January 29, 2025 Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

23 of 57 sheets Page 89 to 92 of 143 02/13/2025 11:25:53 AM 89 The zone, again, is specifically aimed at1 providing affordable housing as part of your fair share2 plan. The planning board has taken all the proper steps3 procedurally in implementing this plan. Most4 importantly finding that the fair share element or the5 housing element of the plan is substantially consistent6 with your Master Plan as well. So there is a whole7 series of layers of connectivity here from a public8 policy standpoint that links together in the9 implementation of this particular plan.10 My role as the planner is relatively limited.11 The focus and the board has a similar responsibility12 here to focus on the applications conforming with the13 zoning regulations that are before you. There's very14 strict case law, very solid case law that comes from the15 Supreme Court in the Pizzo Mantin case that says the16 essence of good planning is rooted in your zoning17 ordinance. If an application complies with your18 ordinance it should be approved. We got a project here19 that is substantially in compliance with the zoning20 regulations that are before you.21 All of the highest gears of your IH-1 district22 are met. Particularly your use controls in terms of23 providing for multifamily residential and open space.24 And then of course your most important bulk controls are25 90 met here as well. Project density, conforms. Project1 height, conforms. The number of stories, conforms. The2 coverage, building coverage, lot coverage, conforms.3 Setbacks on all sides, front, side, rear, other side,4 all conform. The parking, fully conforms. The buffers5 on all sides, fully conform. The landscaping details,6 fully conform. The lighting, signage, the unit sizes,7 unit affordability, all conform with your zoning8 ordinance. The project is also in full conformance with9 outside agency requirements as well, what we call the10 UHAC rules, or the Uniform Housing Affordability11 Controls.12 As you heard through Mr. Appel's testimony, the13 architect, this project has been designed in accordance14 with UHAC rules and affordability controls.15 DEP, you heard extensive environmental testimony,16 you heard Mr. Anderson speak about the strict adherence17 to the DEP regulations with respect to wetlands and18 buffers and the like.19 And then finally of course ADA and our EV20 standards, the state wide standards

nderson speak about the strict adherence17 to the DEP regulations with respect to wetlands and18 buffers and the like.19 And then finally of course ADA and our EV20 standards, the state wide standards as well, are all met21 here.22 The project requires very, very minimal relief23 and that will bring me to the fourth part of my24 analysis, which will be relatively short, because again,25 91 the relief the applicant is asking the board to move on1 is relatively limited as well.2 There's one C variance here. You heard through3 Mr. Appel's testimony back in August when those4 air-conditioners were blasting on a hot day, quite the5 contrast from today, where you saw many visuals as to6 the relief that the applicant is seeking, which pertains7 to a grading control that is built to this AH-18 inclusionary housing zone district. Not to the building9 per se, but to the grading around the building. It's in10 the grading section of your ordinance.11 You heard testimony through Mr. Anderson, through12 Mr. Appel as well, that the applicant is asking the13 board to move on having greater than 50 percent exposure14 of the building foundations based on the grading, again,15 in the interest of minimizing disturbance on the16 property and we've heard this over and over again, it17 goes back to the settlement agreement as well, to18 minimize disturbance on the property, to provide for a19 cluster development as opposed to a sprawling20 development over the entire land and maintaining21 significant green space on the property.22 Mitigative measures with respect to that wall23 exposure, and just for the record, again citing Mr.24 Appel's testimony, you got four buildings here, Building25 92 A exposes 76.5 percent, Building B, 76.4 percent,1 Building C, 69.1 percent and Building D, 54.8 percent,2 whereby 50 percent would be the maximum that's allowed.3 Again, all in response to the sloping terrain, the4 highly irregular terrain that we're dealing with on this5 rugged piece of property and mitigated by substantial6 vegetation.7 You heard a lot about that green wall, this is8 not going to be a plastic green wall, this is going to9 be a living green wall, actual plantings. Foundation10 plantings and trees as well to mitigate exposure, which11 is really internal to the development not external to12 the development and certainly remote from those homes13 that are around it. Mitigating

plantings and trees as well to mitigate exposure, which11 is really internal to the development not external to12 the development and certainly remote from those homes13 that are around it. Mitigating and obscured --14 mitigated and obscured by the trees and the buffering15 that will remain between the subject and the neighboring16 properties.17 Again, we're looking at mitigative measures and18 all being done in the interest of minimizing land19 disturbance.20 In consideration of the C relief that the21 applicant is seeking and, again, it's just that one22 variance which really has an aesthetic component more so23 than a functional or a life safety component to it. We24 look at what we call the Flexible C Balancing Test, and25