Speaker 1: I will call to order at 7:02 PM the meeting of the NA Planning Board. We have a, a, a good mix of things that we'll be looking at today. We'll start with as we, as we are required to with public speak and an individual can raise an issue that's not included on the agenda and it will be taken under advisement by the board. There'll be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting, and this section of the agenda is limited to 15 minutes.
And any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. And I'll say an emphasis that this is for matters not covered elsewhere on the agenda. Is there anyone who wishes to stand in public speed? Do we have anyone following virtually? Speaker 2: I don't see any hands. Alright, Speaker 1: Then we will move. The first order of business is an approval not required application an a and r in this case for one HF Brown Way in West Natick.
Is there someone here to speak to that project? Amanda, was it your sense that someone was going to come? Speaker 2: I thought so. So let me just pull up the, just so it's on the screen for you and then lemme just double check on the attendees to see if I am not seeing the applicant or a representative for it. Speaker 1: And how long, when, when does this s an a and r when is its buy a date? Speaker 2: The to review? Lemme stop share just so I can, so an A and r has 21 days.
The application was stamped with the town. Stamped with the town clerk. Speaker 3: Sorry. Speaker 1: And just for those, for those following at home, we are checking on the date because there's a requirement that we have to adjudicate either kind of pro or con on a very limited schedule. And I want to make sure that we don't end up app having something approving approved automatically because we did not have it heard before. Speaker 2: So it's March 16th Speaker 1: Is when it came in.
Speaker 2: So it was stamped for the, on the March 16th. Speaker 1: Okay. So, Speaker 2: And our next meeting is Speaker 1: It's Speaker 4: Mar April 8th. Speaker 2: Our next meeting's the eighth. So do we have 21 days between there, Speaker 3: The total days or Speaker 4: Business? My math skills, it's Speaker 2: Gonna be total days. Speaker 4: What's that? 21 days? Speaker 2: 21 days total. Speaker 3: So 21 days from Speaker 4: March 16th. Speaker 3: Pardon? Speaker 4: How are we within Speaker 3: March 16th? Speaker 1: It came in, it was stamped in the Speaker 3: 16th. Monday. Two. Okay. Close. So the sixth? No, Speaker 2: So it's over the 21 days. All right. Speaker 4: I, yeah, I, I mean I've got a number of questions on this,
so I don't know, do we say them here? Do we, are Speaker 1: You here for this? For No. Yes. Speaker 4: No one's here for, how do you want to handle that? I mean, there's, is this after you read Bill McDowell's opinion on the a and r plan? Yeah, I, I mean I don't know if there, I did not read his opinion. Oh, well bottom line is he recommends endorsement, but I don't know if any of the opinions contained therein might answer questions that you might have or if it's under
probably not, to be honest with you. Well, fair enough. I I, I like having the opinion of the town engineer on these things. It obviously helps me, but that doesn't necessarily mean it answers your questions. No, and I I, I don't mean to be dismissive of his comments, but for me, and I, again, I don't get overly nitpicky about a and r plans, but this one in particular has just, it, it, it deserves endorsement. Don't get me wrong. But there are things on this plan that should be changed. Alright? First of all, it's an approval, not required plan.
Therefore it should not say subdivision anywhere on it. And there's multiple places where it says subdivision. It's interesting 'cause his, his opinion actually says it does not constitute a subdivision. Agreed. It doesn't. He agrees with you. But the plan says it's an a and r subdivision plan and then it says it's for subdividing the part, it's not a subdivision. So we should not have that reference on the plan. Fair enough. I don't know what lot 81 is. There are math errors all over this plan in terms of lot square footage and acreages inconsistencies.
I mean, I can point 'em out unless you want me to put 'em down and comment. There's leaders going to weird little things on the plan that don't make a lot of sense. I'm not comfortable with calling it a new lot. I'm not comfortable saying this is for the purpose of creating an easement. An a and r plan does not create an easement. Just doesn't. So there's ways to fix all that in terms of how we deal with it or, or the notes that are on this thing. But I'm, I would not want to sign this plan as as drafted. So do we agree that I'm looking at the c en large diagram on the right.
It it looks like the lot, the partial ID that ends in 15 is being expanded and the one below at number 16, it looks like we're zing on a line there too. So it's being expanded. And then the parcel below that with the curve well bit on it, it looks like that is being, that bottom line's being zed out. So we're creating kind of a bigger, a bigger parcel there. It just conceptually, yeah, I'm just trying to understand what we're trying to do. I, if the notes are wrong, then I, then I think that's legitimate. But, but just conceptually do, I think what's they're trying to do is they're, they're trying to carve off that lot c
that sort of Alright. Yeah. To combine it with the abutting lot. Yes. In order for a sewer easement to be placed on that newly created lot and then ultimately Oh, I see. Those are gonna be combined. Right. But the plan is doing a lot of work on lots of different things. For example, you just pointed out parcel blah blah blah 15 and 16. It says lot A and lot B on the backside. Yeah. That's not what this plan is doing. Right? Those are already recorded that way. So I don't know why that's on there. There's a reference to lot 81. There is no lot 81 anywhere. Yeah. I don't know what that reference is.
It says it's, it's creating a new parcel, four seven dash dash blah blah blah blah 17. They don't get to make a new assessor's partial number. So why is that reference on there? It's just a lot of weird drafting things on this that I think need to get cleaned up. I think it, it, it, it's entitled to our endorsement, but there's just a lot on here that just needs to be cleaned up and clarified. Speaker 1: Well, and what's hard though is that we can't really, you can't, you don't condition an a and r plan. No. So our choice is
to endorse it Speaker 4: Or, or not as Speaker 1: Is or not citing the numerous questions. Speaker 2: So you can deny Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 2: Waive the application fee to allow the applicant to refile the new plan. Speaker 1: And do you feel that the, the applicant as you, as you understand, would be willing to put the Speaker 2: Well he is gonna have to if he wants it to be endorsed. Yeah. This is a remand from the courts. So that is the difficult part. But you can, if you want it to be endorsed,
you gotta have it endorsed. Speaker 4: Say that again. Speaker 2: If it it has to be endorsed. It needs to be endorsed. Speaker 4: Yeah, I know, Speaker 2: I know. But it needs to be endorsed properly. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 2: Yeah, because it does need to be recorded with the associated deeds. I mean Speaker 4: Is unfortunate that the applicant isn't here tonight. 'cause I would rather it just be withdrawn and these comments given to them and then redrafted and submitted, now we're in a position where they're not here and we have to act because the next time we meet is Mar is April 8th and that's after this is required to be endorsed.
So to me it's like, it's not a subdivision but it says it's a subdivision and we can deny it on that basis if we want to do it that way. Speaker 1: Except both to do that because you had, you could strike the word and someone would say, well you could have done that before Speaker 4: On the plan. Speaker 1: So no, but that, that we could have if we thought it was acceptable to be a, a Speaker 4: Not a, not a subdivision Speaker 1: Plan. It's not a subdivision. I don't want it to feel like that we're playing semantics. Speaker 2: So you can vote not to endorse due to
incorrect information providing the plan and requiring the applicant to come back. Speaker 4: I think Speaker 1: The, I Speaker 4: Think that's, I think the proper way to do it is the plan shows a subdivision, therefore it's not entitled to endorsement. So I'll make, I'll, I'll, I'll make that motion. This plan shows a subdivision, it says it on the plan what's titled a and r subdivision plan. And do they, do they mean that word in that context? Speaker 1: I think it's, I think it's kind of thin, a thin argument to have it hang on. Much more appropriate I think or some of the shortcomings in terms of how the plan is prepared.
What insert is not shown. Speaker 4: I I I understand. But if we don't deny it, They could easily interpret it as well. It is not a subdivision and the 21 days expires and they're entitled to run to the registry of deeds and record it. I don't want, I mean I want to be cooperative and I think the plan has major flaws. There's incorrect square footages, incorrect acreages, incorrect purposes on the plan.
It's, it's not a subdivision plan, it's also not an easement plan, but it says the purpose is to create an easement. A and r plans don't create easements. So if we, if we try to be super nice about it, they can just say, well the plan is legally a sub, not a subdivision. Well we should include all those reasons and maybe put the fact that it's not a sub, the fact that it actually uses the words a and r subdivision plan at the bottom 'cause it, 'cause those are other things I think are very substantive. Speaker 1: Alright, are there further points of discussion on that or is there a motion to Speaker 4: But the instrument is the motion to deny yes. For the following language. Correct.
Motion to deny Do we have to do a decision and like sign our decision? No. Will will these various reasons be recorded as part of our deny? I think Amanda can certainly convey that Speaker 2: To. So what I have to do is I have to draft of a letter outlining the reasons for the denial and then I have to certify mail that via certified mail to the applicant. Speaker 4: Alright, so you need to sign that Terry, Speaker 1: Just one second. Could I say, is there anyone who's here tonight about this particular approval? Not required. I didn't think there was,
but I I did not want to overlook anybody. Speaker 4: So you've made a motion and I I will second it and I'm happy to let you sign the letter for us. I dunno if we need to vote that a secondly or not, but can I be clear about the motion though? Motion to deny endorsement as an appro, as a, as a plan. Not showing you subdivision without, without prejudice. I don't know if you want to frame it that way, but subject to comments on the plan that Amanda is in receipt of being addressed Speaker 1: And I'm assuming they can Speaker 4: And resubmitted Speaker 1: They can resubmit. Yeah,
Speaker 2: It's an a r there so it doesn't hold the same as what a special permit does. So an A and r you can deny right? And they just come back. Speaker 1: Yeah. So there's, there's a, a way of resolving it. So you made the motion and you second Speaker 4: Just one more thing. I'd be happy Amanda, I'll be happy to clarify any of those Okay. With you on the phone. Okay. Speaker 1: So, alright, on the motion made and seconded. All those in favor say I don't to need a roll, roll call vote because all of us who are in the meeting are here. Speaker 4: Aye aye aye, Speaker 1: Aye. Alright, great. Then we will get that and,
and I expect to see it coming back in the not distant future. Yeah. Alright, so on that next is the continued public hearing for 66 25 Worcester Street, which is the proposal for the car wash. And I was just, just to see to say someone's here for the applicant. Speaker 5: Good evening. Speaker 1: Good evening Speaker 5: Again for the record. Jonathan Stein, counsel for the applicant at the initial public hearing session, the board requested that we undertake a sound study
and a traffic study. We have engaged LS Environmental to conduct the sound study and I believe JT Stevens might be on the Zoom and if he could be admitted as a panelist. We've also engaged Finess and Associates, Jeff Dirk, who also I believe might be on the zone zoom to conduct the traffic study. The traffic study is ongoing and the sound study,
we have a draft which we believe we should be able to submit within the next several days to, to a week. But if Mr. Stevens and Mr. Dirk are admitted, they can each in turn just sort of update the board on what they've been tasked with and any initial impressions they might have. And the board can let them know of any particular concerns or questions they might want addressed in their reports.
So with your permission, unless you have questions, Speaker 1: I just a question that is, I know that I, we have not received anything from the applicants since our last meeting. Is that, is that correct? Speaker 5: That's correct. We've been engaging in the studies that the board asked us to undertake. So that's, that's what we've been taking care of and we have, and Helene Tuba, who's the civil engineer on the project, has been working on updated site plans,
but we didn't want to keep submitting numerous iterations of the site plans. I can if you'd like, share with you the current site plan, but essentially we've removed the parking from the residential portion of the site and we are gonna obviously work with the traffic and sound consultants to make any other updates that they recommend to the site plan. So we didn't want to just keep submitting numerous
versions of the site plan to the board. So my goal tonight is just to update the board and here let the consultants hear directly from members of the board as to specific questions or concerns you might want them to address in their reports. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. And, and what I'll, I'll say, and I think you probably know this anyway, is that we do require significant lead time in turning the property materials into the board ahead of the, the hearing that understood, which will Speaker 5: Be discussed, which is another reason we didn't
submit anything because there hasn't been a whole lot of time since the last hearing and we've been working on engaging the consultants that the board encouraged us to engage. Speaker 1: Thank you. Now for those of, for those of you who are, are here and, and came to either to hear or to speak or both, just to give you a sense, we will hear what the applicants are proposing to kind of, to present. After that's finished, I'll get comments from the board. After that I will be asking
for comments from those of you in the public. Yes. Speaker 4: The last meeting we asked, you asked for an extension, we gave you two options, we gave you two options. You picked this one, which was enough time to prepare whatever information needed to prepare. The purpose of these meetings is to not keep bringing people out to hear something that is in the works we expected. I expected as a board to have in our packets tonight a traffic study, a lighting study, a sound study,
a stormwater report, something much more substantial than the five or six page statement in air quotes that you submitted the last time. So I'm happy to hear your consultants, but this hearing is about presenting and having us look at the information and having a educated conversation about it not to hear it first time. So I, I beg to differ that the purpose here is to update us. The purpose of this particular meeting was to provide us the information in advance,
which did not happen respectfully, Speaker 5: Sir. That's just false. I did not ask for an extension. I presented my application, we continued Speaker 4: The public hearing. Speaker 5: I did not interrupt you, sir. I did not ask for an extension. I presented the application, you derided the application, you made incorrect statements of law. You told me you wanted us to engage these consultants. Nothing was said about you. You chose the date. I didn't choose the date. And nothing was said about a requirement that we submit the d the reports in advance of this meeting, which,
you know, well would've been impossible because to obtain a traffic study, have it finished and have it submitted with the substantial lead time that the chair just described in the space of several weeks is impossible. So your bias is clear and I would ask that you rec accuse Speaker 4: Yourself if you, if you want to go there, do you really want to go there? Because I'll make a motion right now. Okay? Speaker 5: Feel free to. So first of all, first of all, Speaker 4: I am sitting on the planning board. You're gonna hear what I'm gonna have to say, okay? Number one, when you submit a project like this,
you submit a traffic study with it. I would not call what was submitted a traffic study. So you had plenty of time to prepare something that was adequate for us to review. You showed up at the hearing, you heard the comments, you heard the comments from the board how inadequate it was. And is we, and correct me if I'm wrong, but we stood here, we said we can continue this hearing and we have two intervening. We had March 11th or the 25th and one of you said we'll do the 25th.
So if you wanna go back and read the minutes, go ahead. But that's what was stated and we expected the information to be in our hands and it's not. So that's where we are. I'm happy to hear your consultants, but we do not have the information we were promised, nor do we have any time to review it. Speaker 5: Sir, you were not promised any information at this meeting. We showed up in good faith tonight to let you know that we were doing what you, we were asked to do. It is not uncommon to have numerous sessions of a public hearing. I could have just asked for a continuance. I thought the board would want to hear the progress we had made.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm happy to hear what the other board members think about what we expected tonight, but that's my opinion. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 4: Do you have Speaker 5: Comments on this, this on Speaker 4: The subject for good or bad sat here a long time. Many, many nights. The process of this application re reminds me of other applications we've seen many times before. They can be, they can be a little contentious, contentious as we kind of bump along to the process. I, I am not a big believer in denying early in the process unless there's a really strong reason to. I I I think I, I'm not sure I'm in love with the project.
I I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna be opaque about that. But I do believe that the applicant gets a chance to hear requests from the board, certainly engaging these professionals, certainly answering the questions that, legitimate questions that came up. And I think that it's, it's just my own personal comfort level to allow that process to happen. At the end of it, we will, we will, when we are more fully informed with the materials that you provide us, have to come to a judgment whether we think this works or not. I'm sure you understand that, I'm sure we all understand that. But my track record has been fairly clear. We've had other items come in front of us
where there have been motions to deny it early on and I can only really think of one time I voted for it. Most times I have, I have prevailed upon those in the room to, to at least let it continue to the point where we feel like we have all of our information, not prejudging, not promising. Personally, I don't recall hearing a promise that we would have all of this information back to us by this meeting. I don't remember hearing that. It's, it would be uncommon to have somebody promise something like that given the realities of collecting all this information. So, you know, it's not uncommon for these things
to have a few public hearings. Not too many, but you know, out fairness, there is a chance to submit information and then out of fairness it's a chance for us to evaluate the complete package. And, and on that night when it happens, we might have more questions, we may have enough information to make a decision. We may have a yes, we may have a no, we're not, we're not promising anything either. But without, without taking an untoward amount of time, I, I'm comfortable hearing what you're gonna be presenting us and when you'll present us. And obviously we do need it before the day of, we always like to have it at least a couple days
before so we can review it and read it. That's kind of a standard, it's actually a requirement. A require. Yeah, we've, we, we've had that practice for a long time, so I don't think anything I've said you disagree with, Speaker 5: I don't disagree with anything you've said and it would, it is not my practice to submit things the day of and I have no intention of doing so. Speaker 4: So for, for my little corner of the table over here, I'm happy to hear what's coming our way and as long as I hear that it's gonna be with us within a reasonable amount of time, I'm happy to receive it, review it, and proceed. Speaker 1: Thank you. Alan, anything to Speaker 5: Add? Just a little bit, I guess kind
of backing up Doug here a little bit, and I guess maybe even more so, the professionals that are coming on right now, I understand there hasn't been enough time. Usually, you know, traffic study is usually six to eight weeks. There's a lot of data that has to be collected. I think this project got off on the wrong foot by submitting, not submitting a proper traffic study to begin with and I think that's kind of where we stick because the first submission was not suitable. So I think, and I just kinda also want to point out for, I think when VAI is presenting, they are not the ones
that did the initial traffic work. So, and I don't know if they have even received it. It'd be interesting if they take a look at it, but I, I think you were kind of start starting off on the wrong foot definitely for this project, but I'm definitely interested in hearing what they have to say. Speaker 1: So if I can, I, I would like to for us to have an op opportunity of hearing what the applicants have to say. So if we can move forward with that and I give them the floor. Speaker 5: Thank you. I guess I would ask, since we've been talking about traffic, I'd ask Mr. Dirk to, to speak first.
Speaker 7: Good evening and then thank you Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeffrey Dirk with Vanessa and associates with the transportation consultants for the project and I appreciate the conversation that's been been going on. I also appreciate the commentary about the, the need for, we'll call it robust data collection efforts. So just to kind of set timelines as it relates to what we've been doing. So we were engaged at the end of February. Snow is finally kind of cleared away. So we were able to obtain some traffic counts the first week of March and follow up
with some field inventories the week thereafter. We're at a point where as of the end of last week, we had all of the data that we needed to undertake the analysis and I, I think as you had heard from one of the members, it's generally about, you know, it's a 68 week process. We're well within that. I fully expect that we're going to have a, a transportation impact assessment complete within the next two to three weeks. So it would be the end of March or early April when we'll have our formal analysis done as it relates to the project. The transportation assessment will be fully compliant
with mass DOT guidelines. So I just wanna assure you that it will be, it'll have everything in there that you need to be able to evaluate the project. So we have undertaken traffic counts, speed measurements along Route nine done a had performed an inventory of sidewalks, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, sight lines at the driveways. So all of that information will be presented in the impact assessment. The project does in addition to local approvals, require a state highway access permit from mass DOT. So mass DOT will also be engaged as a part of our assessment. That's important as you are looking at the project.
Also to understand that mass DOT may have some comments as well so that as I'm presenting materials to you, I can inform you as to what we've heard at least from the state with respect to any conditions that they're thinking about applying to the project as the project moves forward. Critical things that we'll be looking at, of course traffic volumes, site lines at the driveways, how the project impacts the flow of traffic along route nine. And then I think as you're evaluating the site plan, looking at the internal queuing and making sure that there's sufficient queuing so that the project can contain what is expected
for vehicle queuing within the property and that that queuing doesn't extend out into route nine. Also making sure that there's some management plan in place that would look at, you know, that sunny day after we have a snowstorm and they've dumped salt all over route nine and people are coming to get their car washed. So you know, how do you deal with those situations? We've worked on several car washes so we understand kind of what the parameters are that we're looking at and being able to advise the applicant as to whether, you know, the site design and the circulation work for what's projected in terms
of the, the traffic for the model. So that's where we are. With respect to our assessment, again, it will be a full mass DOT compliant transportation impact assessment that will look at all of the standard things that we're required to do to obtain a state highway access permit. It will focus on internal circulation and queuing within the site as well and then looking at the site lines at the driveway. So I'd be happy to answer any questions madam chair that you may have or other board members. But that's where we are with respect to process and again timing, timing wise, end of, we're really talking end of March, beginning
of April is when that assessment will be available. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who's, who's speaking along with this Speaker 5: To traffic? Speaker 1: Yes or the next, the next topic? Speaker 5: So JT Stevens is from LSA environmental consultants and he's conducting the sound study. So can we just ask Speaker 7: Questions of Speaker 1: Okay rather than, rather than doing so Yes Speaker 4: Mr. Dirk, thank you for outlining the scope, appreciate it.
I'm not sure it sheds any light on the issues and it's the scope that's what we expect you to, to study so I appreciate you outlining what it is trip generation. Can you please tell me how many daily trips this project's gonna generate? Speaker 7: So based on the size of the car wash with the two bays that are proposed and it is about 5,144 square feet in terms of the area that the car wash occupies, using trip generation statistics from the Institute of Transportation Engineers on a daily basis,
we're predicting the size of the car wash that's before you for approval. We generate about 1,304 vehicle trips over the operational day of the facility on that 652 vehicles entering and 652 vehicles exiting. Speaker 1: Okay. Is that, I'll have a follow up. Okay, Speaker 5: Just, just a couple. Jeff, what are you using for the study area? Speaker 7: So right now we're just looking, I mean the, the, we're looking at the driveways into the property itself. Any place where vehicles would need to be able to reverse maneuvers, let's say
to go west eastbound on Route nine is some distance away from the project site. So we know the route 27 intersection or interchange just to the west of where the property's located. I shouldn't say just it's, you know, several thousand feet down the road. That's primarily where we'd see diversion of trips at that location. Speaker 5: So did you look at Wheeler Road? We, we, Speaker 7: The intersection with Route nine, we were not, we were not planning on looking at that only because we're, I mean we would impact mostly through traffic past that intersection but I don't believe we're gonna be adding a significant volume of traffic to Wheeler Road itself.
The traffic was primarily gonna be focused to and from route nine. Speaker 5: So I would request you to look at that intersection. I basically look at the two intersections on either side, so Wheeler Road at Route nine, obviously Route nine, westbound only and then Weathersfield with Route nine understanding it's gonna be almost all throughs. There might be a few people peeling splitting off on a weatherfield road, the Route 9 27 interchange, it's all being reconstructed anyway so I don't think we would get anything useful from there but, but I think it's prudent to kind
of just look at one intersection on both sides. Speaker 7: Okay and and just so I can add to that, just so I can let you understand that the study time periods we're looking at to make sure that that's consistent obviously as you're thinking about our data collection. So we're looking at morning, peak hour, evening, peak hour and Saturday midday peak hour is what we're looking at just to make sure that's acceptable as well. Speaker 5: I think so. I mean the A am probably isn't even gonna because it's westbound I don't even think game's gonna be a problem, but definitely the PM Saturday I think will be really important. Speaker 7: Okay. Yeah. And just in terms, I know one
of the members asked about the trip generation, so in addition to the 1,304 is the daily number, the peak hour numbers, to your point it's 77 vehicles during the morning peak hour, 125 vehicles during the evening peak hour and 165 vehicles during the Saturday midday peak hour. So just as you're thinking if, if the morning is not critical to you, we can, we don't have to collect data during that time period. Obviously the, the evening and the Saturday are probably more critical Speaker 5: For I think not just for that but even for Route nine itself, since you are on the westbound side,
I don't think the morning is in that direction is nowhere near as important. I mean unless other people have a have an opinion. So I'm not the only one. And I guess just to reiterate, I think queuing on site really from the car wash, I think that is critically important for this. I know you already said you were gonna look at it and then I, I guess my last isn't really a comment for you, it's more kind of for the crowd. Jeff had mentioned a highway access permit will be needed because this is on state highway mascot will be looking at it. However, their review is a lot different than our review.
They don't look so much as, you know, is this gonna make an impact to traffic in the area. They tend to more focus on their curb cuts and making sure the design, you know, complies with how wide the curb cuts are supposed to be. They usually don't really kind of go as far as we do or take as much into account. And also their review, although they may meet with the applicant earlier, they usually wait until the local process is essentially finished. They don't like to come back and take a look at it again.
So that's usually kind of their own process that really comes after our process Speaker 7: Kind of. Yeah, to put a fine fine point on that they will, they will not issue a permit until the local approvals are issued. So even if we were to make an application to them, it's put on hold until this board completes their review of the project and then the project proceeds through the state permitting process. So they only, they only check a box to say everything's complete and has been submitted and then they place a hold until this board is done with your deliberations. Speaker 5: I'm all set. Okay, Speaker 1: Thank you.
Alright, proceeding to other speakers you Speaker 5: Have? Yes, thank you Madam Chair. Just before that, just so Mr. Dirk has guidance, I wanna make sure I understand the request to look at Wheeler and Whether's field. I assume that's going back to concerns expressed at the initial hearing session about people potentially cutting through and and maybe trying to, if they miss the car wash coming back around on Weathersfield. I just wanna make sure Mr Dirk knows what you specifically want 'em to be looking at that plus generally this is gonna increase traffic in the area
so we are really just looking at other intersections. How much is it gonna impact the delay for the people that are coming outta, whether it's field road coming outta Wheeler Road, obviously it's mostly through traffic that's on route nine. You're not gonna really have more people coming outta Weathersfield but they're gonna be impacted. So we wanna know how much Understood. Thank you. But yeah, if there's any q any cut through, definitely let us know. So now with the board's permission, I'd ask Mr. Stevens to give a similar summary of what he's been tasked with
and where he stands in his analysis. Speaker 8: Sure, no problem. Good evening. My name is JT Stevens. I'm with LSA Associates. I've been working on car washes and noise studies of the like for about 20 years. We've done numerous studies to this one across the United States and have a lot of good data on this equipment and these types of projects. We've completed our analysis, we've completed it in accordance with both local and state level requirements, specifically focused on the increase in noise experience
at the residents to the north. Obviously there's a residence to the northwest and then one due north as part of the process existing ambient measurements were gathered, so ambient meaning without the project, we've taken a bit of a conservative approach here. The state guidance generally relies on what's called an L 90 or an L 90%. I'm obviously happy to dive into any specific math questions you have on this, but basically what that is is it's the noise level exceeded 90% of the time.
What we've done is actually looked at the L min, which is actually the lower noise level than that. So based on the recordings, what was the lowest noise level experience through the totality of those data gatherings that serves as the baseline. And then we look at the increase over ambient to make sure that the project does not increase by 10 decibels over ambient. What we also do in our analysis, and I'll present a graphic in just a moment, is show what the expected noise is from the project. That includes the operation of all pieces of equipment
that would include the significant source of noise, which is the blower, the blowers at the end of both tunnels, the vacuum stanchions or stations, and then the vacuum equipment that powers the vacuum stanchions at the individual parking. A couple things to note, we are assuming that all of the equipment is running simultaneously for the duration of the hour. In all reality that does not occur. There are gonna be periods where the blowers are not in operation. Obviously not every single vacuum
location will be in operation for the totality of the given worst case or modeled hour. So we do present this and and generally recommend to take a conservative approach here. With that being said, I think I can share my screen. I'm just gonna give you a preview of what, oh, it says sharing is not turned on, so I guess I cannot do that. He can request what's Speaker 1: That? He can request. Okay, okay. Yep, you should be able to share now. Okay. Speaker 8: Okay, let me try again. Share. Speaker 1: That's the default setting. Okay, Speaker 8: Let's see. Or things, this one. Alright.
Does everyone see the picture with the colors? Yes. Yes. Okay. So just to give you a preview of what this is showing. So all of the sources are labeled the red triangles are those individual sources I just spoke about in obviously the red rectangles represent the tunnel itself. You might ask, well the blowers are on one end not the other. There is still noise that comes out the entrance mainly due to the blowers, but that is modeled as well. So there is noise coming out of both ends of the blowers
and there are, or sorry, both ends of the tunnel and there are two tunnels. The important things in this are showing this light blue or kind of teal line. So anything, any time that this blue line would approach a residential property line that would indicate an exceedance of the standard. As you can see, the residential property line is along this line up here. This blue line does not reach that on the east side. The blue line falls within the right of way of the road and then it approaches on the commercial side to the east.
It does not fall into the residential properties to the north. With that being said, let me pause and answer any questions. Speaker 1: Alright, thank you. Yes, Speaker 5: I'm sorry, did I hear this right? The blue line is where it is more than a 10 decibel that would e Speaker 8: Correct Chris if, if within this blue line, so basically think of it if any area within the blue line would be an increase over 10 DB over, if it's outside the blue line, it is less than that Speaker 5: And 10 decibels is essentially doubling the noise, correct?
Speaker 8: Correct. That's the, the state's guideline on what constitutes an impact Speaker 5: And what is the impact at the property lines. Speaker 8: So here it would be roughly, this is on the order of I believe 61. It'd be about a five or 60 B increase at this residence here. And then obviously this residence, it's much lower mainly due to the, the shape of the building and having a little bit of a larger deflection here, you can kind of see the shape of the contour. Speaker 1: Other questions? Speaker 5: I guess my last one,
you modeled all the, you know, blowers in the car wash type operations. Any input for vehicles that are queuing or waiting to go in? Speaker 8: So the, the vehicles that are waiting, obviously they're, they're idling. So typically vehicle noise becomes an issue when it's either accelerating or or traveling at high speed. The, the noise levels from blowers will certainly be substantially louder than an idling vehicle. Those are typically not included in these types of analyses because it's not a dominant source. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you.
Speaker 4: I just have a question on the, on the legend here, on the bottom left, under that same sort, could you just get to the mic and picture turquoise color? It says, it says 66 DBA and so what, what is the significance of having that number on the, on the chart? Speaker 8: Yeah, so I'm gonna just scroll up really quick. Hopefully I don't make anybody sick scrolling fast. So we present up here the data in the, during the ambient measurements gathered, the minimum noise level gathered was 56. So 10 DB or 66 represents a 10 DB increase over the minimum.
And again, that is conservative relative to the typical standard is the L 90, the lman is less than that. Speaker 1: Does that answer your question? Speaker 4: I bet it did. It probably did. I'm just not sure I understand that. Speaker 5: So I think essentially they're saying they can't, they can't, not that they shouldn't, but they can't have a more than 10 disable increase. So I think the existing was 56. Anything 66 at the property line on the property is not a problem. But beyond the property line, anything more than six six is a problem by regulation,
not just our judgment. Speaker 8: Correct. Speaker 4: It's also hard to correct if Speaker 5: Yeah, Speaker 4: If it goes o if it's over and we don't really have any, I mean we history's had town's had some history with noise and I don't believe we possess any noise monitors in town. The police officers don't have them. So it's, it's not, it, it, it's a difficult thing to monitor whether one day it might be 76 or 71 or 68 or something like that. So I mean it, it's a, it's a very fine measurement, but, but I think I do understand what the 66th designation was there. So
Speaker 5: Can you go back to that figure that you had? Sure. So that building to the, let's say on the plan to the left, that's not your property. So this does exceed over 10 decibels out, I mean, not at the residential portion, but the commercial property to the left and the commercial property to the right that does exceed the 10 decibels. Yeah, Speaker 8: It, it does. Now a couple, couple things to consider here. Number one, there's not really any private or outdoor sensitive use on these areas.
So you're, you're in theory providing noise to an existing parking lot. It's not typically considered a sensitive use. The other thing is this is presented, like I said on the, on the side of caution, we're using 55 as the basis in reality when you move closer. So let's go to this area here or obviously even near the intersection and we present the data earlier and I don't wanna, like I said, keep going back and forth, those noise levels are considerably higher. So when you were, if you were to look at that, delta
66 is actually lower than the ambient there. So if the ambi or the minimums up appear at the, the property property line to the south, or let's say in the low seventies, then what is projected would actually be less than ambient? Speaker 5: Well, I don't think it can work that way. Speaker 8: Okay, Speaker 5: Well the you can't, this car was, isn't gonna make the quieter by the row. No, Speaker 8: No, no, no. Speaker 5: The the delta's not gonna be as big, but you're gonna Speaker 8: Well so what it correct, so this, this is, this is the contribution of the project.
So in, in a vacuum there is no ambient noise being presented here. This is a modeling of the project. What I'm simply saying is that if you were to stand right here, the noise level generated by the car wash is 66 db. If you magically turn off the car wash and the ambient noise level is 70, then yes, the car wash is now not gonna turn on and make it quieter. It's, the increase is gonna be something on the order of like 1.1 DB increase.
So if you logarithmically add 66 and say the minimum is 70, I'm not, I'm not suggesting that it brings noise down. Absolutely not. It's way sound, I'm, yeah. Speaker 5: Okay. So the 10 decibels requirement by the state, that is for sensitive receptors such as correct schools, residential houses and what have you. Yep. Not commercial. Okay. Speaker 8: Correct. Speaker 5: And madam chair, if I could just to be clear, jt, the baseline, the denominator that you're using is
the minimum ambient that was measured, whereas the state regulation calls for the L 90. Can you correct, explain that difference for the board please? Speaker 8: Sure. So the, if you take a measurement, and let's just keep things really, really simple and say you take a measurement for the duration of, of 10 minutes. When you look at the data that comes back, you hit stop on the noise meter. The minimum noise level is during that 10 minutes, what is the lowest noise level that was measured? That's the L min.
When you take the L 90, effectively what it's doing is taking out the quietest 10% in telling you the noise level was exceeded nine, this is the level exceeded 90% of the time. What we're saying is we're being, we're airing on the side of conservative and we're taking that L min, not the L 90. Speaker 1: Anything further on that? Speaker 5: Is this gonna be submitted or has it been submitted? It, it is going to be submitted. I received a draft of it a couple days ago. I didn't wanna submit it right before the hearing, so,
but I did wanna have the consultant available to update you. We will be submitting it, we're probably gonna be looking at potentially some other mitigation measures to even further address this issue and then we'll be submitting it well in advance of whenever the board schedules the next hearing. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Other questions or comments from the board? Okay, so moving, moving on. Is there to your, is is that the presentation for this Speaker 5: Evening?
Those were what I understood to be the, the two issues that the board asked us to look at. In addition to the issue of the parking in the residential zone portion of the site. As I said, we're pulling that out so all of the existing pavement and parking that goes right up to the property line is now gonna be mostly landscaped area with the possible exception. If the board wants us to retain the fire lane
as requested by the fire department, we're happy to do that. But that would be the only, the only change or remaining paved area of the site. As I said, we can also look at potentially doing that as Grass Creek or permeable pavers if that would be of interest to the board. It's, and, and we're gonna have flexible traffic cones to prevent customers from going into the fire lane, but they wouldn't prevent fire access.
So those, as I understood it, were the, the main points that the board wanted us to look at. So that's our update and if there are any other issues that the board wants us to, to address prior to the next hearing, we're happy to do it. Speaker 1: Thank you. Is there, I know that the, the issue came up at our, at the opening hearing about the what the zoning allows or does not allow. Is that a settled matter Speaker 5: Talking about the parking on the residential portion?
Speaker 1: Yes. Well we Speaker 2: Haven't seen a revised plan, so we're not sure. Speaker 1: So Speaker 2: Like, I think they said that they were removing, Speaker 5: We're removing the parking. I are you talking about the fire lane? Speaker 1: Yes. And just something that because that a fire lane would be defined, i, I would assume as something that is there in support of the commercial enterprise, you know, so it protects safe, it is a safety issue, but it is there because the commercial occupant is there.
Speaker 5: So, and I'm sure, but my understanding was that the board was gonna be running this by town council prior to tonight. Doesn't sound like that's happened. I will tell you my position is that I think what you're referring to is something called the access is use rule, which is essentially a judicially created doctrine that when you have actively used portions of a property in one district,
that they're actively being used in connection with a use in a, an adjoining district that is not allowed in the district in which that portion of the use is taking place. The access the parking is part of the use and therefore has to be allowed under the zoning of that district. That case law. The, the basis of it is if you are having customers equipment deliveries coming in, in this case on a residentially zoned portion of the site and actively part of the regular use of the site,
that's part of the use a fire lane that most likely will go years without ever being utilized, if at all is I would argue a passive use. The fire department has every right to drive right on to a lawn if it needs to, to respond to an emergency that doesn't make it part of the use. And so putting in a fire lane at the request of the fire department in the residential zone portion
of the site cl it, it very clearly in my opinion is not an active part of the use. It will be divided off so that it cannot be used and if the board's not satisfied with that, we don't have to put in the fire lane. So that's our position and if obviously the board has the ability to get an opinion of town council and I'd be happy to speak with town council on that issue, but
Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 5: The, the fire lane isn't gonna have any impact. Speaker 1: Thank you. Amanda, do you know if this is something that Caris has been made aware of? Speaker 2: She's aware. Okay. But we were kind of waiting for revised plans. Speaker 1: Okay. So before, so, so those are now in hand in hand. Speaker 5: We have not submitted revised plans. I don't recall stating that we were planning to submit revised plans. Speaker 1: I guess that's why I have a question mark in my Speaker 5: Voice. Yeah, I don't know why she was waiting for revised plans because we didn't say we were gonna revise the plans we have
chosen to since the hearing because of objections raised to the parking. But Speaker 1: I think that was an open question at the time. It Speaker 5: May have been Speaker 1: Over our last meeting, so it was left. Speaker 5: I'm a bit sensitive to the notion that we owed revised plans because I don't recall making that commitment. We decided it afterwards and we'll probably revise it further. I don't think any of that is going to affect the legal question of whether a fire lane requested by the fire department constitutes part
of the use for zoning purposes. Speaker 1: So well we will take that forward with, with counsel and I think that there was, whether there was an expectation of revised plans coming or not, it was clear from the earlier hearing that there was great interest in how that, that residentially zoned part of the property was going to be used. So that that shouldn't have been a whole lot of a surprise. Speaker 5: It's not a surprise to me. My understanding was that you, Madam Chair at the end said,
we have some homework to do. We need to talk to count town council about this use issue. So I did not understand that that conversation was awaiting anything from us. I don't believe it was. Speaker 1: So if it, I I would encourage before the next hearing to, or the next phase of the hearing to have the revised plans. Absolutely. Part of the discussion. Doug, Speaker 4: Let, may I suggest on the zoning questions, rather than having our town council do the work that council for the applicant writes a brief outlining
the conformance non-conformance applicability of the zoning on this site in great detail. Citing case law citing definitions in the zoning act. I'm not familiar with the term passive use in the zoning act, so I'd like to know the origin of that, but I think we should react to that and not have our town council do the work. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 4: So if that could be submitted, that would be super helpful. Speaker 1: Okay. Does that, that's fine with me. Okay. Thank you. Nothing else from the board for tonight's
session, but I do want to look to members of the public who are here and I will do the sweep across. Anyone who wishes to speak has to come up and do so at the mic. We ask people to keep it brief and, and to just to be succinct and to be cordial if you, if you choose to be frank, to kind of remember that it's not a an it's not a, it's not a war. We're trying to find a way to determine or to approve or to deny the project that's before us.
So let me start at this side and I will try to identify anybody who puts their hand up who wants to have something to say, moving from the windows over in the back with the green hat, if you'd like to just come up to the mic and identify yourself and your address. Speaker 7: Thank you. My name's Mike McGuire. I live on Wheeler Lane. I'm affected by this project along with many of my neighbors. Am I allowed to ask questions of the experts? Just, just Speaker 1: If you pose, pose the question to me. Speaker 7: Okay. I'll determine as to whether, so for LSAI wanted
to know where they got the, the output of the noise from the machines. Like is that stated in a manual somewhere? Like what, where did they get that number? They have to start from some number, right? They weren't on site. Right. 'cause the, the equipment's not there. Okay. So I want to know where they get the number Speaker 1: And it are you, are you all interested in or comfortable giving us that information or sharing that information with us? Speaker 5: Certainly I would defer to Mr. Stevens. Speaker 1: Yes, I'm, I'm Speaker 8: Sure. Yeah. So we, we have gathered real world data at over a handful
of car washes that are in full operation. So if this is real world data from the equipment that these facilities use, it's not just spec data. Speaker 7: Okay. Do these machines have levels of operation? Speaker 1: Okay. Could are there, do you have a, a string of questions that Speaker 7: No, not many. I just, I'm curious, Speaker 1: I'm just trying to figure out if we can Yeah. Package them. Do, Speaker 7: Do these machines have levels Speaker 1: To that, to the member's question. Speaker 7: Like, I, I have a stereo, I can turn it to eight and I can turn it to, you know, 30. Do these machines have levels of operation
Speaker 1: To that question? Speaker 8: So there, there are equipment that do have levels and then there are equipment like the ones we've measured that are the, by all my research and accounting on the higher end of noise, these run at one speed and this is the, this is the peak condition for this equipment. But Speaker 7: Who determines that? Is it on site or is that just how they are? They come that Speaker 1: Way? Okay. You know what, let me, I'm, I think that there's, this could go on into a longer and bigger conversation. I think you have questions to, to kind
of put forward at length. Let me just to see if I can hear from anybody else. Speaker 7: I Okay. I don't have that many madam. I'm, I'm sorry. I just was curious about this study and one other thing I just wanted to clarify. Okay. The decibel reading is, is that an increase? That's an increase number, right? Speaker 1: I, and I'm assuming, I'm presuming it is, but Speaker 7: Not a total. Speaker 1: Is it an add-on? Speaker 8: Right. Sorry, I was, I was having trouble with the mute button. So what, what is presented on the figure is the total noise of all of the operations at the proposed project,
Speaker 1: Including any that would've been pre-existing. Speaker 8: Well, because it is so that again, the, the line that's important is the 66 in the world of noise. If you're more than 10 db over another thing, the other thing is not audible. So to sort of use a simple explanation, if you have two speakers and they sit side by side and one is at 50 decibels and one is at 60 decibels, you won't hear the 50 decibel one.
So that's the basis of where that increase is typically chosen because now you are effectively drowning out the other noise. Speaker 7: Okay. So when noise doesn't exist, all I'll hear is the car wash. Speaker 1: So, and let's, I don't wanna take this into a, a Speaker 7: Debate. Okay, well that's it for the i for this ex, for the this one. But I do have a quick question for Jeff. Speaker 1: From, from, so from Speaker 7: Vanessa, are you willing Speaker 1: To Speaker 7: Questions? No, no. For one website, the traffic. Sorry. Okay. So this morning coming down my road was a tractor trailer.
I live at the T of Hampshire and Wheeler and this, and it happens every now and again. This thing comes down, Wheeler stops at the t, looks around and wonders where it can go. How did it get there. It got there from maps ways, Google, probably from the Mass Pike. Anyone north of this project who plugs in prestigious address is gonna come through the Weathersfield town down in around. It's gonna be added to the traffic. It's just the way it's gonna be from all points from Wellesley, Weston, home Depot all over.
They're gonna come through the back neighborhoods. It's not gonna be isolated up and down route nine, 2000 cars or, or whatever that outrageous number was a week. I'm horrified. Those are my points in regards to what we talked about today. And I just wanna remind the board about the noise and the mitigation plans that include these massively constructed walls. They're gonna have to tear out all these massive pine trees. They're gonna put landscaping in that's gonna be baby trees. It's gonna take them 30, 40 years to grow
before they do any noise buffering at all. So those are the main points that I, I wanted to bring up today. This project is a horror show for this neighborhood. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Anyone? Yes. The gentleman with Black cap, Speaker 9: Paul Talia about the property, the proposal to build. JT just got a question for you. Do you figure in any of the noise that, you know, people that have loud exhaust blaring their stereos, any of that stuff in the works? Speaker 8: So that's not included in the model as the
activities from things like that, whether it's excessive noise, you know, no muffler on a car, things like that. Those are all governed by the police code. That's a nuisance issue. That's not an operational noise. There's no way for this site or any site for that matter to govern that. So that is not, that is not typically included in any kind of noise study. Speaker 9: Okay. It would be driving past by my bedroom window. So that's why I asked. Speaker 8: Sure. Speaker 9: Appreciate it. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Yes sir. The gray Speaker 3: Sweater. Sorry. Thank you. Yes. Speaker 9: Map ale. 11 Hampshire Drive.
In terms of assessing this plan's impacts on traffic. I'd like to make three points I haven't heard raised. Speaker 3: Sorry, could you speak up just a little? Sure. Speaker 9: Yeah. Is this better? Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 9: And I would hope these will be considered when assessing the traffic study once it's submitted. First, I think clarifying what a complete traffic assessment might mean is important. I have video on my phone taken to 10 30 Saturday morning, February 28th that I've been unable to share with the board because of file size issues. I'll continue working on that. I'll get it to you. But it shows all the parking spaces for the Weather's Field Plaza, as well as the lot used by the car rental company.
Completely full. There's no parking available. Cars are parked on Weathersfield itself. This is common on Saturday mornings and on weekday evenings at rush hour. It's a safety issue for pedestrians and drivers. It's also a nuisance to the businesses in the plaza. All of this will be made worse by the proposed car wash as traffic volume increases with cars cutting back around through the neighborhood to access the proposed car wash. And again, the seriousness of this concern is underscored by the fact that so many of the businesses in the Plaza have submitted objection Letters to the board, which you've gotten. One more was submitted today from Cafe afa.
I would urge the board to request a traffic study includes Saturday morning and Sunday morning projections or actual measurements, not just the afternoon, as I believe was suggested, will be presented. Second, I would request the traffic assessment. Also account for the East to westbound turnaround light at the bottom of the hill between McDonald's and Tiles plus Moore Plaza. I don't believe this has been addressed and I think it's important during hours of peak volume that turnaround light is the only thing that breaks westbound traffic flow and allows cars to access Route nine from Wheeler Lane
Weathersfield and importantly, center Street living on Hampshire, I'm mostly focused on Wheeler Lane and Weathersfield Road, but I would urge the board to take a broader view and also consider that unlike the Weathersfield neighborhood me and my neighbors live in, which has multiple access points to Route nine, Oak Street, pine Street, and Route 27, all the houses in the small neighborhood east of the Audi dealership can only leave their neighborhood via Center Street. That's 81 houses on Center Street, Gibb Street, Paul Street, Walnut Park Road, and Manor Avenue. There'll be adversely impacted if the break in traffic
caused by the East to westbound turnaround, which now is often all that allows those houses to access Route Nine safely, significantly increases westbound traffic during the light change, which is likely to happen given the business model of the proposal. Proposal. Prestige often cites near competitors and offers free vacuums as a loss leader to siphon clients from those competitors. It's a great tactic for the business. It's smart, but it's also one way these car washes can overburden their host communities. Also, current traffic patterns are not static. This proposal will create its own traffic ecosystem
and that should be accounted for, including at this East West turnaround that I just mentioned. Third and final point, I'd like to put some numbers to the point that my neighbor Mike made and also Nancy and Nikki all made it during the February meeting when they noted that traffic through the neighborhood will increase and will be funneled in onto Hampshire Drive and then Wheeler Lane as cars try to access the proposed car wash while avoiding Route nine. Traffic and lights. This concern is also raised in Mr. McDowell's letter to the board, which is submitted February 25th.
And as my neighbors mentioned, everyone now has GPS. This cut through will not be limited to neighborhood people who already know about Wheeler Lane. And I wanna flesh this out a little bit and put some numbers on it. As I mentioned, this past Saturday, the 21st, at around 10 30 in the morning, I was on Route nine west in Wellesley. I put the proposed car wash site in my GPS as you'd expect. I was directed to stay on nine West, but when I got to Oak Street, I turned right and drove North on Oak. As I passed the Greek, Greek Orthodox Church Longfellow in Rathburn Road Ways directed me back south on Oak to route nine.
That was all great. But as soon as I got to the intersection of Oak Street and Pine, it rerouted me to cut into the neighborhood at Liberty, then to Weathersfield, to Hampshire, to Wheeler. So I followed Pine Street East toward Dairy Queen and as I passed liberty and continued ways, then directed me into the neighborhood at Phelps Road, to Westlake, to Weathersfield, to Hampshire, to Wheeler. This continued all the way to Dairy Queen. I thought once I got there, it might redirect me south on 27 to Route nine East and then to the east to westbound turn around by the McDonald's and Tiles Plus more.
But no, the fastest, most efficient route continued to be into the neighborhood. First on Westlake, then East Evergreen passing Ben Hem. After I got past East Evergreen, I was directed to cut up Rutledge, which would put me past passing Wilson Middle School and along Wentworth, which is a one-lane zoo of cars on both shoulders at pickup and drop off as it fed me to Weathersfield and Hampshire to Wheeler and all the way down 27, it kept feeding me into the neighborhood as a faster option to the proposed car wash than getting on Route nine
with its lights and traffic. This continued to be the case even into the Stop and Shop Plaza and hundreds of cars cycle through that 27 9 Plaza every hour for Stop and Shop five guys. The UPS store, staples, dunking Donuts, Chipotle, the car parts place, the clinic. This represents thousands of homes, thousands of cars including the entire neighborhood west of 27, between the Stop and Shop Plaza and Dairy Queen along Evergreen and Cyprus and Lowell and Perry Roads. Everything east of the water will all be directed by GPS
through the neighborhood funneling down from different access streets to Weathersfield, then Hampshire, which currently sees traffic of only the people who live on it or on Yorkshire Drive, and ultimately to Wheeler Lane, which will become a defacto third queuing line for the car wash. I'm afraid I should add that when I left the Stop and Shop Plaza, I turned left because I had to go to Home Depot at that point. Ways rerouted to the turnaround at Speed Street and avoided the neighborhood. But by the time I was in the Home Depot parking lot, route Nine again stopped being the fastest and easiest route
and I was directed to take Route 30 East to 27 South, then into the neighborhood to Weathersfield, Hampshire and Wheeler. I cannot imagine how much potential traffic this represents on a busy Saturday or Sunday morning. All cars from as far west as Home Depot in points north of Route 30, as well as cars north of Pine Street on Oak Street and the neighborhoods off it. The whole Winter Street neighborhood, for instance, will be directed into the neighborhood where they'll be funneled onto Weathersfield, then onto small Little Hampshire Drive, then onto even smaller Wheeler Lane.
And this is all before the 27 9 interchange construction has begun and before increased backups on Route nine resulting from the east-west turnaround at Tiles plus more is factored into the equation. Mr. McDowell's letter states that it can be reasonably assumed that this new facility will attract more customers and his present site configuration can manage without impacting traffic on abutting roadways. I hope what I've offered puts that very clear-eyed and accurate observation into perspective. Also, section six dash DD of Natick zoning bylaws stated a special permit for a car wash should take into consideration three things.
Whether the site and immediate area is appropriate for such a use structure condition, whether the use structure condition will not adversely affect the neighborhood, whether the use structure condition will not be a nuisance or cause hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. I look forward to seeing the results of the traffic assessment that Mr. McDowell wisely called for. But I think it's realistic to say even at this early stage that the proposed structure and use will absolutely adversely affect the neighborhood and be a nuisance and cause hazard to vehicles and pedestrians. And this is all independent
of the site's immediate impact on Route nine itself and on access to Wheeler Lane approving this project sets the town up for years of remediation strategies and unplanned, but very real costs, potential re permitting costs like Waltham experience when a prestige was granted. A special permit mitigation strategies including speed bumps and signage associated with the redirecting of traffic cost to our police police department as complaints pile up. And complaints are also overrepresented with this particular proposal I want to add and I can send the board that information also costs
and wear and tear on roadways, increased traffic, enfor enforcement, as well as legal expenditures as were experienced by the town of Dartmouth and also the city of Brockton. When dealing with a prestige car wash operating outside of zoning agreements and bylaws, the cost that addressing each of these downstream issues brings will be significant. But I feel confident that addressing all of them as fully and completely as humanly possible by this board and other members of the town, cannot make the neighborhood as safe as it is right now before this project has been approved or cause the nuisance
and hazard to vehicles and pedestrians that this proposal could cause to be less than it is right now before the proposal has been approved. I thank the board for its work as it assesses this proposal. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Okay, moving further is, is there anyone in the, in the last stretch, so board members, anything? I Speaker 4: Don't want anybody online. Speaker 2: I'm not seeing any hands raised. Speaker 1: Okay. So, so for our next meeting, what are the expectations
of, of this board? Speaker 2: Well, from a staff's perspective, the question comes down to do you need a peer review to review the traffic study or the sound study, which is commonly at asked at the beginning of a project. Speaker 1: And I would've taken that to be a but of course, but I should defer to our, my traffic engineers. I Speaker 4: Personally don't think we need a peer review. I can probably review it just fine. So could I. Okay. Speaker 1: And are and, and you're willing to be broken in. I know we forgot to tell you that that was part of me joining Speaker 4: The board.
Speaker 1: So Andy, any kind of questions I'm looking at what we want, what we want our next meeting to look like. Speaker 4: Well, we should pick a date that we will have a high level of certainty that these, that these reports and documents will be available. We don't wanna meet again without them and we should expect that we'll receive them a couple days before our meeting as as required. And I feel like then we are in a position to do, you know, an analysis, you know, we, we will have the information we need to draw some conclusions. I I I'll definitely appreciate interpretation
of the traffic from, from Alan's perspective, you know, special permit, which is what we're being asked for, is, is it's, it's not a given, it's, it's, it's an enabling device and it's our highest standard of vote. It can come with conditions, it comes with a high level of review and frankly this is an appropriate process to go through to examine all the concerns we've heard. We, we don't really have enough factual documentation to, to really complete that analysis.
But when we will, we will. So I don't know how much longer we should continue this for, but we should pick a date by which we're certain we'll receive the information. Speaker 1: So to the, to the applicants, what do you see as your timetable to have, and I realize they're not all gonna come in the same time, but what's, what's the realistic frame of reference for, for having the various studies and Speaker 5: Data points? So I think I heard Mr. Dirk say that early April at the outside.
I guess I just want to confirm, do we need to get it in, in sufficient time for any third party review before the meeting or just insufficient time for the board's review? Speaker 4: No, I would say we don't need a peer review. I think we have plenty of expertise on this board. Usually the Friday before the Monday I would, I would say, Speaker 5: 'cause if we are reviewing it, I think we, you know, we need some more time than the Friday before. Yeah, so it was two weeks before the hearing. Two weeks. I Speaker 4: Would say two weeks. Yep. Speaker 1: That, that, that would, that would give us,
Speaker 5: Then I would ask for the first meeting in May. Speaker 4: May 6th. Speaker 1: Is, is that the Wednesday? There you go. May, may the sixth. Sound reasonable. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. Right. Speaker 4: Move we Speaker 5: Can, I just want to just for both of the consultants, I think you heard a lot of comments from, I just wanna make sure you were able to hear and kind of jot down some of the comments that the abutters made, Jeff and Mr. Stevens.
Yes. And very helpful I would add. Okay, sure. Just wanna make sure we able to get that. Speaker 4: Just one question. What? Yes, clockwise. Amanda, where are we? Come? May 8th. May, may. Speaker 2: You're fine with the clock. As long as new information is being provided, the clock is initiated. If there is delays because of nonu information. Okay. Speaker 1: Okay then then with that I'll entertain. Speaker 3: Yeah, move. We continue to May 6th. Speaker 1: Okay. Motion made. Seconded. I'll second it.
Alright, any further discussion? Okay. All of those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. No. No. Okay, very good. Then we will see you back here when the weather is a little warmer and it may is on us. So thank you very much. Thank Speaker 3: You. Thank you. Speaker 1: I, you know, I will note I was surprised by the comments in the materials that we have in our folder. Talked about, oh, it was about the, the,
the design review team and I was startled by the only remark provided from the police department, which is don't see anything. It's something like that. Like nothing to see here. Speaker 3: What does the design review team meet? Speaker 1: Amanda know might know more of the schedule. Speaker 2: Hold that out, but just one second thought I saw Jamie online, Speaker 10: He should be online. Yes. Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not seeing him anymore. And is Molly with you guys? Oh, Molly from Copley Wolf. Speaker 10: Yeah, she's, she's with us. Speaker 2: Okay. I'll promote her Speaker 10: Text.
Jamie. Speaker 2: Oh, there's Jamie right there. Okay Speaker 10: Amanda, what's the best way to get the visuals? Speaker 2: If you're logged in online, I can promote you. You can share your screen. Speaker 11: Sign in to the meeting online. Sure, Speaker 2: Yep. And Jamie should be coming over. There we go. So we'll put it and then was there anyone else you Speaker 11: Expecting? I'm gonna join online through the online meeting, which Speaker 10: If you put Speaker 2: It here, Joanne click Speaker 11: Through. Okay. Yep. Speaker 2: Is it Joan? You said Speaker 1: So, so just so that those of you following in the room and, and at home, it's moving to the 2 73 West Central Street
Project in the and Speaker 2: Yes. Sarah Lins here from the DRB. So do you want her to come up to Sarah Lynn's here from the DRB. Great. Would you like her to come up? Speaker 1: Oh yes, please. Speaker 3: Not yet. Lemme read this. Hi, your, how Speaker 1: Are you? And and you are and you are here. Just so everybody, everybody who isn't actually involved in the project for any, anyone who's left, who's here, you are here as a, as a representative or representing the Design
Review Review board. That's correct. I always pause to get Yeah the name right? Yeah. So, alright, well thank you. Nice to have you join us. Glad you, Speaker 4: Should I read the announcement? Speaker 1: Yes, please. Speaker 4: Natick Planning Board Updated notice of public hearing on Wednesday, March 25th, 2026 at 7:00 PM The planning board will hold a hybrid public hearing in the Diot meeting room and on Zoom to review the application of Gable's Residential Services Inc. A Texas corporation. The property is 2 73 West Central Street. The application for site plan review in addition
to compliance with the Aquifer protection District of the leading zoning bylaws, clause redevelopment of the property for a mixed use residential development with associated site improvements, project number PB 26 3. A copy of the application can be reviewed in the Community Economic Development Office. And on Natick OpenGov website, a copy of planning board meeting agenda can be found on the TOM website per order of native planning board. Terry Evans chair. Speaker 1: Great, thank you very much. So Amanda, are you, would you like to be the, the mc?
Speaker 2: Sorry, I was just making sure we had everything all set. Yeah, so this is a, the first project under the West Central Corridor zoning district or the WCC. This is in the hub, which is known as sub-District five. So this does allow for the highest intensity of a project because it is within basically the closest proximity to a transportation hub, which is the west central COR or the West central commuter rail station. This is one parcel, as you can see, a very large parcel and it is being redeveloped. We have been meeting with the applicant to kind
of formalize the plans, bring them along and also the DRB did meet with them back in Speaker 1: February 12th. Speaker 2: February 12th. So this project is moving right along, but it is ready for the board to review and the applicant is here and also online. Speaker 1: Great, thank you very much. So the shall we dig in? Speaker 12: We shall Ja Ja Jamie is is dialing in, but he can get us kicked off. Speaker 13: Okay. Madam Chair, can you hear me? Speaker 1: Yes, I can. Speaker 13: I I beg you're indulgent.
I'm actually in San Diego on vacation where it has the most boring weather in the world. It's, you know, high seventies, low eighties, sunny, blue skies every day. Is that too much? But I will be returning soon to New England. So tonight I just want to kind of kick this off and appreciate your time and attention to members of the board and the members of the design review board. We're here as Amanda stated, to talk about the 2 73 West Central Street redevelopment
project, which has been filed with the planning board for site plan review. Speaker 4: Can I, next slide, can I jump in? Can I jump in and make just one request? This is a new zoning district that was created at Last Fall's Town meeting and this is the first application that this board is having. And I know some members of the public who may not follow town meeting action may really be curious about, you know, what are you people doing to us now? I thought it might be helpful as we go through and discuss things like height, parking requirements, et cetera. We just make reference to the, to the section of the zoning bylaw. Yeah, Speaker 12: Ja, Jamie will get to, to that portion.
I I thought there's a slide or two Speaker 4: That might help us instead of having to circle back, kind of cover it as we go. I, I'm, I'm assuming that we'll ask you about waivers or anything that's not compliant, but if it's a substantially compliant application, it'd be nice to tie Speaker 12: Ja. Jamie will set that context. Speaker 4: Okay. That's my request. Thank you. Sure. Speaker 13: Okay Annie, if you could jump us to the next slide. So just to give an overview, tonight's presentation, we have our full team assembled here and available to you, but we're just gonna give a quick introduction to the team, talk about the project background
and overview, have presentations on from the professionals on each of architecture, landscape architecture, civil site design, traffic and parking. And let us know your preferences. If we could just wait till the end for have questions or if you have questions as the presentation goes along, please let us know. Next slide. So the team here tonight with you includes from Gable's Residential, the developer
and applicant, Jorgen pda, senior vice president for investments and Eddie Meter area, VP for investments from the architecture firm of Cube three. We have Brian O'Connor and Nick Griffin from the landscape design firm. Copley Wolf Design Group. Ian Ramney is here for civil engineering and traffic from TetraTech we have Nate Keel and Courtney Sak. And in addition to myself on the planning and permitting team, we, I Natty King
and for legal counsel from Sullivan Worcester, Greg Sampson. Next slide please. So, existing conditions, just to orient everybody, this is a 3.4 acre parcel. It abuts the West Natick MBTA station to the east, to the MBTA rail quarter to the north, some residential properties to the west and west Central Street to the south where the frontage of the site exists. It's currently developed mostly with a
currently vacant two story commercial building known as native crossing. Nearly the entire site is paved or built over with impervious materials. Site access is through the existing Signalize intersection at West Central Street, Kendall Lane. And one of the characteristics of this site that I think is important as you learn more about the project is that there is a slope across the site from, say the Western perimeter is about one 70. It slopes down to 1 59, 1 60 on the east.
So there's about a 10 foot grade differential across the site, which is an important component of the site planning and site design. There are also two storm drain outfalls that flow to the north out onto the MBTA rail line. Next slide please. So the overview of the project, you know this is going to include the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and construction of a new transit oriented mixed use building. The building consists of four levels of residential use on top of a podium,
which is set partially into the slope because across the site a total of 219 residential units are currently included in the design with a mix of one, two, and three bedroom units. There is 4,000 square feet of non-residential space fronting on West Central Street and we'll talk about some of the potential uses there a bit later. The site design includes a plaza and shared use path along West Central Street
to connect hopefully to future multi-use bicycle pedestrian connections as well as the pedestrian access through the easterly side of the site to the back into the NBTA train station area. It'll include 258 parking spaces, which are both within the structure, primarily within the structure, but some surface parking as well and a new storm water treatment system that will comply with current day standards and town requirements. Next slide please. Amanda mentioned some
of this but we, we did want to just kind of review the timeline of what's gotten us to this point tonight. We're very excited to be working with the town. We have followed closely the developments of the fall town meeting and the adoption of the new zoning for the West Natick area and have crafted the project to be compliant with that zoning. We did as part of our preparation for tonight's meeting, meet with the Natick design review team, which is the department heads
of the various town departments to get some initial feedback and thought about the project very early on in the process just to try to get a sense of what their issues might be. In February we met again to give a preview to the town manager and director of Community and economic development about the project that was followed up by a meeting with the Design review board, which is very fruitful and received a lot of feedback from that meeting in. Later in February we filed the actual site plan review
application with the town online and in March, mid-March we met with the conservation agent and Department of Public Works in preparation for beginning the process to file with the Conservation Commission for both the notice of intent and the groundwater overlay district. In February we did, I'm sorry, in March tonight we're here before the planning board to begin the first step with the planning board and looking forward to following up with you as required and needed for additional meetings
and additional information. I will say we did try to do as thorough and complete a job as we could in terms of filing at least the initial application, which does include a lot of detailed studies that have been developed in preparation for the project, including addressing some storm water and traffic and other issues. Next slide please. So the question was raised tonight and, and I think this is the slide that really attempts to address that issue of how does this comply
with the existing zoning and since it is new and once recently adopted by town meeting this table shows the parameters of the zoning that are most directly applicable to this project. I think the takeaway from reviewing this is that in, in all respects, this project is fully compliant with zoning in terms of the lot area, the lot frontage, the open space minimum. We certainly exceed greatly the open space minimum building height.
We are definitely above the minimum and below the maximum. We have a front setback, which is significantly beyond the minimum and have a complied both on the east and west sides with a side setbacks and included in the rear setback. We have also incorporated a, a vegetative buffer that's also required under the zoning. As, as a Amanda mentioned, this is in the S five subdistrict of the West Central corridor and is in the Aquifer protection district as well. The project is as of right,
meets all the applicable dimensional and use standards. We're not seeking any variances and we look forward to conducting a detailed, thorough and productive site plan review process. With that, I will turn it over to Jordan and talk about Gable's Residential. Speaker 12: Sure. Any any questions while we're have a pause? Speaker 4: Just are any waivers requested that was just thinking of that? Speaker 12: No, no. You Speaker 4: Had said variances but Speaker 12: No, no variances waivers? No. Okay. And I should note Jamie outlined the timeline
there was Right, there's been some really great input throughout those meetings. What we're presenting has not incorporated m much of the many of those comments, we'll sort of highlight them as we go along, but, but what we're presenting is what what was included in the, in the application and there's the, the, the team will will comment on, on many of the items that were, were, were discussed at some of those earlier meetings. Real quick, I'm gonna make a, I'm gonna give a quick introduction about, about Gables. Speaker 4: Just one sec, one question, just, okay.
On the permitting, you mentioned a notice of intent with the conservation commission. What do we have wetlands on the site or adjacent or what is the Speaker 12: They're adjacent. Okay. Between our property and the, the, the tracks. Got it. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 12: So a small piece of wetlands. Speaker 4: Thank you. I walked over this. Speaker 12: So quick introduction to Gables, for those of you who are unfamiliar with our company, again, my name's Jorgen Punta, we are, Gables is a multifamily owner, operator and developer. We've been in business since 1982,
so about 44 years nationally. We manage purchased over 26,000 apartment homes in dozen national markets, including the Northeast Sunbelt Mount States and, and the West coast. We own about 14,000 units in those same in those same markets in here locally in the Boston MSA, we own or manage just under 2000 units in communities such as Watertown, Westwood, Lexington, and downtown Boston.
I I wanted to talk a little bit before we turned it over to the team to get a little more technical, I wanted to talk about some early ideas about programming and community activation, which is, which is really right, an important element, especially as we think about launching this west central corridor, a project in the West central corridor and what the vi what the vision really is for the, for the entire area. And know, knowing that we're right, we're sort of the first in and kind of an island.
We, we, Jamie mentioned the 4,000 square feet of non-residential space, which is really gonna be critical to activate at the ground level of the project. We, we don't see it as true mar market retail. It's be really difficult to make work and, you know, gi given that it's at the, at the front of the building, it's, it's really important that it it not be empty or be a use that really contributes to the, to the activity and the vibe of the community. So just some of the early ideas that, that I wanted to share
and, and nothing is, is set or formalized, but some of the ideas that we've been exploring include Cowork Coworking, right? Might be open and, and we're talking to, to a number of different operators that would help us sort of open it up to the, to the broader public. Maybe there's a grab and go, maybe there's coffee, right? Something that, that would allow for neighbors to, to, to come and, and, and work remotely in more of a, a coworking envo environment. We might have a conference room, right?
Something that would, you know, would, would create a little bit of a, of activity throughout the week. Another idea, and you'll see in the, in the plan when we get to that in a little bit more detail, there's a plaza area in front of the non-residential space in our building entry. We have ideas about bringing food trucks onto the site period of time Friday afternoon when people are around. Really there isn't places to, there aren't places to walk. So you bring, right, you bring some of that, some of that food to the, to the property, exploring those ideas
and, and the, and the site plan allows us to, to accommodate some a food truck or or two. We've had some initial conversations and Amanda made some introductions to Emily Tombs and Mac Andrew at the Mors Institute library exploring ideas about the, the book, mobile book clubs, game nights. I, these are ideas, right? These are ideas that really we think could be, again, successful and not just be a Starbucks or a dunking, right?
Something that really kind of contributes to the activation and the, the community feel of the property. And so we're, we'll continue, continue to explore them. The other, we've, we've also, and, and Emily was gonna introduce us to some local artists to see if there's ways to incorporate some public art, whether it's murals or what, what have you, right? To really give the, give the, that ground floor a sense of place, a real, a real local sense of place. So ideas that we're exploring, I wanted to kind of lay that out as we get into the more
technical aspects of the project. I just wanted to share some of those, some of those ideas. So I think Brian will talk a little bit about the architecture and we'll get through a number of these, these disciplines pretty quickly. Speaker 14: Great. Thank, thank you Madam Chair, members of the board, Brian O'Connor from Q3. I also have with me Nick Griffin, one of the project designers. We're, we're just gonna take a few minutes and, and walk you through a little bit of what we're proposing. We, we did spend, to build a little bit on what Jamie and,
and Jorgen Bo said. We, we spent a lot of time thinking about the site and, and really thinking about not only how does the building address pedestrian scale and the carter that that we really are, are trying to support and create, but, but also the, the broader context and how do we make the non-residential use successful? How do we create, you know, really meaningful addressable front door. And so you, you'll notice in here what we've done is we've actually peeled the building back a little bit from the edge of the street in a really deliberate way
to manage this scale and the size of the building, but also to really present and focus the building around this idea of the public plaza space out in front. So the corridor in effect broadens and, and almost bleeds into the site past the residential entry at the front corner. And what we wanted to do is really put an anchor point out there. So the main sort of leasing area, residential entry to the building is right at that community path edge in, in the middle of this sort of public park area. And then the non-residential space in yellow is really kind
of framing the other edge of that plaza space. So we, we spent a lot of time thinking about walking past, driving past, biking, past how this building feels, how it addresses you at the edge and, and what that would really feel like. In addition to that, we thought about the single family homes to the west and, and frankly the neighborhood across the tracks to the north in addition to sort of the corridor edges. So we really focus the idea of this building on position and orientation in the site and the way that really supports the broader community.
And so on the, on the Eastern edge, you'll notice there's a connection path from the multi-use community path running along the edge of the site back to the MBTA on the eastern side, a again the front door and all of this public non-residential space towards the front of the site we did slide the building east up against the MBTA side as much as we could to create a little bit of a buffer zone, build a little space and separation to the neighbors to the west. So there is surface parking over there. And then we really organized
and oriented all of the service type functions of the building to the back on the north side, abutting the tracks. And so, you know, Jamie mentioned at the beginning the site does have a grade change. So on the left hand side on the western edge of the site, it, it's truly a four story building with the, with the parking level completely buried. The front edge of this site also has sort of no visible parking anywhere. And then on the eastern side what we've done is we've kind of bermed up the edge of the site to create landscape buffer.
You'll hear a little bit more about our plans for that edge and the plaza space, Winnie and from Copley Wolf gets up, but we really spent a lot of time thinking about how this building would plug into the site in a way that really reinforces what, what we think are your goals, what we're trying to do with that multi-use community path and organizing and structuring the service components of this building in a way that makes sense. This is a quick section through the site. This is an east west section. I think you've probably heard enough about this, but I want to just sort of reinforce what's going on.
On the left hand side of the page of the western edge, you can see that parking level, that podium that rides below the entire project kind of butting up against the grade and being completely buried on the western edge and on the eastern edge you can see this sort of terrorist layered effect we're trying to create to hide the parking, allow us to build in sort of a layered landscape buffer and support the edge of that MBTA path from the community path in a way that's really meaningful, very quick sort of high level rendering.
We spent a lot of time on the building thinking about sort of how do we bring the warmth and richness of Natick to this site in a way that is not, not just a copy of downtown that has a little bit more modernity to it, but also really sort of reflects what we think are a lot of the intrinsic values in the town. So you'll notice on the right hand side of the image this sort of a a two story block that's really the main residential entry to the building, abutting the public or sort of that park area on the right hand side along the
back edge of the plaza you see down low. That's sort of all of the non-residential community space sort of flowing out and engaging up towards the community path we thought in, in the design of the building, we spent a lot of time making sure that we are addressing sort of pedestrian scale and edges. And what we're trying to do is be very thoughtful about building in layers of color, layers of texture and thoughtful patterning that don't necessarily just follow sort
of a monolithic approach. So you'll notice there's, there's sort of a, not clearly defined but critically important sort of base middle and top to this building to break down the scale. We've brought brick and other warm and natural materials into the front edge of this building and we've spent quite a bit of time thinking about how to group and organize window patterns so that within the building there's a lot of texture, a lot of interest and the building has sort of a subtlety to it and the more you look at it, the more you see these patterns in these groupings.
There's another quick view sort of looking across the plaza and down the, the community path on the right hand side. And again you can just sort of see what we're, what we're really starting to do this, this building is not only about color and and layers but really about texture and detailing. So we were spending really a substantial amount of time thinking about cornes lines and edges and projections and how to give this building a real beautiful three dimensional quality to what we're trying to achieve here. Just very quickly by way of explanation
that these are just the overall elevations to the building. The top on the south elevation is really the front, again, you can see that main residential entry on the right hand side right up against the street edge, creating really well-defined front door, the north elevation, the back against the tracks. Here you can see the entry to the garage sort of tucked under. And again that notion that this is a a four story building on one side, three on the other. What we tried to do is make sure the building volumes and again the layering and the color patterning comes
all the way around the building. So this really to the neighborhood across the tracks does not read as a single monolithic building on the west side where we're facing the few single family homes that are over there. We made a very deliberate attempt to actually take a slightly different approach to the base middle top by bringing these color blocks up and addressing the parapet edges to kind of subtly break the roof line but also eliminate this notion of a single monochromatic color kind of running all along the building edge.
So that we're really thinking about how the neighbors are gonna look at this building from the west side and then the east elevation along that MBTA path that I mentioned. Again also wraps the front of the building around the corner, creating a really strong definable edge on the left hand side and then starts to move into a little bit more of a broken language along the edge of the building. I'm gonna let Ian kind of talk to you guys a little bit about some of the landscape approach. It was a very integrated and collaborative design process with the building, so looking forward to that. Speaker 3: I Speaker 15: Thank you Brian.
Good evening for the record, I'm Ian Ramey with Copley Wolf, the landscape architects. So we'll take a quick look at our landscape plan. So this plan basically just shows a key of sort of the key areas and then we have an enlargement of the plaza that we can look at that shows a lot of the energy that we're seeking to create there. So if we start on the southern part of the plan along West Central Street, you heard mentioned of that 14 foot wide shared use path. This is the first segment of that plan vision. So we're beginning that corridor vision for a shared use
corridor that's gonna be running along the street. That'll be an activator for our our frontage for sure. And then itemized of number two would be the plaza. It's a publicly accessible plaza. We think there's gonna be a lot of energy there as it interacts with the residential entry as well as with that non-residential space. And again, we have an enlargement of that that talks about some of our ideas there as we go around to the east side of the building adjacent to the MBTA site, we have a pedestrian access route, it's a six foot or wider walkway that connects in an accessible manner from the street
to the T station platform. Some of the things that we heard in our DRB conversations was how to make that experience a little more pedestrian friendly, potentially introducing moments along the run of it, looking at the scale of the plantings and the walls. Just anything that we can do to make it a little bit more of a pleasant experience. One of the things that we're thinking about now with those walls is with those exposed phases that potentially there could be a mural or some type of art to really make that feel a little bit more energetic and and interesting. As we get up to the northern side of the property along the train tracks, we have a small
landscape area in the upper right hand corner. That's where the resource areas that refers back to the NOI, there's some existing trees that we are gonna be preserving. And then you see the note there for the 10 foot wide evergreen screening, that's a requirement. So we have a row of evergreen trees that'll help buffer the tracks. And then as we swing around to the left side, we have our surface parking, a little bit of a gray change from our site down to the adjacency on the west and some street trees that sort of give shade over that hardscape. So here's an enlargement of our plaza area.
Again, we think this is gonna be really great and activated vis-a-vis the entry into the lobby. Lots of comings and goings the non-residents will use will contribute to that as well. Item number five, we think there's a good opportunity to reserve space for our food truck that will bring kind of kinetic activation that'll happen over time. The plaza is going to have a combination of fixed and movable seeding. So the fixed seeding will be integrated with planters and be part of that hardscape and then there'll be movable seating to really offer a lot of adaptability and flexibility to users.
We have a combination of, of trees coming out of the pavement, trees coming out of plant beds. We think there'll be a lot of shade. This plaza is a south facing orientation so it's, it's really good for that sort of pedestrian comfort aspect. Number three, we have a little seating area where you kind of move from the plaza towards that connection towards the tea tracks. Just giving more sub spaces for people to enjoy. In terms of our planting pla palette, really looking to have a layered landscape approach. We're primarily in an oak in pine sort of ecosystem,
so we're gonna lean on that with the species that we're gonna select. We're gonna go heavy with native species and try to spec as many high value species as possible. Trying to give a boost to the wildlife and the ecosystem from that aspect. And of course selecting plants that have a lot of character and different seasonal interests. So you see some of those little snippets on the bottom that talk about our intent for what the planting design will be. And then lastly, just a high level view of some of the site furnishings and the materials. I think for the furniture we're really leaning more towards
a transitional look. So not super traditional but also not super contemporary. We'll wanna tailor that. Of course with the building and the facade materials, the idea of having fixed seating that's integral with the planters I think is a really good place making opportunity and something that offers a lot of sort of scale for users. And then on the bottom row, just talking about that hardscape in the plaza, strategic areas of pavers where we can have a lot of detail and things that potentially talk to the facade materials. Also looking at things like exposed aggregate concrete
that'll just warm up that material, make it feel a little bit more natural. And then playing with how we score the concrete so it goes beyond just being sort of a regular cement concrete sidewalk, maybe more of a plaza feel in the concrete. And then lastly, there's a bunch of boulders on site that we think would be great candidates to salvage and integrate into the landscape or into the hardscape. So we're excited about that. And I think with that I'll hand it over to Nate on the civil. Thank you. Speaker 14: Thank you. Good evening. My name's Nate Shield. I'm the civil engineer for the project. I'd like to review some of the more utilitarian pieces of the site. Starting with our grading and drainage plan.
We've developed a storm stormwater management system that meets both mass ep, stormwater policy, the local stormwater bylaw, as well as the requirements of the aquifer protection district in Natick. The primary objectives of the stormwater system are to reduce peak rates of stormwater discharge, reduce the volume of stormwater discharge, improve water quality and improve groundwater recharge to address water quality. All stormwater on sites collected in deep sump putted catch basins, it's piped to manholes
and then onto stormwater quality units for treatment prior to discharging into the subsurface systems. Overall, the system stormwater system will achieve over 90% TSS removal in accordance with the local bylaw. In terms of groundwater recharge, it's really the Afer protection district that is the most stringent requirement. It requires 1.2 inches of recharge across the site from the impervious areas we have designed the system to to meet that standard.
Also, just to mention, there are two existing stormwater outfalls along the no property line. There's one at the northwest corner of the site, one at the northeast corner. We will be tying into those existing outfalls so we will not be creating a new outfall to the rear of the property. Next slide please. From a utility standpoint, we're proposing all new subsurface utilities for the site. Starting with water, you can hopefully see the blue line. We're going to connect to an existing eight inch water main
at the southeast corner of the building. It sits in an easement that goes across the MBTA parking lot. That water main will go around the back of the building and then come around the west side and tie into an existing water main in West Central Street. With the loop we're able to provide hydrants at all four corners of the building. Provides water quality benefits for the overall water system sewer. We're proposing a eight inch sewer coming out of the southeast corner of the building and we'll tie into an existing eight inch sewer main
that also flows through, sits in the easement that goes across the MBTA parking lot. Additionally we'll have electric and telephone that'll also be subsurface. It'll come in on the southwest corner of the site. And finally the last piece I'd like to present is we ran a fire truck turning analysis at the request of the fire department. They provided us with the specifications for a new truck that they plan to purchase. I don't think the town has it quite yet,
but it's a little more restrictive than what they currently have. We've been able to, to run a sweat path analysis showing that a firetruck can come in from West Central Street, traverse around the west side of the building, utilize the entrance to the garage as a turnaround and then pull out and and exit the site. Okay. And with that I'm gonna turn it over to Courtney to run through traffic and parking. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 16: For the record, as Jamie mentioned, my name is Courtney Sak. I'm a senior project manager and traffic engineer at TetraTech. So we prepared two studies,
a very detailed traffic impact study and a parking assessment. I'll start with the traffic study, just give you a broad overview and I'm happy to answer any questions to grow in more detail on any aspect the board would would like. But we started with using the mass DOT guidelines even though Route 1 35 is under town jurisdiction. To provide a comprehensive analysis, we followed the strict mass DOT traffic impact and access study guidelines. Based on that criteria. We identified the three locations to include in the study the, the key locations that
may be impacted by the project. And those are denoted by nodes one, two, and three that you see on the screen there. Node one is obviously the existing site driveway and that's generally going to remain in the same location but be modified to current standards. As Nate had mentioned earlier, the first step we did was conduct updated traffic counts in February when schools were in session. And then we grew those to a future design year. We went out to the design year of 2033 consistent again
with DOT guidelines for a seven year design horizon. That's when the project would be expected to be fully built operational. And we also took into account background development projects in the area, general PA background traffic growth, as well as any planned roadway improvements along the corridor and any significant vacancies in the area. Most notably the the commercial property at the site. Once we developed those volumes, which we refer to as the no build or the future year without project design
conditions, we then looked at the project itself. So what's great about this project is its transit oriented development. So you know a lot of the residents, it's gonna be marketed to them to use the T. So that has different traffic generating characteristics than traditional multifamily development. So we used the gold standard industry standard trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, applied it to the 219 units and used close to rail transit so that we can account for
that significant traffic reduction since it's abutting the commuter rail station. Jorgen mentioned earlier that they're considering, you know, non-residential space. It's just a small amount, 4,000 square feet. But to be conservative we assumed retail it's much, it's very likely that it would generate a lot less traffic than that. But again, we just wanted to present a conservative analysis. We then looked at the trip distribution patterns for the vehicles associated with residents that won't be using the commuter rail during the peak weekday morning and weekday evening hours. And we used census journey to work data
to develop those patterns. Next slide please. So as you can see here, the project is expected to generate approximately 86 vehicle trips in the morning and 88 vehicle trips during the weekday evening peak hour. That's the one hour during each of those commuting periods that the project is gonna expect it to generate a significant where it's most traffic, which you can see is really only on the order of one to two cars a minute. Once you break that out east and west versus how they're gonna be distributed on the
roadway network, you're really looking at any one movement experiencing one additional vehicle trip every one to two minutes on average. We also wanted to put it into context with re tenancy of the existing use at the site. So historically, obviously this was a commercial development and if we ran the trip gen numbers for that, you can see it would generate significantly more traffic than what the applicant is proposing. So great benefit of it being transit oriented. Next slide please. The next
thing that we did was we looked at the parking on site. We, what you're seeing here is data based on the MAPC perfect fit database. We wanna make sure that we're right sizing the parking. We don't want too much, we don't want too little. And as I'm sure you've noticed, you know, things are trending where PE vehicle ownership is less and demand is less for parked vehicles. So the MAPC, the Massachusetts Planning Commission did this great study over several years,
over 300 facilities. We looked at all of the data and included that in the parking assessment. What you see here on the slide is the most applicable data. We looked at Metro West facilities on the Framingham Worcester line and we compared it conservatively to the, to the 240 parking spaces. That's excluding those extra 18 tandem spaces just to make sure that we're providing enough because tandem spaces may not be as desirable to some of the tenants. But as you can see here, we're right on target. If we applied the rate the MAPC perfect fit database rates
for those metros facilities on the commuter rail line, we would be expected to have a peak parking demand of 234 parked vehicles and that would occur overnight. And so we're right in line. But we also wanted to take it a step further. We also conducted our own F phone survey and this said, and we looked at gables specific properties. So as you can see here, these are three of Gable's properties in Eastern Massachusetts just because they're expected to have similar demographics
and tenancy characteristics. And again, you can see we're right on target U using the 240 unrestricted parking spaces without the tandem, you're looking at a 0.73 parked vehicles or parking spaces, sorry, per bedroom. And as you can see here, Gable's Arsenal, streets 0.71 Gable's University station's 0.69, it drops 0.46 because that property in Boston has access to the T and obviously the subway has more frequent headways,
so even less parking. So that just is a big over big picture overview and happy to answer any questions. Yeah. Speaker 1: And are, are we now pausing for breath? That, Speaker 16: That, Speaker 12: That, that, that's, that's all we Speaker 1: Have. Thank you very much. This is, this is a really exciting project before us. What I would like to do is, actually Amanda, is there anything that you would like to add? This is so much something you have been at the heart of Speaker 2: No, I think it's time. They, I've met with them multiple times. Yeah.
I think it's time for the board to provide. Speaker 1: Okay. So let me, let me go see what the board has to say. Doug, you wanna kick off? Speaker 4: I'd like to hear from the DRB representative. Yeah, actually Speaker 1: I was gonna save her from, okay. Alright. Speaker 17: I did take some notes from our meeting in February. Basically the, the comments and reception from the DRB was very positive in general. Some, some comments were that the massing and arrangement on the site is strong, that they,
we had a lot of back and forth about the, the building. And of course this was still just design development, conceptual design. And so we understand that we'll, we'll be seeing a lot more in detail and expecting to see more materials and that sort of thing. And so the, the applicant has been, has, has promised to come back to us with all of that information as well. But as, as was mentioned before, we had conversation about the connector path along the MBTA property, hoping to have some pause spots
or some special moment spots along that path so that it wasn't just walking next to a large wall plantings or no, it, it could be, it, it could be made to be more pedestrian friendly. And it sounds like they're amenable to that. We did ask that they check the shadow to the north, the other side of the, of the train tracks, just to give us some sort of a, a study about that eventually. And then we, we as always, we were interested in seeing where the HVC units on the roof might be, sight lines and that sort of thing. And just hoping for simplicity and material and color,
but in general, liking the direction that the, that the design is taking now. So that was our initial response. That is Speaker 1: Awesome. I'll just come around and, Speaker 4: Yeah. Well I appreciate that there do not appear to be any arbor on the north side of the building. So, and it ties in with what I see as a great deal of thought sensitivity awareness of where this is, where it's going and how it's gonna tie in and be sort of like the landmark of the, of the west central corridor, which of course this board
with Amanda's leadership sponsored for town meeting and it passed. And it's an exciting zoning. I remember speaking at town meeting and, and offering my opinion that this, this is not, this doesn't have to be scary. This, this can be something that can be very effective. 'cause I, I think the foundational ideas behind it are strong. I'm really pleased to see so much of that incorporated in this initial design. It's a, it's a, it's a larger structure than a lot of Natick citizens are gonna be used to. But it just, it does make sense.
I appreciate the activation of the front of the building. The, the patio area, the walking path, access to the MBTA. I also noticed that in your west elevation, the mechanicals are shown, but I know it's kind of a false perspective 'cause you almost have to be like 40, 30 feet, 20 feet above the ground to see those. I think from the ground level, when you look up, you probably won't see them. But, but that, that is something that we have a tendency to pay attention to. If the materials are agreed upon with the design review board, we usually like to put in the condition that
after it goes out for construction and engineering, that they get one more look at it to make sure that we didn't value engineer all the good stuff out of it. We, we learned that the hard way one time. So we, we really do like to establish that. What is agreed upon is that ultimately what is built. I know others will have better questions than me, but in in general, I'm, I'm, I'm very impressed. I am thrilled that this is a waiver free application that really, it, it's hard when we have a new zoning district and a new application and waivers requested. 'cause then you just feel like maybe this isn't a good fit.
This feels like waiver free. It kind of stands, stands to reason that this is a pretty good fit. And I, I, and I, I really appreciate the sensitivity in which the slope is dealt with, where we're bearing one corner of the parking so that, you know, it doesn't feel as voluminous as it might otherwise. So I have positive comments to say and I, and I appreciate all that's gone into this, up this point. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Doug. Yeah, I mean, I, I'd echo what Andy said. I'm very excited by this. I think, you know, to the point of how this got here
and the hard work that Amanda and this board and quite frankly, you know, residents of the area, stakeholders in the area really had input into this. And this is the vision of it. So, you know, I'm not surprised it's a waiver free project. 'cause you know, I think we built all this stuff in as, as by right. Kind of thing. So very, very happy that this was the parcel that comes forward first and, and sets the standard. So all, all, all positive. I have a bunch of questions. Nothing in particular order.
Just curious and don't try to tie these into any kind of narrative. I'm just curious from an architectural perspective, balconies, balconies on the rear side, I guess the, the north elevation. Why not in the front? Why not on the south elevation? Speaker 14: I, I, I think the balconies are something we're still exploring. I mean, Speaker 12: We, we, we are, the, the right, the balconies tend to aggregate some junk junk from time to time. And I think that's, that's why we try to limit them on the, on the front. Yeah. Courtyard,
the pool courtyard will have an ab an abundant number of, of balconies, you know, west other elevations will, will consider key, key locations. So there will, I don't know that those elevations accurately depict they're, they're Speaker 18: Not perfect. Yeah. Speaker 12: The full, the full extent. But yeah. Understood. That's kind of the strategy. Speaker 4: Yeah. Okay. Understood. I don't know if Natick has a precedent about a pool structured, you know, on a, on a structured level. Do we have that anywhere? What do you mean? A pool? A swimming pool Speaker 2: At a structure level? Yes. Yeah, I believe clover,
the clover leaf plots, that one does. Okay. Speaker 4: Does have the pool, Speaker 18: But that's kind of outside. Yeah. It's not surrounded Speaker 4: By a building. Yeah. Just, you know, that's your concern. Speaker 2: Internal of the building. No. Speaker 4: Yeah. Okay. Just from a building inspector's perspective, you know what kind of information's Speaker 12: Gonna be Yeah. Public health and Well, Speaker 4: Yeah, just structurally too. Just given when was it? Five years ago in Miami, wherever Speaker 12: The water, yeah. Speaker 4: So let's not repeat that. I'm just, just curious about that. Let's see. On the MBTA coordination, so they've got a couple of sort of touch points, right? You've got drainage, right?
Tying in and the, the pathway, the, the public, is that intended to be a public pathway from Speaker 12: It would be, yeah. It would be accessible by the public. Okay. Speaker 4: So the drainage tying in, how have you had conversations with the MBTA? Any? Speaker 12: It doesn't, it doesn't tie in Speaker 18: Well to the, it's a, it's an overflow. There is an easement that benefits the property that allows for the drainage. And so that we're, we're not exacerbating the drainage. It's, it's an overflow. Okay. If we go beyond the worst predicted storm.
Speaker 4: So you're not physically tying in with a catch basin or anything like that? It's No. No. Okay. There's no point discharge. Yep. No hard height to there. And peak rate, Speaker 12: Peak rate Speaker 4: Reduced volume reduced. Okay. That's a good story. Water quality. Okay. Okay. Since you're up on the JS here, Mr. Sampson, zone of influence with the MBTA, have those conversations started and how do you see those if, if they have, if you think they need to be? Speaker 12: Okay. We, we've had, we've had multiple conversations with with the t Yeah. Around the, their lot
and what they would like to do with, with their lot. They have ideas about re redeveloping. Speaker 4: Yeah. I'm talking about, yeah. We, Speaker 12: And but Oh, the tracks, Speaker 4: Well, I'm talking about the construction on the site. Speaker 12: Yeah. We have, we haven't submitted anything to the t relative to the zone of influence. Okay. Right. Jamie, that's another 60, 90 days. Speaker 4: Okay. That's correct. I think we Speaker 13: Wanted to get a sense of, you know, from this initial maybe couple additional meetings, any changes that might be requested on the TOWNSIDE
before we kind of really approach the MBTA. But we're certainly fully aware of the process we need to go through to get that. And we're not, other than the connecting pathway, I don't believe we're actually doing any work outside of the bounds of the property. So it would be just making that pedestrian connection Yeah. Speaker 4: Into the parking. Yeah. The connection in the edge, the northern edge of the parking lot might be, I don't know. I mean it just, the only reason I'm bringing it up and I'm not a, you know, I, I'm skeptical about how the MBT actually has the jurisdiction. They do. Oh. But they somehow exercise it.
If there are any questions, comments about that edge and the drainage, you know, let's get those squared away. Yeah. Quickly. Let's, and not wait. Yeah, yeah. So we're not approving something that the MBT has an issue with down the road. So fair point. Speaker 18: They could be the long lag here. Speaker 4: It, it might be. So I would highly encourage you to, and just for you, everybody's information, the MBTA has a program called the Zone of Influence. You're for in 30 feet of the edge, I think of the, of the right of way working.
They have a right to issue you a, a license to do that work. So, and they have a process to go through. Speaker 18: I mean, and we are not anticipating any cranes or equipment to be placed within the zone. That would be a red flag for their concerns. But we are Speaker 4: Retain walls or anything along that edge. Speaker 18: No. Okay. I still need to submit though. Yeah, Speaker 4: That's a good point. Okay. I would really urge you to do that. And my last question would be on the, on the path, the shared use path. Love it. Great idea. How I, I would love to see how that's gonna continue or what some thoughts are on how it continues and,
and where you have it at the edge of the MBTA lot, how that lines up with the rest of the, of the public, you know, walkways there and what would be the intention just long term, you know, where that goes. You know, want to build something here that's kind of, you know, angled into a point of that site where it's not gonna be workable. There's a sign, there's an MVTA sign there and utilities and everything else. So I would, I would love to know a little bit more about the vision. Speaker 18: And just to clarify that question, is that at the back edge of the site where the,
we lead onto the MBT property or is it at the front end? Speaker 4: No, the front. Okay. But along West Central. Sure. Yeah. Fair point. Yeah, that, that's a great idea. Shared use path, not, you know, just wondering what the transitions will be beyond the edges of this site. Speaker 2: And so, just so you're aware, we are gonna be engaging with the Conway School. Conway School is gonna be doing some work from the Framingham Natick municipal line all the way up to Mill Street to better understand how we could incorporate the mixed use, or sorry, multi-use path along that corridor. But then also how can we get you from that area of 1 35
to Natick Center. So whether that taking it down Mill Street to Pond Street, speed Street to Pond Street, or continuing to 1 35. So we are looking at the entire corridor with Speaker 4: That. When is that work gonna be done? Speaker 2: So we are just waiting to finalize the contracts with that. And so it actually would be starting in the middle, beginning of April. It would be completed by June 30th because their semester ends. Okay. Speaker 4: Alright. Speaker 5: I think key, we have one major parcel, obviously the MBTA is the port, and then really if you can get to Boden Lane, because that provides a major connection, I think.
Yeah. Really from this property line to Bode Lane would be huge. Speaker 4: I think that's it. I think one of the missing members here might ask a few questions about something else. So I won. I'll, I'll reserve that for the next year. It's funny Speaker 1: Trash man. I, I found myself picturing Peter watching the video at home and going, wait, I had something just said, yeah, Speaker 4: Load. I didn't hear much about loading and and trash removal. So if you want to just give us a couple highlights and maybe one of our members, one of his particular issues is how sites function in
that regard. So Brian or you Speaker 1: Thought Nick here. Speaker 4: That's true. Nick. That's Speaker 1: True. Come here Nick. And so, I, I will just kind of wrapping up our comments. Say that I have been excited about the prospects for, for this area since, since forever. But, but since Amanda began to kind of talk about it in ways that gave it shape and form. One of the things that I find remarkable is that it's almost like a, a ghost in the room.
'cause we don't talk about it. And that is the positive impact that this has for the community on the north side of the tracks. That, that we are, we are creating this remarkable kind of third space. And for the, for the first time in a very long time. I think you have a part of Natick that feels like place. It, it, it, it is a, a place to linger, a place to go. I remember when we were working to on the warrant articles and somebody I know came up
and said, you know, I was talking, I was walking with my, my son over the railroad tracks and I was telling him he could, had to imagine what this could look like. He said, we may be coming over to, you know, do this sort of thing or that sort of thing. That it's, it's kind of tying together the west and Speaker 12: Yeah. And if a couple, a couple of those parcels, it's not gonna take much to really change the cha the character around the, the tea station. Yeah. It's, you know, it's a co couple more and it really changes the, the, the neighborhood
or that, you know, that whole community over there Speaker 1: And it creates a sense of invitation to those who are abutting the neighborhood. And I think that that notion of, of using, using the, the dynamic to kind of make it feel like, yeah. Yeah. That's by destination Speaker 12: Accessible. Yeah. Yeah. Nick, do you want to just comment on the conceptual loading ideas here? Yeah, for the record, my name's Nick Griffin, also at Cube three, the architect. And yeah, just to talk through some of the access points and loading.
So we do have the kind of pull off and visitor parking up at the very front and we did locate our garage access to the rear of the building. We had looked at it in the front at some point, but, you know, wanting to get cars in and out of that front area as quick as possible. But having that visitor space so they can access the front door and then the pickup drop off for Ubers and pickups and, you know, cars that are coming in and out of the site quickly. And then yes, the, the loading both for move in move outs and the trash will be back at that red located area in the back. There's a whole pull off area next to the garage entry
where trucks, and I think we have room for two, a trash truck and a moving truck that can fully get out of both the access to the garage and also the fire turnaround access for that loading and trash. So internal of the building, there'll be a trash shoots and a trash, large trash room at the ground floor in that parking level where trash will be held until the trash truck comes. The barrels will be wheeled out and access that truck again fully outside the access path. And then the adjacent to that, there's the loading elevator access for, with a pull off area internal
for people to move stuff that, again, is out of the way. And then the turn, the fire access turnaround uses the kind of t shape in the rear where the entry point and then as it extends off to the right there, which the trash and the moving trucks could use that same turnaround access. Speaker 1: Very good. Speaker 5: I, I have a number of Speaker 1: Questions and I just, what's that? Speaker 5: I said I have a number of questions when we Speaker 1: Get to that. Oh, of course I have. I'll have just one thing to say and then I'll put it over to you. And, and that is to, it's important. I think it's gonna be very important to understand what the perception of this development is
for those people who do live across the tracks and to understand what their concerns and questions and understanding of the dynamic that, that they envision that, that they're, you know, that it's not feeling like they're being squeezed out or somehow getting the backside of things. And I think that it's, and it's hard when you have a two, a full rail line running in behind things. But just to again, do something that creates more
of a tying together rather than feeling people have gotten kind of pushed to the side. Speaker 12: And I think it's a great point. I know as we were talking through the architecture and design layout, there's, we had four fronts, there's four very different sides of this building that each have a very different, you know, context. Yeah. But that's how we've kind of looked at it just to make sure that we're engaging each appropriately. Yeah, Speaker 1: That is great. Al Speaker 5: So I have a number of questions and comments and I think partly because this is a very important parcel. I think this was probably maybe one of the key things we were looking at when we were looking at, to change the zoning for the whole corridor.
So definitely wanna make sure this is done as well as it could be. So I guess my first, I guess concern or whatever, I wish there was more non-residential space and I think that's one thing we envisioned was, hey, coffee shops or something down there to really activate As I was talking to neighbors when we were, you know, rezoning, they were like, oh, that'd be great if I can get a cup of coffee before getting on the, on the train. You know, I, I never heard anybody, nobody said, I wish they had four stories of re of residential.
So, so I think that non-residential space, I agree, we wanna make sure it's active. I would love to see a little bit more of it, especially on, you know, the very visible front end of it. So I don't know if there's the ability to get more of it. Yeah, Speaker 12: It's, I mean it's, it is, it's tricky. It's really tricky. It's, you know, with retail right? You, you either want none or you want 20,000 square feet, right? That's, they're the synergies that work with the co tenancies in the retail dynamic. And so 4,000 or 5,000
or 4,500 is, it's, it's just, it's, it's difficult and it's got, and, and this space, space really needs to to be activated. It cannot, it cannot be empty. It's the front door. It's gonna sort of key on what happens in that plaza area. You know, we, we, we talk about some of the ideas that we have, you know, we keep we also keep talking about how it needs to be flexible. Right. It may, it may evolve, but it Right. In order to keep it alive, it may, it may need to evolve what you, what you don't see here message. Yeah. What you don't see here as well is our residential entry
and that kind of, that that stick, that, that runs north south off of what central right. Where the residential entries, that's, that's a lot of our, our front door, our amenity, a a a little gathering place. Our mail, our mail room. But all of that gets, you know, all of that is, is visible from the front. Not that, not that it's a ne neighborhood program, but it will, it will activate that space, which we, again, we think is important. So I, you know, it's hard to, we'll see, we'll see what kind
of, what kind of success we have with the, with the 4,000. I, I certainly can't, can't say that we, we can commit to more. Speaker 5: Well I think that's even why it's, it's written kind of vague I think a little bit in the bylaws to not be, has to be retail. Right? But, you know, non-residential, maybe it's retail, maybe it's, you know, gym, maybe it's, yeah, there's a lot of different possibilities. Speaker 12: There's a lot. We have a lot of ideas. And really, again, to, to try to be flexible and understand how Right. How it really, how it can be used and, and, and effectively animated, it's gonna be really important.
Speaker 5: Another thing I was, I was, again, as a lot of these bylaws were being written, I think we had discussed a lot about stepping the upper floors. So I really kind of wish the top floor was kind of stepped back a little bit from both Route 1 35 and the railroad tracks. Or not really the railroad tracks the neighbors across the street just to kind of give the, Speaker 12: A little step back. Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, exactly. So visually it's not gonna be as imposing, you know, we talked about the shading, you know, would obviously be less shading. Speaker 12: It's a little tricky to do in in wood frame construction. It can be done, but Right. It, there's, there's some gymnastics that you have to go
through to, to step it back. I mean, I think the, the architecture tried to really, really reinforce that. Yeah. With a, you know, base, middle top. Speaker 5: Obviously it might affect a unit count, but yeah, that's kind of, I, I think that's something that I would be looking for. And especially those two sides. Probably less so for the MTA side, there's a sharp curve that driveway where it comes in or exits you, you come in and you gotta bend around that. I would like to see a truck turning template on that. You know, we do have, obviously you're not gonna have, well we'll see how big the moving trucks are
you showed coming in from the east. But that really doesn't take into effect that, you know, 180 bend people who are moving in the truck might wanna be going to, you know, Framingham or, or points to the west Speaker 12: Coming exit exiting, Speaker 5: Making the right exit out. But, and then I guess, why don't we also do left turn coming in? 'cause it could be coming in from Framingham. I mean I'm, I like to allow trucks to, you know, pass over, you know, yellow lines if need be because hey, they're truck, they're gonna do what they want. I want to make sure, you know, we wanna make sure
that's pedestrian friendly, right? So we don't want these wide sweeping turns, but we also don't want trucks driving over the curb and over the sidewalk. Right. Or over the shared use path. So just to make sure it works. Yep. It works well and we'll continue. You know, we don't want damage. Speaker 12: Yeah. You need, you need, you need fluid movements through there. Right? Yep. So Understood. Speaker 5: And again, it's a truck. Let 'em sweep out. That's fine. We just wanna make sure they're not driving over stuff. Speaker 12: Yeah, that's good point. Speaker 10: J one thing that we should mention that we didn't mention the presentations at Center Island Speaker 12: Yep. Is mountable, Speaker 10: That's got multiple curves.
Okay. That's intended to allow a larger vehicle while distracting or not encouraging a passenger vehicle. Speaker 5: Yeah. I was just worried about pedestrians waiting, being in there while, while they're coming by. Well, let's see what can be done. Run those. Yeah. Run it. Then we can maybe make adjustments as needed. Where is, is it only the pedestrian entrance in the front or do they also have accesses from the other areas of the building? Speaker 12: There, there will be other areas where they can go out and there's one to the west and one to the east, northeast.
Speaker 5: Yeah. And those are all the time available, not just, you know, that's right. Fire exit or anything like that. Right. No, Speaker 12: That's right. Right. There's connectivity back down to the service, parking to the west and connectivity to the, the, the path to the t to the east. Speaker 5: Okay. 'cause I could see that big path and I was Yep. Yeah. Speaker 4: The door. Right. Speaker 5: Okay. As far as the traffic, we'll be taking a look at that a little bit closer. My, I suspect I might not agree with the quite as much of the infill possibility where I think you assumed it was all retail and generating well, which, you know,
I mean it really wasn't two floors of retail, but I don't think that's gonna affect the ultimately build condition. It's just, you know, the delta. So, you know, I, I might have some questions or comments. I, I probably Nothing too, too crazy. Oh, actually my last one was, did you by any chance talk to anybody at ma out or find out in, or does anybody on the board know the latest on Boden Lane? Is that, okay? Speaker 16: So it's mentioned a couple of times in some of the meeting minutes from last year and earlier this year,
but DOT's website only says that it, the a hundred percent design plans were December. I'm not sure if it fully has the funding. It is on the tip, but, but we'd be happy to look into that if you'd like. Speaker 5: Okay. I wasn't sure if there was any updates as far as that moving forward or whatever. I mean, I could always check it myself, but Speaker 4: Yeah, Speaker 5: No, I think that's really, Speaker 4: Could I plant a question for you? Speaker 5: Sure. Speaker 4: You had that look? No, just this signal equipment there. Good condition. Any, any thoughts of touching it? Upgrading it or not? What's Speaker 16: Yeah, I mean it's, it appears
to be in generally good condition. The southbound movement, which is our driveway is leg of the intersection, operates concurrently with the Kendall Lane movement. Okay. So there's no need to to change the, the phasing or the, the signal heads for that. And it seems to be operating generally well it's LOSD or better operations for all movements at that intersection and you know, but we'd be happy to talk to the DPW if, if they want us to look at So Speaker 4: You're not thinking about a turn? Speaker 16: It depends Speaker 4: On if you spend turn lane. I mean it
Speaker 16: No, no, no. It doesn't need any kind of geometric improvements beyond the minor improvements that are being made at the site driveway. But that wouldn't affect the signal equipment and, and you know, we'd leave it to the purview of the DPW. Typically they'd wanna maintain the priority for less delay on the main line, you know. But again, we'd be happy to look at signal timing optimization, but beyond that, nothing appeared to be warranted. Speaker 5: Just a little background, there was a new controller, a project I was working on for mass DOT before I was on the board.
We were able to do through the local bottleneck project, was able to put in a new controller there and new video detection with a 360 degree camera. Okay. There'll probably be adjustments. Adjustments that need to be made just to accommodate the, the shared use path. Yep. So that there's actually some video detection on that path, which will be required for the, for the bikes to be able to go Speaker 4: Video detection, meaning act activating a phase of the signal. Yep, Speaker 5: Yep. Okay. So just adjustments that won't be won't be too difficult. Yeah. The older, before that they was a probably
more than 25-year-old controller that was running out there. Has any of the does new shareds path cross any of the existing signal equipment? Speaker 16: We did obtain the signal plan Yeah. From the DPW, but we need to confirm with them. Mostly Speaker 5: I was just thinking of any posts or anything need to be moved to accommodate the shared use back. We, Speaker 16: We can take a look at that. Yeah. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 12: Yeah, that's a good way to, that that's the, that's the overhead pool Speaker 1: Traffic. So is, does this feel like we're at a good, so pause 'cause I, I do wanna see if there's, there are questions from anyone here? Yeah,
Speaker 5: No I think so. Speaker 1: Yep. But we have an, it's an ambitious and enthusiastic start. Yep. And just come up to the mic. Speaker 7: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr. The board. Mayor Chair, thank you for your time. As many are aware when this rezoning was floated I was vehemently opposed to it. But now that it's here, I do have to admit grudgingly that this seems to be an excellent project. Do you wanna go ahead and state your name for the record? I'm sorry Mr. Speaker 19: You're legendary but we Speaker 7: Do the dialogue since we're having a public, does he need an introduction statement here? I thought maybe David Coffee town meeting member precinct
two ready to eat some crow. How I do have to admit it appears that a lot of the concerns of the neighborhood have been addressed. But I do have some questions I would like to bring forward, especially for the residents on the north side on Tamarack Lane. I've spoken to some of them and notwithstanding prior representations of the excitement level people have on that side, I heard some extreme concerns the first couple of houses in Tamarack directly above the existing building.
And those residents are very concerned about a much larger building facing their houses Reference was made about not wanting balconies on the west central side face because of the issues of collateral and balconies. And I would hope that those concerns would also go to the people looking out their back windows or in their back yard and rack what they will be facing. So it's just a thought also in terms of when this project begins, what will be done to mitigate noise, dust, especially
during the demolition phase for tho for those people, especially on that side, whose houses are there who will, might want to use their backyard but not have all of the noise, dust, et cetera, from the demolition phases, when will this occur? So that's certainly something that I was asked to convey on behalf of my constituents. I dunno if I'm ready for an answer or just points to ponder as far as the traffic and parking goes. 219 units, 250 parking spaces sounds like a lot. However, having experienced transportation
using the commuter rail or not using the commuter rail, I wonder if that many people living there will in fact be using the commuter rail. Not everybody works in Boston. There are a lot of other places to work. And also even for the people who work in Boston, my wife experienced when she was working downtown Boston Commuter rail does not always work effectively because if you work beyond the peak commuter rail hours, it's very inconvenient. She ended up working on some of their Boston, driving into Boston home because of the fact that it was not feasible for many people.
It didn't fit into those hours. I would also raise the point on that, I hope you'll take into consideration your public parking areas, people who will avoid the overflow from the West Natick T parking lot and attempt to use your parking lot for commuter parking because that West Natick lot fills up very quickly in the morning. And it could be very tempting for somebody who gets there if they don't have a deterrent to use you for parking. So that would be a consideration. Also in the traffic thing, it's been discussed, it had been discussed once upon a time, and I use that phrase deliberately since it's usually
how most fairytales begin that the Boden Lane bridge construction could start as soon as 2027. So perhaps the traffic study should take into account traffic coming down Boden Lane, turning onto West Central Street because there's, that's more likely than not to be a factor that will come in in terms of the public amenities. Perhaps something could be done for consideration to mitigate what's going to happen, especially to the neighbors directly north of you on Tamarack Street in terms of access to the pool.
Something to just maybe make their lives a little better for what you're taking away. Especially for people whose backyards are now gonna have a much larger building over their backyards. So just a thought, perhaps also the humidity area, if you're gonna have tables there, maybe a few chess board type tables so people can sit and play chess or checkers while they're enjoying perhaps an ice cream cone. If a good ice cream shop opens up, which a lot of people are actually looking for, including me.
So those are all issues. There used to be a really good ice cream shop in that plaza, but unfortunately it closed. The replacement of it was not as good and it went out. But once upon a time there was actually a very good ice cream shop there. Speaker 1: Good ice cream nose, no season. Speaker 7: No, not, not in this neck of the woods. Yep. Speaker 1: So, so alright is that, Speaker 7: And those are some my points, the mixed use retail, it'll be interesting to see what goes there. There's this dichotomy of, oh, bring in a coffee shop. But if you bring in a coffee shop, you're gonna be bringing in more cars going in and out. So that's an issue.
America and this person run on Dunking Donuts. So I'd love to see a donkeys closer to my house, but I'll be one of the ones driving a car and now making your life miserable. So those are most of the concerns I feel that people from and I had for the area. Yeah. But this is a very good jumping off point and we look forward to it adding to the West Natick neighborhood, not detracted. Thank you for your time. Speaker 1: No, thank, thank you. And I and I and I remember some of those earlier conversations and very glad to see the kid,
the kid turned out Well, you know, touch wood. So, so is this a good point? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. And there's one person on mine. On mine too. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 20: Good evening. Carl Oel that I'm a town meeting member precinct two. Mr. Coffee captured some of my comments, but I'd just like to add with respect to the project, leaning heavily on its proximity to the T as Mr. Coffee mentioned, commuter.
So commuter rail services, limited frequency and flexibility and in practice many residents will still rely on cars, which will mean, which I, I believe the traffic and parking impacts are likely being underestimated. And I'm very concerned that in the traffic study materials that I've seen, that it doesn't appear that the impact on Bowen Lane and Harford Street has been looked at. And once that Bowen Lane Bridge opens, that avenue is gonna be a main corridor to that na to this new development. So I would urge that that be added
to a traffic study before we proceed. I'm also concerned about the, the commercial space that is outlined in the project with some of the other recent developments that have opened in town. They also have ground for space and I don't see that space being filled yet. Now it might be early, but just concerned about if that space will be utilized and with 219 units this project is a meaningful scale and its development, a development
of the size inev inevitably will increase demand on schools as well as police, fire and EMS services, EMS services. And I haven't seen an analysis demonstrating how that additional demand will be absorbed, whether in terms of school capacity, staffing levels or emergency response times. And I'm just wondering whether a fiscal impact analysis has been conducted to show that the revenue generated by this project will fully offset the cost of the additional services as it requires. I also agree with Mr. Coffey's comments that I have concerns about balconies in the rear for the Tamarack neighborhood
and I'm wondering if there can be some mitigation so people in their backyards aren't being observed by people in the balconies in that development. And I'm also wondering whether any sort of noise study has been done or should be done on having what the impact of that, having a development on would be on the Tamarack neighborhood. So those are my points. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. And is there any, anyone else? Speaker 2: There's a person online. Speaker 1: All good. That's that's great. And they are
Speaker 2: Chris Theron. Speaker 1: Okay. And Chris, you want to or open up your, your mic. That's not your mic anyway. And Chris, a former former associate planning board member, Speaker 2: They're unmuted. Speaker 1: Alright. Okay. Chris, can you hear us? You, Speaker 2: It appears she's unmuted. Speaker 1: She is unmuted. Hi Chris. Darren, do you hear us? Okay, well I will, I I can reach out to her
and see if whatever she wants to talk about, we can work into kind of a future meeting, if that sounds Okay. So, so what do we have, I mean this is, this is huge to what we, the, the ground we covered today and as we said at the outset, incredibly exciting, somewhat daunting, but, but with an exciting goal. What do we want, how do we wanna take it forward at this point? What, what do we want to see as a priority or
or priorities as as we begin to give shape to the plan? Speaker 2: Oh, Chris can. Chris is on muted Sir. Chris, can you hear us loud? Speaker 21: Hi, yes. Can you hear me? Hi, Speaker 1: Yes. Hi Chris. Speaker 21: Thank you. As my internet went out the second I was called on, my name is Chris Therian. My address is two Tamarack Road. I am not only a town meeting member, but I'm also a direct abutter. So I feel like I needed to speak up about this. My house is right in the top right corner of this little picture that you have here. And I have, if you can see the current
picture, satellite picture. I have a beautiful array of trees, the buffer, my house from the train, my neighbor, not so much. And as it goes down it's a scattering of trees. And I, I wanted to just first start out that this is a beautiful structure but this isn't the right place for it, not this big. What we had here before was a little convenient store, a pizza shop, a sub shop, a nail salon. These are places that I could walk to my kids could ride their bikes to. And now there's nothing. Maybe a coffee spot, I don't know.
But it doesn't sound like the retail experience that we were hoping in West Natick is gonna happen. Instead we're being inundated with 330 more bedrooms and supposedly all these great opportunities commute to the city. I work from home. I'm gonna stare at this out my office window every single day until I retire. So I'm really concerned about the looming ness of going from one story that I can see from my house. And when I'm sitting by my pool, which is my outdoor oasis, the reason I moved to the suburbs, I'm not gonna see
that one story or the very top of I'm gonna see four stories, hopefully not somebody's overused, balcony dirty, laundry, forgotten, I don't even know sports equipment. It just, I am envisioning the worst case scenario from my backyard. Oasis. I'm also concerned with the, I call it a shadow study. What that's gonna do in terms of shadow, it's not gonna probably impact me very much because I'm on the end of this. It is this building would be moving 40 feet closer to my property
and that since my neighbor doesn't have any trees, this is all I'm gonna see. The trees that are proposed don't appear to go anywhere near the top of the structure. And I know Andy's aversion to Arbor. So that's one of probably the only few things that could even call further. I think that what might be considered in the future is to look at a sound study. So when trains go by, the sound is gonna start reverberating off a much larger structure. How is that gonna impact those of us on the other side of the tracks? Am I gonna be hearing trains all morning and all afternoon three times as loud as I hear them right now?
It sort of blend into the background right now. But this is a concern I have in terms of the future of the noise. And the last thing that I just wanna point out is I was reading reading the engineer's, the town engineer's report and he did mention that he was concerned with the traffic study and it didn't seem very accurate and that there were some other concerns about that intersection. And so I would propose that another study, and I don't know how this all works in terms of getting another study, but really consider the opening of the Boden Lane bridge when that might take place
and how this might impact all the traffic in that area. I can tell you right now that when a train comes in in the afternoon, it is chaos trying to get down that street. There's so much traffic. The, the parking lot fills up first thing in the morning and the second that trains come in it, I don't know exactly if there's one train that most people ride, but it's constant traffic. People are trying to cross the street, people are trying to turn out, nobody stops because the train exit doesn't line up with a light, it lines up with a crosswalk.
The people driving out of the parking lot don't have access to press the crosswalk button. So it really is kind of chaotic. So to think that adding 219 more units and potentially 219 more cars isn't gonna cause utter chaos in the afternoon. When I'm trying to get my kid to soccer practice, somebody else is trying to get home or get across town or just go to the grocery store. That's one of the few things we have on the West Natick. I think that really needs to be a big concern. I don't have anything else, so thank you very much for your time. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you Chris. Any kind of comments or further thoughts? So
Speaker 4: No, I mean I think you know, some responses to comments obviously on the record, whatever staff or professional staff comments we have like to see responses to that. Alan, I don't know if you are looking for any more detail on traffic issues. I think there's plenty of, Speaker 2: I think our conversations ongoing. I know that they had briefly met, so they were, those conversations are just continuing Speaker 4: And we're gonna obviously continue this. So you know, again, I would just urge you provide next time we meet, provide an update with the MBTA, just where you are. Yeah,
Speaker 12: Yeah. There's some consistent themes with Right. The acoustical studies that that was, that was brought up early on and, and we will, we'll engage, we'll engage with that. The balconies right. Consistent theme kind of screening that that north side of the property. We'll we'll look, look at all that. Speaker 5: One question before we go. Are you guys gonna have ride share zip car or anything like that? Or Speaker 12: Not? We no, we typically don't have rideshare. You know, people are Ubering, the Uber seems to be the replacement to rideshare to some extent. Speaker 5: Is there gonna be, so where would the drop off pick up?
Would that all be in those spaces? Right up Speaker 12: Front? Yeah, in the front. There's a pull off area there as well rather than just the parking. Yeah. Where that blue, where that blue rectangle is. Right. There's a couple places you can dock for a minute or two. Speaker 1: To the earlier point about Boden Lane, which has featured prominently tonight. I, I think it'll be interesting to understand how that schedule or the likelihood of its completion meshes with this development. Speaker 12: Yeah, I don't, I don't think there are
technically any problems. Right, Courtney trying to capture that in, in a, in a study? Speaker 16: No, we can, we can coordinate with DOT and the DPW and see what the status is of it. The only additional traffic that's gonna be generated is the southbound movement. It will just be one direction only, which will be under stop sign control as it was in the past. So we wouldn't anticipate our project adding significant amount of traffic to that lo to that movement. But we could certainly write a, a small letter me memo if you'd like.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah, thank you. Speaker 5: And just, it'll just, things will change in the area a little bit, so yes. Yeah. Might not be even be a change once it gets in front of this driveway, but you know, people, instead of going Mill Street, there'll be a different pathway. Pathway people are taking shift. Okay. Speaker 4: And just one last thing. I would say a little more development of the community path, multi-use path, you know, idea, like just transitions either side, you know, Alan brought up, you know, what or somebody brought up what's, are there utility poles? Just more, more development of that Speaker 12: Of of course.
Yeah. That was, that was a, a comment at DRB. Right. Really making sure that's okay. Good. You know, a, a comfortable space to be in. Speaker 5: Yeah. And stepping back if you could look into that, I think that kind of goes into the same when we're talking about people across the, across the railroad attract Speaker 12: Back Yeah. Some of those view corridors or you know, perspectives. Yeah. Speaker 5: Well yeah, actually that was one thing that we made them do on North Main Street for the assisted living about what would it look like from certain areas, especially when it comes down to screening things that are on the roof. But Speaker 1: Definitely helpful.
Speaker 12: Yeah. Those, those view perspectives we can, we can study pretty closely. Yeah. Speaker 1: Alright, so when do we want to meet next? Because we have April 8th. And what do we, I want, do we want, Speaker 4: We have the 29th. Speaker 1: What will we be talking about that has progressed since today? Yeah, Speaker 4: We'll just So April 8th, the 29th for the record. I will not be here on the 29th. Speaker 1: I'm thinking by the, at the eighth. And then will we, will, would we have enough significant, I I think that Speaker 5: Development think that's a question for them. I mean may maybe, I don't think we
Speaker 4: And then May 6th. Eighth 2019 and May 6th. Yeah. And what would be the DVS timeframe? How that meshes in too. 'cause we need, we need Mike, Amanda, we need their recommendations. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. So I think our next meeting is the seventh No, of April. 14th. Of April. Of April. Okay. So then we 14th. So you, we want it to be before that so that we have something to, Speaker 17: And they may not be coming to us on the 14th. I don't know. Speaker 12: Yeah. I, I 14th or Jamie we need to kind of square up on dates,
but the 14th is probably doable. The 29th. Well, 14th Speaker 4: Will be. Speaker 12: That's d rrb. So we'd be, because that's, I mean, Speaker 17: And I don't know if you're, if you're ready to come back to the DB at Speaker 12: That point, I, you know what I, I think we just need to huddle up and kind of, kind of get our dates together. There's some things that we need, need to accomplish. Speaker 4: I'm just throwing out the date. So eight eighth, the 29th or the sixth. So yeah, we Speaker 1: Have to pick a date. So what was something? So we Speaker 4: Have to, we'll have to set a date tonight. Speaker 1: Yeah. And I'd rather set, set it on the earlier side and then not, and have to push it later than, than
to push it too far. We have to late Speaker 4: So selfishly think it's up to them. We Speaker 1: Not Speaker 4: The 29th selfishly. I'm not the 29th. Yeah, Speaker 1: You can go before, Speaker 4: So, but that's up to you guys. Speaker 1: And first and the next meeting after the 29th Speaker 4: Is May 6th. So April 8th, the 29th, which I would not prefer in May 6th. Speaker 18: I think May 6th makes the most sense. 'cause that allows us the opportunity to respond to comments. We Speaker 1: And significant makes significant kind pro Speaker 18: Progress. Correct. Yeah. We wouldn't want to try and overcommit and not be able to deliver anything in time
for the board to review. So I think that's the date that gives us the, the best opportunity to respond comprehensively. Speaker 1: Okay. May 6th. Speaker 13: And, and I think we'd like to get a, a meeting in with the DRB as well before, well before we come back to you. We can, and make sure that all the additional studies or documents are available ahead of time. Speaker 12: What other dates besides the 14th? Speaker 17: We meet once a month Speaker 1: As a Wednesday. Speaker 17: On the second Thursday, but we can Tuesday or two? Tuesday two no, Thursday. 14th is Thursday. Thursday. Thursday. Speaker 1: The Speaker 2: 14th is Tuesday. Speaker 1: Is it Speaker 17: I, oh, sorry.
I was on the wrong month then I was looking at Speaker 1: No, I could be on the wrong year. I've been doing 14th. Okay. If we meet on May 6th. Yep. Is does that keep you, Speaker 17: I think they wanna meet with us before that on the six. So Speaker 4: April, right. So that second Thursday is the 16th. They could meet with you on the 16th. Yeah. 16th. Speaker 17: And that's online. That's and then Speaker 4: Right. Is that week, is that, that's not town meeting week or anything is it? Or any crazy conflicts could Speaker 1: Be with No, the article meeting Speaker 2: Starts after, after Patriot's day I
thought. Which is the 20th. Speaker 4: 20th, right. So yeah, that would work. Speaker 1: The, the 20th is Speaker 2: Patriot's day. Speaker 1: And that would work. Speaker 17: The meeting that I have, the date that I have is the ninth because the second Thursday is April 9th. It's early because Right, right, right. The first is on a Wednesday. Yep. Speaker 1: Okay. So you're wanting to meet before, Speaker 17: That's what they said they would like to come back meet with. Yeah. Okay. And if that doesn't work, I mean we can always, you Speaker 1: Can always push us off your then, then Dr.
B's decision is going to drive where we go or when we, but we, but we do have to pick a date tonight to continue. Speaker 17: Yeah. I think that works best. And we just make a recommendation to the planning board. We don't make a decision. So we're we, we just vote on a recommendation to them. I, and whether we'll be ready to do that after one meeting or not, I don't know. We'll get there. Speaker 12: That's good. It's a good first step and a date to shoot for If we need to push we will. Speaker 1: Alright, so we're not then we're not Speaker 17: May 6th.
Speaker 1: It is May 6th. Okay. Just wanna make sure. Very good. I'll entertain a motion to continue to May 6th. Speaker 17: So moved. Second. Speaker 1: Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. And then we are continued on to May 6th. Thank you. Speaker 12: Thank you. Speaker 17: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thanks. Speaker 4: Safe travels Jamie. Speaker 17: Good luck at the airport up to meeting, getting us jealous I guess. Boston airport's great. A great way to start. My daughter just flew out today and she said there were no lines. Speaker 4: I was in Tampa. Boston's great. I was in Tampa
this morning, so Speaker 17: Yeah, it was, if you're in the right place, you're good. Appreciate it. Perfect. Speaker 4: Like literally two minutes to get through. So Speaker 1: Amanda, do you wanna move on to Speaker 17: Thank you. Thanks for joining us. Yeah. Speaker 1: You don't have anything? Okay, that's fine. So nothing else. See, you know me. I was afraid I was going to adjourn again before we were Speaker 4: Adjourned. Jamie, you can turn off your camera. Speaker 1: So. Alright. So we don't have any minutes to be voting so we don't have things under planning board business that's needed.
So with that, I will entertain a motion to adjourn second made and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. And we stand adjourned at 10:08 PM Thank you.