2026-10-05 - City Council Planning and Zoning Subcommittee

00:00Heat. Heat.

00:02[music]

00:15[music]

00:20[music]

00:26>> [music]

00:32[music]

00:40>> So, I'm going to call the meeting of

00:41planning and zoning subcommittee to

00:43order at 6:00 p.m. on October 5th, 2026.

00:47Um and I will just take attendance that

00:51um this is a virtual meeting. The

00:53information can be found online for

00:54those who want to attend.

00:56[clears throat] So um council Liam

00:58Bruno.

00:59>> Yes.

01:00>> Councelor Aviani.

01:01>> Yes.

01:02>> And council long. Yes. We're all here.

01:05Um so tonight we have public

01:07participation for items not on this

01:09agenda. Anybody who wants to speak on an

01:12outside um item relative to planning and

01:15zoning. There are no minutes tonight. Um

01:17and the only thing on our agenda is um

01:20the Edmond throne site and attorney

01:23rolloff will be presenting it.

01:25>> Um and then we'll have um member reports

01:28and adjournment. So, having said that,

01:31um, yes, Council Adani,

01:33>> before you open up, I just want to, um,

01:34put on the record back in February 18th

01:37of 2026, when this applicant spoke

01:40before our committee, at that time, I

01:42did a disclosure for appearance of a

01:44conflict of interest as required by J

01:46General Law, Chapter 268, section 23B.

01:49So, out of the abundance of caution, to

01:50be completely transparent, um I put this

01:53on the file in February and I'm going to

01:54read it into the record right now for

01:56you and um that way people know what's

01:58in the file with this uh applicant.

02:00Public employee Philip Ravani Jr. Title

02:02City Council District 6, City of

02:04Framingham, Cocket Street. In my

02:06capacity as a state, county or municipal

02:08employee, I'm expected to take certain

02:09actions in the performance of my

02:10official duties. Under the circumstances

02:12a reasonable person could conclude that

02:13a person, organization could unduly

02:15enjoy my favor, inappropriately

02:17influence my

02:19improperly influence me when I perform

02:21my official duties, or that I'm likely

02:23to act or fail to act as a result of

02:24kinship, rank, position, undue influence

02:26of any party or person. I am filing this

02:29disclosure to disclose all these facts

02:31about this relationship or affiliation

02:33and to dispel the appearance of a

02:34conflict of interest. A presentation

02:36tonight and a discussion by attorney

02:38Jeff Roloffs representing Jay and co

02:40conceptual plan for Edmond roads parcel.

02:42I am a member of the threeperson

02:44planning and zoning subcommittee of the

02:45framing council that will hear the

02:47projected the project presentation and

02:49make a recommendation to the 11 member

02:50city council to hold a public hearing or

02:52not hold a public hearing on this

02:54project.

02:55I have never been or had a financial

02:58relationship with Jay and Co. I am a

03:00licensed real estate salesperson in the

03:01Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I have no

03:03ownership in the brokerage company

03:05Partnership Properties LLC doing

03:07business as realy executives Boston West

03:09where my license is active. In 2008 8,

03:13my wife was an owner and a director of

03:14Southside Liquors. The other owner was

03:16Amelia Foley. In 2010, my wife Valerie

03:19sold and transfer her shares to a third

03:21party, Lisa M. Caruso. On January 27th,

03:242010, I attended a foreclosure auction

03:26at 82 Edmonds Road, Framingham, Mass

03:280171. I was a successful bidder. I never

03:31took title to the property. I assigned

03:33my bid to Northside LLC on March 30th,

03:362010. My wife and I have never had a

03:38financial ownership or involvement in

03:39the BU property after the assignment. My

03:42family has no financial or business

03:44relationship with Robert or Amelia

03:46Foley. Jay and Co. proposing a housing

03:48development project in North Framingham.

03:50They will need a zoning change that

03:51requires a supermajority of the 11

03:53member city council. That's how my

03:55affiliation, my official actions or

03:57decision matter to the person of this

03:58organization. So, taking account the

04:00facts that I have disclosed above, I

04:01feel that I can perform my official

04:02duties duties objectively and fairly.

04:04It's signed by Philip Partani and it was

04:06submitted to the council and to the the

04:08city clerk on February 17, 2026. But I

04:11just wanted to put it out there so

04:12people remember that it was filed and it

04:14is with the city clerk. Thank you, Madam

04:16Chair.

04:17>> Thank you, councelorani. Um, I will just

04:20preface this by any comments of um I

04:23don't see any um Hold on. Maybe I do see

04:26a hand. This is for public participation

04:30outside

04:33of this particular item, Mr. Krueger, or

04:38is this for

04:41is this for public participation, Steve?

04:45Madame Chairman,

04:48um this is uh not really it's it's in a

04:52way related to what you're talking about

04:53tonight, but it's really a request for

04:56some future consideration. One of the

04:58goals stated in the 2020 update to the

05:01master land use plan is to focus on

05:04development that conforms to community

05:06goals.

05:08Whoops. What happened?

05:12>> Can you hear me? Yeah, I can hear you.

05:16We can hear you.

05:20[clears throat]

05:28>> We can hear you.

05:29>> Yes.

05:29>> Yeah. Can you hear me?

05:31>> Yes.

05:31>> Sorry. I don't know what happened. My uh

05:35image went crazy. Um did you hear

05:38anything I said, madam? said about the

05:42master's plan conforming with

05:44>> conforming to community goals and values

05:46in regards to the subject of your

05:47meeting tonight and development proposed

05:49by Jay and Co. for an approximate 30acre

05:52parcel in OBSCO. It should therefore be

05:54of utmost importance to note to what

05:56extent the proposed development conforms

05:58to the goals and values of the Knobscot

06:00community.

06:01>> Okay. So, Mr. Krueger, actually this is

06:04directly relative to this project, so

06:06that's not a topic outside. So would you

06:09please wait until

06:12uh we have a presentation and then you

06:14can make your comments.

06:15>> Yes. Okay. Fine. Thank you.

06:17>> Thank you.

06:24Okay. So um

06:27All right. Council Luna.

06:30>> So I kind of forgot about the um I also

06:32filed the disclosure.

06:34I didn't need to fire file one, but I

06:36had been accused of having some kind of

06:39relationship um with the I've never met

06:42any of these folks. I don't even know

06:43who they are. I had no financial um I so

06:47I filed basically the same thing except

06:51mine

06:52>> has nothing to say that but since I had

06:55been accused multiple times by um folks

06:58I just put the disclosure in there that

07:01I have nothing. So, it is on file as

07:03well and it says nothing cuz there is

07:05nothing but I wanted to at least um

07:09express that. So, it was kind of a silly

07:11thing to do but I I only did it because

07:14I had been like I had said been accused

07:16of having a financial um prot I don't

07:19know something. So, I just wanted to put

07:22that out there as well even though it

07:24sounds silly. Um thanks.

07:27>> Uh you're welcome. So, it's never silly

07:30to file a disclosure if you feel there's

07:33if you feel that you need to for a

07:35conflict interest under I think it's

07:37chapter 268A.

07:39So, um that's not silly. That's just

07:42protecting yourself and um

07:45>> being transparent with the public. So, I

07:48I'm glad you did that. And I will have

07:50to say as a third member of this

07:52subcommittee, I don't have any reason to

07:54file a disclosure. So, I do have a real

07:55estate license, but I am not practicing

07:57real estate. I am a state employee for a

08:01housing authority. So, but I don't think

08:03that's a conflict interest. Um, I have

08:06no financial interest in this property

08:08whatsoever. Um, but I will also say

08:12that, you know, to preface it, um,

08:14seeing that Mr. Krueger brought up our

08:16master land use plan. I will um follow

08:19that with

08:22not only do we have a master land use

08:23plan that was dated n uh we finished

08:26that I signed that off on January of

08:282020 and that or actually 2019. Yeah,

08:33January 2020 when Miss Lumis was the uh

08:37planning uh the planning board

08:39administrator at that time. At any rate,

08:42um, [snorts]

08:43going back that far, there was two

08:46economic development plans that followed

08:48that. And the second one, and I remember

08:50I had some disagreement with RKG at that

08:54time. Uh, but don't forget this goes

08:57back to 2018, I think, when that was uh

09:00brought forward in 2017. So that

09:03specifically pointed to this site and

09:06other sites in Knobscot. they were

09:08basically targeted and should be used

09:10for multif family housing or to be

09:12redevelopment for denser housing. So it

09:16actually that's an economic development

09:18report. You can go read it economic

09:20development uh plan study too. There's

09:23one and two. So, I just want to put that

09:25on the record because yes, our master

09:27land use plan, which should have been

09:29updated in 2020, but isn't um and should

09:32have been revised because every 5 years

09:34you need to update your master land use

09:35plan because your goals and objectives

09:38change as with the state's goals and

09:40objectives. And brings me to my next

09:42subject that if you hadn't been paying

09:45attention since 2019, the goals of the

09:48state have dramatically changed because

09:50of the push back against housing. So,

09:53I'm pretty sure most of you are aware

09:55that there is a ballot question coming

09:57up number seven uh on November 3rd that

10:01could change dramatically the land use

10:04of every single community in

10:06Massachusetts. And um from all the all

10:10of the polling that I've seen that

10:12stands to pass along with every single

10:14ballot question except for ballot

10:16question eight, which is about

10:17marijuana. That's the only one that has

10:19a polling that it will fail. all the

10:21rest of them are like 70 to 90% to um

10:25pass. So having said that, this is why I

10:28felt it is important working in housing,

10:32understanding HLC because I work with

10:34them daily. I've been doing it for 11

10:36years. I understand the municipal's need

10:38and I definitely understand the

10:40neighborhood not wanting housing or more

10:42housing and especially not more dense

10:44housing. However, I think that, you

10:47know, realistically, we have to face

10:51reality of what's going to happen here.

10:53So, if that ballot question doesn't

10:55pass, there are several other

10:57initiatives that are in play right now.

10:59As you probably might or might not know,

11:02the changes to the variances with ZBA

11:04that has been changed dramatically.

11:07There's no more four criteria. Now, it's

11:09what's what seems most undetr what's the

11:12word? uh what's least detrimental.

11:16>> It's least detrimental. I think that's a

11:18new language which means basically

11:20that's given everybody a pass because

11:22that's not really much of a criteria. Um

11:25and as we probably know most of the

11:27history of the ZBA because a couple of

11:29us sat on that board and won for a

11:31really long time that the ZBA has been

11:34pretty lenient with giving out variances

11:36in the past and you know even bending

11:38the criteria a little bit but now

11:40there's really no criteria. So then on

11:43top of that we have the economic

11:44development bill that the Senate's

11:46already passed their portion to take

11:49away single family homes on um to make

11:52everything multif family. So it would

11:55eradicate single family districts and

11:57residential. So if that that's with the

12:01house right now and that's probably

12:02going to pass. That's another one of

12:04their goals. So if you hadn't paid

12:06attention, ADU started kicked off the

12:08the uh rolling stone down the road with

12:12MBTA zoning, which we all just loved.

12:14And then we've had uh small house

12:17zoning. We've had uh amendments to the

12:21ADU. Uh there's going to be some

12:23amendments to zone uh to the MBTA to

12:25expand it. So this isn't going to stop

12:28is what I'm trying to say is as much as

12:31everybody hates what's going on and as

12:34much as you don't want more housing, I

12:36think we need to do some planning

12:37because if we don't do some planning,

12:39the state's going to come in and they're

12:41going to plan for you and it's not going

12:42to be what you want. So on that note,

12:45I'm going to turn this over to Mr.

12:46Rolloloffs, Attorney Rolloffs.

12:50And I think I already shared my screen

12:52with you. I think did you

12:54>> uh I will I'll see if I can share. Thank

12:57you for having me. Um you'll remember as

13:01I pull up these documents. We were back

13:04in we were in front of the committee uh

13:06back in June.

13:08>> At that time we had consultants with us

13:10who had done and submitted written

13:13fiscal uh analyses, traffic report,

13:16infrastructure reports.

13:19um you know we provided a lot of lot of

13:21information the committee's

13:23subcommittee's reaction I think was

13:25generally positive but uh there was work

13:27to be done on the zoning provisions that

13:29we had submitted at that time since then

13:31we've revisited those drafts um and

13:35revised them based on feedback that we

13:37got during that meeting and from many

13:40people council long submitted uh a lot

13:43of feedback I don't want to suggest that

13:46you agree with this as written But um we

13:49did try to accommodate um and be

13:52responsive to the feedback that we got.

13:54So I'm just going to walk through these

13:55zoning provisions. These have been

13:57posted on the website except I've

13:59highlighted certain sections.

14:02Um and I just want to sort of highlight

14:04some of the changes and what's being

14:06done here. And just generally speaking,

14:08let me say I you know there is a lot of

14:10state action right now in terms of um

14:14trying to incentivize and facilitate

14:16housing development. We still want to

14:19move forward with um the zoning that

14:22we've been proposing here. It's going to

14:25be a m much better project, we think,

14:27not only for the residents of this

14:30community that were that are that would

14:32be living within this project, but we

14:35also think for the neighborhood. and we

14:36just haven't done a good enough job yet

14:38to um I think convince everyone as to

14:41why it's in their interest to support

14:46reasonzoning and the types of uh the

14:48types of uh the type of development that

14:51we're proposing here. So, let's just

14:52walk through the zoning provisions. Um,

14:55as every set of zoning provisions

14:58starts, uh, we've got purpose of intent,

15:00purpose and intent, and we have expanded

15:02those to include some language that

15:05councelor Long had proposed. Um, really

15:09wanting to put some focus on supporting

15:12development of first-time buyer units,

15:14uh, a diversity of housing while also

15:17providing an increase in community

15:19space. That theme comes up over and over

15:21again in these provisions.

15:24um to advance an integrated neighborhood

15:27community that supports and encourages

15:29trails, public transportation, and

15:31bicycle oriented modes of

15:32transportation. You know, we do see this

15:35project as as supporting

15:38the the neighborhood and the Knobscot

15:40Village Center and interconnecting with

15:42it uh providing amenities, improving the

15:45park, um and really being a net positive

15:49for the whole neighborhood and the

15:50village. Um, this revised version makes

15:54clear that this is an overlay district

15:56and what that means is that the

15:57underlying R4 zoning will remain in

16:00place. So any properties within the

16:03district that aren't part of a special

16:05permit process will remain um buildable

16:08in the same form that they are currently

16:10as as our four single family units.

16:14The permitted uses continues to make

16:17very clear that we're only talking about

16:19residential development here. We've

16:21heard that people do not want us to

16:23expand or or provide any commercial

16:26uses. And as drafted currently, it's

16:28clear that this is only single or only

16:31residential development, but a variety

16:33of types obviously from single family up

16:36to multif family, including all

16:38different types of senior housing that

16:40are available out there, but residential

16:42only.

16:44dimensional regulations in the previous

16:46draft. For any anyone who spent time to

16:48review that previous draft,

16:51um we had drafted it with sort of

16:53subdists and then allowed certain types

16:56of buildings within the subdists, those

16:58being along Edmonds and Edgel and also

17:00behind the Levolei properties. We

17:03changed the format here because I think

17:04that seemed kind of confusing to people.

17:06So, we've accomplished a lot of a lot of

17:09the same uh principles here with the way

17:12it's um or now organized, but the

17:16dimensional regs now apply on a category

17:19of dwell category of dwelling units and

17:22building types. And you'll see that play

17:24out. Um first off, density has been

17:27reduced. We had proposed 15 units per

17:29acre. This version knocks that down to

17:3112 units per acre.

17:33Um, I will note on that front, we're

17:36actually getting close to what this

17:37question seven would allow, which is

17:39basically eight units per acre. The

17:41question seven on the ballot only

17:44requires a 5,000 square foot lot, which

17:46is much much smaller than even those

17:49lots that are along Levolei. Um, but

17:52this version now proposes 12 units per

17:55acre. We've expanded the building

17:57setbacks. So again, we've done this by

18:00category of building. So for 1, two, and

18:03three family dwellings, they now would

18:05have to be at least 40 ft off of Edmonds

18:08and Edgel,

18:1050 ft from any lot developed for single

18:12family use, 100 ft from any existing

18:15single family dwelling.

18:18So um you have to be meet both of those

18:20requirements and then 30 ft from any

18:23other any other lots for 4 to six unit

18:26multifamily buildings. So now we're

18:28getting into bigger building styles.

18:31Those are going to have to be at least

18:33100 feet off of Edmmonds and Edgel, at

18:35least 100 feet from any lot developed

18:38for single family use. So that includes

18:40all of those residential lots along

18:43Levoli as well as those on Edmonds and

18:45Edgel currently and then 30 ft from all

18:48other boundaries. for the larger

18:51buildings that we depicted in our

18:52concept plan. The idea there was always

18:54and always has been to hold those to the

18:58middle of the the site. Um, and we've

19:02provided cross-sections to demonstrate,

19:05and we can provide more on this, that by

19:07putting these buildings in the center of

19:09the site, they're not going to be as

19:10visible as what many people, I think,

19:12are perceiving. But the requirements

19:14here for setbacks are 100 ft from both

19:16of the roadways,

19:19150 ft from the westerly boundary of the

19:21district. So that's 150 ft basically

19:24from the back of those Lavoli lots and

19:28then 50 ft from any other lot developed

19:30for single family use with some

19:33flexibility for the permit granting

19:35authority to adjust that so long as it

19:40determines that such reduced setback

19:42improves the site plan design is

19:45appropriately mitigated with plantings

19:47and screening does not adversely affect

19:50the budding properties and is consistent

19:52with the purposes of the NVRD,

19:55which is the district. So, um, this is

19:58in there to provide some flexibility.

20:00Obviously, if there's a neighbor and

20:02there's a proposed setback closer than

20:0550 ft and that if that neighbor is

20:07objecting, the special permit granting

20:09authority just won't approve anything

20:10less.

20:12the maximum building height. Um, we've

20:15retained the 2 and 1/2 story, 35 ft

20:18height that we had initially proposed

20:20for the one, two, and three family

20:22dwellings. That's actually shorter than

20:24what's currently allowed in the

20:26residential R4 zone, which allows three

20:28stories and 35 ft.

20:31Um, we've in this version actually

20:34notched up a little bit the maximum

20:37height for the multif family buildings

20:41and providing the special permit

20:43granting authority some flexibility to

20:45allow additional height to accommodate

20:47parking under the building. But the

20:50reason this flexibility makes sense in

20:52our minds is

20:54there's a lot of interest in maximizing

20:56open space and reducing imperous

20:59surfaces. And one of the ways to do that

21:01is to squeeze the buildings, put parking

21:04under the buildings, and to go, sorry,

21:07let me make this a little bigger for

21:08everybody, and to go higher and still

21:11retain the number of units that you want

21:13to get here to provide the housing that

21:15people are looking for. So, there is

21:17some flexibility there. Um, I'll just

21:20point out it's a special permit process

21:22as you're going to see. So if the

21:24special permit granting authority is not

21:26comfortable with whatever height is

21:28proposed because of where it's situated

21:30or for any reason impacts adverse

21:33impacts visually or otherwise they just

21:36won't approve it. These are maximum

21:38parameters that doesn't mean they that

21:40the applicant has the right to even go

21:43that high. They're just boundaries on

21:45the process.

21:48Landscape buffers these have been

21:49expanded also. So along Edmonds and

21:52Edgel landscape buffer would be required

21:55in the front. There are some exceptions

21:57there and those include sidewalks and

21:59one of the reasons we're providing that

22:01exception is we know it's a scenic

22:02roadway. Everyone would like the

22:05sidewalks to be extended extended along

22:08these roadways, but it might not make

22:10sense to extend them right along the

22:12roadway if that's going to impact the

22:14scenic um aesthetic of that roadway. So

22:17by allowing the sidewalk to come into

22:19the site into the buffer zone, one

22:21thought we had was we can do that. We

22:23can bring the sidewalk that exists now,

22:25pull it into the project site, you know,

22:28and ma meander it off the roadway um and

22:31back out further up. So there's

22:34opportunities to provide some public

22:37benefit associated with the sidewalk

22:39extensions without ad adversely

22:41impacting the uh scenic roadway status

22:44of Edmonds and Edgel. And then um also

22:48under the landscape buffers the area is

22:51within 50 ft of the westerly boundary of

22:53the NVRD. So that's basically behind the

22:56Levolei lots a 50-ft vegetated buffer.

23:00And what this provides is that if it's

23:02already naturally vegetated, you got to

23:03leave that area that way. But you can

23:05also supplement it. We talked about

23:07before the fact that some of the taller

23:09trees don't provide good screening. So

23:12there's probably an interest in

23:14supplementing the plantings with um with

23:17lower shrubs or other vegetation that'll

23:20provide better screening. We we also are

23:23specifically prohibiting active lawn

23:25areas within the buffer zone. So, you'll

23:28remember that the the the building set

23:31back here was um which is provided up

23:35here is 50 ft off of any lot, 100 ft

23:40from any existing single family

23:41dwelling, but we got a 50ft buffer in

23:44addition to that. And within that 50 ft,

23:47no active lawns are allowed. So, in the

23:50R4 district currently, as you probably

23:53know, um, a lot owner putting a new

23:57single family home in their property can

23:59clear right to the edge of the property.

24:01They can put their lawn right to the

24:03edge. They can put yard equipment and

24:05everything else right to the edge of the

24:06property. Um, so we're trying to protect

24:09the neighbors against those activities.

24:13Open space, we've notched up the minimum

24:16requirement from 50 to 60% of the

24:20special permit area. You might remember

24:21we showed a figure on this previously.

24:24Um I think the current concept actually

24:27provides 65% but we want to provide a we

24:30wanted to provide a minimum in the

24:32zoning provisions that would give us

24:34some design flexibility. We accepted a

24:3760-foot

24:38um requirement for open landscape and we

24:41deleted there was some language in the

24:43previous version about counting patios

24:45and terraces as part of the open space

24:48and we've deleted that language.

24:50Parking requirements, we've actually

24:52knocked these down a little bit. Um a

24:55lot of municipalities now are being

24:58really careful not to require more

25:00parking than is needed. So, we've put

25:03the we've knocked the the the minimum

25:06amount of parking down in this table.

25:09Obviously, in the special permit review

25:11process, there'll be a review of what

25:14parking is going to be needed there.

25:16Nobody wants more than what's necessary.

25:18It cuts into open space. Um, but you

25:21also don't want too little. So, that's a

25:24topic that'll be reviewed and vetted

25:25during the permit process.

25:28Um, we are holding to the inclusionary

25:31housing bylaw in in Framingham which

25:34requires 13% affordable units. Um, we

25:38don't have any problem with that and and

25:41we know it's a priority for the city. We

25:44did uh retain the the the language that

25:48we had in here previously that gives the

25:52special permit granting some flexibility

25:54to

25:56uh either require those units to be

25:59provided on site and a lot of people

26:01think that that's really important. But

26:03in some situations, um, it might make

26:06sense for some of the units to be

26:08provided on site, some of the units to

26:10be provided somewhere nearby, but maybe

26:13not directly on site, or other options

26:16that we've provided here. So, we're just

26:18suggesting that there be some

26:20flexibility and that this issue of how

26:22the affordable units are provided is

26:25another topic to be reviewed and

26:27discussed during the special permit

26:29granting authority uh, review process.

26:33um design requirements. You're going to

26:36see I mean if you spend the time to go

26:38through these provisions

26:40and then the the design requirements of

26:43the site plan approval provisions that

26:46already exist in your zoning ordinance.

26:48Um there are a lot of design elements or

26:51or and requirements here that are going

26:53to apply to this project. Uh I'm not

26:56going to go through all of those, but

26:57they're in there. We did add a notation

27:00that councelor Long suggesting that

27:02solar panel installations at least at

27:04least be a topic of consideration during

27:07the review process depending on the

27:09format um of the project at that time.

27:13Special permit requirements. So first

27:16off, obviously these projects cannot

27:19happen without a special permit. That

27:21was a big deal previously. Um, we've

27:24always said that these provisions should

27:26require a special permit process.

27:28There's a lot of public review public

27:30input opportunities during those

27:32proceedings. It's a discretionary

27:34approval. Um, and it's, you know,

27:38obviously a developer would like to

27:40avoid that if they could, but but these

27:42provisions call for a special permit

27:44process.

27:46Um, we incorporate the requirements of

27:49the zoning ordinances related to special

27:51permits already. So that's referenced

27:53here. Um that entails and we've

27:58readopted these provisions here.

28:00Although this is true I think for all

28:02special permit proceedings maybe not the

28:04community outreach but for these

28:06projects before you start the formal

28:08public hearing in the permit review

28:11process we have to engage in a tech

28:14review meeting with the all the city

28:16officials. we have to participate in a

28:18community outreach meeting and then a

28:21pre-application conference

28:24uh held at a public meeting in front of

28:27this subcommittee. So there's going to

28:29there's going to be review opportunities

28:32and a significant heads up to the

28:34public, the city officials and everyone

28:36who's interested in this project before

28:39an application even gets uh filed.

28:42And then the special permit

28:44application's going to be have to be

28:46comprehensive. All the requirements for

28:48the site plans and information that

28:50needs to be submitted is spelled out in

28:53these other provisions in the z zoning

28:55ordinance. It's a very comprehensive set

28:58of submitts to be prepared by a lot of

29:00consultants.

29:02um and and and an application package

29:05that the special permit granting

29:07authority can always require

29:09supplementation of if there are open

29:11issues not already addressed. Of course,

29:14there would be peer review with the

29:15applicant paying for the fees of outside

29:19consultants to assist the plan the

29:21permitting board in their review of the

29:24project. So for example, traffic review,

29:28infrastructure review, all these things

29:30will be not only covered by the

29:32applicants consultants but reviewed by

29:35city officials. And you're fortunate to

29:37have qualified city officials on these

29:40topics, but also outside consultants

29:42working for the planning board.

29:46Special permit criteria. Again, these

29:48are s these are significant.

29:51um they make sure that the permit

29:53granting authority is considering all

29:55the relevant topics. They're already

29:58laid out in the zoning ordinance. So,

30:00we've just referenced them and

30:01incorporated them here rather than

30:04restating them. Um I do have those below

30:08and I want to get to those. In addition

30:09to a special permit, this project is

30:12going to require site plan approval and

30:14there they would probably be a joint

30:17jointly considered processes as it

30:19always is in Framingham. But it opens up

30:22the review process not only to you know

30:25is it an appropriate scale? Is the

30:27density appropriate? Are the what are

30:29the impacts to the neighborhood? But

30:31also topics like design of the

30:33buildings. Are these buildings going to

30:35look good? Are they going to function

30:36well? Are the roadways going to work

30:37well? So site plan review is another

30:41class of considerations and I'm going to

30:44get to those quickly uh in a second

30:46here. But so the boundaries are same the

30:49same as what we've always been

30:50proposing. I think it's actually comes

30:52out like 30 almost 32 acres. Um the

30:55project concept plan that you've seen

30:58doesn't include the entire district. I

31:00think these parcels here were excluded

31:02from the concept plan as well as this

31:05parcel down here. Um, you know, it's

31:08very possible if this zoning is is

31:11adopted that the district covers this

31:14area, but the the application that comes

31:16into the planning board is a portion of

31:19the district. It may not and doesn't

31:21have to encompass the entire district.

31:25Um, I did include these these are not

31:28part of the proposed zoning. These are

31:30provisions already in the in the zoning

31:32ordinance. I just wanted to provide them

31:35so that it was easy for you to see them.

31:37The open space provisions are now uh

31:40included here. But this I know you're

31:44familiar with these, so I'm not going to

31:46walk through them in detail, but the

31:48existing special permit procedures and

31:52requirements including the criteria are

31:55very comprehensive in Framingham.

31:58Um let me just get down to the criteria.

32:01So these are the kinds of things that

32:02the special permit granting authority

32:04has to consider before they can issue a

32:07special permit. The they need to find

32:11that um the property and the

32:13neighborhood are appropriate for such a

32:15use or structure that they're adequate

32:17and appropriate facilities that the

32:19project will not create a hazard to

32:20abutters pedestrians vehicles and or the

32:23environment etc. The use will not create

32:26any undue burden on abuing properties,

32:28the neighborhood or the city. The use of

32:31structure will not have substantial

32:33adverse impacts to the natural

32:34environment, the historic car historic

32:36character of the neighborhood and or the

32:38visual environment. Proper mitigation is

32:42provided by the applicant. So it's a

32:45roadmap for the permit granting

32:47authority to make sure that all these

32:48issues are being addressed and they can

32:51they can consider others as well. These

32:53are very broadly described uh criteria.

32:57So if residents come in and there's a

33:00specific concern that they have, the

33:03special permit review process is going

33:05to provide an opportunity to dive into

33:07that issue and vet it so that everyone

33:10at least understands the reality of that

33:13particular topic and what the facts are.

33:16Um the SPGA, the planning board in this

33:19case, also has broad authority to impose

33:22conditions on the special permit. So not

33:26only approve what's been submitted and

33:28work through during the process, but if

33:31there are other uh conditions that the

33:34board wants to impose, they have the

33:36ability to do that. So, if the applicant

33:39has proposed screening and the board

33:41thinks that additional screening is

33:43warranted or required, they can require

33:46that.

33:48Um, again, I won't go through these, but

33:50it's a comprehensive set of requirements

33:52that you already have in your zoning

33:53ordinance that we've incorporated by

33:55reference in the zoning provisions that

33:57we've drafted. Site plan review, same

33:59thing, very comprehensive. It's a little

34:02bit of a different focus than the

34:04special permit criteria.

34:07So, um, but also very broad. All of this

34:11is procedural stuff. You know, the

34:13information that needs to be submitted

34:15by all the different consultants

34:18uh for the planning board to review all

34:20the site plan related issues. There are

34:23these design standards in addition to

34:25those that we've incorporated into this

34:27zoning provision. Um, the building

34:30placement and design, that's a topic for

34:32discussion. Everyone's going to want to

34:34know how, you know, are we going to see

34:36these buildings? How well, how clear is

34:38the view going to be, how tall are they

34:40going to look, etc. The design, the

34:43sidewalks, the storm water system,

34:46landscaping.

34:47These are site plan review details

34:49always uh taken up by the planning

34:51board. and they've got objectives and

34:55criteria here that they have to consider

34:57before they issue a site plan approval.

35:00So there are different categories of the

35:02factors to be consider considered. Does

35:04the project retain the community

35:06character? Does it provide appropriate

35:09facilities for traffic parking and

35:11public access? What are the

35:13environmental impacts? Are they

35:14appropriately mitigating it? What are

35:16the health impacts? Public service. Are

35:19there appropriate services provided or

35:21to be provided by the applicant? Land

35:24use planning, you know, consistency with

35:26the master land use plan. Of course,

35:28that's going to be part of the permit

35:30review process. It's important. Open

35:33space and environmental protection. And

35:35then again, the zoning ordinance reminds

35:38the board that they can't just on a

35:40whim, you know, grant or deny these

35:43decisions. They have to think through

35:45all these criteria before they issue an

35:47approval.

35:49So, we think it's a good set of zoning

35:51provisions. I do want to just quickly

35:53add um I'm going to go back to the top

35:55here, but um we haven't submitted any

35:58sort of draft development agreement, but

36:00we've always said and I want to remind

36:02you that we are willing to

36:05uh enter into a development agreement

36:07and it's important because some issues

36:09cannot be addressed in the zoning

36:11ordinance. For example,

36:14um off-site improvements. You know, we

36:17had said we'd like to do we'd like to um

36:21consider and review and offer up some

36:23park improvements so that the park that

36:25you've got already in Navcot Village can

36:27be utilized in a better way that can be

36:30covered in in a development agreement.

36:32the sidewalk extensions that I

36:34mentioned, public use of trails on site,

36:37we would explore the possibility of

36:40extending trails not only from the, you

36:43know, connections to the existing trails

36:45out there near the site, but also within

36:48Knobscot Park and then is there an

36:50opportunity to run trails through a

36:52portion of this development in a way

36:54that's not going to bother the occupants

36:57of the development or the abutters?

36:59Obviously, we don't want to run a public

37:01trail to the backyard of the Lavoli

37:03properties, for example. Um, the

37:06development agreement can require the

37:08applicant to hire consultants for the

37:11city council during this next phase of

37:13this or the first phase of this process,

37:15which is the zoning review process. If

37:18the city council wants a land use

37:20planner to help or other consultants to

37:23help it um digest and review the merits

37:27of adopting these zoning provisions, you

37:30know, my clients willing to pay for

37:32consultants to help the city council in

37:34that zoning adoption process. Um issues

37:38like a percentage of units that have to

37:40be home ownership versus rental, that's

37:43appropriate for a development agreement.

37:45a certain percentage of the units to be

37:47age restricted. Again, that's a topic to

37:50be discussed and we're happy to address

37:52these in the development agreement. I'm

37:54assuming that um that effort is sort of

37:57the next phase here either in front of

37:59the subcommittee or as we're moving into

38:01the city council um process. So, that's

38:04it. Thank you.

38:11>> Thank you, Jeff. I just want to go back

38:12to so I worked on a lot of these

38:15provisions to uh put as many safeguards

38:18and to incorporate as many of the

38:22improvements that uh Attorney Rolloff

38:25has gone through um after listening to

38:29public comment and speaking to people

38:31offline and meeting with neighbors on

38:33this over the last few years. So one

38:35question I have and I missed it because

38:37I was distracted for a minute I have to

38:39admit. What did you say on the

38:41affordable housing? Uh because that has

38:44to be built on site. Did you make

38:47>> So what I said there was and I

38:50>> no no no payment in low. Well, so

38:55>> it's gonna be you're up to you,

38:57councelor Long. I I hear you. But so

38:59what we have in here currently, just so

39:01you understand that,

39:02>> is we did retain

39:05>> um the provisions that we had drafted

39:07before that give the special permit

39:08granting authority some flexibility

39:11to allow other ways of providing

39:14affordable units. So, for example, if

39:16there's a parcel across Edmonds or down

39:20the street or somewhere close by where

39:23some of these units could be provided,

39:26like for example, maybe there's a

39:28building that can be um purchased,

39:31redeveloped for 12 affordable units or

39:33something like that. I'm not suggesting

39:35that none of the affordable units would

39:38be allowed or uh would be provided

39:40off-site, but these provisions allow the

39:44permit granting authority some

39:45flexibility

39:47to consider some other options, maybe

39:49some combination.

39:51And it's partly important because we do

39:53have an age restriction. We're

39:56anticipating a significant age

39:57restriction component here. And um for

40:01some of those it may not be as easy as

40:04it is in other projects to provide

40:05affordable units. But so to answer your

40:09question, we did retain the flexibility

40:11we had in there before. You know, if

40:13this gets up to the city council and

40:15everyone agrees with you that there's it

40:17shouldn't be so flexible, then then we

40:19revise it during the process. I'd like

40:21to start the process at least with some

40:23flexibility so it's at least a topic of

40:26discussion.

40:27>> Right. And I guess I disagree with you

40:29totally because having sit on that board

40:31forever and uh payment in Lou and

40:34building things off site has never

40:36worked out for Framingham and all the

40:38years I've been around. So I would

40:40strongly oppose that provision and that

40:43I do not want to see a payment in low

40:45again. We've tried that. We've taken the

40:48money and then the units don't get

40:49built. So, I would like to see that

40:51taken out of there. And that the

40:54percentage of affordable housing,

40:55believe me, there's a lot of elders that

40:57need affordable housing that do have

40:59vouchers or if it's a projectbased

41:02voucher, uh there would believe me,

41:04there's people that would be filling

41:06those positions. So, I would not want

41:08that in our ordinance. I would oppose

41:11that. So, I would take that out and put

41:13it back to what I had it at. Uh council,

41:18>> thank you, Madam Chia. Yeah, I I I I

41:21don't I'm not necessarily opposed to

41:23them buying something nearby and doing

41:25units, but Milwood was a complete

41:27disaster. All right. They had a couple

41:29buildings in front. They could have been

41:30converted to apartments. They wrote a

41:32check. Other developers have written

41:34checks. The only guy that built

41:35affordable housing in his project was

41:38Pat Teddy did an affordable and so

41:40didn't Vin Gaitley up at Clocks Hill.

41:42And you know, the 400 the $399,000 units

41:44ended up going up there for like

41:47140,000. And the people still live there

41:5010 years later, maybe 11 or 12 years

41:52later, and they haven't turned over. And

41:54um I just when you get a check for 50 or

41:5775,000, we all know you can't buy the

41:59dirt. But you know, as long as we get

42:01units, I'm okay with units. If you want

42:02them on site, I've always been a

42:04proponent of being on site, but I'm just

42:06I want units. I you know, if they if

42:08they own two houses across the street

42:09and want to give you those two units,

42:11whatever the city council agrees on is

42:13with me. But I'm not payment in L

42:15doesn't work. We already know that

42:17doesn't work. And we you made the the

42:19neighborhood put them on site. Well, you

42:21didn't, but the uh planning board did or

42:23what was that? Did you do that? I don't

42:24know who was the planning.

42:25>> Yes. Milwood. So, we thought doing

42:28payment in Lou at that time because of

42:30all the infrastructure, you know,

42:32because we thought that would be a good

42:34thing and it turned out to be a disaster

42:36and I didn't want to bring Milwood up,

42:38but that it's just no.

42:41>> No, it doesn't.

42:42>> Full disclosure soon to be my former

42:43brother-in-law, but that's okay.

42:45>> Yeah. It just that option doesn't work

42:48and and I would not vote for anything

42:51with that in I wouldn't vote for that

42:53with that being in there. Those have to

42:55be built on site period.

42:57>> Yep. Uh well, I'm sorry. So, we

43:00definitely delete the payment in Lou.

43:02I've heard you both say that. Do you do

43:04you want us to delete the offsite option

43:08also at this point?

43:09>> No, you want to build them on site. So,

43:12whatever you're building, you're going

43:13to incorporate that percentage for

43:15affordable unit into that project.

43:18Period.

43:19>> Okay.

43:20>> Um, secondly, because of timing and

43:24depends on how long this goes on before

43:26it actually gets advertised and

43:28discussed and etc. and so on, the city

43:30council will be the special permit

43:32granting authority at some point because

43:34we represent as elected officials our

43:37districts whereas the planning board u

43:39does not anymore. So originally the

43:42planning board would have been the goto

43:45on all special permits which they are

43:48but in this situation where you have

43:50some kind of a large development uh I

43:52would bring back the special permit

43:54granting authority for the city council

43:56um to be that permit granting. But again

44:00it depends on timing. if this thing goes

44:02sooner because we're still on a

44:04countdown for a 2-year um tolling period

44:07because it got rejected the last time

44:09and it didn't have obviously the

44:12planning board backing for many reasons.

44:15Uh, as being a former planning board

44:16member, I know why you didn't vote to

44:19have the city council be the special

44:21permit granting authority, which is why

44:23there's a two-year poll uh tolling

44:25period for that to

44:27pass before we could revertise this and

44:29and reconsider it. Um, so anyhow, and

44:34the site plan, the majority of the work

44:36gets done on the planning board anyhow.

44:37They're the ones that will put the site

44:38together, do all the planning, and do

44:40all the uh do the hard work because

44:43that's where all that work gets done.

44:48Um so those are my initial comments. Uh

44:51councelor Ariani or we have a quorum of

44:54the council, so I can't recognize

44:55anybody that's um they don't have their

44:59hands up anyhow, but we do have other

45:01counselors on this call and we have a

45:02quorum. Um, Council Abani or Council

45:05Liam Bruno, do you have comments?

45:07>> I'm good for now. I'd like to, you know,

45:09hear from the people on the call. And

45:10can you tell us what other councils are

45:11on the call just so we know?

45:12>> Yeah. So, councelor Canon, councelor uh

45:15Feny, and councelor Malik are all on the

45:17call.

45:17>> Okay. Excellent. Thank you.

45:19>> Yep. You're welcome.

45:21Um, and I don't see anybody's hand up,

45:25so

45:26um, do we have any questions from the

45:28Okay, Mr. Krueger, I was wondering when

45:30you're going to put your hand up.

45:32Okay.

45:35Um.

45:38All right. Go ahead, Steve.

45:42Steve.

45:44>> Okay. Can you hear me now?

45:46>> Yes.

45:47>> Okay. Thanks. Um, so you know, I gave my

45:51my preamble before and and you made a

45:53comment uh council along that there's

45:55been economic development plans that

45:57have been done uh since the 2020 update

46:00to the master land use plan. However, uh

46:04my understanding,

46:04>> no, excuse me, Steve, that master land

46:07use plan was supposed to be updated uh

46:10in 2020 and it never was. It's way

46:13outdated. So that master land use plan

46:16dates back to 2014

46:19or 2015. So every five years you're

46:22supposed to update your master land use

46:24plan.

46:24>> Nevertheless, there's a there's a goal

46:26in that plan that's y

46:28>> is not negated by any of the uh

46:30subsequent economic development plans.

46:33And it's a very common sense goal that

46:36uh should should be uh should continue

46:40in force regardless. and it says that

46:42the development should conform to the

46:44goals and values of the Knobscot

46:46community. However, until now, there's

46:49been no authoritative or cred or

46:50credible data to say what the goals and

46:53values of the Knobscot community are in

46:55regard to this proposed development.

46:57Sure, there've been meetings here and

46:59there. there's been, you know, some

47:01number of local residents or whatever,

47:03but um, you know, there's never any been

47:06any kind of broad-based

47:08uh, authoritative kind of statement as

47:11to what the goals and values of the

47:13NOBScott community uh, have been. So,

47:16>> can you turn your camera on?

47:18>> A group of seven of us, Hang on, let me

47:20finish, please. So, a group of seven of

47:22us got together. Over the last few

47:24months, we've been working to design and

47:25conduct a very broad-based survey of the

47:28entire Knobscot area to ascertain how

47:31the Knobscot community views this

47:33proposed project. Uh we uh we said we

47:37communicated uh through various means

47:40with over 3,200 homes in the Knobs area.

47:44This response rate was exceptionally

47:46high. And all I'd like to do this

47:48evening is simply request that you add

47:51us to the agenda of your next meeting so

47:53that we can share the results of the

47:55survey and have a discussion with you

47:57about how the results of this survey um

48:00might impact the uh city council's view

48:03on the proposal by Jane Company. Um,

48:07quite honestly, uh, you know, listening

48:09to attorney Roloff's presentation this

48:12evening.

48:14Uh, there's a lot of really good stuff

48:16in the, uh, definition of the overlay

48:18district. Um, but but there are a couple

48:21of things that I think you'll see would

48:24be highly objectionable to the broad,

48:26you know, the very broad-based Knobs

48:28community. Anyway, all I'm all I'd like

48:30to do this evening um is postpone that

48:34conversation, but have you put us on

48:35your the agenda of your next meeting so

48:37that we can share the results with your

48:39subcommittee?

48:40>> Yep. Thank you.

48:44Is that all?

48:46>> Yeah, that that's all.

48:47>> All right. Thank you.

48:51Um

48:53hold on.

48:56Okay. Um, all right. Mr. Chason,

49:03>> if you could put your camera on when you

49:05talk, please.

49:07>> Madam Chair, they can't turn their

49:08camera on when they're on the attendees

49:10list. They need to be promoted to panel.

49:11>> Okay. Never mind. Never mind. Okay.

49:13Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Chason.

49:16>> Can you hear me?

49:17>> Yes, we can hear you.

49:19>> Uh, Madame Chair, members of the

49:21subcommittee,

49:22my name is Herb Chason. I'll be very,

49:25very direct. I oppose reszoning this

49:29parcel. Not this draft, not the next

49:32draft, not any draft. The answer is N O.

49:37No. This land is zoned for one house per

49:41acre. Every family around it bought

49:44their home relying on that zoning. The

49:49proposal would throw out throw that out

49:52and allow 12 units per acre. Roughly

49:56three, excuse me, 380

50:00units on 32 acres.

50:03It's 12 times what the law allows today

50:07and more than the 357

50:11units that were shown in May. So, we're

50:14going the wrong way here.

50:17All right. This not an improvement. It's

50:20not. The height limit went up, not down.

50:24Three stories in May, now four, and five

50:28with a waiver 60 ft next to our

50:32neighborhoods. The senior housing

50:34requirement, as far as I can see, all

50:38right, is is gone. It's been deleted as

50:42far as I can see. You check it yourself.

50:45and the approval language. Listen to

50:48this. In May, the planning board

50:52quote shall not approve unless unquote.

50:56Now it says quote shall approve if

51:02end of quotes. So you pass this zoning

51:05and you hand away the city's power to

51:08say no. This is the pattern. Each new

51:12version is sold as a compromise and each

51:16one quietly takes away protections.

51:20There's no reason to do this. Framingham

51:23has met the MBTA

51:25obligation. We are already above the

51:29state's 10% affordable housing. No law

51:33requires this right now. No deadline.

51:37And by the way, no one in this

51:40neighborhood is asking for it. Look at

51:43all the signs. No reszoning. Just look

51:46at all the signs of Knobscot, folks.

51:50Knobscot residents said no in 20 2016.

51:56We said no again in 2022.

51:59And we said no in 2023.

52:02Thousands of us said no in 2024.

52:06There's a message here. We're saying no

52:09again tonight and we'll keep saying no.

52:12Just talk to the people. All right.

52:15Reject this. Keep the land zoned as it

52:18is and close the matter for good. N O.

52:22Thank you.

52:23>> Thank you.

52:29Um

52:31um in response to that comment again

52:33you're not listening to what's going on

52:35with the state and I don't believe from

52:39the way I revised this it is for senior

52:41housing so and the reduction is down to

52:44324 unit it's not increase so uh I think

52:50you misunderstand a lot of the

52:51provisions that I revised

52:54um in this addition And again, this is

52:57just preliminary anyway. Uh, but

53:00November 3rd is going to tell a

53:01different story. I'm I'm almost willing

53:02to bet anything that's going to tell a

53:04story that you're not going to like.

53:07All right. Uh, Miss McGary, you can

53:10speak.

53:12>> Hi, my name is Carol McGary and I live

53:15at 200 Edmunds Road. Um, yeah, I'm very

53:18concerned about the this as it's

53:21presented. Um I think a lot of the

53:25neighborhood is going to um is not in

53:28favor I think the majority of the

53:30neighborhood does not favor this kind of

53:32resoning. Um, some of my personal

53:35concerns is that there's no pro pre

53:37provision that explicitly preserves the

53:40substantial existing woodlands and the

53:43last uh diagram we saw um you know the

53:47plan uh clearly got rid of most of the

53:51woodlands and it's it's too dense.

53:54Christine, you mentioned that you think

53:56question seven would pass, but that

54:00allows something like 8 units per acre

54:02and this is going even further to 12

54:04units per acre. So why would we even

54:06consider this? I understand thinking

54:08that that that ballot measure might

54:10force our hand, but then why go above

54:13and beyond? Um so just on the on the

54:17face of that simple fact, this doesn't

54:20make any sense to approve this. Um I

54:23think uh Mr. Roloff said at the

54:25beginning that he heard generally

54:27positive feedback

54:30in previous presentations. That wasn't

54:32what I heard especially from the public.

54:34I think the public's feedback has been

54:36pretty uniformly negative. So I just

54:39wanted to make make that clear as well.

54:41Thank you.

54:43>> Thank you. Uh, one point I want to make

54:46is if you put eight units per acre,

54:48you're going to lose every stitch of

54:51they'll come in and clear cut and put

54:53roadways all throughout that site and

54:54you won't see any more trees if you want

54:57single family homes or if you decide

55:00that or if the state comes in and

55:02changes the zoning. You have eight eight

55:04units. So, you're mistaken. It's a on a

55:085,000 foot lot, you can put a house. So

55:12that means yes, you can put eight houses

55:14on an acre. 8 * 30 is 240, whatever, but

55:18you're going to lose all your open space

55:20completely because there's no provision

55:22in that. Uh there will be no provision

55:25for that. So they'll just take

55:26everything out and all the compromises

55:28for setbacks and preserving the open

55:32space that exists will go away. So just

55:35think about that when you think about

55:37subdivision with uh excavation and

55:41putting installation of utilities and

55:44roadways and all the rest of it. And by

55:46the way, there's no review on that.

55:48That's by right. So you won't have a

55:50special permit granting authority

55:51telling you how to do anything further.

55:53The state is taking away your ability to

55:56be discretionary. Meaning you don't have

55:58any oversight. They want all the

56:00language removed from all of our zoning

56:03that has any reference to in character

56:05of the community or what the

56:07neighborhood culture is or any of the

56:10above. They don't want that language in

56:12our zoning any longer. And I will

56:14guarantee you that if this doesn't pass,

56:17they will find another way to get it

56:18passed through because special permits

56:20are going to go the way of the dodo bird

56:22because that's their objective is to

56:24take away every single permitting power,

56:27discretionary

56:29uh ability of local control in every

56:32community so that they can develop

56:34housing without restrictions. And that's

56:37the reason that zoning board doesn't

56:39have a stringent criteria for a variance

56:42anymore because they want to it's a

56:46steamship coming down the road that's

56:48going to roll you over. So, you know,

56:51again, this is preliminary and maybe

56:53that doesn't make sense to you, but to

56:55me, working with a developer and

56:57creating a plan that people can live

56:59with instead of having the state tell

57:01you this is how the zoning is going to

57:03be. um then I guess that's what that's

57:06your choice. But I just don't see it the

57:09way you see it because I live this every

57:10day and I see what's going on and I

57:13think planning is a better option and

57:15again this is just a preliminary

57:18uh provisions for discussion and can

57:21change and it's in flux. So, having said

57:24that, John Master Batista, I'm going to

57:26let you speak next

57:31>> and then I'm going to have the

57:32developer, uh, Jay and Co, the

57:34representative, speak after you. Go

57:36ahead, John.

57:37>> Uh, thank you, councelor Long, and thank

57:39you, uh, counselors Leam Bruno and

57:42Adavani. I know you donate a lot of your

57:45free time to listening to us complain

57:47about what you're doing. And if you go

57:49left, you're wrong. If you go right,

57:51you're wrong. if you go forward or

57:52backward or stay in place, we all

57:54criticize you and that can't be easy.

57:57So, I appreciate your opening statements

57:59and uh and trying to handle this

58:01professionally. Um I'm one of those

58:04people. I'm really not concerned about

58:06the state. I think what I am concerned

58:09about is what we as a community do to um

58:15put forth our own vision of what we want

58:17for the neighborhood and work as a

58:19community. uh the the public officials,

58:22community representatives, just our

58:24neighbors, the people we live next to,

58:27and figure out what works for them. And

58:30I don't care if it's Knobscott or Salem

58:32End or Saxonville or downtown or South

58:35End. I think every uh community, every

58:38neighborhood should have the ultimate

58:41voice in what actually happens there,

58:42not the developer. And until the state

58:45comes through and litigates the heck out

58:48of uh qu ball valid question seven,

58:51which is going to take a long time, we

58:53don't know what the negative uh uh worst

58:56case will be for this particular parcel

58:58or any parcel in Framingham. We have an

59:00idea, but you know for a fact that

59:03lawyers are going to be uh working on

59:05this for months and years contesting

59:08provisions of that and how local uh

59:11setback requirements and storm water

59:13runoff requirements and uh fire and

59:16safety requirements for roadways and so

59:18forth. You're not going to get eight

59:20eight uh bedrooms per acre or eight

59:23units per acre on that site. That's

59:24ridiculous to think that's even

59:26possible. What we should be doing as a

59:29community is designing what works best

59:31for us. And it's not a nimi thing about

59:35Knobscot. It's a nimi thing about every

59:37neighborhood in the city having the

59:40ultimate voice in what happens there.

59:43Because I don't want any neighbor

59:44anywhere in the city to have to put up

59:47with a project that diminishes the value

59:49of their homes or their quality of life,

59:51no matter where they live in Framingham.

59:53And that's what we as a community should

59:55be doing, protecting one another from

59:58things we don't like. So, I hope that's

1:00:00part of the deliberation. I hope that's

1:00:02part of what the counselors uh take to

1:00:05heart and do what's best for the

1:00:07community. Sure, we need more housing,

1:00:09but that doesn't mean you steamroll a

1:00:11whole neighborhood to accomplish some

1:00:13sort of uh objective that's been set by

1:00:17somebody uh on Beacon Hill that doesn't

1:00:20care about our neighborhood or any other

1:00:22neighborhood in the city. They want to

1:00:23just win votes and that's how they win

1:00:26votes. What I want to have is neighbors

1:00:29that are satisfied that their local

1:00:31officials are doing what they're

1:00:32supposed to do, which is protect their

1:00:35quality of life and the investment in

1:00:37their homes. Thank you.

1:00:40>> Thank you. Well said.

1:00:43Um

1:00:45I don't see any other hands up. Uh Mr.

1:00:49Cuchinada, did you want to say anything

1:00:51as the uh owner of the property

1:00:58Steven?

1:00:59Yes,

1:01:05>> I got so long. Thank you. Um, can you

1:01:09hear me?

1:01:10>> Yep.

1:01:14>> Thank you. I just wanted to thank the

1:01:15the um the planning zoning subcommittee,

1:01:19the councilors

1:01:21um along

1:01:25uh Christine, I know you you spent quite

1:01:27some time uh reviewing the the draft

1:01:29language and um you know, we feel we

1:01:32feel that we're in a we've we've gotten

1:01:34to a good place with this where we're

1:01:36we've listened to the community. We sat

1:01:38down with the uh Butters. We've had

1:01:41multiple meetings and and with the

1:01:43director Butters um some of the director

1:01:45Butters to the site and we feel like

1:01:47we've come up with a good plan. We we

1:01:48have a substantial amount of open space

1:01:51um very generous buffers again that

1:01:55you know I know we're talking about

1:01:56question seven. If that goes through

1:01:58those buffers will be gone. So we we've

1:02:00really tried to listen um we've modified

1:02:03the plan. we we feel like we have a good

1:02:05um draft of the zoning and we're looking

1:02:08forward to discussing further and trying

1:02:10to move this along. So, I appreciate all

1:02:13the efforts and I appreciate the

1:02:14comments of the community and we'll

1:02:16we'll continue to try to work and and um

1:02:19improve where we can, but we do feel

1:02:21like we're in a good spot right now.

1:02:24>> All right. Thank you, Steve.

1:02:25>> Thank you.

1:02:26>> Uh Attorney Rolloff, I got a question

1:02:28for you. So relative to this whole

1:02:31discussion, I mean this is just

1:02:32preliminary again. Um

1:02:35but what is your so as far as I'm

1:02:38concerned with the state and what's

1:02:40going on with zoning and all the changes

1:02:43uh that are comprehensive that continue

1:02:46to go on and I do know there is

1:02:48additional MBTA revisions that are being

1:02:51proposed that are probably going to go

1:02:53through to expand. Um,

1:02:57and to a previous speaker's comment, if

1:03:01this passes, there's not going to be a

1:03:02bunch of litigation. There's not going

1:03:04to be a bunch of uh timeline. Just like

1:03:07with MBTA zoning, that zoning got passed

1:03:09and it just, you know, that the

1:03:12everybody fell in line

1:03:14because communities that didn't comply,

1:03:19then those communities are were punished

1:03:22with not being funded.

1:03:24So, I don't see the uh

1:03:30I I don't think that's accurate saying

1:03:32that there'll be months and months and a

1:03:34long time for lawsuits and the rest of

1:03:36it. I doubt it. So, any provisions that

1:03:38pass get passed and then we have to get

1:03:41into recottification.

1:03:43That's my take on my understanding. Um

1:03:46if that question passes,

1:03:50um I think I just lost you, Jeff. Oh,

1:03:53there you No, I think I'm here.

1:03:55>> Do you want me to respond to the

1:03:56question seven to to this question?

1:03:59>> Because my my interpretation is that

1:04:01goes through that's enacted into law and

1:04:04then we have to follow that law just

1:04:07like everything else that they've

1:04:08enacted.

1:04:10And also it's a ballot question. So how

1:04:12many ballot questions have they ignored

1:04:14that you know the auditor

1:04:16uh that overwhelmingly passed and the

1:04:19they did nothing to comply with that.

1:04:23So,

1:04:24>> as an attorney, what's your take on

1:04:26this? Because that this is a really to

1:04:29me this is a critical piece. That's a

1:04:31month from now,

1:04:32>> right? I I doubt that it would take

1:04:35effect immediately. I think there may be

1:04:37some lag, but it would be pime primarily

1:04:40to allow the state to adopt some

1:04:43regulations to help the uh

1:04:45municipalities

1:04:46tailor bylaws to accommodate the 5,000

1:04:49foot lot requirement. But what we're

1:04:53seeing is that there's clearly this

1:04:55momentum at the state level to

1:04:59help and encourage and facilitate the

1:05:03development of housing. So you got

1:05:05question seven. There's also in the

1:05:07economic development bill, you mentioned

1:05:09it, this provision that allows by right

1:05:13two units on every single family lot. I

1:05:16think that just happen if that gets

1:05:17adopted that just happens immediately

1:05:20just like the watered down variance

1:05:21standard is now intact that that

1:05:24variance standard is in play currently.

1:05:28Um so and when they say two units per

1:05:31lot it's not necessarily duplexes. is

1:05:34basically the state saying to the local

1:05:37local municipalities

1:05:39if they adopt this provision where you

1:05:41have a single family lot that qualifies

1:05:43under your zoning, you now have to allow

1:05:45two units on that lot. So, but that's

1:05:48just these are just like a we haven't

1:05:50wanted to speak to this a lot because I

1:05:52don't think the town the city needs to

1:05:56respond to these zoning provisions based

1:05:58on the fear of what's coming from the

1:06:00state. I mean I do think that's a

1:06:02reality but in our view what we are

1:06:05trying to emphasize is there is there

1:06:09has been planning done in the city by

1:06:12the city specifically tailored to

1:06:14Knobscot Village. This area this

1:06:18approximately 30 acres was identified

1:06:22in three of those I think reports as

1:06:25appropriate for higher density

1:06:26residential development. And one of the

1:06:28main reasons for there's two main

1:06:31reasons for them suggesting it. One is

1:06:34you get more housing here in an area

1:06:37where people can walk to the village

1:06:39center, right? That's a good thing. Like

1:06:42that's good housing. That's the kind of

1:06:43housing that municipalities want closer

1:06:47to village centers. And you have you add

1:06:51people to this little village that are

1:06:53then going to support and motivate some

1:06:56of the commercial owners in the village

1:06:58center to upgrade their space to

1:07:01redevelop their space and have better

1:07:03restaurants and you got more people that

1:07:04can walk to those restaurants and come

1:07:06in and support it. So there's it's not a

1:07:10situation where there hasn't been

1:07:11planning. There's been a lot of planning

1:07:13here and in fact the planning associated

1:07:16even with the Knobscot Village B4 zoning

1:07:18that the city adopted a lot of these

1:07:21same principles apply this residential

1:07:23development on this adjacent parcel to

1:07:25the village

1:07:27it complements the village center that's

1:07:30why it's just good planning and so what

1:07:32we're proposing is a community where you

1:07:35know my clients don't want to build

1:07:38whatever let's let's take your 8 unit

1:07:41you know the five even if question seven

1:07:43passes and is available immediately,

1:07:46right? Yes, they could carve up this

1:07:48land, put a couple roads through it,

1:07:50carve out 5,000 square foot lots, and

1:07:53then if this other provision that the

1:07:55state passes, not only would they put

1:07:57eight units per acre because it's one

1:08:00house, one unit on each 5,000t lot, but

1:08:04if the law passes that says you have to

1:08:05allow two units on each qualifying

1:08:08square lot, all of a sudden you got two

1:08:10units on each 5,000t lot and now you're

1:08:13looking at a lot more. that that's not

1:08:14the kind of community that my client

1:08:16wants to build. They're not just here

1:08:19trying to maximize units. They want to

1:08:21build a good project that they can be

1:08:23proud of that does work with the

1:08:26neighborhood. The buffer zones they're

1:08:28proposing are significant. The open

1:08:29space is significant. 60% or more of

1:08:34protected open space, that's significant

1:08:36when it's adjacent to a village center

1:08:39like you have here. Anyways, we think

1:08:42there are a lot of good like positive

1:08:44reasons for the residents to get around

1:08:47this this um proposal. We feel like the

1:08:51actually we haven't heard a lot from the

1:08:54residents themselves at these meetings.

1:08:56I my understanding is the people we're

1:08:57hearing from aren't actually, you know,

1:09:00the folks that live closest to these

1:09:02properties. But um you know I think that

1:09:06if we get in front of the city council

1:09:08and the facts come out in a more public

1:09:10forum and are more readily available in

1:09:13the public hearing process that's going

1:09:15to be happening in front of the city

1:09:18council and the planning board. There's

1:09:20going to be two public hearing

1:09:21proceedings just related to the adoption

1:09:24of the zoning. then the facts will come

1:09:27out in more detail and the residents

1:09:29will be more informed and I'd love to

1:09:32take a survey then as to whether they

1:09:34prefer, you know, this project concept

1:09:37versus just a classic cut this up into a

1:09:40bunch of little lots and build huge

1:09:41single family homes. So, anyways, that's

1:09:44a long-winded answer to your question on

1:09:47the state um programs, but we we haven't

1:09:51wanted to focus on those as a way to

1:09:54motivate the neighborhood to support

1:09:56this. We think there are just good

1:09:57public benefits associated with this.

1:10:00>> Right. Well, my point is that if those

1:10:03provisions go in, the language that's

1:10:05actual in question seven reduces

1:10:10uh site plan review to do amendment

1:10:12review. So, it wants to remove all

1:10:15discretionary permits, all discretionary

1:10:18language, and it just gives developers

1:10:21or whoever owns property um free range

1:10:25to do whatever they want without review.

1:10:27So, you know, there's there's no it's

1:10:30just simple site plan review under do,

1:10:32right?

1:10:32>> So, uh, council Liam B Liam Bruno.

1:10:37>> Oh, thank you. Um, I actually Jeff

1:10:41actually I was going to ask what were

1:10:43some of the um what was the thought

1:10:48process of if

1:10:50it did go to the next step? And so, you

1:10:53know, like, you know, we all like live

1:10:57close to this project. Well, most of us,

1:10:59some of us, and we've all driven through

1:11:00it a million times, and we've all been

1:11:02around long enough, and we understand

1:11:04the neighbors. Like, I, you know, spent

1:11:06my whole life, you know, living in that

1:11:09neighborhood practically. Um, and and I

1:11:12know it. And, you know, that build that

1:11:14property has been there forever. And

1:11:16then we see you know some development

1:11:19maybe with the school and maybe some

1:11:22other you know big project coming in. I

1:11:24remember everybody was you know out of

1:11:25their minds over that and you know we

1:11:28knew something was going to go there and

1:11:31um you know here we are now you know you

1:11:34know a decade later or however long

1:11:36later and um we're we're here again. And

1:11:40you know, couple that now with the

1:11:42state's um very very firm and very very

1:11:45very clear

1:11:47um plan is to create more housing, more

1:11:51density. We need more density, more

1:11:52density. And they want to take away

1:11:55local control. And that's the issue that

1:11:57we're facing because I would probably

1:12:00sign a petition as well. You know,

1:12:02nobody wants more apartments. I mean,

1:12:04you could ask anybody in the city and

1:12:06they're going to tell you that the

1:12:07traffic is horrendous. There's

1:12:08apartments everywhere. It's not the same

1:12:11Framingham. But then you drive through

1:12:13NITC and it's the exact same thing. And

1:12:15then you get into Welsie, it's the same

1:12:16thing. So, it doesn't stop at the

1:12:18borders of Framingham. We're not the

1:12:20only community dealing with, you know,

1:12:23apartments. Um, and it it's it changing.

1:12:26Um, and I think that Framingham has

1:12:29always been um, very good to, you know,

1:12:32we've always been above the 10%. We've

1:12:34been very generous with our social

1:12:36service friends. Um, lots of nonprofits.

1:12:40We've been a very welcoming community.

1:12:42Um and I think that you know here you

1:12:45know the the the state now with that

1:12:49question seven is one thing but the the

1:12:52um economic development bill that is

1:12:54right now I guess it's in the conference

1:12:56committee where they're discussing it

1:12:58and it sounds like it sounds like that

1:13:01there's no

1:13:03um that it's going to be happening that

1:13:05this isn't one of the things that

1:13:06they're looking to take out because this

1:13:09is the one thing that everybody wanted

1:13:10to put in and you Look at our friends in

1:13:13Cambridge and look what they're doing

1:13:14there now. And they started with the,

1:13:17you know, zero lot lines, 5T setbacks.

1:13:205T setbacks. And we're seeing developers

1:13:22going in. They had something on the news

1:13:24the other day where they're going in and

1:13:26they're ripping houses down and the

1:13:28neighbors are freaking out and uh

1:13:30because they're seeing now these these

1:13:33laws that have been changed, the zoning,

1:13:36you know, one sizefits-all and they're

1:13:38not even that parking isn't part of that

1:13:41plan. They're building houses on top of

1:13:44houses without parking even involved.

1:13:46They they parking isn't an issue.

1:13:47Housing is a crisis right now. Parking

1:13:50isn't. So, they don't care about

1:13:51parking. So there's really no oversight

1:13:55to what the you know the communities

1:13:57want. They want they want what they

1:14:00think that they want and that's more

1:14:02housing. And you know we just saw our

1:14:05ADU law that I thought we did a pretty

1:14:07good job with. We were pretty

1:14:08progressive and one of the first um

1:14:11communities that put forth a pretty um

1:14:14resident friendly and resident

1:14:16protecting uh ADU. And well, that that's

1:14:20out the window now because there's a

1:14:22challenge now coming up with one of the

1:14:25ADUs is now um going to be condized. And

1:14:29now if that's a thing that we can start

1:14:30selling them as condos

1:14:33um and we're seeing that what we put in

1:14:35now isn't the the guidelines, it's what

1:14:37the state put in. And I rarely would

1:14:39tell anyone to go drive around and see

1:14:41these 22 ADUs that have been uh under

1:14:45the state statute as opposed to the two

1:14:48that I believe were under Framingham's

1:14:49guidelines and they're two different

1:14:51stories. So with all that being said and

1:14:54it's kind of a long about um we're here

1:14:57we are here and you know we do have a

1:15:00bunch of the abutters and to me they're

1:15:01the ones that I'm the most concerned

1:15:03about. And what do they want? Do they

1:15:05want nothing? because they might be the

1:15:07ones that are going to be the ones that

1:15:08going to have to deal with these

1:15:09multiple roads. They're the ones that

1:15:11are going to have to deal with this, you

1:15:13know, the the setbacks now that are, you

1:15:16know, and and you know, it's not a

1:15:19threat because we've already seen it

1:15:20with the ADU and that happened fast. So,

1:15:23do we who are our concerns? The

1:15:25neighbors that live right there or the

1:15:27ones that live close that don't want any

1:15:29more people moving into their

1:15:31neighborhood? They wouldn't see it, but

1:15:33they don't want it. Um, so who do we as

1:15:35a city council, who are we supposed to

1:15:38um, you know, put uh, you know, ahead of

1:15:41the other one? To me, I think it's the

1:15:43abutters. And I think that the abutters

1:15:45have been the ones that, you know,

1:15:47really have the vested interest. they're

1:15:49the ones that are going to have the

1:15:50property loss values um that I've heard

1:15:52about or they're the ones that going to

1:15:54be uh you know we see the setbacks with

1:15:57this plan and we can imagine what the

1:15:59setbacks will be if it changes and

1:16:02they're the ones that really have the

1:16:04most at stake. Um, so anyway, those are

1:16:08my thoughts and I um I just wanted to,

1:16:11you know, share that with you guys

1:16:13because in my opinion, you know, the

1:16:16people that are directly abuting this

1:16:18property are the ones that going to have

1:16:20to live with this um more than anyone.

1:16:23So, they're my concern at this point.

1:16:26>> Yep. Thank you, Council Me Bruno. Um,

1:16:29and I agree with you on that. I mean,

1:16:32I live within walking distance of this

1:16:35and I don't, you know, a lot of the

1:16:38people on this call and the people that

1:16:39are being um

1:16:42vetted for their opinions don't probably

1:16:45live as close as I do. So, I have a

1:16:48direct interest in what goes on here,

1:16:50just like what happened at 770 Water

1:16:52Street. That took us what, close to a

1:16:55decade to get something redeveloped on

1:16:57that blighted site with neighborhood

1:16:59meeting after neighborhood meeting after

1:17:01neighborhood meeting after meeting after

1:17:02meeting after planning board meeting.

1:17:04And I mean it actually, you know, wasn't

1:17:07exactly what everybody wanted at that

1:17:09time, but it and in the end it looks

1:17:12pretty good now because once you get

1:17:14used to it, things change over time. And

1:17:18to council Liam Bruno's point, go

1:17:20through Newton. You want to see zero lot

1:17:22lines and ADUs popping up everywhere.

1:17:24They're everywhere. And um forget about

1:17:28the uh look of New England because

1:17:30that's going away real quick. Newton has

1:17:32torn down more houses and put up big box

1:17:36black buildings, giant multif family

1:17:39buildings that are all black, black

1:17:42facades, no federalist, no gamrells.

1:17:47They're all big square California style

1:17:49or Florida style buildings. So, um,

1:17:52welcome to New England. It's changing.

1:17:55So I think the only thing I can say is

1:17:56time change, things change and you

1:17:59either grow or go and adapt. But the

1:18:02days of suburban,

1:18:04you know, having a lot of property and a

1:18:07lot of land in your backyard, those days

1:18:09are over, you know, for people looking

1:18:12for housing. I just I see I'm from Wley

1:18:17and I look at Wy, it doesn't look like

1:18:18the town that I grew up in at all.

1:18:21Totally different. So, I mean, it's just

1:18:24how things are. Things change over time,

1:18:27and either you adapt or you don't, but

1:18:30no one wants to force anything down the

1:18:34neighbor's throats. Um, I know I don't

1:18:37want it thrown uh forced on me, but I

1:18:40would rather, again, I'm a planner. I

1:18:42would rather plan. you have an

1:18:44opportunity to do some planning or do

1:18:46you want to just throw your hands up and

1:18:48say nope let's let them do whatever they

1:18:50want and wait for the state to take care

1:18:52of it for us and by the way the reason

1:18:54the state's pushing is because of

1:18:56nimiism you know because I've been going

1:18:58to these for 20 years going to

1:19:01conferences and planning meetings and

1:19:04trainings for the planning board the

1:19:05zoning board I we had a meeting today at

1:19:08work and it was all about housing and

1:19:12all I can tell you is that it's housing,

1:19:15housing, housing and it's not going to

1:19:16stop and it's not going to go away. And

1:19:18either we learn to work with developers

1:19:22or they're just going to developer

1:19:24develop under the state

1:19:26laws that get passed and they will get

1:19:28passed and you're not going to have much

1:19:30say left because question seven do

1:19:33amendment language and that's what

1:19:35bothers me about it. and the other

1:19:37economic bill, economic development bill

1:19:40that's in the House conference right now

1:19:42that removes the single family just that

1:19:45that will take away single family

1:19:46districts period. So, and I'm not really

1:19:49a big fan of that either. So, you know,

1:19:52the more they hear push back against

1:19:54housing, the more they're going to

1:19:55continue to come up with creative ways

1:19:57to take away our local control over

1:19:59zoning. So, um, that's about all I can

1:20:03say and trust me, everybody on this call

1:20:07knows what the neighbors think. We know

1:20:09what a survey would say. We know that no

1:20:11one wants this. It's clear to us, but

1:20:18either way, I think it's good that we at

1:20:20least have a developer, whether that

1:20:22passes or not, that's willing to work

1:20:23with us. I would rather work with them

1:20:25than give them free reign to be able to

1:20:28decide what they want to do. you know,

1:20:30having new zoning uh laws in the state

1:20:34of Massachusetts passed. So, I don't

1:20:37know if any counselors have any other

1:20:38comments. Council Aani, do you have

1:20:40anything else?

1:20:43Hello.

1:20:47Councelor Oani, did you have any other

1:20:49comments?

1:20:50>> No, I'm listening loud and clear over

1:20:52here.

1:20:53>> All right.

1:20:53>> I'm watching a liquor license hearing as

1:20:55well, so I'm trying to be in two places

1:20:56at once, council, because I knew I had

1:20:58to be at your meeting. So, I'm watching

1:21:00um my poor tenant get it handed to him.

1:21:03Thank you.

1:21:03>> All right. Thanks. All right. Council uh

1:21:06Council William,

1:21:07>> I'm not I am not watching another

1:21:09meeting. I am uh um I'm only in one

1:21:12place here and I look I I hear the

1:21:15neighbors 100%. But you know I I think

1:21:18the days of this being you know 25 30

1:21:23you know

1:21:25it's exactly in fact I think the

1:21:27language I don't have it right in front

1:21:29of me but I believe in question seven

1:21:32you know to go back to the just the way

1:21:34that the the way that that we're being

1:21:37that this is being presented I I want to

1:21:40say that in the language it said

1:21:42something like at the very bottom Um, I

1:21:46can't open it, but something like we

1:21:49don't want McMansions. Um,

1:21:52it's actually in there where that they

1:21:55don't want big houses anymore. They they

1:21:58that's the reason that this this is the

1:22:00the the seven was put on the ballot.

1:22:02They don't want that anymore. They

1:22:04they're trying to find ways with the

1:22:05land that's left and it's getting lesser

1:22:07and lesser. Um, they're trying to find

1:22:10ways that we don't build big houses

1:22:12anymore. They don't want big houses.

1:22:14They want lots of small houses and then

1:22:16when they once they get done building

1:22:17and building and filling up all these

1:22:19lots then they're going to change it

1:22:21again. And that seems to be what they're

1:22:22doing now in Cambridge with you know the

1:22:25zero setback 5 foot setback. Um this is

1:22:29just the direction that they're going.

1:22:31So, I um we're kind of at a a crossroad

1:22:34here because I don't think that we're

1:22:35going to ever get the neighbors to,

1:22:38you know, be get behind a majority of

1:22:41the people that live in Framingham that

1:22:42have been involved with this that live

1:22:44in this northwest quadrant of Knobscot

1:22:47or this part of Framingham. I know that

1:22:49nobody wants anything built there. I get

1:22:51it. But we also know that it's 30 acres

1:22:54of developable land. So, as the kind of

1:22:58the city council, we're the ones that

1:22:59are kind of it's on us. We're the ones

1:23:01that get blamed every time something

1:23:03like Milwood happens that I voted

1:23:05against the town meeting and other

1:23:07things of that nature when we have the

1:23:09chance to do something and, you know,

1:23:12we're at a kind of that crossroad now. I

1:23:14mean, do we continue to listen to, you

1:23:18know, the these guys that have come in

1:23:20and, you know, and Jeff, you know,

1:23:22meeting after meeting? Um, or are we

1:23:26just going to say to them, "No, you

1:23:27know, forget about it. We're not, you

1:23:28know, we're not we don't feel like

1:23:29dealing with all the complaints from,

1:23:31you know, the people that live in

1:23:32Knobscot that don't want any more, you

1:23:34know, apartments." And then we just roll

1:23:37the dice and just take what next comes

1:23:38because we know something's going to

1:23:40come. So then once it comes and it's

1:23:42something that is a nonprofit that is a

1:23:45different use that we absolutely didn't

1:23:47see going there or whether you know I

1:23:51know there was that thing you were

1:23:52talking about Phil about the God's back

1:23:54pocket where if you build and this is a

1:23:57reality these aren't things that we're

1:23:58just picking up these are things that if

1:24:00you talk to legislators which I have to

1:24:03just get make sure that I have the

1:24:05correct facts before we you know go to

1:24:08our next meeting these are things that

1:24:10are are more than likely going to happen

1:24:12and they are being absolutely

1:24:15um they are they are long time coming

1:24:18and it's long time coming because other

1:24:21communities not like Framingham have

1:24:22allowed no building and no development.

1:24:25So, we're the ones that kind of have

1:24:26been doing it all along and now we're

1:24:28going to be lumped in with zoning for

1:24:30all and it's going to be one size zoning

1:24:33is going to fit all even though we were

1:24:35doing the right thing all along and now

1:24:37we're going to be lumped into that. And

1:24:41so, you know, here we are. What are we

1:24:44going to do with this parcel? Because we

1:24:47do nothing, we could get something that

1:24:48we don't want. Do we want to work with

1:24:50these guys? Um, do we want to go, you

1:24:53know, I mean, I guess what's the next

1:24:56step here? Because we could go back and

1:24:58forth and on and on and people come and

1:25:00then they move. Um,

1:25:03you know, they actually, you know,

1:25:05people have actually moved. They were

1:25:06originally, you know, um, they're

1:25:10they're gone now. Um, they've, you know,

1:25:13it's been so long that this has gone on.

1:25:15So, I guess I just I don't know. I'm

1:25:18wondering what you guys think.

1:25:20>> All right. Thank you, councelor Ariani.

1:25:23>> Thank you, Council Long. I just want to

1:25:25go to what Council Liam Bruno was uh

1:25:26speaking about. I've talked to a couple

1:25:28folks in the legislative delegation, but

1:25:30there's a bill that they're pushing or

1:25:32not our legislative delegation that the

1:25:34the state is pushing. It's called in

1:25:36God's Backyard. It's something like that

1:25:38and Jeff might be able to fill us in

1:25:39more on it, but if you have a 4 acre

1:25:42parcel of land continuous and you

1:25:45provide 25% of the housing affordable on

1:25:47that 4 acre parcel, you can build 50 per

1:25:50acre.

1:25:51>> Mhm.

1:25:52>> Not five, 50. So that's 200 units on a 5

1:25:56acre parcel. Then we're really going to

1:25:58have problems because that's my concern

1:26:00of what's coming. And I I wanted to be

1:26:03part of the solution. You know, I've

1:26:04I've watched this thing. You know, the

1:26:06MBTA thing was crazy. 1500 units, a

1:26:08thousand. This thing through Council

1:26:10Long's leadership in um working with

1:26:12folks. This thing's down to 350 units

1:26:15and it started out as a monstrosity when

1:26:17it was at the planning board and then it

1:26:19got dumped on our lab. But um you know,

1:26:21I I like that there's been some

1:26:22collaboration with the director Butters

1:26:24and things like that. And you know, I I

1:26:26I I commend everybody for trying to work

1:26:28together. I know some people want

1:26:29nothing and I get it, but something's

1:26:31going to happen and I'd rather be part

1:26:33of the process and be proactive than

1:26:36reactive. And you know, just saying no I

1:26:38don't think works. And that's I maybe

1:26:40Jeff could attorney Rollers could tell

1:26:41us a little more about that in God's

1:26:42backyard because I heard bits and

1:26:44pieces. But it's a everything I heard is

1:26:46pretty damn scary because if that's the

1:26:48case, why wouldn't somebody do that to

1:26:50to maximize and just come in and do what

1:26:52they got to do? So that's the last thing

1:26:54I'd like to see happen. So thank you.

1:26:56>> Right. Thank you. And I would think that

1:26:58might encourage a lot of tear downs,

1:27:01which really bothers me. Um,

1:27:05uh,

1:27:05>> they're doing it in Cambridge.

1:27:07>> Yeah, I know. They're doing it in

1:27:08Newton. They're tearing down everything

1:27:10and building all kinds of monstrosities.

1:27:13Um, because they can,

1:27:15>> right? And it's monstrosities, but

1:27:16they're multi-units. So, instead of one

1:27:19big house, it's six units and without

1:27:22parking.

1:27:25Well, parking is not necessary because

1:27:28you're supposed to use the public

1:27:29transportation. I got told that when I

1:27:32went to the traffic commission in

1:27:33Newton. They're like, "Take public

1:27:35transportation if you don't, you know,

1:27:37they wouldn't give me parking passes for

1:27:38where we work."

1:27:40>> And I'm like, "Oh, really?" Well,

1:27:42there's no public transportation to

1:27:44Newton from Framingham.

1:27:46>> Right. Well, and well, there's also no

1:27:48regard to the neighbors that live on the

1:27:50street that existing that have always

1:27:51had a parking space out front. now they

1:27:54don't have a space so they're up in arms

1:27:56and it's like sorry but we need we need

1:27:58more housing more than you need a

1:27:59parking spot. So not only is it be

1:28:02that's become a real problem to the

1:28:04abutters. So um that that's that's just

1:28:08I hear these things and I I just cringe.

1:28:10So

1:28:12well also um the numbers that I came

1:28:14down I thought I got that numbers on the

1:28:16provisions down to 324 units. So not

1:28:21350. So I it's gotten reduced. It hasn't

1:28:25gone the other way. And I think um you

1:28:29know putting in a built one building

1:28:32that's a condo for sale that's uh not I

1:28:36don't think it was six stories. Was it

1:28:3840 40t or so or 50 feet to allow 50 feet

1:28:42on it? Because if you put in a condo

1:28:44building with an elevator and you put

1:28:46them in for sale, you're not using

1:28:49you're densifying that property so that

1:28:53you're saving more open space. You know,

1:28:56you have less impervious um

1:28:59and less impervious um impacts to your

1:29:03property. So, if you want to sprawl

1:29:06buildings all over the place and not go

1:29:08high, then you're going to have less

1:29:11open space and more impervious surface.

1:29:15So, that's why I thought putting at

1:29:17least one building that had height on it

1:29:19and no one's going to see it on that

1:29:21property in the middle of it because

1:29:24it'll be screened. So, just like Clark's

1:29:26Hill, we'll bring that up again. But,

1:29:30um, Mr. Krueger, you had something to

1:29:34say.

1:29:40>> Here we go. I got to

1:29:41>> three minutes max. Yep. Go ahead.

1:29:44>> As far as uh Council Lam Bruna's comment

1:29:46about knowing what the director Butters

1:29:49feel, um all you have to do is drive

1:29:51down the street to answer that question

1:29:53and uh the answer is that there's

1:29:56unanimous opposition.

1:29:58So, um, you know, maybe you're aware of

1:30:00that, but your comment, I I take it to

1:30:03heart. I hope you do, too, that you want

1:30:05to know what the directors feel and it's

1:30:08pretty obvious. We also have, as I

1:30:10mentioned earlier, data in our survey

1:30:12that uh reinforce that. Um, I have a

1:30:15question. Uh there are in as I

1:30:18understand it in this approximate 30

1:30:20acre parcel there are uh included

1:30:24eight about eight I don't know if it's

1:30:26exactly eight existing single family

1:30:29homes on one plus acre lots. What's the

1:30:32plan uh you know that the developer is

1:30:35proposing? What are they going to do

1:30:36with those homes? Are they going to tear

1:30:38those down?

1:30:42>> Okay, I'll have them answer that

1:30:44question. Thank you.

1:30:46Uh yeah, let me share my screen and I

1:30:48can just walk you through as I

1:30:50understand it here.

1:30:54So let me get So this is a sort of fuzzy

1:30:59image of the concept.

1:31:01Um maybe if I were to pull up this

1:31:04zoning map. So there are there are some

1:31:07properties within the district that have

1:31:10uh single family homes on them

1:31:12currently.

1:31:14Um some of those are owned or controlled

1:31:16by

1:31:18um either my client or Foley who we

1:31:23assume if uh zoning were passed my

1:31:25client would gain control over his land.

1:31:28So

1:31:29um as I mentioned in the concept you can

1:31:33see how the concept here on this figure

1:31:35doesn't actually assume that the entire

1:31:38district is going to be part of the uh

1:31:41the you know it's not part of this

1:31:43concept. So there's single families

1:31:45here, there's single family there,

1:31:46there's a single family here, there's

1:31:48one there on this under this concept

1:31:51those will just remain as they are. the

1:31:54single families that are up in along

1:31:57Edmonds currently would be taken down

1:31:59and replaced. So, those are up I'm

1:32:02sorry, those are here

1:32:04um along Edmonds Road. If they were

1:32:07taken down and made part of this project

1:32:10through the special permit process and

1:32:12the zoning requirements, they'd have to,

1:32:14you know, anything new that's proposed

1:32:16would have to be set back the 40 ft. I'm

1:32:19not sure this concept actually shows

1:32:20that because we didn't change it based

1:32:22on the um the expansion of the setbacks

1:32:26that we recently proposed. But um so I

1:32:30guess the short answer is some of the

1:32:32homes would come down the ones that are

1:32:34controlled by my client and some would

1:32:38not.

1:32:42>> Uh thank you. Does that answer your

1:32:44question?

1:32:48I think it does.

1:32:49>> And I can I just counelor long just

1:32:51quickly? I don't know if we want to get

1:32:53into all this now, but

1:32:55>> um I am hoping we can discuss sort of

1:32:57next steps here.

1:32:59Um,

1:33:02this is a just rough sketch of

1:33:07what a development at this property

1:33:09would would look like if this question

1:33:13seven passed and these guys were allowed

1:33:16to carve this property up for, you know,

1:33:19into 5,000 square foot lots. You know,

1:33:22no buildings are shown here, but you can

1:33:23see, right, there's no regulation of

1:33:25this. um houses could be built right up,

1:33:30you know, consistent with whatever

1:33:31whatever setbacks are put into place.

1:33:34But, um, we really in the concept we're

1:33:37proposing are really trying to be

1:33:40sensitive to this important buffer zone

1:33:43between the Lavi properties to the left

1:33:46there, um, Mr. Vley's property here, the

1:33:50park which we would be planning to

1:33:52improve, um protection to 60 65% open

1:33:57space. Like all of that doesn't come

1:33:58with an as of right subdivision and

1:34:00whatever the form that takes. So,

1:34:04um I am hoping we can get to next steps,

1:34:06but I'll turn it turn it back to you,

1:34:09counselor Long.

1:34:11>> Uh thank you.

1:34:14Uh I had another question. Hold on.

1:34:19Uh,

1:34:23I'm trying I see your hand up. I'm

1:34:25trying to find you in this queue, John.

1:34:32Okay, now I see you. All right, John. Uh

1:34:36thank you councelor Long with with

1:34:38respect to uh BQ7

1:34:41don't the uh current setback

1:34:43requirements and storm water

1:34:45requirements and excuse [clears throat]

1:34:47me fire safety apparatus turnaround

1:34:50radius and all of that stuff um as I

1:34:53understand it ballot question 7 does not

1:34:57uh uh eliminate conformity with all of

1:35:00those local requirements or do you have

1:35:02you heard differently?

1:35:06Did you want to answer that, Jeff? Or

1:35:09>> um I I don't think it does, but you

1:35:12know, I think that's part of when I said

1:35:14there might be a little lag if this were

1:35:16to pass because they're going to need to

1:35:17sort through those kind of questions.

1:35:19But I wouldn't assume that um allowing

1:35:23or mandating that communities allow

1:35:28uh development of residential lots 5,000

1:35:31square feet or greater that that's going

1:35:34to trump requirements for um you know

1:35:39subdivision control. The roads are still

1:35:41going to have to be um approved and

1:35:44developed pursuant to the subdivision

1:35:46control laws. It's just that instead of

1:35:47creating 1acre lots, you're creating

1:35:495,000 square foot lots. Storm water

1:35:52provisions, I'm assuming storm water

1:35:54management requirements are still going

1:35:56to be in play, but

1:35:59>> yeah, I don't think none of those are

1:36:01going to change. you still I mean it's

1:36:03MS4

1:36:05requirements.

1:36:06>> Well, that's a very important thing.

1:36:08Again, if we're going to talk about

1:36:09ballot question seven with respect to

1:36:11this parcel, it seems incredibly

1:36:14unlikely that uh you're going to get

1:36:16anywhere near the density uh of what's

1:36:20being proposed by the current applicant.

1:36:22So, I don't think that the threat of uh

1:36:25BQ7 is relevant to this conversation

1:36:28because of the fact that we know that

1:36:30there's a ton of lead literally tons of

1:36:32ledge there. I don't know what

1:36:34percentage of the site uh has ledge just

1:36:37below the surface, but storm storm water

1:36:40requirements alone, whether it's a

1:36:43ballot question 7 development or what

1:36:46the uh what uh Mr. Rolloff's client is

1:36:49proposing um that storm water has to be

1:36:52accounted for and that's going to

1:36:54require whatever it's going to require

1:36:56in terms of engineering and uh um open

1:36:59space a lot of the open space that's

1:37:01being provided for with Jay and

1:37:03company's proposal is going to be storm

1:37:04water management. So uh again with

1:37:07respect to this particular parcel I

1:37:09don't think the threat valid question

1:37:12seven is relevant. I do agree that we

1:37:14should be working with this developer,

1:37:16any developer, but I I think what we

1:37:20should be working towards is a what's

1:37:22best for the comm community solution

1:37:25where we get more housing, which is what

1:37:28we need, but we do so in a manner that's

1:37:30respectful of the neighborhood. And that

1:37:32should be true here and everywhere else

1:37:34in Framingham. Thank you.

1:37:37>> Thank you. And that is what we're trying

1:37:38to do,

1:37:41right?

1:37:43Um, and I will say that

1:37:49that question is relevant because if

1:37:52that goes through,

1:37:55um, all the regular requirements for

1:37:58water, sewer, storm water management,

1:38:01and all the rest of it that still

1:38:02remains, but I'm working on a project in

1:38:06Newton. It's all ledge. And trust me,

1:38:08engineering, you can do anything

1:38:11anywhere. You can build anything

1:38:12anywhere. There's all kinds of

1:38:14techniques to build and still manage

1:38:17storm water utilities,

1:38:20um all your HERS rating and all the rest

1:38:22of that stuff that goes with a new

1:38:24development. That that's not a problem

1:38:26because

1:38:28uh engineering technology has come so

1:38:31far that ledge isn't really a problem.

1:38:34And the building that we're doing is on

1:38:36a total ledge site just like that. and

1:38:39whether we had a guy come out and do the

1:38:41excavation to put in new conduits and uh

1:38:45yeah, it's really not a problem. I mean,

1:38:46it's it's more challenging and it costs

1:38:49more. Um I mean, just to do excavation

1:38:53to go 6 feet down on about 500 ft is

1:38:57$90,000 to excavate on some ledge to put

1:39:01in a new conduit on a fire connection.

1:39:05So

1:39:07trust me, as far as construction on

1:39:10ledge, that's it's a little more

1:39:12challenging, a little more expensive,

1:39:13but it's not impossible. And it's it

1:39:17goes on every day. They find ways to do

1:39:19all kinds of techniques, whether it's

1:39:21high water um levels on property. That's

1:39:25why they invented sauna tubes and all

1:39:27kinds of other techniques for managing

1:39:30that type of uh environment or whether

1:39:34it be ledge. So um I don't know Jeff if

1:39:37you had any other comments further on

1:39:39that as far as engineering and you know

1:39:42performing that but if you put five

1:39:44houses on a single acre lot that's

1:39:49really you just don't have any open

1:39:50space. You'll say goodbye to open space.

1:39:53So the way I plan this out at least you

1:39:55have open space everywhere and the

1:39:57setbacks we can talk about that some

1:39:58more because I actually had increase the

1:40:01setbacks even greater than what you have

1:40:03come back with. So that's another point

1:40:05of discussion that we need to have. But

1:40:08I mean this type of plan as opposed to

1:40:11allowing five houses on

1:40:15uh and on one acre, eight houses on one

1:40:18acre is it's night and day because we're

1:40:22trying to preserve open space and a plan

1:40:24like that's not trying to preserve open

1:40:26space. That plan is to densify the

1:40:29entire lot and remove setbacks and open

1:40:31space.

1:40:35Yeah, I would just add councelor long

1:40:36that um you know people like to like to

1:40:41put a lot of focus on the number of

1:40:43units

1:40:44u because it's easy to do that. It's

1:40:46like bean counting but you know 12 units

1:40:49per acre versus eight units per acre.

1:40:52One isn't better or worse than the

1:40:54other. It's all the other stuff that

1:40:56comes into the design that really

1:40:58matters. So you can you can generate and

1:41:02design a 12 unit per acre project that

1:41:05is far superior to a poorly designed 8-

1:41:08unit per acre uh project. So I just

1:41:11wanted to emphasize that people should

1:41:12be careful about putting too much

1:41:14emphasis on just unit count. And that's

1:41:17why I've been trying to emphasize all

1:41:19these other factors, the setbacks, the

1:41:21buffer zones, the open space, the park

1:41:23improvements, the trail connections,

1:41:25etc.

1:41:28Yeah, thank you. So, um I think u we'll

1:41:32have another meeting. I'll schedule

1:41:33another meeting in two weeks. Um at

1:41:36which time I have told uh Mr. Krueger

1:41:40and company that they can come in with

1:41:41their um findings from their vetting the

1:41:46neighborhood on a survey and then we can

1:41:50uh in the meantime counselors on this

1:41:52call anybody that has comments about

1:41:55revisions that you want to make on the

1:41:57provisions um because some of I will be

1:41:59talking to Mr. Rolloloffs attorney

1:42:01rolloffs to go over some of them again

1:42:03because some of the things I had put in

1:42:05got changed back and I want them changed

1:42:07back again. um [laughter]

1:42:11>> happy to talk through it with you.

1:42:13>> Yeah. Right. Because I still think some

1:42:15of the setbacks need to be increased and

1:42:17particularly on um the uh property owner

1:42:20that you know, Dan Vley's property. So,

1:42:22I'm trying to be more respectful of him

1:42:24and we have been meeting with him for

1:42:26quite a while.

1:42:27>> Yeah.

1:42:27>> So, and you know, I know a lot of the

1:42:29buyers that we have been meeting with

1:42:31over the last few years in small groups,

1:42:34um that's how a lot of these provisions

1:42:36came to fruition. um the plan itself and

1:42:40the provisions because we have been

1:42:42listening to people that live directly

1:42:44um across the street and directly on uh

1:42:47Lavi and Edmonds Road. So we have been

1:42:51talking to exactly direct butters people

1:42:54who are going to be the most affected by

1:42:56this and there's a lot of buyin from

1:42:58them and of course there's always going

1:42:59to be people who are opposed to it that

1:43:01don't necessarily always live the

1:43:03closest. So, and I wasn't exactly the

1:43:06easiest person to convince that we

1:43:08should be thinking this way either. So,

1:43:12um uh council Bruno

1:43:16just wanted to just um go back to about

1:43:18the neighbors. I I know that there are

1:43:20signs. I've seen them because you drive

1:43:22through there. They're on almost every

1:43:24all over. I saw some almost in

1:43:25Southboro. Um, I'm not saying that every

1:43:28neighbor is opposed or against it, and I

1:43:31understand that um that there were

1:43:34meetings and there were conversations

1:43:35with

1:43:37that with the Butters that were

1:43:38concerned about what was going to happen

1:43:40there. So, I'm not saying that, you

1:43:41know, that the Butters are feel one way

1:43:44or the other. I I see the signs clearly.

1:43:48I was just saying that I know there's

1:43:49been many meetings and you know you go

1:43:52out there and then they see what

1:43:53setbacks look like you know uh that was

1:43:57my only point. So if the if the you know

1:44:01if the abuters

1:44:04that you guys have had meetings with

1:44:06that I've been you know I wasn't part of

1:44:08but I've heard about them and I know

1:44:10that um there are concerns. So, um, you

1:44:15know, but again, we go back and forth

1:44:17with this and, you know, we haven't

1:44:20really got much movement. I like the

1:44:22numbers coming down. I do like, you

1:44:24know, some of these provisions, but I

1:44:26just don't at this I don't see them the

1:44:28neighbors, you know, the N not the

1:44:29neighbors, the maybe the abutters or the

1:44:31neighbors. It doesn't sound like they're

1:44:33um, you know, ever going to get, you

1:44:34know, behind something like this. They

1:44:36just want, you know, the 20 house, 20,

1:44:3930 houses, whatever. And our points that

1:44:41we're making is that that that's the

1:44:43days of just having those on lots just

1:44:46they're not going to be that's not going

1:44:48to be um in reality. It's not in whether

1:44:52we wanted it or not. The zoning is

1:44:54changing and it's going to change around

1:44:56us and we're seeing it. So, you know,

1:44:58that doesn't even factor in the ADUs now

1:45:01that you can add in which is,

1:45:04you know, which is something you

1:45:05couldn't have done before and then now

1:45:07you can. So, and now apparently you can

1:45:09condo them. So, you can now subdivide

1:45:13and um condoise them, which is something

1:45:16that we never foraw coming. So, anyway,

1:45:21that's all I wanted to just um my

1:45:23comments back to to to Steve. And I want

1:45:25to thank everyone for coming tonight. Um

1:45:28you know, it's good to hear all the

1:45:29feedback. Um but I just don't see a lot

1:45:33of it changing. And you know, I guess I

1:45:35I you know, didn't expect it would.

1:45:39>> Yeah. Thank you. So, on that note,

1:45:41unless anybody else has any comments,

1:45:43I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.

1:45:45>> Motion to adjurnn.

1:45:46>> Do I have a second?

1:45:48Councelor Ariani,

1:45:52Phil,

1:45:55>> I think he's at the other meeting.

1:45:57>> Yeah, I know. I need him to make this

1:45:59second though because I can't. Oh,

1:46:02>> and

1:46:05So, oh, you can't second it.

1:46:07>> No, because I'm the chair. So,

1:46:09>> um, [clears throat] what do you do when

1:46:11we only have two of us?

1:46:13>> Well, then they have to, but there's not

1:46:14two of us. There's three of us. So,

1:46:17>> councelor Obiani, hello. And you

1:46:21>> Well, put your wave at them. Maybe

1:46:25maybe you could text them. [laughter]

1:46:28This is what happens when you have too

1:46:29many meetings and you got them all on

1:46:31the same night.

1:46:33Yeah,

1:46:33>> both equally important.

1:46:39>> Well, because I need him one way or

1:46:41another to

1:46:48>> um

1:46:50>> All right. Hopefully, uh he'll get that,

1:46:53I think.

1:46:55Well, what else is new? [laughter]

1:47:00>> I don't know. He's just like he's just

1:47:03>> He should Yeah, he just got the

1:47:05>> Here he comes. [laughter]

1:47:06>> You need to second it.

1:47:08>> I did, but I couldn't hear me.

1:47:10>> Yeah, I couldn't hear you. All right,

1:47:11all those in favor council.

1:47:14>> Yes.

1:47:14>> Council Lebron.

1:47:17>> Yes.

1:47:17>> So long. Yes. All right. We are journ.

1:47:19Thank you everybody. Thanks guys. Good

1:47:21night. Take care. Good night. back in.

1:47:25[music]

1:47:44He

1:47:50>> [music]