Zoning Board of Appeals

Tel: (508) 553-4856 Fax: (508) 520-4906 Town of Franklin Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, October 23, 2025 Meeting Minutes Chair Bruce Hunchard called the above-captioned meeting held in the Town Council Chambers, second floor of the Franklin Municipal Building, 355 E. Central Street, and online via the Zoom platform to order this date at 7:30 PM. Members in attendance: Bruce Hunchard, Chair; Robert Acevedo, Vice Chair; Ginelle Lang, Clerk; Meghan Whitmore, Associate; Joseph Halligan, Associate. Members absent: None. Also in attendance: Casey Thayer, Administrative Assistant; Gus Brown, Building Commissioner. This meeting is being recorded and televised and is being conducted as an in person and as a remote access Zoom virtual meeting. The Zoom meeting link and the Zoom meeting call-in number are provided on the agenda. 1034 Pond Street - Vertex Towers, LLC Abutters: All abutters’ names/addresses are listed within the meeting minutes below. 7:30 p.m. Applicant is seeking to construct a wireless communication facility, consisting of 100’ monopole tower (104’ to the highest appurtenance) within a 35’ x 60’ fenced in compound that is less than 30’ to the rear yard setback requirement. The building permit is denied without a Variance from the ZBA. Applicants present: Attorney Francis Parisi on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Parisi said they are seeking a use variance and two dimensional variances to construct a wireless telecommunications facility at 1034 Pond Street. He said the town has a wireless zoning bylaw that limits telecommunications facilities to specific areas. He said all those facilities have been built and are operational. They have noticed over the last several years the wireless technology is morphing from a mobile technology to a residential technology. He said they have been building wireless infrastructure to get closer and closer to residential neighborhoods without having an impact on the residential neighborhood. They have been active in Franklin and all of Norfolk County and all of New England building wireless infrastructure. The project tonight is behind the VFW. He said there are other towers in the Town of Franklin. He shared his screen and showed a presentation. He discussed the increase in use of wireless communications and the demand for wireless technology. He said in the wireless world, it evolves and gets into high-speed data which requires a better quality signal. He explained why another cell tower is needed. He reviewed there are other facilities in Franklin, and some of the older ones are even taller than the proposed one. There are still gaps in town. He said this facility is only 100 ft. tall. Verizon is trying to provide coverage throughout Franklin with reliable in-building coverage. He explained the lot itself is unique that it is a non-residential use lot in a residential neighborhood. He said a lot of the area around there is wet. They were challenged regarding the parcels. The lot they are talking about is 1.5 acres and primarily used by the VFW. The facility will be right behind the VFW hall. He said the facility will be 35 ft. x 60 ft. with a stockade fence and inside some telecommunications equipment, and they do not make any noise. There is an existing gravel driveway, and no new curb cut is needed. He said these facilities are unmanned. There is about six weeks of construction. There are no lights. All the equipment is remotely monitored. Someone may come back about once a month to check the fence. It 1 Tel: (508) 553-4856 Fax: (508) 520-4906 will be a monopole. All the cabling runs down through the inside of the pole. There is no external cabling or lighting. He said the facilities are designed safely, and there are about a dozen other facilities like this already in Franklin. He said they are designed for ice and wind. He said these facilities are designed just to cover some additional square miles in Franklin. They broadcast out about 100 watts. He reviewed the criteria for a variance and explained that this location satisfies the criteria. He reviewed that accordingly, the applicant requests findings that a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter would involve a substantial hardship to the applicant. He reviewed desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning bylaw. He reviewed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He explained that the federal government said you do not have to say yes, but you cannot say no without sufficient reason. He said the federal government and courts have been supportive of wireless development. He asked that the ZBA grant the variances. He explained they still have to do environmental due diligence. They hope to be able to construct in the spring. Mr. Halligan said he has been on the Planning Board for 14 years and the ZBA as an alternate for one year, and he cannot vote tonight. He gave his experience and information. He said he is the owner of a tow company in Franklin. A few months ago, they were dispatched by the Franklin police in that area for an accident to tow the car. He described the accident. He said he was trying to get in touch with his employees, and the calls would not go through or were dropped. Because of no reception, his employees could not communicate with each other in that area to clear the scene. Had there been reception there, it would have been cleaned up much more quickly. The reception is horrible in that area. He said he encouraged the Planning Board members to vote on this as it pertains to life and safety. Mr. Acevedo asked about the Telecommunications Act and should the ZBA deny the variance what happens next. Mr. Parisi said they go to federal appeals court and all they have to show is that there is a gap in coverage and a viable alternative. He said the federal courts recognize the great benefits and minimal impact on areas. He noted other similar facilities in Franklin. Mr. Acevedo said it is the impact to the neighbors that have to look at this. Mr. Parisi said the height of 100 ft. is not that tall and all based on perspective. He said you will not see it coming up Pond Street going north. He said it is a heavily vegetated neighborhood. No one is going to see 100 ft. You are seeing the top portion of it. Mr. Acevedo said what can they do to camouflage it. Mr. Parisi said they have at times tried to make them look like pine trees. Attempts to camouflage have been failures. He said this monopole is non-reflective. Mr. Acevedo asked about emergency response and does this benefit the police and fire departments. Mr. Parisi explained that this will benefit police and fire. He said if the Town of Franklin were to ask to put an antenna on this, we would say yes. He explained there is no light on the tower, and if they did work at night because the equipment was malfunctioning which would be rare, they would bring in their own lighting. Ms. Whitmore asked if there would be a generator on premises. Mr. Parisi said yes and showed the plans. He said the generator would not be used unless there was a long-term power failure. He explained there are really no other viable options in this area. Many other locations in this area are wet. Ms. Lang said that it is unfortunate that the Elks were not receptive as that site is an obvious alternative. She asked if the enclosure could be smaller. Mr. Parisi said the Town does not want Verizon building single-use structures. So, we build multi-carrier facilities. So, we want to make sure we have sufficient room for them. Ms. Lang asked about the 10 ft. off the back of the VFW. Building Commissioner Gus Brown reviewed the 30 ft. setback. Mr. Parisi said they have actually built up against the building, but we need to make sure there is no impact to the VFW foundation. It was designed to have no impact on the foundation, so we do not want to be too close. Ms. Lang asked about the tower report and said the height did not match. Mr. Parisi said that is to make sure we have not impact on air navigation, and this does not need a blinky light on it. He said the report 2 Tel: (508) 553-4856 Fax: (508) 520-4906 does not line up because they do it in meters, and we do it in feet. Ms. Lang asked for documentation on wind. Mr. Parisi said the standards are county and location specific and when they design this, they take that into account. Ms. Lang asked when the wind and snow load design gets submitted. Mr. Brown said it will have to go through his office. Ms. Lang said there is a lot of water on this site. Mr. Parisi pointed out the wetlands buffer on his plan. He said all activity will be outside of the wetland buffer. Ms. Lang asked about electrical power. Mr. Parisi said there are no new electrical poles coming in. Ms. Lang asked about the generator. Mr. Parisi said he thinks it cycles on once a week to make sure that it runs. He said they prefer diesel, but if the Town requires propane, they would agree to it. Mr. Acevedo reviewed the setbacks and asked why can’t they get closer to the VFW building and do away with the 30 ft. setback. Mr. Parisi said they did a similar facility in NH and found that older building foundations do not go straight down, they often flare out a little, so this was to make sure we have no impact to the foundation. He said he can ask the engineers to tighten it up a little. Mr. Brown said fences do not need permits and do not need to meet setbacks. He said equipment pads are generally 10 ft. away from the lot lines minimum. He said the applicant is applying for relief for the setbacks. Chair Hunchard asked about the antennas. Mr. Parisi said when it gets built Verizon will be on there, and then the other platforms will get mounted in the future, but they have no other commitments right now. He said the antennas do not exceed the height of the tower. Mr. Richard Groth, 12 Pine Street, said he and his wife have lived there for 38 years. They are direct abutters to this. He said they have problems with the plan. The tower pole is 38 ft. from his property line. He said they consider that a problem. He talked about the overlay district that was established in the bylaw and the requirements and asked why are some of the same restrictions in the overlay district not required in this residential area. He said you can see it from his house. Mr. Mealey gave his three minutes to Mr. Groth to continue. Mr. Groth provided a packet of information to the ZBA members as well as a petition signed by many residents. He said there are other questions. He asked why was this signed by the VFW five years ago. He asked when were the other sites studied. He said they would like an independent peer review on this. They would like somebody besides Vertex to tell us about the need and that this is the only solution. He noted possibly Maplegate or other sites in the area, but there are no specifics in their documentation. He asked does the tower solve the problem. He said according to the provided map, most of this area that will be serviced is across the street and wetlands. He asked what is really being added. He said this will affect his property values. Mr. Don Newton, 954 Pond Street, said this monstrosity will be directly across from him. He asked if a balloon test was done, and if not, can they have one done so we can see what 100 ft. of tower would look like. Mr. Parisi said it is not required, so they did not do one. Mr. Newton asked about a natural resource impact assessment. Of this proposed site, 50 percent is wetland. He said they could put repeaters on the power lines. He said in Norfolk they put cellular repeaters on the high-tension lines, and they seem to work fine and enhance cellular coverage. He explained his car was involved in the accident on Pond Street that Mr. Halligan described. Mr. Newton said his cellular phone using Verizon service worked fine. He said people were on their cell phones and using their radios during that accident. He asked about the multiple lawsuits that Vertex has currently. He said down the Cape they are trying to block the same tower. Mr. Parisi said he has three approved sites in the Cape. He said there is an abutter appeal case. Mr. Newton said they could put in repeaters. He requested the ZBA deny this. Mr. Parisi explained the history of using repeaters on power lines. He said the telecommunication companies are in the process of taking them off the power lines and putting them on poles. Ms. Christine Toubeau, 63 Pine Street, said she has been there since 1977. She said she is concerned about the health problems and the possible stigma attached to her house for young people who are 3 Tel: (508) 553-4856 Fax: (508) 520-4906 concerned about this when considering buying their house in the future. She said there is enough information about health problems. She talked about the effect of the woodlands and trees in the area. She said she thinks this will affect the cost of her home and neighborhood. She wants the ZBA to think about it. Ms. Maddison Newton, 954 Pond Street, asked about wildlife. She said she knows it is conservation land, and there are birds and asked if there is something to protect the wildlife to help the ecosystem. Mr. Parisi explained they are federally regulated that they have to do environmental due diligence, and they will have no environmental impact. He said if the ZBA requested, they could provide a copy of their NEPA report along with the building permit application. Ms. Mary B. Groth, 12 Pine Street, talked about property values and the importance of the equity in their homes. Constructing a 104 ft. tower on Pond Street in the middle of their neighborhood will seriously damage the value of their homes which is a substantial detriment to the public good. She explained cell towers are visual polluters. She noted the wide perception that cell towers are dangerous especially to children. She said what young family will want their children playing 38 ft. from a cell tower. She discussed the wide-spread tower stigma leading to lower sale prices. She said cell towers are classified as hazards and nuisances by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. She discussed the expected devaluation of the home and the monetary loss to homeowners. She asked the ZBA to not allow the variance. She asked that cell towers be placed away from homes. Ms. Cindy Mealey, 41 Pine Street, said the neighbors are concerned. She said it is wet back there. She said they have had two major pine trees come down. It is a wind tunnel there. She talked about the growth of pine trees. She said they are going to put up a 100 ft. tower on a street full of pine trees. She talked about the power outages per year. She asked if any ZBA members have cell towers in their backyards. She asked them to talk to National Grid regarding the power outages. She asked the ZBA to get more information about the other 11 sites that they did research on. She said there has to be another alternative. They are a residential neighborhood. She asked the ZBA to reconsider this. Ms. Jacqueline Maciel, 95 Elm Street, said they have had poor service at her house. She said the tower is proposed to be put in a hollow. She asked why is this tower not on a hill. Chair Hunchard suggested she call Verizon about her service. Ms. Maciel asked why don’t they put the tower in the land off Maple Street that the Town purchased a few years ago. She said she does not think Verizon did a very good search. Ms. Jane Callaway-Tripp, 607 Maple Street (via Zoom), said she is about one minute away from the location of the cell tower. She said she does not think a cell tower should be going in a residential area. These people bought their homes with expectations of not having a cell phone tower in their backyard. She said it is not safe; it is dangerous. She noted that this would be in the wetlands and trees come down in wetlands. She said property values will be damaged, but their property taxes will not be lowered. She said the lawsuits should be looked into before this item passes. Chair Hunchard suggested continuing this item. Mr. Acevedo suggested making a motion at this time. Motion made by Robert Acevedo to deny the variance request for 1034 Pond Street for Vertex Towers, LLC. Motion seconded by Ginelle Lang. Discussion: Ms. Lang said that while she agrees they need cell service in that area, she thinks there should be more looking into alternate sites, not within that proximity to a residential house. Vote: Acevedo-YES; Lang-YES; Hunchard-NO. Chair Hunchard said this passes as there were not three votes in the affirmative. 4 Tel: (508) 553-4856 Fax: (508) 520-4906 Mr. Parisi said this happens in a lot of places that people say there must be someplace else you can go, but no one says where. Building Commissioner Gus Brown asked if there was a motion made to close the public hearing. Mr. Parisi asked if there was any additional information the ZBA may want in order to make a positive decision. He said he would want to provide data to show that there is no place else. Motion made by Robert Acevedo to close the public hearing for 1034 Pond Street for Vertex Towers, LLC. Motion seconded by Ginelle Lang. Vote: Unanimous by the Board. Motion made by Robert Acevedo to approve the variance request for 1034 Pond Street for Vertex Towers, LLC. Motion seconded by Ginelle Lang. Vote: Acevedo-NO; Lang-NO; Hunchard-YES. (The motion did not pass). 33 Elm Street - G. David Iverson, Trustee Abutters: None. 7:35 p.m. Applicant is seeking to construct a single-family home that has 123.92’ of frontage where 200’ is required and with right side yard setback of 26.5’ where 40’ is required. The building permit is denied without a Variance from the ZBA. Applicants present: Attorney Edward Cannon (via Zoom) on behalf of the applicant. Attorney Cannon requested a continuance to November 6, 2025. He said they are waiting for the buyer to get the drainage design done. He said G&H expects to have a design done by October 31 which would then be sent to the ZBA. He explained that if they do not have the plan for the November 6 meeting, they will be asking to withdraw the petition. Chair Hunchard requested the continuance be to November 20. Motion made by Ginelle Lang to continue the public hearing to November 20, 2025. Motion seconded by Robert Acevedo. Vote: Unanimous by the Board. 444 East Central Street – TAG Central LLC Abutters: All abutters’ names/addresses are listed within the meeting minutes below. Mr. Halligan recused himself. 7:40 p.m. Applicant is seeking a building permit to construct a 264-unit multi-family development. The building permit is denied without a Comprehensive Permit from the ZBA. Applicants present: Mr. A.J. Alevizos of TAG Central LLC; Mr. Peter Freeman, attorney; Mr. Peter Alevizos of TAG Central LLC (via Zoom); Mr. Carlton Quinn, Civil Engineer of Allen & Major Associates. Mr. Alevizos handed documents to each ZBA member. He said based on the previous hearing and the balloon study they heard feedback from the ZBA and neighbors to see if there was anything else they could do to improve the plan. He said they came up with a solution to significantly increase the amount of buffer area on the east side to the benefit of the residential abutters. He said they adjusted the parking lot on the east side by reducing the dimensions of some parking spaces which necessitates a waiver by the ZBA as the spaces will be 8.5 ft. instead of 9 ft. He said they also reduced some of the parking spaces, but they are still above the 1.5 recommended ratio; it is now at 1.52. He said the increase in the buffer is one- third compared to the previous plan. That allows them to save many existing mature trees there. The total buffer area is now over .5 acre between our residential neighbor abutters and limit of work line. He said they are pleased with this minor modification. With that change they also had a number of concessions and improvements incorporated from the preliminary LIP process. He said some of those include: 5 Tel: (508) 553-4856 Fax: (508) 520-4906 changed the roof design to flat; made some significant buffer area improvements; planting new vegetation to fill in any gaps in the buffer; incorporated a retaining wall to save more buffer on the east side, lowered the unit count by 10 units; removed one building; and increased the setback by nearly 20 ft. He said with all those improvements and concessions since the original LIP plan, they are pleased with this plan. He said they understand peer review is in a good place. He said he believes the application has been thoroughly vetted and is happy to answer any questions. Mr. Joe Peznola of Hancock Associates, peer review civil engineer, said they have not been active on this project for quite a while. Their previous letter was in August; there was a response to that letter in the middle of August. That original response indicated that revised plans were forthcoming. He said he understands the applicant has been working with Conservation Commission and their consultant BETA on floodplain and stormwater issues. He said he has been tracking those issues. He said they are in agreement that stormwater and flood issues are coming to a close. He said today they were informed that revised engineering plans were not forthcoming and we then moved into looking at the project from the standpoint of conditioning any outstanding issues. He reviewed the highlights of his comments. He said the applicant has revised the southeast corner and did the balloon test. He said Hancock defers to the ZBA if that is sufficient to address the concerns. He said the proposed mitigation is the building height reduction and building movement and increase in the buffer with additional plantings. He said he does not have a full set of revised plans and landscape plans. He said it is commitments. He explained that comprehensive permits are heavily conditioned all the time. He said with regard to parking, the parking is slightly reduced to 1.52 which is still within the 1.35 that the traffic peer review engineer said was adequate. He said the distribution of the parking spaces is a little shy on the east side which he outlined. He said they remain concerned about snow storage. He said the Conservation Commission will probably have some restrictions on the placement of snow approximate to the wetlands. There has not been a revised snow storage plan which would have to be a condition. He said they may have to truck snow off site. If it is conditioned, it is conditioned. He said they had called for more information on temporary sediment. He said that will be sufficiently conditioned by the Conservation Commission, but they can offer some additional conditioning. He discussed cut/fill with regard to material brought in and taken out. He would like some analysis on that, and it can be conditioned for the number of trucks, schedule, and truck routes. He said with regard to the sewer, the DPW is comfortable with pushing the source study off. He said they will study the pump station across the street. If it cannot take the flow, they will probably do the on-site tank and pump off peak to not have the impact to the pump station. He said the DPW is in agreement with that. He said he is in agreement that there is no state prohibition on having that kind of tank on site within the water protection district. He said he would like more details on the sewer infrastructure. That can be conditioned. He said they are fine with the fire department regarding access. The landscaping can be conditioned. He said with stormwater, he defers to BETA Group. He said traffic has been wrapped up. Chair Hunchard requested the applicant go over the waiver list and tell the ZBA what you are looking for and why you need it. Mr. Quinn reviewed the waivers needed and said they have three buildings that are four stories and 50 ft. They have parking lots within 22 ft. and buildings within 20 ft. of the stream. He said they are requesting ZBA approve the signage. The parking schedule requires two stalls per unit, and they are requesting 1.52 stalls per unit. He said the parking space dimensions they are proposing are parking stalls ranging from 9 ft. x 18 ft. to 8.5 ft. x 18 ft. which is done to help increase the vegetated buffer for the abutters. Waivers also include site plan approval by ZBA rather than Planning Board, and impervious coverage. To allow the ZBA to approve the drainage. Stormwater management requiring sureties be done by the ZBA as a condition. To use groundwater levels from May that were discussed with BETA. Attorney Freeman talked about the surety. Mr. Quinn talked about the requirements for stormwater. He said as they are not doing a subdivision, they did not feel it is relevant, so they requested a waiver from the stormwater subdivision 6 Tel: (508) 553-4856 Fax: (508) 520-4906 requirements. He discussed there are requirements that they are required to meet which are above and beyond the Wetlands Protection Act and he reviewed associated waivers to this. Mr. Alevizos said they have tried to comply with all of the local Franklin wetland bylaws and regulations; where we could not meet them is where we have sought a waiver. He explained it is a function of the design. Ms. Lang asked if there are wetland locations in Franklin that we could require improvement to make that 2:1. Mr. Peznola said not that he knows of, but it is certainly a good idea. He said it would be difficult to condition them having to secure additional rights to do work on a different property, but it is an idea they can consider. Possibly they have access to a property that has a degraded buffer or degraded wetland that they could restore. He discussed relief that is being sought and explained the Franklin bylaw which is local. He said the ZBA could ask for additional information on the riverfront and the impact. He explained that under the Franklin local bylaw, it is in your court, and you can ask those questions and have them quantify that regarding the portions of the riverfront that are and are not degraded. Mr. Quinn said their wetland specialist has been going through this with BETA and the board. He explained what is meant by degraded riverfront. Mr. Alevizos said their wetland scientist could not attend the meeting tonight. Mr. Quinn said they separated the wetlands and the stormwater. Mr. Alevizos said he was hoping to have the BETA review letter prior to tonight’s hearing. He discussed a work session that was held and said from that session they do not expect to have meaningful outstanding comments as it relates to wetland protection. Mr. Peznola said when the ZBA acts on a variance and is asked to grant relief, you are given the information that the requirement is this and you are asked to relieve it to this. He explained that when reviewing these waivers, it is good to understand whether the relief can be quantified. He said this gives the ability to understand and act on the waiver. Mr. Quinn said all the concerns will be discussed in the BETA report. Director of Conservation Breeka Li Goodlander (via Zoom) said that she has some revisions for the records and for clarity about where they are in the process and the bylaw. She said degraded riverfront area is actually mandated under the Wetlands Protection Act, not our bylaw. So those numbers are protected already. She said she would like to stress that the Conservation Commission would like to maintain jurisdiction as much as possible to at least have a conversation. She noted that isolated vegetative wetlands (IVW) are protected under the Wetlands Protection Act starting at a certain size which they are not at this property. Mr. Quinn continued with his review and discussed waivers from the Town of Franklin Wetland Protection regulations. He reviewed details for a waiver for work in the 25 ft. no disturb zone, a waiver for work in the 25 ft. to 50 ft. no structure buffer zone, and a waiver for work in the 50 ft. to 100 ft. buffer zone. He reviewed waivers including, but not limited to, an administrative waiver, local filing fee, submittal of mitigation plan, alternatives analysis, replication ratio 2:1, construction sequence and schedule on the plan set, plans show existing vegetation, definition of key terms, waivers from various local Conservation Commission bylaw, and subdivision land regulations to allow ZBA to approve ANR plan. Mr. Peznola said with regard to submittal of the mitigation plan, the applicant is working closely with the Conservation Commission and will have quite a bit of mitigation in the plan. He discussed that from Ms. Goodlander’s call to retain as much jurisdiction under the local bylaw by the Conservation Commission, that is not what is happening here, the jurisdiction under the local bylaw is with the ZBA, but the ZBA can take input from the Conservation Commission. 7 Tel: (508) 553-4856 Fax: (508) 520-4906 Ms. Goodlander said she heard that. Chair Hunchard said Attorney Mark Bobrowski said the ZBA is the only one with the right to waive those waivers. Ms. Goodlander said that works, and she can provide a response letter. Ms. Lang asked about an example of a quantifiable item and confirmed they can ask for a plan that shows that. Mr. Peznola discussed that the applicant should provide the quantification of the relief being sought, and the input from the Conservation Commission that this is the mitigation plan that they have worked out with the applicant to a degree justifies the waivers. Attorney Freeman explained he does not think the waiver should be denied. He said they do not object to submitting the mitigation plan to the ZBA. He said they want the waiver, but they are not saying that they will not present a plan. Ms. Lang questioned that the new site plan they just got does not require any setback waivers from the property lines. She said she did not see any dimensional waivers expect regarding streams and ponds and height. Mr. Quinn said they need a waiver for a garage, and there is a side yard setback required for the building. Ms. Whitmore said in looking at the elevation for the three-story building on the eastern side, the four- story building is next to the river, what is its elevation to the three-story building. Mr. Quinn said up to 50 ft. Ms. Whitmore asked if you will see the four-story building past the three-story building. Mr. Alevizos noted they submitted this, and they have a conceptual illustrated section diagram which he showed on the screen and explained. Ms. Lang asked where is the waiver for the property line setback. Mr. Alevizos said they need to add that to the waiver list. It is on the plan and table, and they should have put it on the waiver list. Ms. Lang said therefore this is an incomplete waiver list. Attorney Freeman said they will add the side yard setback waiver. Ms. Lang asked that the new waiver list be numbered. Mr. Freeman said they will do that. Chair Hunchard said this is a conceptual project and once they get the approval then they will do the final plans. Mr. Freeman said that is correct. Mr. Brown said Mr. Gary Love who is in the audience asked Mr. Brown to research some items. Mr. Brown said he spoke to Attorney Mark Bobrowski, the attorney hired by the Town to handle this process. He said that Mr. Bobrowski brought up a case heard by the SJC. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Freeman to correct him if he says anything wrong. Mr. Brown reviewed the case of Boothroyd v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Amherst. He said Mr. Bobrowski will gather all the experts at some point, traffic study experts, engineers, who will draft a decision. He read the SJC decision from Amherst, MA. He said this is an SJC decision regarding the regional needs test. Amherst had already reached their 10 percent threshold. The ZBA found a continuing need for affordable housing. The court held that the local board of appeals has the discretion to decide whether or not to impose the local zoning laws once the minimum has been satisfied. He said all elected and appointed officials and staff have an enormous task of running an almost $200 million business which is the Town of Franklin, and they have done a good job. He said what are the possible grounds for denial. He said that would be not meeting the compliance with federal and state health and safety regulations, site conditions, and building designs. He read aloud from the HAC and said the heading from the handbook is denial. He read the HAC will not overturn local denial of a comprehensive permit if the city or town meets one of the statutory minima or another safe harbor under the 40B regulations. Except for these circumstances, the HAC has generally not supported denials. He read that accordingly, the ZBA should view denial of a comprehensive permit as a last resort only when there is no practical way to approve the project with conditions. Mr. Gino Carlucci, 1 Toni Lane, said he continues to support the need for housing in Franklin. He said he did research on the fiscal impacts of the project compared to other possible developments there. He said 8 Tel: (508) 553-4856 Fax: (508) 520-4906 the parcel is about 15 acres. He said the abutting properties are about 15 acres. He said those properties are assessed at $17.5 million and generate about $200,000 in taxes. He said a similar apartment complex, Station 117, is assessed at $75 million and generates $875,000 in taxes per year. He said approving this project addresses the housing need and a step forward in financial sustainability for the Town. Mr. Gene Grella, 36 Red Gate Lane, said he has written a letter that responds to Mr. Carlucci’s letter which was submitted to the ZBA. Mr. Grella said about one year ago he created an online petition for this project. The petition asked to have this project reconsidered. There have been over 1,300 signers of the petition. He said in June of this year, a survey was done and over 1,300 people responded to the survey, and 91.75 percent said the town should not support the construction of 264 units at 444 East Central Street. The number one reason was traffic and the burden on town services. He said this week he submitted a petition signed by 896 residents and voters in Franklin. He said it is not just abutters that are concerned, it is the whole town. He reviewed the wording of the petition which strongly opposes the project and asks the Town Council to rescind their prior vote for the project and the ZBA to deny the comprehensive permit. He asked shouldn’t the ZBA be representing the people of Franklin. He said the local need is for housing residents can own, not rent. He said there are plenty of vacant apartments. If it has to be apartments, they want a smaller project with less impact to wetlands, stormwater, abutting neighbors, and the public well. He noted this project is not right for Franklin which is part of the 20 percent of communities in Massachusetts with over 10 percent affordable housing. Mr. Gary Love, 39 Red Gate Lane, thanked Mr. Brown for his information. Mr. Love read three questions. He said there seems to be a shadow or cloud over these proceedings that if they don’t do what they need to do, it just gets appealed, and then the state takes over. That is what he was asking Mr. Brown. He said the handbook says Chapter 40B gives the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) authority to adjudicate appeals arising from the ZBA’s denial or conditional approval of a comprehensive permit. He explained, however, the HAC’s discretion to overturn local decisions applies only to cases involving a city or town that has not met its regional fair share obligations under the statute. He reviewed the statutory minima. He asked what does it mean that it has 180 days for a decision. Chair Hunchard said that if the 180 days is not met it means the applicant can apply for a constructive grant. He said Attorney Freeman and Attorney Bobrowski agreed they would have a decision one way or the other by December 31. Mr. Freeman said they agreed the decision would be filed with the town clerk by December 31. Mr. Love asked about the Conservation Commission’s approval. Chair Hunchard said he thinks it is pretty close. Mr. Alevizos said they are looking for an order of conditions from the Conservation Commission. Mr. Love said it seems like they are trying to shoehorn a large project into this area. Mr. Freeman said he wanted to clarify information that Mr. Love provided in the handbook 2017 edition. He reviewed the Boothroyd v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Amherst case. He said that if you are dealing with a project and you have the substantive hearings, even though the town is above 10 percent, you are still obligated to weight the factors under the consistent with local need standards so that you are both empowered, and unless there is an adverse impact that is so strongly negative which is consistent with local needs standard, you would be obligated to grant the waiver. Mr. Love said that is what he would like the town’s attorneys to answer and know it as a fact. He wants to know if this is true. Mr. Stephen Malloy, 19 Russet Hill Road, discussed local needs as a kind of a fundamental turning point on the potential rejection of this from the ZBA’s perspective. He talked about the quality of life in Franklin. He said we do not need the additional apartments as we already meet the threshold. He said people are against it. The issue is not going away. He said the ZBA has the latitude to consider the quality of life regarding the local need. He said Franklin is a suburb, and it should not be changed as we already meet the threshold. 9 Tel: (508) 553-4856 Fax: (508) 520-4906 Mr. Richard Stratt, 10 Hayden Lane, said he wanted to push back that the potential hazards of this project have been dealt with and put to bed. He said one issue is the possible flooding hazard of Uncas Brook at Cooks Farm. He reviewed a recent technical memorandum from Beals Associates, and it was pointed out the flooding hazard and that the town is right to be concerned about the flooding hazard. He said the second point was about the potential impact of the construction and the claim that in spite of adding the impervious areas the stormwater mitigation methods would be enough to prevent any further damage. He said this is a problem that he hopes the ZBA will think about these potential flooding problems. He asked why the ZBA would want to put the Town of Franklin at risk. He discussed traffic. The traffic engineer’s report says that adding these apartments would not cause any significant effect on the traffic, but people are scratching their heads saying how can this be. He questioned the assumptions in the report and noted they are rather puzzling and asked that the assumptions made be reconsidered regarding the traffic. Ms. Renee Love, 39 Red Gate Lane, read aloud a letter on behalf of her neighbor Susan Rappa who was unable to attend tonight’s meeting. The letter indicated that Ms. Rappa formally objects to the apartment complex proposal. She said pink flags from the project are 30 ft. from her property line. The developer has revised it to 40 ft. This is too close to a single-family home. She urged the ZBA review the plans carefully. The letter noted the three and four-story buildings and the parking should not be allowed to be built so close to abutting single-family home property lines. She asked that the ZBA hear what the majority of people of Franklin are saying. She talked about the many apartments already available in town and the potential traffic. She said the ZBA does not have to say yes to this developer. She said the project can be denied. She said this project with 30 waivers should not be built. She asked that the ZBA please hear the residents. A picture of Ms. Rappa’s property line was provided. Ms. Love explained this project will sit 40 ft. from the Rappa’s property line; that is the length of a school bus. Ms. Lang said she received Ms. Rappa’s letter and picture with the pink flags. Mr. Alevizos said they are not intending to reflag the area. They did it for the balloon test. He said the flags have been there for a long time. It was the limit of work line. Since the balloon test, they have brought in the limit of work by one third. Mr. Love said that one third is 10 ft. It has moved from 30 ft. to 40 ft. from the property line. She said the balloon test should be done in another month when all the vegetation is down as it is a completely different situation than in the summer. Mr. Alevizos said the building is farther from the property line. He said they are installing approximately $30,000 of new trees to serve as a vegetative buffer. He said they saved existing trees with the alternative change tonight. They are also installing a screening fence. He said he met with Ms. Rappa personally and offered to put trees on her property as her house is the only one directly facing the project. He discussed the elevations. Mr. Mark Minnichelli, 31 Longfellow Drive (via Zoom), said he had a question and a couple of comments. He asked the new number of units and number of affordable. Mr. Alevizos said 254 units proposed and 64 affordable units. Mr. Minnichelli said Mr. Carlucci is not alone in terms of a different perspective. He said he is in support of the project; he does not think the decision point should be whether we meet a 10 percent threshold number which was established in the 1960s. He said we should ask ourselves if we have reached the level of affordability that we want, and for him the answer is no. He wanted to reemphasize the comment that this project is going to be a drain on Franklin resources which he disagrees with. He said he would like to see data. He said a project like this can provide additional revenue which is what the town needs. Mr. Grella asked what percentage of Massachusetts’ towns and communities meet the 10 percent requirement. He said 20 percent. He said why is it that Franklin continues to build affordable housing when 80 percent of the rest of Massachusetts are not. Chair Hunchard said one reason is the applicant has a relationship with the land owner. 10 Tel: (508) 553-4856 Fax: (508) 520-4906 Resident who did not identify himself said he moved here with his family about 1.5 years ago. He noted about 90 percent of people from the survey Mr. Grella discussed disapprove of this. Chair Hunchard noted that number is from the people who were surveyed, not all people in Franklin. He noted there are 32,000 residents, and 2 percent or 3 percent of that are against it. The resident said he is here because he wants representation from his voice. Chair Hunchard and Mr. Freeman discussed the date to schedule the next public hearing. Mr. Freeman noted the decision needs to be filed with the town clerk by December 31. Motion made by Ginelle Lang to continue the public hearing to November 20, 2025. Motion seconded by Robert Acevedo. Vote: Unanimous by the Board. General Business Meeting Minutes: September 4, 2025 Motion made by Ginelle Lang to approve the Meeting Minutes as presented for September 4, 2025. Motion seconded by Robert Acevedo. No Vote Taken. General Business: 121 Grove Street - Fairfield Residential Chair Hunchard said they had a request from 121 Grove Street that they sent in finished plans and they have to be peer reviewed. He said he got a quote from the peer reviewer of $3,600. He said it was part of the decision. He said he needs a motion to ask the applicants, Fairfield Residential, for $3,600 to have Hancock Associates review the final plans for 121 Grove Street. Motion made by Ginelle Lang to ask the applicants, Fairfield Residential, for $3,600 to have Hancock Associates review the final plans for 121 Grove Street. Motion seconded by Robert Acevedo. Vote: Unanimous by the Board. General Business Meeting Minutes: September 25, 2025 Motion made by Robert Acevedo to approve the Meeting Minutes as presented for September 25, 2025. Motion seconded by Ginelle Lang. Vote: Unanimous by the Board. Motion made by Ginelle Lang to adjourn the In-Person/Remote Access Zoom Virtual Meeting. Motion seconded by Robert Acevedo. Vote: Unanimous by the Board. Meeting adjourned at 10:11 PM. Respectfully submitted, Judith Lizardi Recording Secretary Signature: _____Casey Thayer_____________Date: _____Nov. 6. 2025_________________ 11