18:42A major point of contention was the proposed reduction in the project size from 32 to 29 units, with the Metro West team arguing that such a cut would render the project economically unviable. Jennifer Gilbert, representing Metro West, emphasized that the draft decision to reduce units was not financially supported and introduced new concerns that had not been previously discussed. Gilbert highlighted that the project, initially budgeted at $21.8 million, faced increased construction costs and that further unit reductions would exacerbate financial challenges. Sharon Small, Metro West’s director of real estate, supported this position by detailing the financial implications, noting that the reduction would create a budget shortfall of $1.8 million due to decreased funding from tax credits and state subsidies.

17:27Board members sought clarification on various financial aspects, including cost per square foot and contributions from historic tax credits. The board also discussed the Natick Affordable Housing Trust’s commitment of $600,000, conditional upon additional funding, and the risks of utilizing these funds prematurely.

05:53Parking and density concerns were also prominent topics. The board discussed the potential impact of parking shortages on Auburn Street and the necessity of ensuring emergency access. A resident expressed frustration over the ambiguity of parking management, especially with increased traffic due to a nearby church. The board chair affirmed the commitment to preventing parking on Auburn Street to address neighborhood concerns.

21:43The project’s historical constraints and their impact on costs were also examined. One speaker noted that the most expensive units were situated in the historic school buildings, emphasizing the financial sensitivity of the project’s structure.

02:06Community input varied, with some supporting the project’s necessity to address local housing needs, while others expressed concerns about its impact on neighborhood safety and infrastructure. Resident Cody Jacobs highlighted the importance of the board’s decisions on the housing crisis, urging approval to meet community housing needs. In contrast, other residents questioned the board’s jurisdiction over financial matters and the potential ramifications of the project’s density on traffic and safety.

35:33The board faced challenges in securing a peer review consultant to validate the project’s financial figures, leading to discussions about the potential litigation costs if the project were to be appealed. The role of the Housing Appeals Committee in reviewing local board decisions was also discussed, with concerns about the feasibility of denying the project given the state’s support for affordable housing initiatives.