02:02The meeting’s primary focus was the proposed development by Metro West Collaborative Development, which seeks to build a multifamily dwelling under a comprehensive permit. The applicant, represented by attorney Jennifer Deso Gilbert, presented updates to the plans, reflecting feedback from previous meetings. Changes included adjustments to the building’s exterior materials and modifications to the measurement of building height to align with local definitions, as well as relocating electric vehicle parking spaces and ensuring compliance with accessibility standards.

21:12Board members and residents expressed significant concern about the intensity of the proposed development, particularly the 32-unit count. One board member voiced apprehension about whether this number was appropriate for the site, citing parking availability and the overall density as issues. The board acknowledged that the parking situation was already strained, with the proposal falling short of the required spaces according to the town code. Additionally, there was discussion about the potential impact of removing parking from Auburn Street, which could exacerbate the existing parking shortage.

46:06A notable point of contention was the board’s limited authority to impose specific requirements on the project’s affordability mix. While members could recommend changes, they were constrained in mandating them. This limitation was emphasized during discussions about the unit composition, which aims to serve individuals earning 30% and 60% of the Area Median Income. The board’s inability to dictate affordability levels prompted debate about the project’s financial feasibility and the necessity of retaining all 32 units to ensure economic viability.

21:51Caris North, town council for Natick, highlighted the urgency of making a decision as the board approached the end of the statutory review period for the project. North emphasized the need for the board to guide the project’s future direction, particularly concerning unit density and parking requirements. She noted that the board’s deliberations must be informed by thorough financial analyses to justify any conditions or changes imposed on the project.

25:35Residents raised issues about traffic congestion and safety, especially on the dead-end street where the development is proposed. One speaker highlighted the potential for increased congestion, noting that parking on both sides of Auburn Street could complicate access for emergency vehicles. Another resident pointed out that events at the nearby Elliot School often result in overflow parking, which could be exacerbated by the new development.

35:03The board also considered the project’s potential impact on the neighborhood’s historic character. A representative from the design team assured that the building’s design aimed to be unobtrusive, but some residents disagreed, expressing concerns about the building’s visibility and its effect on the area’s aesthetic.

01:36:18The meeting concluded with a proposal to engage an outside consultant to review the project’s financial pro forma, particularly concerning the feasibility of maintaining 32 units versus reducing the count. This step was seen as crucial for informing the board’s decision-making process. The board also discussed scheduling the next meeting, ultimately agreeing to continue the hearing on May 12th at Town Hall.