jurisdiction and we'll we'll we'll deal with it which it's my understanding that's not the way things are done. So this board still has to do [clears throat] that. So you're not being given any guidance from the conservation commission on those those ones that have some tangible. They're quantifiable. They're something that you're used to dealing with. They're dimensional. if you will. Um and and I I so then then it just rests on the board as to whether or not those are um waivers that you should grant. Um you sure you got all your waiverss in now requesting? I know there was a question mark when when we talked about the waiverss I think a couple of meetings ago, maybe the last.

No, no, sir. We we we've submitted all the waivers that are required for the project. a question about a waiver on fees for the conservation commission. That was that was one item that the conservation commission raised um as one of the the the few waiverss that they um respectfully uh disagreed that the board should grant. Okay. And was it your position that we granted that waiver with the 121 Grove Street?

No, my position wasn't that the board granted that waiver um for 121 Grove Street. Um I I believe it was filed for a requested waiver um in their application. uh typically in any in in 40bs for for the ones that I've been involved with with given that it's just a state um uh we're meeting the the wetland protection act from the state we file the application for the state um so we don't actually file a a separate local application so therefore we just pay the state fee which is what we did here

yeah I I didn't see where where they were actually talking but when somebody mentioned it to me I the reason why Gro Street didn't pay or they didn't they didn't get built for it or something because it doesn't didn't exist at the time. Now, I'm not sure. I haven't seen of anything that we initiated any new kind of uh pricing for for conservation work, but maybe that's what I was told. I'm just throwing it out there to find out why, you know, what case there was some question about the fees. You didn't want to pay them. And if you and if you followed through with everything else you said we said we gave it to 121 Gro Street. I'm not familiar that we did that. I'm I'm honestly not familiar with that either.

Okay. And then when when it came up it's somebody said there we go. Somebody said that uh they didn't come up at grocery because they weren't in place at the time. I'd have to go back and see what the town has adopted as far as fees go for the conservation commission from the time we approved Gro Street to now. I'm not sure that they did because I don't remember any of them, but I'm not saying they didn't. So anyway, okay. M Mr. Chairman, yeah,

just just briefly um picking up on uh Mr. as Noah's point um which I agree with uh that both jurisdictionally it shouldn't go back on any of the requested waiverss to the concom but also just a reminder as to what Joe also said earlier about another aspect of the conservation commission situation and that's the alternative analysis if it goes back if anything on waiverss goes back to the conservation commission they do it under their normal standards but the whole point of 40B is it's your authority property and your duty and that's why it's a big job uh to to do the balancing test. It's not the same standard as under the conservation commission excuse me normal review. It's the balancing test with uh would there really be a harm to the local needs uh in such a strong way an adverse impact that would override the regional housing need. So that's the basis for the analysis and again you know one of the reasons we brought both Chris at Rolley and Carlton uh is to answer questions if you want to look at specific waiverss and there were a whole bunch as Joe said that the conservation commission is okay with but there were a bunch some of which were more procedural which I think are totally appropriate to grant the waiver. A few of them are are more technical if you will and I think Joe gave examples setback things. So it makes sense to me to if you would like to uh you know avail yourself of our experts and any commentary from Mr. Pisnola uh on those specific items.

Joe with the list of waiverss that uh they requested are they fallen with normal procedure in 40 B project? Yes, Mr. Chair.

Thank I mean, essentially, if if you're okay with the project, then you have to be okay with the waiverss because the waiverss are necessary to to um realize the the project and um certainly would be good if the conservation commission could um is in a position to have already approved the project because one of fundamental things about local way local wetland bylaws is they attempt to take the state act and to some degree simplify it and because under the state act it's all about will what you're doing in the buffer zone impact the weapon. So that's about how vague it is. Um with regards to local bylaws they say okay we want 0 to 25 no disturb 25 to 50 no structure 50 to 100 might have different things the 30% rule these are all kind of guidelines to say if you do these things then we'll presume that you'll you won't have an impact to the weapon rather than getting into analyzing exactly what's happening in the buffer zone and will that have an impact back to the wetland because ultimately it's all about protecting the wetland, not necessarily protecting the buffer zone. It's the buffer zone's capability of protecting the wet. So with an approval of the conservation commission under the act they have they will have determined that whatever they're doing in the buffer zone is not going to impact the well without having to be able to rest on meeting those local requirements. So now

the local requirements get shifted to you. Um, and if you were in a vacuum, it might be tough. But here we have a conservation commission that's seemingly at the pre at at at the doorstep of an approval. So that could provide comfort to the board that these waiverss are um accepted. Thank you. When you expect them to make an approval? Um they the conservation commission at the last hearing indicated that on December 4th um would be uh the next hearing [clears throat] in which we discuss proposed special conditions of the order of conditions and then December 11th would be the vote and that so it' be the 4th would be the next hearing and then the 11th one week later would be the vote.

Okay. So it's it's very imminent. Um and the plans that we've submitted to them match the ones we've plans this we've submitted to you. Yeah. Okay. But they have not obviously made the final approval. That's when they're pl planning to approve. I So just want to say that. Yeah. And Mr. Chairman.

Yes. Again, just real briefly, that's why it is typical uh when the projects does have to get these order of conditions from the conservation commission under the state wetlands protection act. Um I won't repeat what Joe said, but that really does give you a safety valve of protection comfort. um that if you grant the waiverss, clearly a condition of your decision would be that we have to get the order of conditions from the conservation commission under the state act and that would mean that they're comfortable with it. Um and [clears throat] that's what protects the community uh and the area and so that's why it's typically dealt with in that fashion. So, I would just say that um as we as I said earlier, happy to go in over any of the spec specifics with our engineers because it's technical, but it seems as though it's the typical approach in 40B.

Yeah, we actually went over. I'm sure you were here, but maybe. Anyway, you all set up. Well, the standard from the Holliston case on local bylaws, wetland bylaws more stringent than the state regulations is are the local standards designed to protect interests that are not protected by adequately by the D regulations and there that's where the balancing test really applies. So is are those local interests that are perhaps going unprotected more important than the regional need for the housing? Two very difficult things to compare, but that's the standard that you have to apply.

You guys got your number right from D. Yes, sir. What's that mean that they signed off on everything that you proposed? It it is not an approval from D. is essentially an acknowledgement of meeting submitt requirements and it's their opportunity to provide technical comments for the commission's consideration. Hand up. Oh, I'm sorry. Break a lie. I'm sorry. I didn't see it.

That's okay. I was just letting you all talk. Um I just wanted to say that I I think there's slight confusion with the commission's letter. The commission is not asking to retain jurisdiction. They're merely appealing to the board, you guys, um to not wave jurisdiction. We fully understand you would have that. Um however, if you were not to wave or if you were not to wave the bylaw, plans would ultimately change, which would mean our review under the wetlands protection act would still be ongoing. So, we understand that you would need to, for example, review local bylaw buffer zones, but then your review may impact the plan set, which may impact our review under the wetlands protection act. Therefore, the project would have to stay open. Does that make sense? So, no matter what, we would still have to be involved because any changes to the plan would change impacts under the Wetlands Protection Act, which we maintain jurisdiction on fully. Um, so I just I just wanted to clarify that that we're not confused or we don't believe that we would maintain jurisdiction.

You definitely don't sound confused, Rico, but I'm telling you, I'm confused. I'm probably a little confused now. What you

And then that's okay. It's it's you know what, it takes a lot it it needs a lot of effort to understand the wetlands protection act and wetlands in general. So I don't expect anybody else to to stick with it except maybe Chris Rataroli. Um, and then I did want to say that regarding fees, um, our filing fees have actually been in place since I don't know the inception of the town charter. Um, so for 121 Gro Street, we did request that fees were not waved and they were. Um, which is neither here nor there. I just wanted to to at least answer your question about that is that we did request not to. They were waved and based on our last meeting in chambers for Concom, we were told that because 121 Gro Street was waved, that is why the applicant is asking to wave this one, which again, fair is fair. Neither here nor there. Just wanted to clarify.

Thank you. You all set?

I I just I just a clarifying question. So it's the section of the letter um from the concom chair le page dated October 30th to the ZBA and there's a section that says due to the complexity of this site starts with that and then there are four um waiverss that are being recommended do not waiver uh request requests that are being recommended by Concom for us not to wave and they'll remain open. Okay,

I think that is what I'm hearing. Yeah, we must have got that. Obviously, you got from someone Mr. Jam. Yeah, go ahead, Peter. I'm not sure what remains open means. I mean, those are the four items that I probably for the third time in saying it's certainly fine to go with them specifically, but um I might be misunderstanding what was just said, but I mean, you have to take action one way or the other. Either you grant the waiverss or you don't. Um I'm not sure what they would remain open means. Well, I asked the question before from Mark about if the Concom's got waiverss that they can grant, but they don't want us to grant and we granted them. What's the difference?

What's the what? What's the difference? You know, I mean, it's it the local regulations are in your hands, right? They're making a recommendation to you and nothing more. Yeah. [clears throat] Board of health would do the same thing with regard to local board of health regulations. Yeah. Ultimately, you're in the hot seat. You make you either go along with them and now they've got an argument that the imposition of that standard makes the project uneconomic or you reject their recommendation and you give the waiver. Okay. Um, I was going all set. Any questions? I think everybody, right?

I I guess no questions. Just a lot of stuff to digest. Yeah. So, no. No, no, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I I guess you said that. Um, yes. Uh, I would like to ask through the chair to attorney Vowski to explain a bit where we're at in the process in terms of you have met with town departments. Um, there's been talk of

requested mitigation, but as a member of the board, I haven't been privy to any of that. And I guess I was just like an understanding of where we were where we are in terms of putting together this mitigation um expectation from our side. And then where do things go in terms of if we are um if we go through and vote to deny this comprehensive permit, what does that process then look like? If we are to approve it um and the the abutters want to appeal, what does that process look like? And if we are to approve it with a mitigation package that the applicant cannot um comply with, what does that process look like?

Okay, let me let me take those questions on procedure first. The board has the power to approve approve with conditions or deny a comprehensive permit on a simple majority vote. So if the board were to approve it uh which is extremely rare without conditions, it would just go forward as the final plan u that has been filed with you. If you approve it with conditions, then the applicant has the opportunity to take those conditions alone or in the aggregate to the housing appeals committee and claim that the conditions are um unreasonable, arbitrary, capriccious or result in uneconomic conditions like they're costing too much money. your every condition imposes a certain cost and there are certain guarantees in the HIC regulations for u rental projects and for for sale projects. I can almost guarantee you that this one does not meet that standard because I can't remember the last rental project I've seen that did. They all usually come out of the process uh at EOHLC um un uneconomic as a as as approved and then you catch up in terms of how you make your money. but it's not right in the first couple of years. And then a denial would also go to the housing appeals committee on the applicant's appeal. Different standard. In in a denial, the applicant has to show that the project meets federal and uh state health and safety standards. It's called primapacia case. And then the burden shifts to the applicant on to the board once the applicant makes that case which is a fairly simple matter. and the board has to show that notwithstanding the um the applicant's claim that it meets health and safety standards that local concerns outweigh the need for the housing. So that that there's a dance

that happens at the housing appeals committee depending upon whether you approve it with conditions or you deny it. Denials are generally more rare than they used to be, but you know it it happens. Um and approval approval with conditions are in some ways a more complex litigation because there might be one condition, two conditions, 20 conditions, 40 conditions that they in the aggregate think should be reviewed by the housing appeals committee as causing uneconomic conditions. Uh there's also other causes of action that can be had like you treated Gro Street one way and you're treating us a different way or even more importantly you're treating unsubsidized housing this way and now you're treating subsidized housing their application in a different way. Those are also causes of action that you can bring at the HAC. Um that's the developer's appeal. If the neighbors want to appeal they can appeal uh to superior or land court. But if the developer also appeals, the neighbor's appeal is postponed until the uh HAC matter is closed because the project's going to change as the HAC comes to its final decision. So that u a butter appeal will be uh generated immediately but it'll go on a shelf until the developers appeal is litigated in full at the HAC and at a reviewing court uh superior court or land court typically. Uh what else did I miss?

Um so yeah I was deliberately avoiding that question. [laughter] If um if the comprehensive if if the comprehensive permit is denied and this goes to the HAC um they can make it happen as is it still a friendly 40B? Is it an enforced 40B or does it not if we're over our 10%.

Well, those are interesting those are interesting questions because it's rarely happened. Um there's a there's a case that I've given to Casey um and asked I've already given it to the chairman as well called Booth versus ZBA of Ammerst and it's from 20 years ago. Ammerst was over 10% just like you are but Ammerst approved it and the neighbors in that case brought suit claiming that the standards were not to be the 40B standards shouldn't be applied. it should be more like a special permit case. And the court said, "No, the same standard applies, consistent with local needs." The board approved it because they thought Ammerst could bank these housing units. They were in in a good location. Not that many people were bothered by them and they thought it would be a good thing to do. And make no mistake about it, the Supreme Judicial Court took the case and ruled very favorably for the town of Ammeris because they wanted to send a message that even if you're over 10%, God bless, take more housing on. Nothing wrong with that. And that's been the rule for the 20 years since then. You're hardressed to find a case in which the town was over 10% took on a project and then denied it. And I don't know of a case in which the town uh has also in the very different matter for you is that the 15-day uh claim period that you had for safe harbor went unressed. So there's you're you're you're headed into uncharted waters with both of those things. uh as far as I can see, as far as my research shows, [snorts] so my research tells me that if you approve it with conditions or you deny it, just like the Booth case, the standard that's going to be applied is consistent with local needs. If you deny it, was that consistent with

local needs? If you approve it, was that consistent with local needs? If you read the Booth case, you'll get a feel for what the Supreme Judicial Court thought was important. Um, and certainly it has to do with things like um what the housing need continues to be in Franklin beyond the 10% achievement. I understand there's a letter in the record from the housing authority that says you need X units for people that still are without housing even though I know you've gone up again to 11.05%. So it that will ultimately decide the case. That's the the weight list for people on the affordable housing. Yeah, Bruce told me about it the other day. You want to know what the list says?

Sure.

I got it from the housing authority. Uh it lists onebedroom congregate and family. Uh there's applicants that are looking for housing is 26,000. Over 60 is 3,000. Under 60, there's 3,391. in local applicants of 505 people locally that are looking for housing. So, and I got that right from the director of Franklin Housing, Na Sanchez De Jesus. There's there's no doubt in my mind to kind of bring this back full circle that what EOHLC has said in its letter dated yesterday is I think for you to be your your guiding star. They they've said whatever happened at the council meeting they intend to stay in the game. That's the subsidizing agency. The HCA regulations contain guidance for boards that says that they basically don't mess around with jurisdiction with subsidizing agents. So that rings a bell that you should, you know, back off of that. If there were to be a further dispute regarding what HOC HLC has said, it's it's it's between the council and HLC. They It's their letter, their endorsement, and it's HLC's ruling. You're not a part of that process. But I would have to warn you that if you were to take contrary action to what HLC has said in its letter read by Attorney Schmer, you're on the risk of constructive approval. We're on day 230. We've promised them until November 30th to close the public hearing. I'm sure they want to close it tonight and we're not coming back before November 30th. So

that would be my suggestion. if if you if we can all agree to close the public hearing, meaning the applicant and the board. U but that's a danger that you have to be aware of if you were to not take the words of of HLC to heart because they're in the game. What about the supplicant letter for the um the supplemental letter that we got from the applicant that says um if they have to get another project eligibility letter, they will no longer work with the town um and that any legal fees or processing fees would be taken out of any mitigation. Doesn't that impact what we're talking about tonight? Well, I I I'll ask attorneys Freeman and Schmer to address that. I I s I suspect that that's MOO given what they've uh produced from EOHLC. The letter from E OLC should not be underestimated. I've been doing this for 40 years. I've seen three letters like that in my career. That That's how powerful that letter is coming from a state agency. That's how powerful it is.

I'm sorry, madam. Could you repeat the question? I I was just speaking with my client when you when you asked it. Um [sighs] I can I can pull it up, but we received a letter saying that if and it was referenced in the town council meeting last night that um if the town council were to um remove their um support for the LIP that then uh if if TAG central LLC had to get another project eligibility letter, it would no longer work with the town um and it would impact mitigation. I'm not getting the exact wording right. I can pull it up, but you're you're nodding. You know the letter I'm referencing.

It it was my letter, so I'm I'm familiar with what you what you are referring to. What what we were referring to with that comment was uh if the council resends their support for the project and that results in the revocation of the uh the PEL, which as attorney Babroski noted, HLC has has emphatically stated that that is not going to happen. But if that let's let's say they're wrong and that were to occur and we have to go to another subsidizing agency, there's a cost associated with that. And the point that we were making, Attorney Freeman and I, was merely that that cost has to be absorbed somewhere, which means that there's less money to go around for things like mitigation and um buffer zone and and trees and things like that for accommodation for for some of the neighbors. And that's all we know. On that point, let me just add that if the board an approval with conditions, you know, not all the conditions are ever knocked out. Many of them remain. Ordinary housekeeping conditions will survive typically. But if it's a denial, there are no conditions. You don't put we deny, but we condition the the project. You deny. [snorts] So typically the HAC if it reverses that denial will add six or eight boilerplate conditions that don't really address even normal housekeeping matters. So you're you're kind of uh I I recall I represented the Canton Board of Appeals years ago. Long fight 11 years a trip to the SJC back uh to the uh zoning board of Canton after all of that. And at that time the HAC boilerplate decision said and if you want to add conditions that are reflecting municipal authority go right ahead. So I did. We

added 120 conditions. And they objected strenuously and said you can't you can't do that. And I said well look what we're left with otherwise. It's only six or eight boilerplate conditions. And we argued it out and it did work out at the end of the day. But those days are gone. the HAC final decision under denial is six or eight boiler boilerplate conditions and that's that you have to live with that. That's part of the part of the risk and we we have to live with that. Um even though we're over the 10%.

There is a provision in the HAC regulations that says consistent with local needs is to be measured based upon the achievement of the municipality. So the evidentiary burden on you is less stringent if you're at 9.5% than if you're at 3.5%. And no one's really tested the evidentiary burden on you if you're at 10.82% which is where you were at on the day their application came in and now you're even higher. That won't be admissible but 10.82 is pretty good achievement. So that's what the HAC is supposed to do that. Yeah. I I have converted the HAC regulations which are impossible to use otherwise into a word document and I just remember key phrases. I can put in the find commensurate and it pops right up and you can do the same and I looked at it just the other day. So that's your that's your guiding star. But there's not a lot of guidance on how they will implement that because there haven't been that many cases. There was a case referenced where they did look at the amount of people on the wait list

that was booth where the where the town approved the 40B at a point where they were already over 10%. And then there was an email sent about um a friendly 40B in Milford. Trying to find it in the emails from today. The Milford zoning board of appeals has denied a proposal for an 180 unit apartment complex. The town has more than 10%. Sounds like very similar place to our process.

Did they do that by invoking the safe harbor? No, it sounds like they've gone through I'm I'm I'm not sure. I'm reading an article from the Milford Daily News. Um it was uh the application was submitted in June. During the meeting on November 13th, CBA members noted that they already have 10%. There were issues and concerns with the traffic. The application was submitted in June and Milford went over 10% in November

that they at a at a ZBA meeting on November 13th. ZBA members denied the project.

Well, that's what happened in Canton a long time ago, 2005. At the time of the application, uh Canton was under 10%. Then they went over when there were various people in line and one of the issues in the case was could they get rid of those people in line if they had achieved 10% after they applied. So at the time of the application under 10% they went over 10% they basically just turned around to the line and said you're dismissed. And the HAC uh uh said that the appropriate time to measure the municipal achievement is on the date of the ZBA application.

And I think that's probably relevant to the case. Interesting. Okay.

Um when do we discuss the mitigation? I mean, you threw out a number. But so there's been other discussions happening that you know not amongst us just so that the people here know we don't meet outside of these meetings because with just three of us that would make a quorum. Yeah it it would make a quorum. Um so when does that get discussed? I mean we're at the 11th hour here.

Yeah. It sounds like some of that is already on the record and I I you know the pump discussions for example scope of work has been exchanged dollar figures have been discussed now on the record um as uh I indicated before I can certainly talk with council uh world out to speak to each other during the deliberative period if there's anything else that's that's in other words put it on the table or seek a brief continuence to put it on the table. Come back and now it's on the record. It can be discussed. Whatever comes out in the comp permit needs to be put on the record during the tenure of the public hearing. That's what it it's. It's an evidentiary gathering machine. So, if it's not on the record, it's out of out of bounds. by asking for a million dollars. Did that put it on the record?

It puts everything right up to a million dollars on the record. I

mean, there's there's been things during the course of this public hearing that I've asked for or at least expressed a concern about the lack of sustainability measures in the project. Um, I asked for um more than just a study and a grant application for the traffic, but to offer to do a match or some or or um provide some type of funding source for what this study might recommend. Um, but I haven't seen any of those proposals come back. Um, I know that you've said there's been significant uh changes to the design to the better, that there's been a significant decrease in unit counts, only 10. That's not significant in my opinion. We're at the at the at the promises that were made at the lip level where there would be a mix of three and four um stories, that there would be a buffer, that there would be a fence, and now we're at that point. that's great, but we're not beyond that. Um, so in terms of [clears throat] mitigation, it's a study of the sewer, it's a study of the traffic, but as far as I know, that's all that's been and and uh additional trees. As far as I know, that's all that's been offered. And so, when do we get to the point where we're going to ask for more on the record on paper? They mentioned the other night and I think you said you watched the meeting. You mentioned a vinyl fence instead of a chain link fence at 6 feet high across the whole

and I asked for an 8 foot fence. 8 foot you need permit.

Well, I guess you're what you're what you're asking me at heart is really whether or not we're ready to close the public hearing. And Mr. Pesnolas indicated he's okay because his conditions can be narratively addressed. I talked with Steve Steve Finland um to ask him the same question and ask him if he wanted to tell me anything that I didn't know. I'm comfortable with what he said. He's in the same camp as Joe. Okay. I know um when we had a mir a meeting where we were talking about wetlands. So our our local um regulation is for a two for one replacement. So the response that we can only do one for one is because we don't have enough space on the site. So I said, could we ask Concom to find more wetland in town that would then be improved um by the applicant? Um Joe said not a bad idea, but I I don't know how to take that further.

That sounds like the most difficult suggestion you've made so far. Well, this is this is a difficult

project and process, right? Like I apologize. This is my first time going through this, but it is very complicated in that um this is not a popular project for the town and there are a lot of good things about it. Um just for people to know, I I do believe that we're in a housing crisis and that we should do what we can, but we also cannot hurt the town. And um so how does that get balanced? How do we make this a win-win? Um that is what I'm trying to understand the process. How do we get to a win-win?

Mr. Chairman, if I may go ahead.

I I sincerely appreciate that. Uh the that statement is well founded. Uh the only thing I would say is the two things that you mentioned specifically some ideas can be kicked around now but but I would remind you that there was no suggested um traffic mitigation that I recall from your um peerreview consultant um and the only other thing which is not in any way intended to be critical but in the other projects which are many as you know that I've worked on you know the discussion of mitigation has come at a much earlier stage because that as you know and as Mark said you know we we really do in our opinion need to close. So I'm not saying AJ backed me up you know we're we're willing to do a reasonable amount of mitigation. I I I said kind of intuitively and I think it's correct that I don't think there's justification for $950,000 of mitigation but some of the specific when you break it down like your two ideas lack of sustainability things I'm not sure what you would want to implement it maybe that could be discussed briefly from our engineers and Joe Pznola um something on traffic again I don't know that there was anything that was suggested by [clears throat] anybody body so far. But if there's something that's a study along the lines of a study and some reasonable amount that could be discussed tonight and then when you deliberate, you would come up with the final um condition. Um so again, I'm trying to respond cooperatively because I hear you. Um but I think that's where we're at.

Thank Thank you, Attorney Freeman. I I guess my challenge is just with the process, right? Meeting once a month is has been dragging this out. Um not having letters of need from our state department, our town departments uh just makes it an unknown. How much does our fire department need to serve this new development to make sure that that is adequately served to roll that into their services? How much do our other public services need? I my gut is telling me it's minimal on the DPW if everything's managed by the property owner. um and there was unknowns about the schools. So I reached out to the school committee chair to talk that through and they also didn't see uh increased demand or need with the number of students that are projected. Um but if there was a process where we go through and each of these town departments has a letter that says how a particular project will impact them and then or or they will see no impact. Then we can then there's something to base the decision on. Right? Right now it's just the three of us on gut.

This is a very strange process. Well, I I [applause] would Jesse also add it's not just me, but I I I I very candidly and I'm not just saying that I agree with you to be nice to flatter you. I do agree with you, but the problem is that's on the town. It's not on the applicant. you know, we've worked and given, you know, extensions and you've all done a good job and asked good questions, but it's but it's on the town to come up with those types of things. And here we are after over 6 months and there's been all types of feedback which has resulted in essentially all of the design aspects being satisfied including by pe reviewers and the town departments haven't said hey you know there's this x you know x impact here y impact there we'd like them to do something to pay some money um so that's why you are where you're at um and it also doesn't really seem like there are major impacts I said that before. Um, so that's where we're at and uh it's a learning experience I would say for the town if if the town departments feel like they could have said something but you know clearly they didn't. So there are people who can do an economic cost benefit analysis and they can take any project a widget factory affordable housing doesn't matter and [clears throat] they can tell you what the tax revenue will be from the property tax. They can tell you what the excise tax contribution will be. Those are the two chief sources of revenue. They can also tell you what the cost will be. They can tell you that you know that everything from the library to the school system is going to have

costs. Then you subtract the cost from the gross revenue and that's what the annual snapshot is will be predicted to be for the project. Some some come in 7525. Affordable housing projects generally don't. they come in closer to 5050, but at least you have an idea where your resources are. Yeah. Needed. Um, and you could probably do that in two weeks.

So, on on day one, I think when we had our first hearing, I'd asked the town administrator's office to do that. Um, but there was a concern that there was too much movement that the project would change over time or we don't have a sense of when this is going to be built. But at some point you you take a snapshot in time so you can make a decision. And I guess I've been struggling with when is that is and and now is too late unless we all agree to

take those couple weeks and extend. Well, I mean again this is evident area as Markski said and the town has had more than enough opportunity to put in evidence and without going back to the lip part. Don't forget there was a whole very thorough process where departments vetted and talked about it and all of that and you know that's what led to the support and even though there was a different vote the other night the support from all of those departments and other boards and all of that was based on thinking hey gee this is good for the town. So it's not like anybody other departments or the boards weren't aware of it. Um and I think that's relevant for you to take into consideration. I mean, as as a resident and a member of the ZBA, if we did this costbenefit analysis, that could be the kind of thing that brings the town back around, lets people have confidence in decisions that are getting made. Um, I just don't know if there is time for that.

We used to hire numbers crunches back in the day. Who number number crunches? you know, somebody that would look at the project to see if it was a viable. Yeah, I I work with two. Jody Barrett is out of Ducks and um Mark Fuer, who used to work for RKG up in New Hampshire, is he lives in New Hampshire, but he he crunches numbers up there. You know, Mark, he's ours. Yeah, we we hired him. And what do they tell us at the end of the Well, it's like a 30page report. Well, truth Well, truth, if Mr. Chairman, sorry if I may be directly to this.

Um, what what what Mr. Babroski was talking about earlier was a cost benefit in terms of town revenue versus expenses. What suddenly just changed into a discussion of the analysis of the project economics. um which I just have to remind you that it's definitely and I still think it's true of any continuence but it's beyond weight in the game to do that. There's never been a question about, you know, what could we do that wouldn't make the project uneconomic. The regulations do address that. If a board in the course of the hearings and not at the last last minute uh says, gee, you know, we think we need to do X XYZ by way of conditions. And we then can say, well, we think that makes it uneconomic. the regulations do at that point allow you to hire a peerreview consultant um to review it and guide you, but that's never happened in this hearing all these months. And it just would be candidly inappropriate for that to happen now.

So there there was a meeting where um Archie had asked how small can this project be to make it still economic and AJ said I'm not going to answer that. Um, so I guess did we ask it the wrong way? Should we have thrown about two different things here? I I I don't know. Peter and I are talking about two different things. I'm not right. That's what I said. I'm not suggesting we should look at their project to decide whether it's economic or uneconomic. I just asked the question about what we used to do years ago. We never came to you know we did it but it always worked out. You know what I mean? Wasn't one of then it was just less and less people that did did do it. That was the other problem.

It's a skill before. Yeah, I I I was asking before about more the town economics. How do we know that this is a um if this is going to negatively impact the town and outweigh the need for the housing and that is um that's what I've been asking about. I don't think we can't consider that, can we?

Well, you're talking about mitigation. All we're talking about here is potential mitigation. So one way of finding out the topics that need to be mitigated is to do something like that. You know Bruce suggested 10 minutes ago that you know a concrete suggestion I heard that a million dollars in mitigation should come forward. I mean that's it's on the table in the same way that their sewer studies on the table.

But can't they just say no we're not going to do that because it's arbitrary? Bill, you know, there's they probably will, but on the other hand, it can be it's not like a normal situation in which um you can't seek a project change with a 20-day request for an insubstantial change by removing this condition or tweaking that condition. There's plenty of maneuverability on a 40B that you don't have with a variance. Mr. Chair, if I may just maybe offer a suggestion from the developer's perspective, and I I I get the sense, Miss Lang, that you're you're you're struggling with the the the weight of the the project that's being put on you, and I certainly can sympathize with that. Recently, attorneys partner and I were in reverse spots where I was advising a board like yourselves. So, I'm I'm very sympathetic to the complexity of these kind of projects and and the responsibility that's put on you in reviewing that and and perhaps and hopefully it's some comfort that tonight we're not asking you to to take a vote. We're not asking you to uh remember every single thing that was said at every hearing and in every document that's been filed with you. There's there's quite a lot of paper that's been filed. Um, all we're suggesting is that the hearing be closed. To attorneys's point, this is an evidentiary factf finding hearing. So if you consider that you have all the evidence that you need in the record to deliberate with respect to these issues that you're that you're discussing mitigation conditions and what those specifically will say. You have a period of 40 days after the hearing closes in which you can review the evidence outside of the hearing. Carefully assess all of the evidence that you've received and make determinations between yourselves as to

uh what you think is an appropriate condition, what you think is an appropriate level of mitigation. And as attorneys noted, he can be in contact with attorney Freeman and I, you can communicate with your attorney and he can communicate to us. Uh so when there is a process where you come back to deliberate in in public there can be an informed conversation in public uh that we can go through those conditions and from our perspective hopefully reach a a point where there's conditions that you feel are appropriate to mitigate and your concerns uh while also not making the project uneconomic and and unfeasible financially from from from our client's perspective as well. So tonight we would close the public hearing all individually review everything that we've received individually send our thoughts to attorneys that then would be sent

well he'd draw up a decision provided then there'd be a there'd be a decision a draft decision that then at our next meeting we would deliberate on in both is that the I guess when I was asking about the process like where are we is that I represent process

a developer in Draa tonight and it's a lip tonight they have a meeting I sent my partner the evidence is done tonight there's no doubt that the evidence is done there but they're not closing the public hearing they're saying come to the meeting on December 18th draft draft an opin draft a decision Babrowski which I do often even when I'm on the other side and then we'll take a look at it and we'll probably shut it down that night. So I feel really uncomfortable closing the public hearing and then discussing things that weren't ever discussed in the public hearing. Right. That's that's just sort of like 101. Mhm.

And I'm going to ask Jesse Schumer to join me in the hallway for a second just to have a private conversation. Jamie, you wanted to say something while we got a little break here. It'll be on the record.

I would appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Maybe we can lighten the mood a little bit. Um, I do appreciate Janelle's concerns. Um, it's not as easy as black and white of what you're talking about. Take school children for a reason. We've heard a lot of commentary and concern. We heard it last night about the impacts on the schools. I give you a lot of credit that you've contacted the school committee and they say what they've responded to you. But there's another element to mitigation, right? If you put an undue cost on the proponent of something that's not able to be mitigated, like school children or bus stops and stuff, those are not reasons for denying a project. And those are also I don't believe I believe those are not eligible way eligible reasons to mitigate a project. Right? So you also have to look at the evidence that's presented to you. You have the sewer issues that are before you. You have concerns around traffic. I think Peter Freeman already addressed that. Um and you might have some other issues about buffer zones and fencing invisibility and height. I think they've addressed some of those things. So when you're going through and looking at the mitigation and working with town departments, um you know that's on the planning board, the zoning board of appeals, the conservation commission to funnel those comments through those channels. If you're looking for letters of confirmation from say the fire department that they have a ladder truck, they have the proper apparatus, they can respond to calls there, you know, that is something I believe that happens at the planning board and we probably could get that kind of confirmation from the fire chief. Same thing with police call. You probably have done it.

We got a letter from the public.

Okay. So, okay, good. So, I think there's a difference between comments from the public that have concerns about a project, but then you also have to mirror those through the peerreview process and the studies that have all been done and also contrast that with whether or not that's defendable in a decision, whether that's allowed to be mitigated like the school children issue. And so it's not just as black and white as, oh, there's a concern here. How do we mitigate it? Are the schools okay with this project or are they not? In my 10 years here, I can't recall, and I'm I'm flying by the seat of my pants on this. I can't recall, at least for my office, many times where a permitting board initiated cost benefit analysis. If we need to do those, and we want to do those, thank you, Gus. I don't believe I've been here 10 years, right? We haven't done one of those. And I don't know about the planning board. you you know Mr. Chairman you may know I don't believe we've done those maybe this is a time at which a point in time in Franklin where we need to start asking for those like you've asked for upfront and maybe and I know Judy Barrett very well um you know maybe we need to start doing those types of things but again you still whatever the results of that costbenefit analysis are eventually you have to contrast that with reality through both the engineers for the proponent as well as the peer review to see again whether or not there's something there that can that is required to be mitigated. I think in the case of the intersection up the street, I've said it a million times and I think the abutters have all heard this um and this did come out during the lip process. I think there are a lot of concerns in general. Well, that intersection up there is really needs to be redone. Um, but it would require two eminent domain takings. And I think the conversation I heard earlier, which I do think is advantageous to the town with a project

that will have the traffic generation that'll have, maybe this is something where the ZBA considers not just a little study, but maybe they can go out and do the design of whatever that intersection would look like. That would be a forward-thinking project that I think would make a big difference because even after that intersection is designed. The town council will have to address the two properties by eminent domain which are which are not going to be simple. They're going to be costly. And we'd also almost certainly need federal tip money or state money for mass dot. You're looking at a probably a $10 million plus project down there. There's absolutely no way the town of Franklin could finance that. And I think to Mr. Freeman's comments earlier, we can't ask the developer because there's no causation of actually spending 10 or $15 million on a project. I know you're not asking that, but I'm just laying that out there as an issue that the proponent has been open to through the entire LIP process plus the ZBA hearings. I'm not an engineer. That's why I don't when you say the town manager's office, I'm not an engineer. I'm not a licensed engineer. I don't know exactly how much that costs. We have a town engineer that could give you a quote. I'm sure Hancock Associates could come up with some sort of design. But if the ZBA were willing and if the proponent were willing, I think it would be very advantageous for the town if there was an opportunity to do as much work as possible to figure out the intersection up the street. Obviously, that's a state highway as well, which adds another layer of complexity to it. Um, but I do uh but I think on terms of mitigation, it's difficult and the feelings that you're feeling are real because you're hearing a lot of concerns from people which are just feelings and we should take those in consideration. But you also have to juxtapose all of those with with whether these are eligible, whether they're going to get reduced on appeal, whether or not the developer goes to HAC and say this is an unreasonable expectation. And so what I think attorney Bowski is trying to say

and I think the chairman's trying to say and all the other parties is what's a reasonable mitigation package to try to address the myriad of concerns on these issues. So I don't know if that was helpful or not but hopefully it is a little bit um and um you know I wanted to just come up and say a few words just to to try to address what you were what you were talking about and I'm here if anybody has any questions about any of these other things I'm happy to answer. Highway ends at Louis Street. It ends at Lewis Street. It ends at Lewis Street. It ends at Louis Street. Yeah. And then it goes through the town to the other side of town by down by Haywood Street or something. Then it begins at the state highway again. So that's not a state intersection. As far as I know, it's what I've been told over the last 73.

And I'm sure you're 100% accurate with that because you would know. Um regardless, that's an expensive intersection. It's going to take decade. It's going to take a long long time to finance, design, and plan. So um so I leave it at that and I'm happy to answer any questions you folks have. Um, and just to be on the record about this, I have not had any conversation with anybody about mitigation. I have not had that conversation. So, I don't believe [laughter] on the speaker.

You want me to shut up? [clears throat] On the record. You go home and watch YouTube. It'll probably pop up on you. [laughter] You all set up. Um, yeah, I I put I put a suggestion up. So, let them talk and we'll see if they come back. My yeah my my

one of the whole points of that was I think that if we could figure out how to enter into this process more data more rigor um then that can help the town and um developers they're seeing the same thing right and it's it's the people in the town it's the people in the boards the committees we all love Franklin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say that I speak for many people in this community [applause] and I think we've heard this from the elected officials. We've heard this from the building. We've heard this from a lot of people on the record that this project has uh elevated to a level that I think um will result in a lot of changes in how permitting boards and the town council, the friendly 40b policy, all that stuff. We've already changed the 40B policy for the town, right? We're not accepting any more large apartment complex buildings. We have to react to what people are telling us. And I understand there's still a frustration that even though I and I hear the comments behind here and I don't necessarily really appreciate them, but I understand this one's here. It's before you. It was applied. We've also put a tourniquet to anymore. There's nothing I can do about this. Okay. I understand for a lot of people this is a big deal. But I do also believe that to your point Janelle that if moving forward maybe one of the positives of all this process is that maybe the town planning board conservation commission and ZBA maybe we institute new concepts to do that type of costbenefit analysis. Not necessarily because of the money but hopefully it will dispel rumors. Maybe it'll bring clarity to people. Maybe it'll bring a lot of uh transparency that people will feel like okay the developer the boards that are refereeing all of this will say okay we can agree with Judy Barrett's study that this is the cost economics affiliated with a project okay but we also have to continue to deal with what the hearing is now and also try to adjust and move forward on those things and take this as a learning experience to try to be better moving forward. We may not be able to address everybody's concerns on this project today, but your feedback is really valuable because again, I've been here 10 years and I've never really we've never brought up nobody's ever brought up let's do costbenefit analysis in these kind of ways. So maybe this is an improvement

that we can have in the community moving forward and I like that idea and maybe there's some way we can work with these different boards to do that. So, I'm sorry that that isn't being addressed right now for this issue, but I also think your feedback is valuable for us to learn from this and to move forward given where the the buildout of the community is. So, I don't know if that's helpful or not, but um you know, maybe it's something to look forward to that we can try to improve. Awesome. Got you. So, um I guess my question is the vote. Um, what does it take for this vote, this this project to be approved? Is it a threeperson vote of yay or is it just two?

Two out of three. So, it's two out of three people. So, someone on this board can deny it, but if two others approve it, it still goes through. It's two out of three. Simple majority, not super. And if the project should get denied, right, it's let's say it's two two people deny it and it gets appealed, which it probably will. Who represents the town at that point? Not Sarella until they hire somebody else.

In land use law, it's the the it's the winner of the board vote, which is the one person in your case. So the reasons that matter to the trior of fact will be the reasons provided by the one I'm sorry the the two people who voted negatively. So what you're saying is really no one's going to be representing us legally when it goes to if two of you vote yes and one of you vote no. It it it is not a problem. It does not apply. But if it's denied, then the two who voted no are the ones who get the lawyer

because they carried the day. Many times in like a regular variance or a special permit case, the board writes it up and the vote was three to two, but that doesn't tell you why the two voted no and they carried the day because it was not a supermajority. So you have to go back to the two. Sometimes a remand decision is generated by the board to say the reasons the two people voted against it are this and then you resubmit that to the court and then the case unfolds. Otherwise, you don't know what you're shooting at. So in other words, if somebody votes no, they have to give a reason why they voted. No.

Yeah. And it has to be ultimately it has to be in the decision because the decision is the record and that's what you know frames the appeal. Um so the reasons given why it's being denied by these two individuals. Yep. Uh but there's there's got to be a lawyer involved, right? Town lawyer is the one who's getting involved in this. Who is who is Yeah. I mean, normally when I've worked with you before, we've done very well with uh you know what would you like me to to draft an approval with conditions or would you like me to draft a deny? That's all I need to know. But I'm not doing both. [laughter]

No, because I'm giving away half the good stuff when I do both. So, I don't want to do both. You don't want me to do both. It's just frustrating because, you know, I've been here for what, 20 years. We've we we've pushed really hard to get to this 10%. We got to this 10%. We thought it was behind us and it's not cuz we can sit here and deny it and they can appeal it and they'll probably win because it was pushed forward to this point. Um, and you know, it's like a last minute denial at this point. and we're at that 10% and it seems to me like they'll they'll win their appeal if it does get denied and that's frustrating

possible. No comment.

Also, I um Sorry. So, when we go through and vote, are we going through every waiver? Are we we go through would we vote on each waiver? Yes. Yes. Okay. That's after you get the decision drawn. Correct, Mark. Say it again. That's after we You get the decision drawn up. Yeah. After we close the waiverss are in the records. We If we close the public hearing tonight, the next time we'd meet, we would discuss the decision. Yeah. At at some point, we would take out the list of waiverss and we'd go quickly one by one through them. Most of them are not controversial, right?

You can't have multif family in this district. Hello. You couldn't have a 40B unless you wave that. Can can you check that we have the latest waiverss? I think they were dated the 29th. I saw reference to but in in the posting and in the emails I could only find the 22nd. I'll I'll make sure when I discuss this with counselor that didn't count on that last meeting we had I asked them to be I asked them to be numbered because they weren't and there were different counts of them and I said anything that is like contingent on something else or related maybe it's a you know 12 A and B like that

when we finished discussing them that night there was something else come up oh yeah we put that that's right so we we never we didn't get them I know I just don't remember what it was Any set? Um, good. Yeah, I'm set. Go ahead, Joel. You've been waiting there. Joel do 72 dear view Franklin Mass. First of all, Janelle, I want to thank you for your diligence here and what you're trying to get at and so forth and so on. And I'd asked the board members, did you watch the council meeting last night?

Yes. You saw that a motion was made to modify the vote to resend by councelor Griffith. She made a motion to put the word substantial that the reasoning for the vote was not just because the council changed, which is the subject matter of that general counsel's letter from Boston. You can't just vote no because the council changed, you know, the makeup of the council. and they changed it because the word substantial came up, attorney Babrowski, and um I heard you say if I could ask through the chair that what mod what makes a substantial change is 10% or greater.

Different topic, Joel. Um in the regs for a project change. Yeah, you're right. I I see I see where you're going. There are guidance u examples in the HAC regulations. The building to the east has grown in length. Is that true, Mr. Quinn? I can answer that. Yeah. Can you They can They put two three story buildings into one into one. So, it's one building to go 10 units. Yes. So, in other words, there's two buildings and that they just combined them. Yes. And those are threetory. Now, going back to the original town council support vote. Yeah. Was it five threestory buildings? Five three story buildings.

Five threestory buildings. Okay. So now it's two buildings to the That's not true. No, they were all They were all three. No, they weren't. Weren't they all three stories? The two on your side? No, there's three fourstory buildings and then there were two threestory buildings.

By doing the change we did, we were able to get back a ton more buffer. So there's a a forest that exists along the east side which we were able to save by putting it one building two buildings into one. Um if you look at the elevational difference the top of our roof for the three-story building will be shorter than the single family homes that abut us. So it's really a non-issue and we've we've talked about that for a long time. We made a lot of improvements to the plans to respond to th to those concerns. So what were the stories of all the buildings that the town council initially supported? What were the stories? The the tallest height was

what were the number of stories to the east and to the west? Four left four stories. Two fourstory buildings. Then as you go to the east or the right across the stream a fourstory building and then to the right town council voted for fourstory buildings. Yes sir. Okay. In those areas correct. They never voted for threetory and then to the right of that fourstory building threetory and that's what it is today. So you might not have a copy of the latest plans. That's all right. It's been so long. I appreciate your answer. I'm just want to clarify because because I thought they were all threes. No, they've never they were never all threes. I thought they were all threes.

All right. Okay. So that's not what made them change that there's no substantial there, you know, but anyway. All right. I got that. I want to tell you why they changed it. Yeah. Because I asked them to put more parking in, right? They needed more parking, right? So, what they did, they were they eliminated one of the threetory buildings, right? And they made that other a fourstory. I don't know how that picked up the same amount [snorts] of units, but they did. I thought that they were all I thought that they started with all threetory buildings. When I wanted more parking, they eliminated a whole building and they made four fourstory buildings. That's my recollection. I could be wrong. It's been a long time. I know that. Right. So, but anyway, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

No, you're you don't you're doing fine. I just wanted to ask that I'm I'm I'm all right on that because now that on that part of being substantial, I don't see it. But what I would like to bring out is that I own a small two a pair of apartment buildings. They're all onebedrooms in Franklin. They're on the corner of Summer and Winter Street. They're all onebedrooms. They're very nice. They're not luxurious, but they're mint. They're taken care of. and I have one and a half parking spaces for 18 onebedrooms. If I have two people with two cars in each unit, I have very little space left for visitors and that's one and a half spaces. If I have just mostly all one person in each apartment, then I have plenty of room for visitors, but it's there's never been anybody parking on the street. So, what I'm bringing up is the parking ratio for two bedrooms and three bedrooms, which I believe you're not going to be able to have visitors there at that site. And maybe Mr. Pnolo, if I said your name right, might be able to confirm or deny it. I'm not certain, but or Penazola, I'm sorry. I if I said it wrong. I'm sorry, sir. But, um, you know, I just wanted to bring up the one and a half spaces that, uh, that I live with and it works. And the minute you get into two bedrooms and three bedrooms, it changes the amount of vehicles that are going to be there. That's I'd bring that up. And lastly, the only thing I can bring up is East Central Street. The intersection I feel we've been using it all our lives. Works pretty good. It works pretty good. If you're driving a 40ft tractor trailer, it's it's tenuous at sometimes, but for regular vehicles, it works pretty good. But East Central Street with all the various business locations on this street

and you add in 350 to 400 automobiles, it's not going to be fun. And I don't know if the traffic engineer thinks that 2 m an hour is a working roadway because it's going to be clogged up with between 300 and 400 vehicles. And I I just don't see 2 miles an hour working allowing cars to go in and out of all these businesses that are on East Central Street. It really should be a three lane with a middle lane in the middle like it has in Medway on Route 109. They should have done something like they did on West Central Street. Correct. You're not wrong, Bruce. But they didn't.

They didn't. Exactly. Well, it was all about money. So, you know, I I really when you look at when you look at the Franklin Observers survey that was done last June, 1300 people replied, 1,200 don't want it. Jean Gerella got 900 signatures. That's just a thumbnail of the amount of people that don't want it. And you know, Maxine Kinhart gave me the rate last April and we were 13.68 68. Jamie, she gave it to me. I still have the post-it note. And I know you mentioned it's a different figure. It is a different figure, but maybe maybe we got to bring in Deote and Touch to do the math

because I really don't know who's doing the math. The state did the math, Joel. Yeah, they just released it last week on November 13th. And I will admit to you that I thought that number was going to be a lot higher to the number that you had projected at a ZBA hearing during this hearing where you had said it'd be at 13 1.5%. I agreed with you. I said when 121 Grove came on to the rolls that we would probably be looking at a 13% number, but the catch is, as you well know more than anyone else, market rate units were put on the rolls over the last Well, there's been a few, but there hasn't been many single family.

No, there's been more than a few and you know that. And [clears throat] so I was a little shocked when the number came out this past week myself. I was and I've admitted it last night and I said it today. The 11% number is just a hair above the 18.6 or 18.8 10.8 when this project started. But it shows you the actual fragility of that Rachel. You know that I know that the 13.5 number that was during this hearing four or five 6 months ago is wrong. I don't believe the state well it's wrong. And so the state put out the official number last week in their bianial number at 11.05%. 05%. That's the number. It's the number. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Yeah. Right. Well, it is what it is. Those are my comments. I appreciate what you're going through and I appreciate the time that you people have spent. The people of Franklin do not want this. AND THAT'S [applause]

HI, Richard Strat 10 Hayden Lane in Franklin. First thing I want to say is uh is don't be quite so disheartened. Uh I I you know the town appreciates uh your being on this board and the reason you're on this board is they respect uh your judgment, the experience you've had over the years and that's what the town expects you to bring to your decision. Whatever you decide, you decide. Uh I would urge you not to be overwor. But coming to that um I hope that judge when the judgment is made that it's somewhat on substance and not simply on procedure. So that brings me to the uh conservation commission report. So when we were discussing that that was discussed earlier this evening almost all discussion was not unreasonably but uh perhaps frustratingly about procedure. So let's talk about the substance. the the October 30th lesson letter from the Conservation Commission said uh that they don't want you to approve the project. They didn't say they're going to do it. They said they don't want you to do it. They said that they maintain that waving the bylaws and regulations aside from the limit exceptions would undermine their intended purpose. They were enacted to protect the town's ecological and community interests and to ensure uh responsible development. That's their recommendation and they recommend it for serious reasons. If you look at at the the details of the the bylaws um that they're asking uh not be overridden in every single case and you look at the uh response of the developer in every single case is that developer wants the uh decisions to be made on the state's uh the wetlands regulations. The town is in fact more stringent. the town has its own view of what it's what's locally important and it recommends that these uh local uh considerations the things

that u symbolize what the town's values are and what it wants for its residents it says that these are important to the town and they should not simply be neglected because the state has less stringent regulations and so I I you know it's the fact that normally or often in 4DB procedures they are neglected is not an excuse for saying they're not important important to the town and so we hope that you will bring your judgment and ask yourself are they important if there's a regulation a bylaw that says there should be a 2 to1 match for any wetlands destroyed is there a reason for that yes there's a reason for that there's implications for what you know for um manage management of water there's all sorts of implications and that's the reason the town voted to have those bylaws and they recommend that they continue and they're not simply disposed of because it's convenient if the going aside Aside from the conservation issue, if there's a bylaw that says there shouldn't be fourstory buildings in the town, is there a reason for that? And the answer is yes. It has to do with the values and the um you know the the the interests of the town. And so the judgment uh in keeping these by bylaws is serious and we hope that you will treat them as serious. And if you think that they there's a not a good reason to overrule the town's consider judgment in creating these bylaws, please don't. [applause] You

did great. Finished right up on the three minute mark. Thank you.

Hi, Steve Hust 10 Wenog Drive. Um, I've been reading the the documentation collected during this process and I'm I'm sure you've invested enormous amount of time reading and considering that and it's huge. Thank you very much for that time. Um, much of the changes offered by the applicant as evidence of good faith negotiation at last night's town council meeting dealt with buffer zones, screening, parking spaces, and building tweaks. I'm happy to see the abutter's concerns at least somewhat addressed. However, in this project, I I believe these changes are more akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It makes it look nicer, but it does nothing about the larger problems. The weight of evidence against this project being permitted is rarely embodied in the studies, recommendations, and comments of the experts who submitted data and review in these three areas. Uh the traffic the applicants and the town's traffic review engineer all acknowledged the project would worsen the current deteriorating conditions on both the Route 140 corridor and the Chestnut King Street intersection. But there's no offer of anything more than further study. As we heard last night at town council um and here with Mr. um Helen um a lot of studying has already been done. The remedi the remediation effort for that will cost at least $10 million and involves taking at least two houses away from their families. Implementing that plan should be among the conditions for granting a permit or moving any project like this forward. If the growth continues without improvements, inconvenient delays will be the least of our troubles. Someone is going to die out there. Don't be the board that could have prevented it but didn't. Um on the second time the wetlands um Ankusbrook a Franklin Town well and surrounding wetlands are all threatened by this project. An Unkusbrook in addition to

being a flood risk for the downstream neighborhood flows into Lake Pearl and into Rentham's drinking water supply. The developers expert opinion is that they don't need to conform to Franklin's conservation rules if they conform to the more lenient me mass wetlands act. Franklin's conservation rules cannot simply be set aside. They are there to protect resources that we can't get back once they're compromised. Um, and the third zoning with the need for over 30 waiverss, this project is being pursued with utter disregard for Franklin's zoning bylaws and is totally out of alignment with Franklin's master plan, which directs how the town may increase housing in a more considered and agreed way. Do not let any developer at any time come into your hearing and tell you what zoning laws are optional. Enforcing them is ZBA's job. The legitimacy and authority of your board are only as valid as your ability to say no when a proposal oversteps. Thank you. [applause]

You finish right up on time.

Good evening. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. My name is Sarah Cronin and I live at 46 Northern Spy Road. Um, uh, I would like to just express how, um, much empathy I have for all of you to be in the position that you're in tonight in the final hour or last 10 hours. [laughter] Um, our previous town council has left you in a really tough spot. and actually hearing that you'd have to get your own lawyers to defend yourself is like mind-blowing to me. Um, you are definitely in the hot seat. Uh, but one thing that I think I I don't know the rules that well, but I would posit that the town is not and has not ever been in support of this project. We haven't been in support all along. And the evidence for that is the near complete overturn of the town council in the last election. Uh for two years we've talked about the negative impact to traffic, to town services, the environmental impact, um the difference in the character of our neighborhood. And when the TC rescended support last night, truly representing [laughter] the residents that are against this project and others, uh most of us know that something is going to go in on that land. Uh but this is too big for that location. We know that the TC's vote was demonstrative. you guys are the ones that have the authority uh to approve this or deny this or approve with conditions. Um I would ask the board to deny this this any and all waiverss associated with this project particularly any fees uh due to the town. Uh we keep being bullied and saying we don't have enough affordable housing. We're in a tax um terrible year. We're in a the budget is awful. Um I feel like we you guys and the residents that keep bringing up these concerns, we've just been um like told

like let the process go through. Um you have to you have to just let it play out. Um in the past there's never been a case like this. We just have to go to cases like Amhurst and um places like that. Why can't we fight this? Like our situation is different. I really do. I really feel like our town had an election that made a big statement. That town council met with the abutters in our neighborhood and Tom Mercer said this isn't, you know, just this isn't going to this isn't binding. It's not committing. We're just going to let it go through the process. And for two years, we've been going through this process. Um I just think that we've got a lot of uh you guys are volunteers. You're not experts. you have a lot of lawyers and town administrator and you've got a lot of people telling you what you can or what you shouldn't and shouldn't do and I just want to say like [clears throat] um thank you for all the time that you've invested in this project and hearing us.

Thank you. [applause] Just keep in mind that they're not telling us what to do. They're just advising us what to do. [clears throat]

Rob Rapa 40 gate Redgate Lane and I am in a butter to this project. Uh there's been a lot of great points brought up today, a lot of different uh points of view, but I'm just going to kind of go over the same stuff we've been talking about for a couple years because I feel we need to. Um, this project in its current proposal raises significant concerns regarding its scale, the substantial number of waiverss requested, and its potential negative impact on our community's environment and quality of life. I understand the need for development in our town. However, this project is simply too large for this small and already overly dense area of town, which we all know. The following are specific areas of concern that I urge you to reconsider. Nothing new here but just hammering the facts. Uh the environmental impact the proposed development's proximity to wetlands and sensitive water resources is a major issue. The project waivers the project requires numerous waivers from established town bylaws and zoning regulations. The sheer number of requested variances suggests the project is just not the right fit to meet the community's established standards. the scale and scope. The size of the proposed complex is simply too large for the available lot size and existing neighborhood density. The over development will add to existing issues such as traffic congestion, strain on the public services, and lastly, the lack of resident support. A significant portion of the residents do not support this project with hundreds signing a petition, hundreds attending the town meetings and writing letters of concern. And as of last night, as we all know, our new co town council that was voted in by the residents of Franklin strongly uh do not approve this project and want to resend their approval. For all of these reasons and additional reasons

brought up by all of our residents, I strongly urge you to deny this project. Thank you for your time and consideration. [applause] Okay, we all set? You guys all set now? You get all your lawyer talk done on the TV. Bruce, is it possible for me to speak? I don't think you can. I don't think you're allowed, but if you want, if you want to, go at it.

Sure. So, let me I I spoke with ethics this week and they said that I have to make it clear that I I am speaking as a private citizen as an auter, you know, as a resident and not as a town council member. Um, so I just want to make it clear to everyone that I'm just speaking on my behalf of myself and my family and my neighbors and I'm not speaking in any other capacity. identify yourself. That being said, I would Yeah, Peter, I mean, I'm sorry. You didn't identify yourself. Sorry. Jean Grell, 36 ride gate lane. I apologize for that. Yeah.

Um, and I'll just be very brief for the for for those members of the ZBA who are considering uh denying this and you're you're thinking about if you have to uh if this comes to some sort of an appeal and that you have to defend your arguments. I think that you've heard from the residents um and what you've heard from the from the residents, the abutters, everyone that's come across is that you've got plenty of reasons um to deny this. And I think the strongest ones come from our own conservation commission that are talking about um the you know threatening of the storm water. Uh the issues with storm water, issues with the wetlands, issues with closess to the public well. um these are all major concerns that this um this project has generated and that's why that they didn't want you to grant those waiverss. So I would just say that you have the the reasons not to mention you know not that the the petition was minor or these all these other things are minor. These are um there are lots of major concerns. The la last thing I'll say is that the um the letter that went um to the the state that was brought up um or at least the the council's resolution last night that uh what it said was that um we were they were basing it off the previous town council's um uh letter that went to the ZBA that said that the uh that the project had substantially changed and that they had signed that uh 90 um and that the uh they rejected the project as it as it was at that point and so they were basing it on that not the fact that it was a new town council and that's all I have to say. Thank you.

THANKS [applause] JEAN. I just want to point out that you know they could say it's a substantial change in their minds it may be. Would it be in the you know in the housing court? I doubt it because it was the same number of units. They talk more about units than the height of the buildings. Go ahead. Hi uh Dan Saunders 5 Curtis Lane Franklin I live about 3 miles from the site I am with all these people and Jean that uh without being in a butter we don't need this project here last night the council did the right thing we just ask you guys to do the right thing you seem to be on the right track thank ANYBODY [applause] online [clears throat] other than Jean? Anybody with a hand up? I can't see it.

No. Okay. All right. I guess it comes to time. Do you guys want to enter enter anything into the record before we close? Make a motion to close the public hearing and direct the uh peer review.

I think Jesse's Jesse's there so let him speak. We won't we're not going to try to respond point by point obviously to all the neighbors uh testimony tonight. Um we appreciate everybody coming out and we appreciate and respect everybody's opinion. We understand that 4B development can be a divisive issue and we respect your time and um and and very much appreciate that. What I would say in response generally to to the concern raised by the neighbors is something that I expressed last night to the to the town council, which was I would I would just urge the board members to be mindful of the fact that in these kind of processes where there's strong opinions uh that are expressed pro and con with these kind of development projects, there's a lot of statistical evidence that demonstrates that the folks who come out to speak at these kind of hearings overwhelmingly are the people who are opposed to new development. The there may be hundreds of people who signed a petition for X Y or Z. There are tens of thousands of residents in the town of Franklin who didn't show up to do that. U not to take anything away from your new council uh your new counselor's uh victory in in the recent elections. Uh the town clerk statistics show that the voter turnout in last week's election was 25% approximately. Uh this is not a mandate by the entirety of the town of of Franklin that uh that is saying oppose this affordable housing. Um what happened with the previous council uh was a vote by that board by that council assessing the information that was available to them at the time and they voted to support the project and to proceed. It has undergone extensive review by yourselves and by the conservation commission and by uh by

your peerreview consultant as well as the peer consultant for the conservation commission. The project has changed multiple times in response to all of that feedback. Tonight, what we're asking the board to do is respectfully to close the hearing. We feel that the evidence is complete. We don't have any additional submissions of evidence that we intend to submit for the project. What you see uh is what we intend to to uh move forward with. Um there is a deliberative process as I mentioned earlier where you have a period of 40 days. We're willing to work with the board if you feel that additional time is needed as you gather the information that's been um presented to you during the public hearing process, but the circumstances of the project and and what happened last night with the town council um frankly put ourselves in somewhat of uncharted waters. I personally, attorney Babroski has has much more experience uh with these sort of hearings than I do, which is meant to be a compliment and and not a comment on on our respective ages. Uh I [laughter] I I don't recall a situation. I've certainly never encountered it where uh there was a a friendly 40B. That's what that's colloquially colloial colloquially what they're referred to where town council elections turned on this kind of change in in in the political winds blowing and culminating in a in a vote to ultimately resin support of a of a lip project. I I've never encountered that. Um I think we have to accept that as a unique circumstance and based on that it's our it's our wish that the board um close the hearing because we we want to move forward. We don't have any desire for there to be litigation between us and and any party frankly uh be it a butters or or municipal parties. Uh but we're we want to move forward and and if that is

to be if that is the what the via butters choose then so be it and and we'll respond um as we must. Um, but tonight we're asking the board to uh respectfully to close the hearing and begin your deliberations. Thank you, Mark. Before we close the hearing, would it be appropriate to take a vote to tell you what kind of decision to draw up? No, close the hearing first. Close the hearing first. Okay. Anybody else got anything they want to comment on? Okay. All set. I'll enter I'll I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second.

Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? I mean, we spent a lot of time. We've heard a lot of things. A lot of things are right. A lot of things are wrong. But uh anyway, with all that being said, I'll I'll call for the vote. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed. Okay. Make a motion that we direct the uh peer review attorney Babowski to draw up a favorable condition with a favorable decision with conditions.

What are the conditions? Well, he's going to come up with he's got voluminous notes there about all the stuff that we talked about. He's watched the meetings. He knows. Not to mention 20 past decisions from Franklin on my computer.

So along with that, what about the mitigation? That's going to be talked about. Then we already put on the table a million bucks. I'm sure they talked out in the hallway about something too, but you know, we'll say we just got to start with something. I I will confer with councel and we'll see what happens. Okay. Yeah. I'm going to vote no. I have to go with my heart here. I just don't feel You need a second first. Second for what? To to do that motion to direct him to uh I'm going to second. I'll second that.

Motion made and second it. Any discussion? Listen, we're getting to a point and like I told you at the last time we voted and got screwed up. I like to make a decision that's a favorable decision so that when we vote yes or no, you know exactly what you're voting for instead of coming up with they give us a denial. You're going to know what that is. And if you vote wrong and you vote no, then it's going to go the right way. You know what I mean? So, you're thinking about no, no, no, all in your head. But when the decision comes up, after he writes the decision, expect to have it by when, Mark? I'm the cook. Do we have to uh It probably will be the Monday after Thanksgiving. A first draft. Okay. I mean, I give it to December 18th. Is that your next meeting?

Yeah. Probably going to need two, but we'll we'll talk about that in a minute. Well, what did you just talk about? Thanksgiving Monday. No, in terms of putting the first draft together. Oh, okay. Yeah. Now, can you send that out to us to have us look at it and mock it up and then get But you can't talk to each other until you come back. I understand that. Right. So, I'll send it to Casey. She'll send it to you. Do not inter uh email each other with, "Hey, what about condition 13?" That's not a violation of the open meeting, though. So, I don't think we've ever been accused of that. We've been accused of a lot of things, but not that. Never have.

Uh, so anyway, with that being said, the vote will come on. Motion to correct the peer review to write up a favorable decision with conditions. Uh all those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. And all those opposed. Did you vote yes? No. You voted no. Okay. Two to one. That passes. So you got your march in August? Yeah. December's 18th. All good. Can we pick another night so we don't box ourselves in with four days to go before Christmas?

Well, our next scheduled meeting where we got the room is December 4th, but I can tell you that I can't be here then. I can I can get in on Zoom. That's good. Okay. So, December 4th, everybody's amenable to that. We have a conceal just just as just to have discussions. Yeah, I I'll have some of the decision drafted and we can go through it on December 4th and then we'll need another night on the e the 18th or not. I know you're busy then. That's not going to work. But we'll find another night. Let's just get together on the 4th and we'll pick another night. Right. Okay. I mean, if I'm if I'm going to come up here and do it public

and do you have other things on your agenda then? No, we don't have anyone. We don't have anyone coming. Just you. Just you. Can we start earlier? 6. Well, we're going to go on four. 6:00. Oh, yeah. Yeah. [clears throat] I'm checking. I'm checking your trans 11:00. Do a different day. No, December 4th. I can do six o'clock on the fourth. On the fourth or two?

Okay, good. So, I'll have something to you as soon before that as I possibly can. And uh 6:00 on the 4th, we'll start going to get together and talk about the other stuff with these guys. Are you going to make right up the decision for us? Not on the 4th. Okay. Mr. Chair, the public hearing is closed, but if I I may just um just know further for the record, we're spectators at this point. So, you don't need us to be here. We're not entitled to talk, but if you do want us to participate, uh my client reminded me that the conservation commission meets on the 4th. So, we're happy to attend both. We're we're in your hands.

We're going to be in zone. So, I'm [snorts] not sure how the con meeting we have the room for that night, but you know, I'm not going to be here. So, I can I can get here through Zoom through the airways, but I can't get here personally. Maybe some people wouldn't care. I I appreciate council's offer, and I think on the next night we would have This is going to be the only a need to talk about uh even though it's a closed public hearing. Oh, so we don't have to open it up to the public? No, we just posted that we're going to meet on Zoom. Whoever speaks now is at your discretion. He said he needs you, right? Okay. you. But do we have to open up so people can view? Yes. Okay.

He said we need to be there. It has to be an open meeting, but there's [clears throat] no required section for open public comments. Correct. We need to be there. Are you sure? [laughter] You don't know nothing about But anyway, with all that Casey, anything to come before the board? You going to chime in from Mexico? Are you going to be able to uh work or will you do this? I can set it up if you want me to. You can set it up, but we got to set it up so the TV can get it through somehow. That's not anything I'm capable of doing. Are you going away?

Well, find somebody to do it. Can you do it? Try. I see it. I should go over here and start punching the keys over here. I think it's more setting it up with you're on the table. Set up. Maybe we'll just have them set it up and they can run the whole Well, ask anyway. We have to adjourn. Yeah. Do we have any other business? Yeah. No. Casey said no. Can I make a motion to adjourn? You don't have any other business, right? Nothing in the Nothing in the pipeline that you're going to surprise me with later. Okay. No, nothing. Motion to uh Joe, can you There's been a motion to adjourn. Any second? Second.

Motion made and second for adjournment. None debatable. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed? None. All right, everybody. Thank you very much. Don't thank me. Thank you. I appreciate your time. I appreciate your time.