Speaker 1: Calling to this meeting to order at what my clock says is 7:01 PM and I will start by noting for those of you following on Zoom, the meeting is being recorded. It's being broadcast on Pegasus. And to a comment or ask a question to those of you at home, use the raise your hand function. If you are on a phone, press star nine. Any individual wishing to speak during public speak or during a public hearing must display their first and last name on their screen before the microphone can be unmuted. To make changes in your name as it appears on the screen in Zoom, click on participants
to open the participant's menu. Cover your cursor over your entry and click on more. Click on rename and type in your first and last name. So that is for our listening audience at home. Is there anyone looking to speak at public speak on matters? Not already. Before the board in this meeting? No. Okay. Seeing none then I'll proceed to the next, which is development Review public hearings. And this is 43 Cypress Road. No, no.
You know what? I pulled out the wrong one. I'm going, I'm not reading that. Nope, nope. Just, just grab the wrong one. I have 'em both in, sorry. And that is development review, public hearings, legal notices published 52 Everett Street. I know we had the applicant's before us if you wanna come up, pick up where we left off a few weeks ago and we have some new materials. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 3: Is Mark and then is any of the other is MGD plus on your
Speaker 2: Mark needs to be on? Yes. And Trevor at the MGD. Speaker 3: Okay, perfect. Speaker 2: I'll just introduce Ben Stevens stress development, Matt Stevens, stress development. We have MGD development is MBC Arc, MGD architecture is Trevor O'Leary. He has done some new architecturals of the building plans and he's a NAIC resident. So I have him on tonight to talk a little bit about that. And I talk a little bit about a, a slightly different layout of the units to try to meet some of the concerns we heard
and some of the concerns I heard from the neighbors. Just to sort of go over it a little again, a little bit again, we did, we do have a traffic individual. We're playing some scheduling problems with vacation. So he is looking, he's on board to sort of do an analysis of the intersection, do analysis of our entrances, make suggestions, make comments, talk to us a little bit about that particular item. That won't be tonight we didn't, we didn't progress the landscape plan
because some of what we're talking about on the layout will affect the landscape plan. So I think we sort of need to talk a little bit about that first and not really here to talk about the utilities. 'cause once again, the utilities I don't see as a major issue. There's no ledge, there's not high groundwater, there's plenty of great drainage. But all of that is gonna be a little bit in flux until we nail down the layout of the project. If I could though, there was a question last week about the sidewalk connection. So if Amanda could put up the
sidewalk plan first, I'd love to talk about that and then move on to the layout discussion. Speaker 1: Actually, I'm gonna have a couple of questions before we get to the layout discussion. Speaker 2: That's fine. Okay. Speaker 4: And this is in your packets, Speaker 2: So you are correct. The sidewalk, we put the new curb, if you're looking at the right of the plan, that's the intersection of Windermere and Everett Street. And that sidewalk section is not done yet. We put the curb in, we expanded the roadway, which was part of the Windermere subdivision. And that last 150 feet or so of the
sidewalk will be installed this fall. We're doing most of that east side of the sidewalk. Speaker 4: Start that, sorry. Speaker 5: Sorry. So what limits are gonna be done this fall? Paul, Speaker 2: If, if the plan was up, I'd show you that 72 Everett Street, which is on the corner of Windermere Lane and was a house that faced Everett Street. It now faces Windermere Lane, a brand new house, not our house. So if you look at that plan, the where it says proposed sidewalk, that property line, the most adjacent property line to the left is
where the sidewalk needs to be completed as part of the Windermere Lane project by me and will be, Speaker 1: That's the one on the far right, the far right, is it? Speaker 2: Correct, yes. The last, yep. 200 feet. And then you'll see there's three private properties plus a driveway easement coming across the lots. And then the last property line is the start of 52 Everett Street. So the, the property line on the farthest left is the start of 52 Everett Street. So what we did is we had the engineer survey everything,
it's tight, but there appears to be just enough room, not on private property. There are trees on private property that will have to go, but it appears that we just make the five feet at that tightest section. So it's not outta the question with some permission to remove trees on a but's property where they're sort of sitting on the property line, one of them's dead, another one I think they would want down. It's not outta the question. We'd probably have to widen the road, pave an apron on the road, pave a curb on the road, remove the trees, pave the sidewalk,
and make that connection. So we, we want to investigate that option. It's probably 150 to $200,000 expense Speaker 1: To that. Thank you. To that point, is this not a scenic road? I believe it is. Okay. I'm being a it's a rhetorical question. Okay. And it's strange because in the application there's one point where it says, is this a scenic or is the property, you know, the primary property on a, on a scenic road? And so, and it said no, and I'm thinking this is a scenic. I was or it
Everett is the Speaker 2: Whole Everett. Speaker 1: Okay. Until it comes Yes, all of Everett until it comes into Elliot. Okay. So that will affect tree conversations. Speaker 2: Understood. Speaker 1: Okay. And Amanda, do you know if that has been Yes, Speaker 6: I have to, Speaker 1: I have to do that still. Okay. So then we'll be dealing with that. Not, not now. And presumably whenever the tree warden when his schedule works for us. So thank you. Speaker 2: And then I would, unless there's questions about the sidewalk. Speaker 5: Yeah, I guess maybe I'm still not sure exactly.
So as part of the windy mirror, how far is that sidewalk supposed to come? I just wanna make sure we're clear. Which is what? So to that property line, so just the first property that's gonna be what's done this fall Correct. Part of the windy mirror? Speaker 2: Correct. Okay. Speaker 1: And it may be with knowing that there will be a scenic road hearing, you may want to keep things fluid with the sidewalks depending on what, what the tree warden has to say. Gotcha. So I don't want to have, have something go up that has to be altered or reconsidered.
And I'm not saying that's that's the case, but I'd rather not inconvenience something if it's not. Yeah, Speaker 2: We're not proposing to do the sidewalk as part of the project. It is just a dollar consideration. And then whether that's in the town's bucket list of wanting to do it and there are, like I said, some private property trees that have to be removed. So I'm just putting all the information out there for now. Speaker 1: And your decision not to put in the sidewalk is, Speaker 2: Well, it's on, it's not really our obligation. We can do in front in our frontage like we did at Windermere
and like we did at, on the other side of the street, but now we're talking about I have to move a catch basin, I have to do a bunch of work and it's, it's an expense that normally wouldn't be associated with a, with a project. 'cause I don't even own, it's not out in front of my lot. Speaker 1: Alright, well leave, we'll leave that for, for later. So you've done, are you, you're done with your intro Speaker 2: On the sidewalk? Yes. But Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: But I can move to the new plan or you, whatever works. Speaker 1: What I actually, I think would be helpful and colleagues tell me if you, if you disagree, going back
through, we went through the application fairly quickly last time and what I would like to do is go through and better understand the numbers of units that are associated with various steps of the process. Sure. And I wonder if you could walk us through, through that because there's a point at which the 11.17 is then escalated and there's a a series of of escalators that took what was 11.17 and ends up heading towards 16 units.
Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 1: So I think I, I just want to, Speaker 2: I'm, I don't have it in front of me, but if I recall the numbers was 11.2 or 11.3. I think Speaker 1: It's 11.17. Speaker 2: Okay. I don't have it in front of me. Speaker 7: I, I'm working on seeing if I can share it open. Speaker 2: You have that on? Okay. Speaker 7: Yep. Gimme one second. Alright. Lemme know if we can see it. Okay, Speaker 2: So it was 11.17 rounding up we rounded to 12 and we contemplated a 10% bonus increase, which would bring it another 1.2 units rounded up would be 14.
We were just following what, what Speaker 1: Is wait, going back what on the a bonus for what? Speaker 2: Under a special permit, the authorization for the planning board to potentially agree to a 10% increase in one of the Speaker 1: Be Okay. And only because this has a remarkable incremental way of rolling everything up. One kind of one more notch. Speaker 2: Understood. I just sort of followed the math of south of South Main Street. So, and maybe this project won't be treated the same way, but I figured since the planning board did approve
that project with that interpretation, it was a, a reasonable interpretation to have to start the project. Speaker 1: So, okay, so it's, it goes 11.17. Yep. Then that number goes up Speaker 2: With the 10% increase would put it at another 1.2 units, which would be 14 on the rounding up. Speaker 1: Okay. And which is, which is a significant way from 11.17. Speaker 2: Oh, I understand that. All I did was looked into history for how it'd been done in the past. 'cause this is, I'M two is not Speaker 1: Please, I don't, excuse me, not looking
for comments from, from the public. Please. You'll have a time for questions and comments later. So, Speaker 2: And then what we did is presented a couple of options in a quick working session and catered the project based upon eight buildings, which would be 16 units, which we know is an increase over the density allotment, which we understand. But from our position it was made more sense to, instead of having eight or nine buildings in smaller units, I mean,
and have single family units if you will, or some of them single family, but to keep them as duplexes and have a larger open space, concentrate the project a little bit more out front because we could meet all the other setback requirements and the site could certainly handle it. And as I sort of read the minutes from South Main Street, there was an understanding of we don't build, we build 900 square foot apartments or 4,000 square foot houses in Natick. We don't build anything. And you're right, we don't. So the point was to try to hit that middle housing, which we can't seem to hit on the open market
and that's why I proposed 16 units under that configuration. I recognized that it's not necessarily the math equation of the, but all I did was follow the south nat, the south main street analysis if you will. And I wasn't even at their point. But Speaker 1: So the 11, the 11.17 units gets rounded to 12, 12 gets rounded to 13.2, 13.2 gets rounded up to 14 and you are proposing 1616 kind of a, a significant understood Speaker 2: Escalation. Yeah, it all, it all depends. I mean it, I I understand that
and the point of the housing, the point of the bylaw was to create middle housing, to create middle income housing to create a lot of affordable, affordable housing fees. And if this board determines that this site doesn't meet that goal, the point I'm trying to make is it's not gonna look a lot different at 12 units than it would at 16 units because it'll still be eight or nine buildings. So I recognize that I'm looking for an increase and I recognize that matters
and there are things associated with that. Speaker 1: Thank you. And, and one of the reasons I wanted to start with this is it feels like something that we need to sort out sooner rather than later before we get into more of the details, others comments on regarding the number of units being proposed or how, how they are situated in, in a way that may improve kind of the layout. But I think the, the number is important to resolve early.
Speaker 5: I I agree that I think we do want to get a handle in, I think they want to get a handle on it because that'll shape their sight really. Of Speaker 1: Course. So comments or questions on that? Speaker 8: I, all years I wasn't around for South Main Street, so I I don't really know the history of other projects. So I Speaker 1: Kind of, I guess putting aside, because it's not always kind of what specifically is, is being applied. If, if a the, the OSRD it depends on the site, the challenges of the site,
the opportunities that are presented or not. So I think there's not a necessarily a reason to copy and paste. Speaker 8: Does our zoning and I haven't, it allows for rounding up. Speaker 1: It does. Okay. Speaker 8: Twice. Speaker 1: It does not go into that level of detail. But the, just the question of a, a sliver multiplies into a much larger sliver as Speaker 9: Well. There's, I mean there's a basis in the bylaw for what they're asking is the, is the answer. There's a basis for it and there's a basis in precedent. So I mean I guess my, my take is I'm not gonna be one to,
to quibble about numbers. If you have a defensible way of what Speaker 1: Is the base, what is, do you know the Speaker 9: Number I'm asking? I'm of the citation. I don't know, but I'm just saying I'll come, I'm just saying if it's def if it's a defensible number based on the bylaw and based on precedent, I'm not gonna quibble with one unit, one and a half units or two units. I'm just that that's not in me. I, I am, we drafted this bylaw for exactly the reasons that we're just said and let's, let's find the, be the best way to design this site and the best way to do that.
And I think, you know, I want to hear the rest of the presentation. I want to hear the whole thing because if this is a negotiation or something that's, that's gonna end up in a condition swapping back and forth, whatever it's gonna be. Yeah. If that's where we go, I'd like to hear the entire thing and, and what is, and so how we get to resolving the number, I don't know when we do that or how, but I'm just telling you where I'm coming from. If it's a defensible within the bylaw and the bounds of the bylaw, and maybe it's discretionary, but I'm, I'm not gonna sit here and say one minus one unit and minus two units just because it's a number feels better if it's defensible
and it's been precedent. Speaker 1: I don't, and I don't know where it is in writing in the bylaw. Certainly not in the, Speaker 9: It may not be. I'm just saying let's, if your attorney's here, it would be great to understand exactly how you come to that. Speaker 1: So, and I did appreciate the, the page on the power, the PowerPoint presentation that I was going through earlier. So, alright, so yes, Speaker 2: I didn't know, do you want my attorney to talk about the that or should we go into the full layout? Let
Speaker 1: Us go into the full layout. Okay. Speaker 2: I do, I do think that how this looks from Everett Street is the most important. We don't have, like I said, we have none of the, we don't have the constraints of site other than size. And how this looks from Everett Street is to me the number one goal. I've talked directly with the three, the three abutters, and I'm not gonna say they're happy with the project, but we've talked a little bit about what's the concern. And as I, I said to Kaitlyn when I was on the phone and I live next door to this project,
and trust me, my reason for buying the project is that I want it done right. The owners of the land know what the zoning allows them. I was not the first buyer, I am the second one, but that doesn't mean I'm the last one. But I was not gonna have this project built there and be vinyl sided and, you know, lousy 12 units with and not meeting the market properly. That being said, I did talk to everyone and everyone had the same concern. You're, you're driving down cottage, you come to the end,
you're gonna see this project, this, this, this is a visible spot for somebody coming from South Natick, from Natick Center to South Natick. So we have to really work hard on that front, on what it looks like, what's out there, what's the landscaping. We have to then look at the inside and say, all right, maybe we need to do something different with parking, maybe spend a little money and do trellis, you know, hidden parking or something like that. So to that point is what I, we spent the last three weeks working on, and I know we don't need the answer personally,
we don't need the answer on 16 units today. We're hoping to convince the board that done right with the right street approach and the right architecture and the right details. It's a real asset. Whether it's 16 units or whether it's 12 units. I just, not sure you're gonna be able to tell a lot of difference between 16 units and 12 units. But with that being said, Trevor, are you able to talk a little bit about the new layout at this point? You're on mute. Speaker 7: Yeah. Let me just swap to the other presentation. Gimme one second here. All right. You able to see my screen?
Speaker 2: Not yet. Yep. Yep. Speaker 7: Okay. Alright, so I'll skip, I'm gonna skip just to the, the point of the new plan. So on the left here and, and as we go through these sheets, you're gonna see what the original plan that was presented at the last meeting is gonna be a previous plan that's gonna be shown on the left side. The right side as we work through these is gonna be the revised plan. So the changes that have been made in the past three weeks since the prior meeting, as Ben had mentioned, you know, during the last couple of weeks, there's, sorry Speaker 10: Attorney ka interrupt. One second, I'm sorry. I see people taking
screenshots with their cameras. Can we make this package available for people? It is, Speaker 2: It Speaker 10: Is. Okay. I just wanna make sure folks have copies of it. Alright, so it's an Speaker 1: Open gov Speaker 10: On our website, just people know how to do it 'cause it's probably better than taking screenshots off of tv. So, sorry. Speaker 7: Yeah, I think all this was uploaded earlier today to the portal. Speaker 10: Okay. Speaker 7: So a as I was saying, everything on left side is gonna be the previous plan. Right side is, is the revisions that we've been working on in the past couple of weeks here. A couple of the comments that were mentioned during the,
the last meeting was the street frontage or lack of street presence that was shown on Everett Street, which when looking at the scenic road and, and the articulation of houses as they work down the street, there's definitely a importance to see the front entry of these units and, and that street frontage along Everett Street. What we've done, as you can see here as we work through the site plan, was reorient the front two houses in that street plan so that the front entries
or the, the, the intention of the front look of the house, and we'll see this in an elevation in a few further slide is, is facing closer towards Everett Street. This is gonna give as, as Passerbys driving down the street drive by more of the intention of a standard farmhouse colonial that would be seen on Everett Street currently with a a, a welcoming front porch for people that are walking by on the, on the sidewalk. A couple other things that we've done with this is we've, we've attempted to shift the houses further back
away from Everett Street. What this is gonna allow us to do is, is utilize more of the, the front yard space for a different style of landscaping, getting away from the, the row of AEs that was previously shown in the plan and provide something that is a little bit more consistent with some of the older lots that can be seen up and down Everett Street and, and throughout cottage and some of the surrounding areas. With that, you can see that we've, we've actually tightened the overall circle for the
inside of, of the houses in order to minimize a little bit more the, the asphalt space, which, which is taken up a little bit by the increased entry length that's required by shifting everything back towards the rear. These new unit types that we've added in the front. As you can see by the, the units themselves, there are more two story style and they take up a smaller footprint than the, the other houses that are tucked in behind them. And this smaller footprint is gonna be more consistent with some of the older homes that'll be seen
up and down Everett Street. And again, as mentioned that there's a more of a street presence with these homes as we go down the street, this is gonna be the, the concept for the elevation of these homes. As you can see, it's, it's more of a two story colonial style with a an open seating front porch. They will be connected with a, a sort of breezeway area that will accommodate parking from the rear and help disguise the cars. And then we provided a little bit of a, a different articulation between the two units to give the intention and feel as though they are two separate
structures, two separate homes. And the only connection is between that articulation, which is actually set back from the front facade As we work through the, the, the look from the street. You can see in our previous view what we had was an, an artificial porch that was added onto the side of the house that really wasn't as usable and as, as inviting. When looking down Cottage Street, we've changed that and reoriented that front house so that we have the two front doors for these units will be facing cottage,
which is gonna give more of a street frontage and, and more of the feel and intent of the scenic road. You can also see here that we've reduced the a ie screening. The intention would be to still maintain some screening along the a but's properties on both on the left side, but the front will be replaced with, with low height planting along that to, to reduce the overall height feeling from the intersection of cottage and along Everett Street. The final landscape plan we're still working through, but this is the attention and direction we're looking to go with.
As you can see from an aerial view, the the houses themselves have, have been pushed towards the rear. There is more front yard space that is on the, i, I guess the east end of the property. And, and with that it's gonna provide more of that, that country feel front yard where we can do, you know, provide more planting grassy area that'll help create a buffer from Everett Street to the the first houses. Again. From here we've got a couple of typical features that we're looking to include into the project. The center area of this will be a, a walking trail that goes
through and we'll provide a, an anchor point for landscaping in between all of the houses. We do intend at this time to provide a, a stone retaining wall consistent with other properties seen up and down Everett Street, the front yard landscaping for these homes. We'll provide a, a grassy area with native planting and then there'll be a few other site features around the site, which we're still working on final details on. And then here's another view that we have that is a little further to the west, looking from the abut across the street,
showing a little bit more of the entranceway and the, the connection between the multiple properties and really what the view and and intent would be from Everett Street. Looking into this, into this parcel. From there I'll leave with, with any questions on, on the design. Great, Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Anything you wanna add? Alright, questions, comments from the board, Andy? Speaker 10: Well first of all I would just like to say that the last time we met I felt we lost a little of the decorum that we usually practice in planning board meetings, having watched over the years.
Various people come in here who've been opposed to projects generally the folks that do the best are the ones that stick to the facts and generally, if possible try to kind of leave the emotion out of it. 'cause the, these really are, these are factual reviews and I hope we can just exchange views that way and, and really make sure we can hear everybody And we do welcome opinions. We just, I just, the, the, the all all all opinions are welcome. We just like to do it in the realm of some decorum. So thank you for that. Second thing is, it's really
heartening to make a comment and then the next planning board meeting see it revised in plans. For example, I made a comment about trying to get some of the design, particularly facing Everett Street to be more front facing and in the revised view. That's exactly what's there. I mean that, that looks like, I think, I think that's really well done and I appreciate that the, the traffic circle is tighter. I appreciate that the, the houses are generally set back a little bit more. This looks like something that I think fits in a little bit better. So I thank you for that. I appreciate that.
I do notice and I, and I I heard you say that your landscaping may change 'cause there is still a really healthy row of arbor, ie. Between your property and the property next to it. And if, if that does change towards a non arbor ie type proposal, I think we'd all like that. Particularly they, they just grow and they just get so big and I'm sure there's a, a better choice. That's, that's not, what's the word I'm looking for when it's not part of our natural floor inflamm, oh,
invasive or is ide is not invasive. Is it like a natural, Speaker 2: Natural existing as opposed to existing manufacturer? Speaker 10: Where's going g when you need them as to, as to this notion of density, to me density is always tied with design. You can have a very poorly designed project that doesn't have a lot of density, but it seems like it does. Or you can have a really nicely design project with a little more density and you don't notice because the design is so good. So I, I have a tendency to think, first of all
how much you would notice as we get into this discussion about number of units. We are looking forward to hearing kind of the traffic safety issue in terms of how it connects with Cottage Street. 'cause I, I really want this to be a, a, a successful safe passage through, I I am still convinced that the number of car trips in and out of this won't show up on a traffic graph. So I, in terms of impact of like how much more traffic are we putting on the roads between 12 and 16, I I don't, I don't think that's calculable I think it's minimal. So to me I am, I am appreciative
that the design I think has really improved from the last time we met. And design is a big part of density to me. And I am looking forward to hearing what the justification is for those units. The, the frustrating part about the previous version of this bylaw was that there was so much, there were so many arbitrary decisions that needed to be made. We had to decide whether it was better than a subdivision, a traditional subdivision. And we had to kind of make that, you know, and it was really comes down a lot of times to personal opinion. I'd like to take as much of that out as possible
because I think reasonable people can look at the same thing and disagree about it. So I'd like to try to ground this as much as possible into what is legally allowed under the bylaw. And if there is a clear cut explanation as to justifying the additional number of units, I'd like to review it. I'd like to see it. If it's just a question of, hey I just think we can make a few more bucks and you're gonna have to go outside the lines of a, of a bylaw, I don't think I'm gonna go there but, but I'm happy to hear a reasonable proposal on what you have in mind. But ire, I appreciate the, the changes. Thank you
Speaker 11: Peter. Speaker 12: Yes. I'll echo what Andy said about the appearance of the building on the west side of the entry. I guess it's the west side of the entry where the, the roof in the front wraps around one of the, I can't figure out which one it was. One of the elevations of perspectives seemed to indicate that the grade from the front of that building to the back along that side is rather
you open onto grade in a basement level or is it pretty Speaker 2: Level? There's no, Speaker 12: The topo indicates that that it is pretty much the same. Speaker 2: Yes and it is. It is. Yeah. I think that was just a misstep on the architecture. Speaker 12: Alright, I'm kind of a little finicky about when you sort shutters, shutters had a particular function and when they were first used and here you've got 'em on the front of the elevation I'm looking at and the elevation that you see from
the main street from the entry street looks a little bare, a little barren. And this is just design is just, you know, as Andy said, well 10 people, you'll get 11 opinions at least. But I think it would give some little, I think a nicer appearance if you're going to put the shutters on. I think shutters where they belong, they don't belong on each side of a bow window. So here on that elevation I think they do. And is the elevation that comparable elevation on the units on the other side of the entry?
Is that done? I don't think, do you have the wraparound roof on that one also? Speaker 2: Yes. It's just that first building turned Speaker 12: On each side. Speaker 2: Yeah. And one of 'em were loading the cars in the rear and then one of 'em, we'd load 'em in the front because one, I have to load 'em in the front but I didn't wanna load the front of the left building. And you're Pete, I, I met with Peta and Marsha Malone who I don't think are here, they're on the cape but they own Cape Cod shutter. Which shutter, what's that? Seaport Shutter. Seaport shutter. And, and he
and I have already figured out how to the proper hardware, he's already schooled me on what, how it should look. So I told him that if he was willing to work with me on the proper hardware and the proper shutters that he would have impact. 'cause he's the one who's gonna see it every day. Speaker 12: Well it it, and I look at it, it makes a big difference if it's done properly or not. Yeah. And so someone who's in the business undoubtedly knows the proportion of the shutter to the window and so on. I think it's, I think, I think it, it's architecturally I think it looks fine. I look at the site plan.
The site plan looks easily maneuverable, you can get around on it. Parking, I think it's where it, where it belongs from a architectural point of view and from driving up and down the street and I have, I think it's going to gonna be fine. Thank you Doug. Speaker 9: Yeah, thanks. So I echo what Andy said about hearing us and coming back and you know, showing some revisions to the plans.
What I think are, are definitely for the positive. I, so I have a couple comments about design. I have a comment about the wall and stormwater. So let's go in the order there. So those, the two new typologies right front facing, the one on the left here on the, on the image front facing front door, right. Speaker 12: Can you get Speaker 9: Closer to your mic? What is, so that's what is the elevation on the other side, the rear, you know, is that really a front door? Is it not a really a front door? And just, I'm curious from a marketing point of view,
you're gonna come to your unit on the backside and everyone else has the front door facing. Just tell me how that works from a marketing and feel. Speaker 2: I don't, I'm not concerned about it because 90% of us don't even use our front doors. We use our garage doors, our mudroom doors, our back doors, our screened in porch. So that's why we tried to come up with a unit plan that was, that you could load from the front or load from the back. Now when you load from the back, you're going to have probably a back door into a kitchen area. And also that happens to be your patio out back.
If you have guests, they're gonna have a walkway that brings them around to the front. Unless they're family guests, then they're just gonna come in the back door. So the point was to try to give it that front face. We could also put the doors on the side. We, we can be flexible with the interior, but I wasn't worried about that from a marketing standpoint. Mm. Based upon the buyer profile we see. So, Speaker 9: Which, so designating that as a front door guy, 'cause I like the way it's articulated here. Is there gonna be a walkway or something in the front that Yes.
That supports and, and reinforces that as a, as a front door. Speaker 2: Okay. Correct. Yep. Okay. Speaker 9: Alright. So the wall, last time you were here we were talking about a retaining wall right along Everett Street, kinda lifting the side up a little bit. Is that still part of the plan or Speaker 2: We, we don't need the wall. So the wall is aesthetics only. Okay. Speaker 9: Is it retaining or is it Speaker 2: Well what it is is the street, the side of the, the sidewalk gonna up being around elevation 71. Those two buildings, the top of concrete is 75,
but they're 40 feet back. Yep. So you're, that's gonna be 71 to 73 that whole front. Now do you do a landscape berm in the front? Do you do a decorative wall that is not a retaining wall? It's exposed on both sides. These are all landscape features which we're happy to explore with or without. Speaker 9: So yeah, 'cause it reads, I mean I'm, it reads like it's just a freestanding stone wall. Yeah. Speaker 2: On the front. Which, and, and it can be. Yeah. Good. Speaker 9: Okay. Yep. I like that direction a lot. And then just again, storm water, you have some handled on the
north side, I guess a smaller Speaker 2: Sort of west and east. Yeah. Yeah, Speaker 9: West and east. Okay. So west and then the larger one on the east side, right underground Caltech, what is, what is it, what's the Speaker 2: It's a pretty much, that whole front section is a Caltech field. We have very, so your elevation right now is around 71 in that field. It's actually a little lower. Property goes down a little bit. First we couldn't find groundwater. We were down about 13 feet in the front. So right now it can be anywhere in that plane of elevation.
We have the house 40 feet, the house itself has a foundation and is 20 feet off the system. If the system ends up lower than the basement, then we can sort of bring the house forward. Right now we're assuming the system is not gonna be lower than the basement floor and we can't, we need to be 20 foot separation. But we have a lot of flexibility in that front system on what horizontal plane we end up building the system and, and then how much volume we wanna put there Is Speaker 9: Recharge pretty good? Yep. I mean, oh yeah. I'm assuming that you didn't find groundwater until,
would you say 13 feet down or even even lower? So recharge will be Speaker 2: Very good. Recharge. There's a, there's a drain in the driveway now which handles I think most of the paved area and there's a lot of paved area that we think is just a catch a leach pit and doesn't seem to have a problem 'cause it's very good sandy gravel out front. Okay. And I haven't done a schedule on the grading, but essentially we're, we're either one or two feet down on the back and we're two feet up in the front
and we just transition the whole site. But we, there isn't any four foot five foot fills or any four or five foot cuts. Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. Okay, thanks Alan. With the two with, looks like essentially two units change, right? Configuration the rest kind of stayed the same. And what is the square footage on those? Did it change to Speaker 2: The units out front are 2200 square feet. They're essentially 30 by 30 boxes with 12 by 22 garages on 'em. That Speaker 8: 2200 did not include any garage. Speaker 2: It does include the garage. Speaker 8: Oh. Including garage Speaker 2: Includes the garage. And Speaker 8: How big are the other ones?
Speaker 2: The, the two units, the one we, we tucked in the back and the one in the back left, we had those units out front. Yep. But the point was at 2200 square feet with garage, the, the units we're putting in the front are kind of what people build now as single families. 4,400 square feet including the garages. So we took the big units and tried to put one in the back. Right. And one in the back left, they're gonna end up about 3,600 not counting the garage. So 4,000 with the garage. Speaker 8: Okay. Speaker 2: Ish. Speaker 8: How about the other two unit? The other,
Speaker 2: Everything else will be 2200 square feet of which Oh, Speaker 8: Okay. They, it just, the style is different. Speaker 2: Just style different. Yeah. And it's, each one of 'em has a one car garage of, of about 12 by 22. Okay. So and we, we thought a little bit 'cause I did hear concerns from neighbors about, you know, soldiers lining up the cars at night are gonna line up like, and I, I hear it. I'm trying to think about it if there's a better way, which is why on the bigger units we sort of did some turnouts and we haven't, there may be, it may make sense
to do something in the island that's a little bit of a covered, we're doing some things in Newton that are just, you don't even know they're solar panels, but they're solar panels. Nine foot high flat. You landscape 'em, you build 'em outta cedar and they look like little carports but they kind of make sense. You're looking at it, it has a visual effect. They're not tall. It's something we'd certainly explore if the board thought it was a good direction to run in. So. Speaker 8: Okay. And my other question, the sidewalk I kind of brought up before, so what I don't want to have happen is
that this precludes further development of a sidewalk from your site further east or to the left on I guess this page and the one I'm looking at, have you talked with the town engineer about any I I'm just wondering even though it would be a connection to nothing about even just extending it along your property line, the sidewalk. Unless of course, and again, if the town engineer says we are never gonna be putting a sidewalk there, I understand, but I don't want to have this be a missing segment.
Oh if we only took care of that a hundred feet, you know, when it was easy to do. Speaker 2: Well we anticipated you can kind of see at the bottom where the crosswalk is proposed. It's, it's, and we anticipated from the crosswalk to our entrance, certainly that's required period. Yep. And then we looked at, so then we looked at with the previous slide going from the other, the other entrance up through the rest of our frontage and then potentially connecting it through, we could go to the left as well and just install it. That next, that missing, it's probably about a, you're right about a hundred feet.
It's certainly we could do it. We have to put curbing in. There's no curbing on the street right now. We have sort of country drainage. So I've gotta check with, I, I did send this plan to Bill and talked to him a little bit about it. I don't know if he has an opinion on whether it should or shouldn't happen. He probably has more of opinion on if it does happen then we need to see drainage, we need to see this, we need to see that. And upstream, I think we have drainage capabilities 'cause long story, but we know all about the drainage out in front of that. Speaker 8: Okay. Yep. Speaker 2: Because there's a water problem there. But we're not quite sure
what would happen in the lower section down to cottage. 'cause it is flat and right now it's sort of rolling off the road, ending up in our property and Corinne's property next door. Speaker 8: So. Okay. And I appreciate the changes that were made since we were last here. I think it definitely looks a lot better than it did before. Okay. Speaker 1: Thank you. And I think I would, I'll, I'll add my remarks to those that my colleagues have made about breaking down the volume of that what had read as a ginormous building in front into the form that you've given.
It makes it feel much more like it belongs there. And also I think that one of the, the things that developers are encouraged to do is to come up with things that look slightly different from one another to not have everything read like copy paste. And I think it mixes that up also in a way that's, that's, that's good. In terms of what the safe safety along Everett traffic coming down cottage, what is, are there the wall
that is there in the front, does it end up playing that sort of almost a safety barrier? I know it's not a, a retaining wall but Speaker 2: It's, it's, it's probably outta my league, but it would either be, I'm sure our experts will tell us the wall's good or it doesn't matter if it's a wall or boulders or a heavy landscape. I mean I think the problem, and I'm not an engineer or an expert on traffic, is that you're coming down cottage and there's nothing in front of you. So unless you're paying attention and know the area, you know, there's not a house in front of you to go, oh, I better stop.
So that's why the boulders were put there because I think everyone just kept going who didn't know the area. So I'm gonna leave that to him, whether him or her or whether that is, should it be a wall? Should it not be a wall, should it be boulder? Should it be landscape, should it be a berm or is it just having the project there now achieving that distraction so you don't look through it and keep going. But I can probably answer that at the next meeting. I'll have him do some comments on that. I, Speaker 1: I think that would be very helpful because the idea of doing that collaboratively
will just have a long term benefit. Okay. And what else? Oh, the, the storm water discharge fields. Are there retention basins? Speaker 2: No, it's all subsurface. Speaker 1: Okay. So recharge. What's that? Recharged. Yeah. Yeah. And I take it 'cause because we had this come up with another applicant on, on a different project, understanding that that wherever the, that if there are fields that are serving
as, as for subsurface discharge, that that does not count towards open space. Correct. So Speaker 10: Can I ask one more question? Sure. If you look at the aerial view, the revised view, this is about the trail that is gonna go through the little cul-de-sac. It looks like it goes between houses and it heads right into like the woods. And I know you're not like proposing a formal walking trail through that backspace, but would you be willing to sort of cut any path so that I know it's, I know it can be wet
and soggy back there, so I'm not looking for miracles, but sometimes people are willing to do a little bit of tamping down of things, maybe kind of cut an impromptu trail, you know, just for walking. Would you be willing to sort of kind of cut some kind of a, an access back there? Speaker 2: That back area is actually all a meadow and I believe we'll end up doing, like we did at Greystone in conversations with the conservation committee where we requested the right to cut the trail twice a month in the summer,
but cut the field up to two times a year, not between May 15th and, and September 15th. So it stays a, an open meadow field as opposed to sort of a reforest. If the conservation commission feels that it should stay a forest, then we'll keep cutting the trail and maintaining the trail. But there's a lot of bird activity. It's, it's a nice area back there and I think that is maintained if it's cut once a year so the trees don't start growing up but Speaker 10: Well that's why I asked. Yeah, it's beautiful. And this is, this would be open to people walking and be to the public
and if we could support that by, you know, making it easier for people to access it, it's, it's gonna be part of the town's open space. So I don't know if it would be possible to get a little sketch sense or what you're gonna propose to conservation. 'cause I I I mean this is the time. If we don't do it right now, you never get it right. So now's the time to kind of take a look at that and while there is gonna be five or so acres back there for people to walk through, I think it's gonna be a very nice amenity, kind of softens the impact of having, you know, this,
you know, people people view this as being a big change, but to have the ability to now access that or walk through it, I think would be good. So I, I'd like to see a little more information about what's being proposed for walking through there. Thank you. Thank Speaker 1: You. Yeah, to that, I know we were looking at this, I think Amanda, we were talking about whether people could circum navigate kind of around the, the wetlands, but I think that the west side of it actually is wet right up to the property lines so that
it's unlikely to, to be something you could kind of go all the way around. Speaker 2: Yeah, maybe Speaker 10: Not all the way around. Even just a one way in or one way out. I mean just, Speaker 1: No, I'm just trying to find out what Yeah, Speaker 10: Yeah. Speaker 2: What yeah, the wetland is the, there's about an acre that is wet and it abuts the, the back of my lots but it abuts it on the Elliot Street side. So there's upland when you go back there, there's sort of as wide as the, as the lot upland and then the most, then the upland is sort of tucked around to the left and it's all maybe a little forested at the very last tip of it.
But we easily could cut a loop walking trail like we did at Greystone and maintain it with have the HOA maintain that like, like we do at, at Greystone and that's, you know, there's just an opportunity if it ever any other land back there becomes open space then it could connect through potentially to Elliot. Speaker 1: And then last question before I open it up to questions from the public is touching on the, the tender subject of the, of the count of units. You had mentioned that in terms of mass
it's the, the difference between 12 units and 16 is nominal because Speaker 2: We had done in our working group, we sort of looked at it from a 12 and a 14 and a 16 unit. And economically, if I'm at a different number than 16 then I'm probably gonna separate the units. I mean we sort of, there's about a hundred thousand dollars premium when a unit is a loan versus when it's attached. So we'd have to sort of, and we're paying quite a bit for this property, so we'd have to sort of do the math and say, well there's still gonna be eight
or nine buildings, but we're gonna separate 'em all and do 12 or 14 units, but we're going to make 'em some freestanding ones to try to make up the economics lost from the 16. And if, if the board feels that that's the appropriate direction, I I I understand completely. So I'm not, I'm not here saying that we can't do the project if it's 14 units. I'm here saying that based upon my understanding of the bylaw, what I've seen in the past and what I think we can do on that site, it's something to be considered at least. And it also, there's a very large check under
the fee in lieu being paid for each unit. So it's just two more payments of that fee in lieu. So, Speaker 1: So although when it comes we, we, we will have to deal with issues on the affordable units in due course. Let hold, I just wanna hold that 'cause I know we have a lot of folks here who I assume have questions. I should start with the, the people who are on Zoom because inevitably I forget about them otherwise and I don't want to do that. Do we have hands raised there? And I will say before anyone, members of the public speak, I understand that you'll, you'll have something to say.
I would encourage people if if you make, if someone ahead of you makes the same point, you can simply say, I agree with that or I think that's, IM that's important and then, and just to say we can agree to disagree but I think we all have the capacity to remain civil. I I would like to think that and I hope we can proceed on that premise. Amanda do you have Speaker 3: Yes, Ganesh is okay. Goes hand raised. Oops, sorry I'm
forget that I am controlling it on this side. Ganesh just needs to unmute. Speaker 1: Okay. Ganesh, I don't know if you could hear Amanda are you, could you un unmute and Speaker 13: Then Yeah I unmute. Can you hear me? Speaker 1: Yep. Yep we can. Speaker 13: Okay. I mainly tuned in for this next public hearing and I happen to listen to this and I appreciate all the points made by the planning board members and from a housing policy perspective, you know, I could speak for myself and maybe even for the housing trust
that more units is better than less and like, you know, and the developer is absolutely right that, you know, we just do not have the kind of missing middle units as much as we would like, you know, a a 2,200 square foot unit is going to be within a continuum more affordable than a 3,600 square foot unit. And, and I also appreciate the fact that it would also mean additional monies to the affordable housing trust and the fact that they're all kind of going
to look the same whether you make fewer units or more only goes to reinforce the earlier point. So I'm not sure how this pans out in terms of interpretation of the bylaw but you know, but I would encourage the board to like where, you know, the public policy had in terms of recognizing we are in the middle of housing crisis and the more we make these homes affordable, the better it is for our town. Thank you. Okay, Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else speaking from Zoom? I don't see any more hands. Okay, great.
Then what I'll do is if it makes sense I'll start on the my left to your right and I would just ask, make your point and then see the mic so that I can hear the next person asking everybody state your name, address, first and last name and address and speak into the mic. Thank you. Speaker 14: Alright, Elliot Zackham 45 Everett Street. Ben, I have a couple questions about the proposed plan, which I think would echo the comments.
I think it looks a good deal better. Am I correct in understanding that there are 16 units on that as it's currently laid out? Okay. And I know you'd spoke to my wife the other day about the possibility of considering single family homes and so I know we're talking about the math of going potentially to 14 units as part of the project plan. Would it be possible to look at, you'd said earlier in kind of your opening comments about the street view being kind of the top issue in your, in your mind, would it be possible
to consider a plan that would put two single family homes facing Everett Street in those two front lots there? Is that something that we'd be able to take a look at potentially at like the next meeting? Speaker 1: Sorry, is this the one not, that's not the, the one that's not really, they're front doors that aren't front doors, but Speaker 14: I think Speaker 2: What he's referring to is the, that building we just, the new buildings that we proposed and we're trying to, what we're hoping to do is keep them as a two unit building,
but it's gonna be pretty hard to know. It's a two unit building and I think proper architecture can do that. You know, they're not, I think your house is probably 60 feet, these houses are gonna be about 85 feet wide, so they're probably a little bit bigger than a newer colonial. But I think with proper architecture you're not gonna really know that it's a two unit. And that's, that was the goal of what we're trying to do. And maybe we have some more work to do. I did look at, if you could, you could break those two units up into two smaller units and still the, especially the first two on the left, plenty
of room to do it on the site. If it made some sense, we'd explore it. Now it's almost too small because at 40, at 4,000, 4,400 square feet with garages, it's sort of, I won't say typical because there are a lot of smaller homes on that street, but there certainly are a lot of 4,000 square foot houses on the street as well. So that was our goal. I don't know if we've achieved it yet, but that's, that's the direction we're trying to head. Okay. Speaker 1: Anything further? Nope. Alright, thank you very much. Next, moving across, Speaker 15: My name's Caitlin Nye. I live at 35, which is kind of like kitty cornered.
So if like I was looking, I'd be like that direction towards the property. So I think that I kind of echo what he kind of just said where I think it might be in the interest of the area to potentially mix some of the housing. Like rather than having it all be, you know, we had talked about previously how, you know the whole area is just single family homes right now. It might be nice to have some mixing of double and single family homes like that might be something like a, a plan that like we could bring next time potentially if, if it would work out. 'cause I think that that might actually visually work better with the area.
And I think other people who live in the area might feel the same way given that it is currently zoned all at, in that whole area of South Natick as single family homes. And I think that the, the other thing that I have concerns about is just that the trail, which a lot of other people kind of touched upon as well, is like, how do we access this? 'cause when I looked at the plan, it didn't look like from coming from off of Everett Street onto it that there was some kind of like walkway to protect people from who are trying to gain access to that walking trail. It didn't look like there was any, you know, if I'm trying
to come in, is a car gonna be hitting me on my way out if I'm trying to access that trail? Same thing with even accessing the trail. Am I gonna have to walk through someone's yard? Because we had some housing changes further up the street. I, I cannot remember the name Graystone. Not Graystone, but the one the other, the other one. Tu not sanctuary before sanctuary anyways, we were, we had access from to the aqueduct from there and we actually lock lost access for, for those roads Jack Patrick way.
There you go. We lost the, which is not his project, but we actually lost the p the housing units from that area. Lost access to the aqueduct and being able to walk through prescription there. Technically yes there's an easement by prescription, but it feels kind of odd to walk through someone's yard to try to gain access to something that's supposed to be public property. So I think that that's just something that I would kind of think about. 'cause like, like they said, I think Andrew was talking about, about cutting a path and having a, a proper way so you don't feel uncomfortable or not able to access the land. That, that, that's the whole point of having that open access land.
Speaker 1: I think I'll just want turn, I want to turn one question back to you and then I wanna turn to Mr. Stevens. And that is when you said it would be nice just to have them as single family homes, there were some designs shown that were too family but they read very much as single family. Is that something that you're Speaker 15: Yeah, I I think that it's better than it definitely better than it was, but maybe being able to, you know, work on that, like they said with the shutters and kind of things that, that would be a better visual. And I know that you had also said you were more
poignant about the number of units. It does matter to the people who live in the area. I know that Douglas was saying other things about he didn't wanna get into the nitty gritty, but that's something that I think last meeting was a very big issue. So what, what I was kind of saying as well as him is if we were able to kind of get a mixing of the types of housing that it might, you know, visually look better as well and also bring maybe more like start that mixing of single family to multiple family housing for an area that is only single family housing. If that makes sense. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Ben.
Comments on, especially on the path on, on access to the paths and to kind of the mix of single and Speaker 2: The access to the path should be. It. It'll, what we're trying to do is with the, if there's a crosswalk, which we assume there'll be a crosswalk painted. So everyone will know that when you come to the end of Cottage Street and you wanna walk across the street, you walk across the street, you're gonna pick up another sidewalk. And then we'd have to have some signage right there that said access to the trail. And then we'd have to have a couple signage inside so
that if someone who doesn't know the area came through, they'd know that they're allowed to walk through the project and walk to the back and with signage and there needs to be, they're not single family houses in the back. So this sort of, this ownership umbridge to people in your yard is not as strong in condos because it seems like there's always somebody in your yard and you don't know who they are 'cause they're the landscapers or somebody. So I, I think a treatment of the trail as it heads back there is critical so that it looks inviting
but also looks o open to the public. Speaker 1: It it, it looks public. Speaker 2: It looks public, yeah. Okay. And there's a big tree there which I think shows up on the site plan and it's pretty much the only tree and we're trying to salvage that and run the trail right next to it. 'cause it's sort of a focal point when you're looking up that way. Okay. Yeah, Speaker 1: Thank you. I just add parking too. Yes. Just so, okay wait, sorry. I need you to talk to a mic. Speaker 15: Caitlin and I, again, maybe just some parking spaces as well to allow for people who are not just from the area but all of Natick to access maybe like one to three. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ben. Is that a, is that a thought? Speaker 2: It is, but I've noticed over at Graystone we have those gravel spots and we get a lot of walkers. We get a lot of dog walkers because a lot of 'em take their dogs off the leash, which is fine but we don't ever get anyone destination walking. So I think it's, we're just not that much of an attraction to dedicate parking to it. I think it would be a waste of parking spaces and of asphalt. 'cause I'm not, it's a pretty short walk to drive your car to when you can go to the aqueduct
or you could go to Audubon or some of the nicer walks we have in town. So, Speaker 1: And this one doesn't have any, any kind of exit. It's, it's a loop. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Name and address. Speaker 16: Catherine DI 9 35 Everett Street. So I'm concerned about the whole going from 12 to 14. I it sounds like it's a done deal that we're gonna have this cluster. Yuck. Yuck. But okay you did a good job trying to make it better and I think that's valid that if we have
to endure it then at least you have it look nice. But going from 12 to 14, I still don't see how you get those numbers. 'cause 13.2 does not round to 14 you always go, if you go 0.5 you go down above 0.5, you go up. I'm a scientist so I know that. And anyway, so that's a side thing. So I don't know how you get to 14. So I think that needs to be addressed and then go into 16 less is more. You know you're already dealing with an area where it's single family homes, south Natick. All right. This is not really I, again,
I don't understand the bylaws. I dunno how we came up with a bylaw that allows you to put cluster housing on a space that you can't even develop because most of that land is undevelopable. Correct. Am I wrong? Can you put more than three houses on there? Single family And that's why we're going with the cluster. I need that addressed. Someone can speak to Speaker 1: That. Thank thank Speaker 2: Yes because there's contiguous vacant land back there. Someone could propose a subdivision. Would it be economic? I'm not sure. But you could propose a subdivision road
that would go back there seven or 800 feet because the wetlands, there's an acre of wetland in the seven acre site, which is all the way up at the top. Right. So it could be either now or in the future. But this bylaw we think runs a better, is better overall. It doesn't involve a town, street public, these are all private. So yes please I answer your question. Speaker 1: Okay, Speaker 16: Thank you. Did you, I guess my other question is what is your thoughts on
Speaker 1: Actually if you, why, if you wanna focus the question to me, I'll pass it back. Okay. It, it makes, Speaker 16: I'm thinking in my head for the 16, I'd rather I would've be willing to actually go to 16 if I knew that two of those units were actually going to people who have no ability to currently afford that kind of unit. So low income housing two units. If you're, if you wanna go to the 16 or 14, I think it'd be the money better spent to actually have those affordable housing there than this proposed.
Oh yeah, we're gonna give it some money and someday you're gonna get those affordable housings. 'cause my children can't seem to really afford to live in Natick anymore. So I would love to see down the street from me a couple of units if you're going to do this, extra units actually go to people who can live there versus this conceptual idea of oh we're gonna give money and we are gonna eventually put more people in somewhere. I guess that's my point. Alright, Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Moving on. Anyone on the other side now?
Yes, Ms. Vickers. Speaker 17: Thank you. Brinley Vickers precinct date. I wasn't intending address, Speaker 1: Just your address Speaker 17: Precinct. I thought we didn't have to actually give the street address anymore, like in the select board and they've just allowed us all to say that we live here and don't actually have to give our personal street address. Is that not correct? Speaker 1: Could not tell you. Oh, Speaker 17: 44 Oakland Street. So that's not my neighborhood but I drive through it a lot. A lot. So the first question is in the agenda, the link for the materials takes us to the open gov site
and all, everything on the open gov site is the previous plans and not these proposed plans. So I'm having a hard time finding that. So maybe you could tell me how to find the, the new updated plans. And then the second thing is I am, I've been following this, I am, the differences I think are huge with the changes in the front Because the plan right now is condos. Does that mean that people who move in can't all of a sudden plant arvid if they want to because somebody else is going to be maintaining that property and maintaining the center.
And how does that work? Somebody already said access to the land in the back and then it seems like we talk a lot about visuals in town and it seems like in these types of developments it seems very concerning that we want it to fit in the neighborhood. And I'm curious why everything always has to be the same color and the same design and if maybe one of the ways to have things not feel so development is to allow for there
to be a little more distinction between each one of the buildings and maybe a different color besides everything being white. I know all of that adds costs, but it just seems like, you know, when you're driving down the street, every single single home doesn't look the same. And so I'm just wondering if that's a a possibility. And I do think that because I am familiar with driving down there, I do think making sure that we leave room for sidewalks eventually is extremely important. Thank you Speaker 1: So much. I appreciate it. Thank you. And I, I will note, and I'm not speaking about the current developer,
the astonishing number of houses that I see going up that are white with black and they, they are all over town and different people are putting them up, but it's, people want to build what people are looking to buy and I think that that's what what one of the challenges is. But, but I take, I take the point Speaker 9: There's a hand up. Speaker 1: So Speaker 9: On the, on the ah, Speaker 1: Remote, I, I have someone on Zoom. Thank you. Speaker 18: I just said Kaylyn. What's that? Kaylyn, Speaker 9: Caitlyn.
Speaker 1: Oh. Oh okay. Speaker 18: We just need to unmute. Speaker 1: Yes. Could you unmute and Speaker 19: Hi, can you hear me? Speaker 1: Yes, yes I can. Thank you. Go ahead Speaker 19: Kaylyn. Zack, I'm also 45 Everett and I did speak with Ben recently. Just I guess to echo my husband's point and maybe clarify a little, the reason or the, the proposal that I am seeking is to have the two bigger units be upfront and be single family homes taking the place
of the two condos upfront. So then thus reducing the number from 16 to 14 because the two upfront would be single family homes front facing. And honestly even if you had to do a traditional driveway and garage in the front straight out to Everett Street, I, I still see that as a better proposal then having the 16 and the even the false front double condos
upfront and also like kind of aligning with Graystone and with what Kaitlyn had said earlier, like having a mixture of both single family and condos, but sort of then more or less the condos are less visible from the street where all of the current single family homes are. I don't know if that makes more sense. Speaker 1: Okay. No I, I appreciate, I appreciate your point and, and I'm assuming when people say condos they're meaning
is it two family? Is Speaker 19: It Yeah, the duplexes that are on the propo both proposal like the the re the previous one and the current revised proposal. Speaker 1: Okay so the, okay. Speaker 19: And then if those are front facing to the street, even though there's a neighborhood behind it with the duplexes it's far less visible. And like me being, you know, selfish and personally I'm staring at the unit directly from my house right across the street looking at two houses is, you know, a much more appealing
addition to the neighborhood than staring out my window at a bunch of condos when, part of the reason why we moved into this house to begin with was, you know, the beauty of the actual like countryside neighborhood and I, I discussed this with Ben, you know, that's why we put in the split rail, front fence in front of our house and not a different kind of fence just to sort of fit with like the country road aspect of the land in the area. Speaker 1: So. Alright, thank, thank you very much for your comments Mr. Stevens, is there anything you'd like to Speaker 2: Say? No, I I I think it it, as I said
before, we, I think we can achieve that look and not be singles. I don't think the driveway's coming onto Everett. I guarantee you our safety person is say that's not a good idea but that doesn't mean we can't figure that one out too. But I, I still think it can be done as drawn 'cause these are, you know, because they're smaller units, even the, the unit on the right that we turn sideways, it's still a two car garage because it's not a three car garage or a four car, it's, it's a two car. It just happens to be one for each. So the point is, alright that looks normal,
it's a two car garage and everything up there is pretty much two car, two car garage. But they're just one gets okay one Speaker 16: Car Speaker 2: But each unit gets one. So, and and i I I think there's validity in us taking a harder look at some of the other units and we're not really the white vinyl black window guys. We try to keep 'em a little bit more traditional and stone and, and and the features that you need and we will take a look at breaking up the uniformity of the units 'cause we think that's a good marketing angle
and it'll, it's, it's worth doing. So we'll take a little harder look at the back units as well. Okay, Speaker 1: Thank you. Nobody else online. Any que more questions or comments from the public? Alright so yes. You want me to go back? Yes please. The microphone puts the public and pub Speaker 16: Public area. Understood. So I just wanna actually, I know you probably still have on your radar is the traffic study probably in the fall 'cause they do kind of come zooming both down Everett Street and Cottage Street. I wanna see and you don't think it's just 16 units?
That's 16 cars? No, nobody in the, pretty much in our area now has one car. Everybody who works has two so now you're talking 32 cars in that area. So we just have to make sure about the traffic study and then you're gonna be looking at more cars. I can't really, I have to say I'm a pot calling the kettle black. I have one driveway, no garage. So, but anyway, so just basically the safety study about the conservation 'cause there I have seen turtles and other wildlife in
that area like you know, what are we doing about that? I don't know about the, I like the stone idea of the stonewall but the same token, I don't know how the cayo is gonna be jumping over your stonewall 'cause they do come from the aqueduct and they come from broad more and they make their way through and they have been so I don't know but maybe that's a thought for the conservation and preservation. The house that's currently there is from 1864 if you, I'd rather see it almost be used as a garage in the middle of your little circle rather than see some, I don't know
what you call them, cabanas or something for the people's parking. That would be kind of hideous. That's my personal opinion. Okay, so traffic, Speaker 1: Conservation, preservation. Okay, thank you very much. Speaker 9: So I would just say for the record there's two public comments that were submitted via email in our packets. Speaker 1: Ah, okay. Do you have yours handy or we, we can simply say that and we we did get them. Speaker 9: Yeah there was one from, Speaker 1: I don't have one pulled Speaker 9: Up Chelsea Hampton on and one from Speaker 1: On. She's on cut
Speaker 9: Resell, Speaker 12: Shortcoming. Speaker 1: Okay you so, alright, thank you. Peter you said you Speaker 12: Want just one short one. I think that this is strictly subjective, but I think in looking at the elevation building to the east of the entry that's now facing the street to me I think it's done a remarkably good job. The last thing I'd like to see of course is a garage door. I think it's, I as been mentioned, I believe somebody's gonna get very upset if the idea
of putting more curb cuts in driveways coming out onto the street. I I think that the colors I'm in, in a, in a facility, they're not a facility. My home is attached con attached condominiums, two buildings, four units a piece. The buildings are just subtly different in paint color but they're compatible and it, it's, it, it just works out really fine. I just think this is a as as shown right here has done a very, very nice job. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you members. Any other comments?
So going, going forward on what you've heard today, it sounds like you have made real progress in and I'm addressing and not a lot of the concerns there are, there are things you can do to refine it. That would be terrific. Speaker 9: Continue. What's that motion to continue Speaker 1: To September is September 10th, the next next meeting that work for you? Speaker 2: My guess is September 10th we will have the traffic report done. We may not have new architecture.
Speaker 1: Okay. One thing at a time Speaker 2: I'll have to defer to Trevor on that. We probably will take the existing building that we have and work up a little bit more detail on it, maybe explore a couple options for that front building and the, the turn sideways building and we will definitely have the traffic and that's probably enough. And then we will leave utilities and engineering. We have all drainage to do with conservation anyhow. But I think we wanted to talk a little bit about the trail maintenance.
So I'll get the answer from conservation about the trail maintenance and and sort of codify that next time on how that'll be handled. Speaker 1: Alright and and somebody was asking or making a comment about concern if if they moved in, could they have their own plantings? Do I assume there's an HOA? Speaker 2: Yeah there'll be a fairly strict HOA there'll be no whatever the landscaping is there and we can actually designate, we did this at wayside if we recall on the hemlock trees we said, you know, they cannot be removed, they have to be treated. That was written into the documents and we can do the same thing here.
Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Alright, motion to continue to the 10th of September second. That's made. Made. And you second made and second Speaker 9: And you second. I did not second. Okay. I just highly unlikely that I will be here that night. Just FYI. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Alright, I'll second thank you on the motion to continue to the 10th. Andy, I Peter aye aye, aye. Alright we stand adjourned. Thank you. And thank you to all of you who turned out to join the conversation. Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I will also have Mr.
Kalac address the issue in writing on the permit unit count. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Okay, next we have a lifetime supply of zoning articles. Who got the short straw? Who one question. Speaker 20: Have a meeting sort of regular other or we Speaker 1: Start, we generally meet on Wednesdays, although holiday calendars in Good point. September I go wonky, Speaker 9: We meet on the 10th.
Speaker 1: Go online. They're always, we have to post at least 48 hours ahead for the date. Yeah and you can also sign up on online to get notified when a an agenda is posted for. Speaker 20: Yeah. Thank you very Speaker 1: Much. Sure, Speaker 10: Thanks. Speaker 9: We're meeting on a Monday at some, are we meeting on a Monday at some point? Speaker 1: No, we're meeting on a Thursday. We're meeting Speaker 9: Know that. Okay Speaker 1: Anyway, so clear clearing his throat, preparing for. Speaker 10: All Speaker 1: Right. The world's longest meeting on Speaker 10: Monday. Yes. Here we go. Natick Planning board. Notice the public hearing pursuant
to mass general law chapter 48, section five. The NAT planning board will hold a hybrid public hearing on Wednesday, August 27th, 2025 at 7:00 PM in the the lot meeting room located at 13 East Central Street, Natick, mass in person and remotely via zoom for the 2025 fall annual town meeting. Amend zoning bylaws, neighborhood corridor zoning district to see if the town will vote to amend the Natick zoning bylaws by creating a new neighborhood center zoning district and amending the existed limited commercial zoning district including amending section 200 definitions deleting section
1 0 1 purposes. Purpose of limited commercial district adding neighborhood corridor. Add a new section two C zoning district purpose and new section two C one limited commercial zoning district and section two C two neighborhood corridor amending section three A two use regulation schedule deleting 3D use regulations for lc districts. Adding a new section 3D neighborhood corridor zoning district amending section four B intensity regulation
for the limited commercial zoning district. Adding a new four C intensity regulation for neighborhood corridor amending five D three for off street parking amending five J three inclusionary housing amending six DD special permit and site plan review amending 5K design review board and amending or acting in any other manner in relation thereto Amend zoning map neighborhood corridor zoning district to see if the town will vote to amend the natick zoning map for the creation
of the neighborhood corridor zoning district as shown on the map filed with the town clerk and amending or acting in other any other manner in relation thereto. Amend zoning map limited commercial zoning district to see if the town will vote to amend the native zoning map for the creation of a limited commercial zoning district as shown on the map filed with the town clerk and amending or acting in any other manner in relation there too. A full copy of a a copy of the full text of the proposed articles may be inspected at the town clerk's office, the community and economic development office
and on the website@natickmad.org the link to access the virtual meeting may be found on the post agenda per order. Terry Evans chair Natick Planning board. Speaker 1: Thank you very Speaker 10: Much. And there you have it Speaker 1: Amanda. Speaker 4: Thanks you're Speaker 3: On. All right, so what we are discussing tonight, the PowerPoint presentation is in your packet. Revised copies are on the website and also in your packets as well. So what we will be looking at and I just wanna make sure I have the presentation mode coming up. There we go. Alright great.
So what we are looking at tonight is the neighborhood corridor or NC zoning district and limited commercial zoning district. Just so everyone is aware, we did send everybody within 300 feet within the boundaries and outside of the boundaries a meeting notification of tonight's public hearing. So hopefully they were able to either access this via Pegasus or Zoom or watch a recording and also find the information on the website. So where this really is going is rezoning the area known as West Central Street from the Framingham Natick,
Framingham Natick municipal line all the way to the dog park. This is going to be a form-based code but with unique, a unique spin specific to Natick. And so what you will see in this high level review on the on the front page is you'll see a series of colors that is located within the larger of the red circles. You'll see a blue, a green, a brownish color, and a green color. Those are actually gonna be known as our sub-districts which basically comprise the entire district.
So we will get into that hopefully. Yep. Okay great. So the first part of this I wanted to talk about is being neighborhood corridor. So really what are the challenges? Well we have a variety of different zoning districts in this corridor. Currently we have RSA, we have some limited commercial, we have some commercial too. We also have some PCD and other types of zoning all within this area. But there is no consistency or also reasons as to why one parcel is zoned limited
commercial while one parcel. Another parcel is zoned commercial two. So we're really trying to take a look at all of this. The other thing is the intensity regulation. The intensity regulation schedule does not allow for good redevelopment. So if you are gonna redevelop it under the current intensity regulation schedule, which is no numeral four B, you would actually be looking at 50 foot setbacks, very low buildings, not a lot of coverage or good design. So we have that. So there's a lot of things
that are playing against redevelopment of this area. Also, there's limited incentive, incentive for good redevelopment, good design, creation of new open space and also transportation amenities as everyone's probably well aware, 1 35 is a major corridor for biking, walking also vehicles in addition to right to the north of it we have the MVA on TA commuter rail that runs all the way from Worcester out to South station. But then we have a lot of side roads that actually connect over to the north
and to the south such as Boden Lane, mill Street, speed Street, and then you have the roads that go into Natick Village and those developments in there. So really what we're trying to do is figure out what is going on. Also currently this is auto dependent. There's actually fragmented transitions between the parcels and the uses. So sorry, Speaker 1: Could you just say that again what Speaker 3: This is auto dependent? Yep. With fragmented transitions between parcels and uses. So you may have a Wendy's right next to a two family,
but then on the other side of the two family you'll have a large commercial development whereas you might have a single story building compared to a three story. So there's no consistency throughout this. So what the goals we are trying to accomplish, it is establish a cohesive zoning district based on topography, existing uses and actually good urban form. And when we say urban form, we're not trying to make this New York City, but we're also trying to make this actually what it is, which is a developed area. We also wanna incentivize good design
and the creation of landscape spaces because we know that yes we can increase density but if we don't allow for access to various types of open space, then we know that other things on the ecology like the human ecology side actually decreases. We also want to make sure that we're in line with Natick 2030 Natig 2030, spent a lot of time looking at this area. There is some graphics within Natick 2030. I didn't wanna pull those all out, but it really does promote a mixed use corridor that promotes good design.
So that's what we are trying to be consistent with. So what the proposal is is rezoning the West Natick, sorry West Central Street corridor, also known as Route 1 35 and creating that into Subdistricts S one through S five. So basically what we'll be looking at is the five subdistricts. So we have our neighborhood hub. What our neighborhood hub is really trying to do is basically design these two areas and these two areas are, this is Natick crossing the MBTA commuter rail station is right here.
This is where the solar carports are over the parking deck. So you have a commercial building. So parking here is Boden Lane, this little area here. Please note that there is no access to the MBTA train station or 2 47 or 2 47 West Central Street off of Boden Lane. Everything has to go down to 1 35 because of the topography. Then you get into, as you move east, you get into some commercial single story buildings and there is one in there that is a two story.
As you go down further, basically at the Mill Street SP street intersection, there is opportunity again to create this neighborhood hub. And these are areas of basically what we're calling nodes where there's a lot of concentrations of vehicular or train or pedestrian or bicycle activity. So we also wanna optimize the property's location in those key nodes where you're actually having concentrations of people, whether it's passing through on their foot, bicycles or train or car.
But we also wanna note that S five will be the most densely created opportunities in terms of density, bulk and scale. The reason for this is 'cause we want to create high points that transition to low points as it moves out or north and south. But again we wanna create walkable centers that features a mix of at least two different types of uses. So that could be a commercial use with a residential use, an office use with a residential use or a commercial use in an office use. The opportunities are outlined in section number number three A two, which they're used regulation schedule,
which we're also amending with this. The neighborhood connector, which are also just connectors between these nodes between the residential projects are areas where there isn't such concentration because people are just passing by rather than passing through. And so as you'll see, there's pretty much four different areas that we would be calling connectors. These would be outlined in this brownish color. It goes from the Framingham Natick municipal line. It will be on the north and the south side of 1 35, which you have a mixture of commercial, predominantly commercial uses with a couple,
two or three families on the south side of 1 35 in this area. As you go up a hill actually. And then you come back down a hill, you'll pass the area that we're calling S five and you'll come into S four, which is again a strip of the road which doesn't have specific identifications to actually stop for like intersections or other areas. So we are calling that the connector as well. That'll be on the north and the south side of 1 35. As you get through the speed street, 1 35 intersection headed towards where Lake Constituit
and kind of like Doug Pond, it's a little bit south but it pinches 1 35. You'll get another connector because again you're passing through. These are going to be adjacent to neighborhoods. They accommodate medium density, bulk scale and development type. So this is gonna be less than the S five, but it will be more than the S3 S two S one. We also wanna accommodate both vehicles and non vehicular mosa transportation. And this can actually be supported by one or two or more uses on the property.
So you may have just straight residential versus a property that has residential and commercial. We're allowing those because this is less density. S3 S3 are areas where you basically already have two or three families or townhouse developments. So we're actually allowing for those properties to become more conforming than they exist today. So what we would want to do is make sure that we allow from medium to small scale density, we wanna make sure that they're designed to connect with the other subdistricts. So you're creating that transition between a high medium low and then what will be the single family zoning districts.
But then you also wanna make sure that there are these buffers and that the development doesn't seem like you're coming into this very densely urban area, but it actually kind of like jumps and jives. So it goes up and down as the topography does change. So we have not finalized S two and S two will be a second phase of this project, but we are establishing it within the actual zoning bylaw. So what S two will be is there's a single family zoning district, the area that would be north of the commuter rail or the railroad tracks. What we would be really trying to make sure is
that those parcels are conforming dimensionally because one of the things that we do know is that the zoning board of appeals does receive a lot of variance or not variance, sorry, section six findings because we have a lot of properties that are non-conforming in some direction of lot area, lot frontage, side setbacks, et cetera. But at the time of the creation of those lots, they probably were conforming 'cause lots were smaller and then they got up zone. So we will be looking at that as a second phase, but we don't wanna jump straight into that. We wanna make sure that we get everything from S
five through three. Correct. And then we have S five. S five are parcels of land that will not be developed because of their nature. Whether they are owned or restricted by the Commonwealth Natick or other non-profit entity that focuses in land preservation or they are wetlands or some other type of water body or they may be an easement. But the reason why we wanted to create these S five was to signalize that these are areas that need to be preserved as they will be preserved.
But provides an opportunity is if you have like an S one, or sorry this should say S five, if you have a parcel that is S five, the high density and you actually want to create more open space within the area, you can actually buy or coordinate with other areas to connect to these to allow for preservation of more open space or creation of more open space that may be an existing parking lot getting removed and adding more open space. What what Speaker 10: Would be, it should be S one for the open Speaker 3: Space. It should, yeah. Okay. Oh okay. Okay. Yep. Sorry.
Alright, we already had that file. Yep, I have to fix that. Sorry. Speaker 1: And what, what is the incentive for for rezoning? I'm, I'm saying not so much what we're doing but what's the incentive to someone who has property that falls into this category? Speaker 3: So these parcels are predominantly already preserved as open space. Okay. So they won't be developed regardless. Speaker 1: Is there an incentive to look at expanding them? Speaker 3: Yes. So in the districts you can actually
create more open space. So if you're zoned as a S five you can actually add space of your parcel into S one. There's nothing saying that. Is there Speaker 1: An incentive that that might allow you or encourage you to do that? Speaker 3: Yeah, there is. Okay. Yep. So basically the district, we're trying to keep it high level but then also provide details. So what is actually outlined in the zoning bylaw may be taken out, but we wanted it drafted to go into design guidelines. So the purpose basically is
to create these five subdistricts within the neighborhood corridor. We also are gonna call out the use regulation schedule. So as you will see in the use regulation schedule, you will see it a little bit different than all of the other uses. But this one is because we have five subdistricts subdistricts are gonna have different types of uses based on what they are. But across the very top line you'll see nc, so neighborhood corridor and then you'll have the five subdistricts below that. But then they are consistent with all of the use headers
and the use categories that we've been working on to make sure that we consolidate rather than having the uses living in this bylaw, we want 'em in one location that goes through the various subdistricts which we went through. Then in the intensity regulations, which I'll go through in a second, we are actually gonna be creating a new Noman num four C because since we have four different sub five different sub subdistricts, we cannot fit them neatly into the existing intensity regulation schedule because we're allowing incentives and also allowing for flexibility in transitions
between an S five and an S3 or an S five and an S four. We also wanted to have findings which we do need to fill out a little bit better, which is yes it has to go, these projects do go through site plan review. They may require special permit depending on the use, but it will probably have to go through site plan review. Site plan review has specific general findings that the planning board needs to identify and make sure that each project meets the findings within the neighborhood corridor are actually
gonna be specific to making sure that the project meets the goals of the bylaw. So that's why we need to focus on that a little bit more. And then compliance. So on this next slide, I just wanted to walk through this a little bit. So this is the intensity regulation schedule which we have been working on. And we do have a consultant on board who will be actually creating a profile of the 1 35 corridor from the Framingham Natick municipal line all the way up to Mill Street to show how the height is impacted based on the topography. Because as you may or may not be aware, as you go from the Framingham Natick municipal line
and you head eastbound, you start to climb a hill, there's a medical office, Wendy's, and then when you actually reach a peak, it's a bunch of two and three families on the north side but on the south side is it's a wooded area. But then as you transition down you can actually allow for a taller building to be consistent with what is allowed at the top of the peak. So if you have a 35 foot house and this will be a graphic, they're working on it on the top of that hill, but you have a commercial lot at the
bottom of the hill, you actually may be able to go taller with the building because it will not reach that 35 foot peak because of that change in topography. Which is why we are looking at this in subdistricts and in parcels individually. So what we also wanted to do with this is one, create the intensity regulation schedule based on each subdistrict. 'cause each subdistrict is unique. So we have the lot area frontage, open space, those are the three common things that we need to make sure that each parcel has. But then we get down into building height
because we can allow for bonuses. But then we have accessory buildings that may not be the primary building and then we have the principal, we're gonna move those things around. Then we also have the building locations. We wanna have as much flexibility as possible but also be mindful that to the north, on the north side of the tracks we do have single family residential. So what we wanna try to do is pull the buildings closer to 1 35, but then on the backside the height might not be consistent. It may step back on the backside rather than it on the
roadway to allow for kind of not to be feel over looming by this potential development. It also is a good distance, although it doesn't seem like it. It is a good distance between the edge of a commercial property and the residential units on the north side of the tracks. However the tracks are recessed, which is actually great. We don't have the problems that Framingham and other communities have where the trains go over. But it does also not have the same visual. It feels like it goes straight across to a property because the tracks go down and then you come back up.
There's not that barrier. And then we also know where we want the off street parking locations. So that is the general or neighborhood corridor. Those documents are in the by or sorry in the Google sheets? Nope, Google shares drive and also online. The next one I do wanna talk about is because as previously noted, limited commercial is actually zoned on 1 35. It is intermittent, but this is where it predominantly LO is located.
We do have this teeny tiny parcel. It's like four parcels up across the street from what was Mercedes now the Porsche dealership that is zoned limited, limited commercial on North Main Street. On North Main Street. So if we delete limited commercial in its entirety, we gotta figure out what we're gonna do with those north projects. However, in looking at this as a holistically, we actually have an opportunity to reuse limited commercial because limited commercial is kind of a bit blank slate what it was intended and what it is is not really consistent.
Previously before we were doing all the use regulation schedules, you weren't even allowed to have a restaurant in limited commercial. You needed to have certain things in limited commercial. But also the design isn't. So the challenges are there's limited opportunity for redevelopment or actual uses in limited commercial as I just stated, it's existing is pretty much on West Central Street which is being amended. So that creates another issue. So the goal is to allow a transition between abutters from the commercial to the residential and also increase redevelopment opportunity. So what we are looking at is this area here.
And so this parcel right here, this is what was Mercedes is now Porsche, but limited commercial is actually right along this area on North Main Street. These parcels with the exception of 2 56 are all under an office type of use or non-residential use. This is being used as residential. The other piece is over here on Lennox Street and this parcel on Lowell Road, as you will see, they're split zoned. So what that means is they're predominantly in residential
single A, but the rear of their property is actually zoned commercial two. Which makes no sense because commercial two is way over here. So when it got rezoned it didn't. So the two, this is a two phaser, what we would be doing is taking the parcels on Lennox Street and also this parcel that has an address on Lennox and Lowell and removing the C two zoning and making that them all entirely RSA gets rid of the split. But then what we would do is keep these parcels
on north main Street as limited commercial Speaker 1: And then change shift the definition of limited commercial so that it works. Speaker 9: What is the Porsche dealership zoned? So Speaker 3: Porsche dealership is zoned half residential A or RSA up in this area. Area. Okay. And then down here, this is RS or sorry, commercial two, but then it continues commercial two a little bit further south. Speaker 9: So lc on the other side, commercial two on that side. Speaker 3: Yep. Lc here. Then this little random strip, Speaker 9: Why wouldn't we complete the picture here with Porsche
and just extend the rest of it Speaker 3: So you can, however, in limited commercial we weren't allowing specific auto uses and so therefore it would be a pre-existing non-conforming, which it's already pre-existing non-conforming. 'cause this north side is where it's, they park their cars and the dealership is more down this area. Speaker 1: Lc is is I understand is almost turning into the, the zoning district for small non-residential properties that really need a good use.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so there's smaller parcels. So that's why we were also being able to amend the intensity regulation schedule there. These are parcels that are either kind of outliers, which you'll see on Worcester Street or they're already being used in commercial and we wanna maintain 'em in commercial, but we can look into having commercial too. This is kind of one of those things where we were looking at opportunity. So let's hold that thought and then let's go to Worcester Street. Let Speaker 10: Me just ask you a question. I, is this gonna be like a motion B or is this gonna be one? Mo?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Speaker 10: Which Speaker 3: Mo? It would be a motion B. Okay. Or technically C. Speaker 10: Alright, good. 'cause I, I think these can't be under the same umbrella. Okay. Yep. Speaker 3: So with that there is actually a further opportunity is to this area. We were approached several months ago asking for if we were gonna be looking at West Worcester Street and at that time we were not. However, the creation of limited commercial, making it more focused on restaurants, retail offices, low intensive uses
and allowing for better design actually takes us an opportunity to look at this area. So similar situation, we have these parcels right over here that are zoned residential but they're actually split commercial again. So what we are gonna do is put them back into the RSA zoning district so that they would be consistent with what their use is and what they are. We would then be taking a look at the north side of Worcester Street basically from the furniture store that's right next to the veterinarian
and continuing that all the way to what are like the playing fields near Oak Street on the south side. What we would be looking at is the McDonald's, what was the former Joanne Fabrics. Then there is a Speedway gas station, but then there is a former auto repair which is got a gentle mover trucks that are not supposed to be there. And then this office building that is also located there, the office building and the former auto, what is now gentle movers location.
Those are actually zoned RSC. And so you can't actually even redo anything with those parcels because of being RSC. Speaker 10: And And what are you proposing to change those to limited Speaker 3: Commercial? Speaker 10: Well I can very well remember the night spent in this room where there were some proposed developments for those lots. Particularly that that movers, one is a former gas station, it has a use limitation on it for oil spills and that is zoned residential and there isn't a more fiery neighborhood than than
the the state's area. And I think they are, yeah, I'm not sure they're at peace but I I I, I know the idea of changing that to a developable limited commercial would be a big be something I think they'd be very displeased with. I, I dunno if you know the history of all that, but folks are very sensitive about development in that area. So I I I mean it is so close to a residential neighborhood I think, I mean I guess it's worth a conversation but it's that, that strikes me as kind of a, you know, some things I think are better left alone.
Speaker 3: Yep. And it was to start the conversation we did notify everyone within 300 feet of this entire area as well of this. So Speaker 1: I'm trying to get information and one thing that lc does is it, it doesn't open every option that you normally find find under C two use, you know, it it reins it in to be more, if I say quieter Yes. Kind of quieter enterprises. Well it's, Speaker 10: It's tricky. It's, it's a, it's a, it's a very nice residential neighborhood
that is about a hundred yards from route nine. And you know, I, I do think it does beg for, I mean I, I think there is, it's gonna be ripe for redevelopment. There's no question. And we have been through a number of years where we've kind of had some schlocky stuff up there. They're closing, they're changing. So I, I do think it's good to get ahead of it but I think we just need to, it's, we're gonna have to just take a very light touch with this one just 'cause there's such sensitivity in that neighborhood to commercial encroachment
and the, these are side yards for a lot of people. And to go to something that then now has traffic and you know, even light, even light traffic right now there's no traffic in and out of that kind of abandoned gas station. People are real pleased with that. But you know, I know life goes on so I'm not saying we we, you know, freeze this in time 'cause something is gonna happen up there. But this one we might take some time just to really, really get input on. Speaker 1: It's, it's exciting by actually how much of this is going from C two to RSA so
that there may be an off kind of something of an off offset. Speaker 10: Nothing in the, see like the pink stripes aren't coming through for me and on, so the, I see where it says rezoned from commercial two to RSA but those are the green areas, right? Or is that, is that the pink stripe areas? Speaker 3: No, so what we were looking at was there were certain areas, so anything that's zoned and I'll do a better job coloring these. So actually like if you go right over here, right
above the Worcester Street, that's actually if, and then you actually just travel along the top of these properties and then you come down that those are all C two. So these residential properties are actually zoned commercial two. So what we were trying to do is clean that up 'cause C two within this area, my understanding was probably that it went about 200 or 300 feet off the center line of Worcester Street, which is the reason for the straight line not following the tops of the parcels. So we were just trying to one, eliminate any
basically split zone parcels, put the parcels that are specifically zoned in residential that are being used as residential in the residential zoning district and then clean up the commercial parcels just to allow for redevelopment but also not the high intensity that you would get with the C two. But this is something we can look more into. Yeah, I think Speaker 10: That part makes sense. Speaker 3: It it's, it is a lot and it was just a, one of those things when you were looking at it, you're like, okay, we've gotta do something with lc on North Main Street. Like regardless is this an opportunity
to clean this area up? So there's a lot I understand again, with any residential requirement, there is a affordability requirement which falls back on no numeral five J our affordable housing bylaw. And then we were allowing for with the neighborhood corridor is that it's 10% affordable and then there's, I believe it was 10% for the open space. But then the developer gets to choose if they wanna provide an additional 5% affordable or additional open space, the developer gets
to choose which one they want to do with that. Where's Speaker 10: That listed? Is that on a slide? Speaker 3: This is not in a slide. I was just summarizing the neighborhood corridor. Just the features of that that we were trying to pull in. So it was allowing for developers to have an opportunity. It's trying to create that conversation. The other item is, is or they can do a combination thereof. They can go 2% affordable and you know, 5% with the planning board's review and approval. And then parcels that would be in the S five and the S four
or S3 that front that are in commercial use on WS, or sorry West Central Street would go through the DRB design review board to have them provide a guidance to the planning board. So that's high level, but again that's ambitious. It is, but it's nothing that isn't already being done. If anything it is allowing for better review, better design and more opportunity and consistent with Natick 2030.
Speaker 10: I think it's impressive. It is there any way we would consider calling this the west central corridor as opposed to the neighborhood corridor? Speaker 3: Yeah, you could we Speaker 10: Call it, there's this image in my mind of neighborhood and we all have a different image, but this doesn't jive with my, it it just feels in my mind incongruous. However, I think if we call it West Central corridor, you'd have a general, or well you'd have, you'd have your west central hub, S five, your connector S four that I'm, it's just an idea.
I'm just, I'm just wondering if that doesn't help people understand. Yeah, just a bit more. Speaker 3: And I appreciate that 'cause after the last meeting we were trying to figure out like neighborhood it it's neighborhood is not, but then it's not a district, but then it's not a village. It it's like, it's hard to, so West Central corridor, that actually makes sense. And then also we haven't used that acronym yet, so it's not like we're like, you know, trying to stay away from the cg, the dm, like we haven't used that. So we could totally do that. And that's easy to do.
Speaker 10: I think that helps almost kind of break it down 'cause it, it, so maybe, maybe we'll see if that might work. People know what you're Speaker 3: Talking about right Speaker 10: Away. Yeah, and you know, it's, it's, it's, it's an area that people drive through a lot and they, they, they have their doubts and so this is a new approach and I think, I think it's very substantive and I think to a certain extent it, there's some common sense that, you know, non zoning experts I think can grab this. So I I you're, I think you're really to be commended. The question I have is something that comes up with form-based zoning, which is at the top of the hill
you own a property and it's limited to 35 feet, but if you're fortunate enough to own a property in the valley, you can make it 50 feet now. And, and I, I realize the overall goal, I'm picturing like a little Lego city, everything is kind of, you know, we have some highs and some lows, but in reality, if we had two properties within the same subdistrict and one wants to be 50, you say no, it can only be 35 and the other says, well it can be 50. Isn't that, isn't that the definition of arbitrary? I mean it's based on the topography, how, how tall,
you know, how you can develop your property. I just wonder if we might end up getting in some, some trouble where we end up basing something based on what your particular topography is. I, so I mean that's one thing that kind of jumped out at me. I don't wanna Get us in no trouble or something like that. Speaker 3: We can look into that and I'll have the consultant take a look at that as well. Okay. 'cause they were providing additional review. Speaker 10: Okay. Speaker 21: Questions, Speaker 9: Comments? Can I, yeah. Amanda on the, the, I guess process for findings.
Yep. Talk to us more about how that, how you see that playing out. 'cause if you look at the use table, right? Yep. Lots of whys, right? Lots of buy rights. Yes. Right. A few special permits. Where do you see us sort of Yeah. Invoking the findings piece of this thing. Speaker 3: So it would be on the actual design of the project. So if the use is a restaurant is, you know, is it accessible to like, can you get there from the parking lot? Can you get the fire department around like basically
how the site is laid out right. Would be one piece of the findings, but then also the coordination of the, if there's multiple uses or multiple accesses, making sure that those are, Speaker 9: I guess where, where more procedurally, I guess. Yeah. Where do the findings exist? Like where, like if it's a buy right, what are we doing? Yeah, I mean is it on the, on the site plan approval? It's Speaker 3: On the site plan approval. Okay. Yeah. Speaker 9: Okay. And we're gonna have to make specific findings under this bylaw as well
as the standing ones that are in the site plan. Speaker 3: Yeah. So these ones might eliminate the need for certain ones in site plan review, because these are more specific. But you would be covering the basis all the way around. And that's why we need to work on the findings. 'cause we may not even want additional findings. We might just wanna rely on the site plan review ones. And that is fine too. It was just something to consider it, it was also trying to make sure that this was predictable in terms of what you were expecting. But maybe that actually goes to the design regulations or guidelines.
We specifically want these documents. Yeah. Speaker 9: Yeah. I mean, I guess saying it in a finding when you're, you know, like, like I think part of this is we're gonna have to adopt design standards of some kind. Yes. So why not say it there? Why would we have another list of findings they would have to make procedurally? 'cause I think the design standards would apply, whether it's by Right. No site plan approval with site plan approval with special permit. Yep. You know, sometimes Speaker 10: We forget to do the findings. Yeah. So, yeah. I, I think it's a very good idea to not leave it up to us
to remember to, to make sure they're all checked off. Speaker 9: Yeah. That's my feeling. Speaker 3: Sounds good, Speaker 1: Peter. Speaker 12: Yeah. I'm thinking a lot about this. How do we, that this idea that we're going to regulate the height of buildings having to do with the site, with the topography of the, and I, it's not a nat to me, it's not natural. It's not a real, a real thing with the, the natural to topography. That's real. Now we are doing something,
we're putting a building up and then we cha that's changing the whole idea of what is natural. And I don't think it makes any sense to try to get, well it was described as maybe a, a, a Lego looking, you might do that if you had little pieces. And you, this doesn't, I don't think this belongs that that idea of control or restriction or whatever belongs in that particular context of building buildings in accordance with the height of the,
the, the typography. It, it just doesn't make sense to me. Speaker 1: I'm, and I'm, I'm biased because I, I think form based zoning is, has an, an incredible capacity. We've all walked, walked down streets where you kind of go, you things feel overwhelming. And this notion of the, the tower on the hill or the, the, the large building above looms over things. And what you want to do is have, feel like when there's a variable topography that you can get
the, the buildings that are there to relate to one another. And scale and height is how you do that. Speaker 12: Well, if you have one, Speaker 1: It's, it's, it's what makes, it's what has made it successful in other, in other places that have kinda actively pursued it over the decades. Speaker 12: We, we have a height, an overall maximum height restriction. We're talking about, don't we, in this whole area? Speaker 1: Except that, wait, sorry. For, Speaker 12: For this, this corridor. There's a height restriction. You, you can't have a massive high rise 56 story tower.
It's, they're all gonna be what? Any up to maybe five? Speaker 10: Well, they vary, Peter. So like, S five has a maximum of 45 feet with a five foot density. So potentially 50. Whereas the S two is a 35 foot height. But, you know, 15 feet difference. But, but no, I, but I do, I think there were, I think I perceived what you perceived, which was there was an extra level of review where something could not be 50 feet if it was here, but it could be 50 feet if it was here. And I, I feel like where there might be some joy in
that from a planning perspective, there might be some problems in terms of sort of a fairness perspective. Like, you're all only a hundred feet down the road and you can be 15 foot higher and you can't, I mean, I understand the form base and, and it is nice to have some consistency, but it is, it's an extra layer of approvals that may not stand up. I don't Speaker 12: Know. I suspect consistency is shot to hell. The moment you have different developers building next door to one another, the design of the building, the, the, the consistency is gone.
The, the consistency is the irregularity of the street and maybe the streetlights. And, but I think 15 feet, 20 feet difference from a a 30 to a 50 foot building as you're walking down a street. I, I don't think, I think that's irregular. It's just not, it's not a normal thing to do as far as I'm concerned. It just doesn't click. Speaker 1: I'd Speaker 12: Love to be able to, that's our opinion Speaker 1: To, I'd love to be able to find some graphics that kind of articulate what the impact is about how, how
buildings and the people in them relate when you've created a sense of a, a consistent scale. And it's, it's artificial. I mean to, to Andy's point, because that build, that, that hill was naturally there. Speaker 12: Artificial is the, is the right word to me is Speaker 1: Well know. Every building is artificial. Yeah, Speaker 12: Exactly. Speaker 1: It's this way. You're, you're perfect. You're creating something that feels coherent. It Speaker 12: Feels, you're trying to make, Speaker 1: It feels, it has a sense of, of collective place. Speaker 12: You've got regular or, or a certain degree of natural regularity to the contours,
to the, the land itself. And then you come up with the irregularity of buildings and now you want to create that new landscape at the top from the, at the tops of the buildings. That, that's what it sounds like you're doing. Just taking that landscape contour and bringing it up here. I'm sorry, I I'm just repeating myself. I just, Speaker 1: It creates a sense of coherence Speaker 12: In, in coherence is, well again, it's, it's all opinion, but coherence in certain situations is absolutely essential. It's, it's good. It, it keeps the body and the mind kind of gonna right track.
But some places I think it gets outta hand. I think it gets a little wacky. It's in the wrong place. You're trying to do something that, and establish coherence in an area that is in a, a setting that's not meant to be coherent. Once you, once you've screwed up the land, putting these things up, I don't mean you. Well, okay, you got my, the, the points well made, well made, I don't know, but made Speaker 3: No, I hear what you're saying and let me take a look. Speaker 12: Thank you. Speaker 3: I got it.
Speaker 12: I hear a lot too, but do I listen? Speaker 3: Oh no, I, I I think I understand exactly what you're, you're asking for. It's more of a plane than a cool. Speaker 1: So is Speaker 10: This, the first notification of this are, I mean, we would potentially continue this and hopefully get other feedback. Okay. Speaker 3: Yes. Yeah. It was not intended to close this tonight. Yeah. There's Speaker 9: Some comments that were submitted as well. Yeah. Which I think were very, very Speaker 1: Thoughtful. I have to say I'm really pleased to see people caring and Well, no, but I, and having a say,
Speaker 8: I, I got a few questions. I guess, I guess kind of on the intensity regulations, just looking through. So we have a principal building height, we have a minimum and a maximum. We don't normally do too many minimums. Right. Is this just to kind of create that cohesion? Speaker 1: Yeah. Nat center. What's that? Nat center has a minimum, Speaker 3: A lot of urban areas are actually having minimum so that you don't have this significant break if you are gonna allow for height. 'cause then you would have all single stories. Speaker 8: You don't have the missing tooth building like we had for decades. That,
Speaker 1: Well that's, that's in fact that it, it's 30 feet is the minimum in Natick center and the missing tooth is the example that everybody tended to use. It was once a five story or four five story building. Speaker 8: Yeah. So I guess the question I have, I guess a couple questions just 'cause it, it's a little confusing. Principal building height, maximum per first 10 feet. What, what are we, what does that mean? Speaker 3: So it was just to, and this would be something that you may or may not want to have that, but for the first 10 feet of the building,
it would be a certain height and then you can go up to the full height. It was doing that, trying to create a setback so that the building didn't see over looming the road because we are pulling him closer to the street. And that's kind like one of those things where Speaker 1: I gave up to some, Speaker 3: Like in Framingham they have 2 66 Waverly Street that is a classic example of a very big building sitting on the street covers three blocks, actually four and then nothing else around it. And so it was trying to prevent that massive building. You talk about the Madera in Madera, yeah. At two. Yeah.
It's like 270 units, 27 affordable. But the Speaker 1: One on 1 35. Speaker 3: Yes. One on 1 35. And so it was trying to prevent that from reoccurring because that if it was next to the Denison it would be a lot different. But it's because it's next to multiple single stories, it also spans three block or one block on four roads. So, Speaker 8: So, and I guess kind of related to that, so the rear of building setback, abutting railroad tracks, it says 10 feet per 10 feet of height.
Speaker 3: So it was also again trying to do the reverse step back on the backside. So the building would become shorter as it got closer to the tracks to basically decrease it. So a single family home looking across wasn't like, oh wow, that's a really big building 'cause it's, yes, you have to design it for the street frontage on wor or sorry, west Central Street. But you also have to be mindful on the backside that you have smaller homes, but you also have Speaker 8: Walking. Yeah. I think the step back might even be more important for that. Even just for, for yeah, shadows and shade.
So the way this reads, if you were want to be 10 feet from the property line, you could only build a 10 foot tall theoretically. Or I guess you could do 20 feet if it was 20 feet from the S, Speaker 3: You have to be a minimum of 15 feet from the sep, the width. Width, minimum 15 feet width. And then you, for every 10 feet it would be 10 feet on top of that. So you'd get 10 feet is 25, 35, 30 feet is, it just keeps adding 10 onto the 15 every time you go 10 feet taller. And so like that'll need to be explained better.
Speaker 8: Okay. And is there a, I guess the open space, well I guess is there a reason why we have a minimum lot area for S one Speaker 1: A minimum lottery? For? For S one. Oh, okay. Speaker 8: Yeah. Saying that it's open space, Speaker 3: It could be, you don't have to, it was more of like if you were adding additional space in there. Okay. But we don't have to. Speaker 9: Another question. Speaker 8: I think that's all I had really right now, Speaker 9: Amanda, when does the height density get invoked? Speaker 3: So the height density, bonus. Bonus would be, yeah, that's something we have to discuss as to how it gets invoked.
Whether it, that is where you want to use. So you can either do it one of two ways. You can do it rather than allowing for them using AL five E, which is the special permits to allow for the additional 10% in height or so take that off the table and just say you get 5% on good design or Yeah. 'cause it can be changed. We could do 10% or whatever we number we want. Or this is actually where we could promote the increase in open space or increase in affordability
or affordable units where rather than having them just be a requirement, it could be based on density, bonus Speaker 9: Height bonus though. Yeah. Is that so I mean I, I'm actually the letter I think Mr. Faye wrote pretty thoughtful, I think, and sort of on point with this one is five feet gets you what you know in terms of a a density bonus, you know, first floor retailer, first floor non-residential use has a certain height requirement. We saw that on the St. Patrick's project.
You see how that kind of scales up The one at the corner of union, same thing. So is that enough? You know, is five feet gonna mean anything if we are trying to encourage that whatever, whatever it is we're trying to encourage with a density bonus, Speaker 10: Don't we have a 10% waiver under? Speaker 9: That's what, Speaker 10: So if it's a, if it was a 45 foot building that's four and a half feet, the thing I'd like to avoid is offering bonuses for open space. We ran into that on, on Union Street where we,
we fought pretty hard on what qualified and what didn't qualify. That was a mess. You know, and I'd like to avoid that entirely if possible. Okay. Speaker 9: Came out Speaker 10: Again, reasonable people can disagree, understand that's, You know, that's open space that deserves the credit. I don't think that that qualifies. I mean that now we're disagreeing, so, you know, we already have a 10, the ability to wave 10% that's baked into this, right? Because assuming this is already come, gonna come under our normal review processes. So that could be, you know,
four feet, four and a half feet. I don't know, I just wonder if we just take the bonus out of it. 'cause they're, they're, they basically are, they can, they can make a, an appeal to the board that they would like to have that waiver. And we could say, you know, yeah, we appreciate this, that and the other thing. And based on design and so forth. I mean, that's a decision that we could make as opposed to like proving that something deserves a bonus. That's, it gets a little sticky to me. Speaker 1: You know, I saw that happen with hoop projects where
if it, if it was extraordinarily wonderful design, then you got this bonus and I'm, wow. Speaker 10: What I learned was it just became, Speaker 1: Was everything became perfect. Speaker 10: Everything be everything qualified. Yeah. Everything was a super special impactful project and people asked for that the night they showed up. So, so that whole bonus thing got a little, a little mushy. It seems to me maybe we should just continue to have the ability to, to wave up to 10%. And that's good for us because if we could wave up to 20%, 20, I mean, we'd really get in some arguments about what gets, you know, I I I think having
that limitation is actually pretty good. Okay. Speaker 3: Yeah, no, we can remove that as well. 'cause that we were doing the 5% five foot bonus and not allowing for the nomen numeral five E. So we'll just remove that and just fall back on five Speaker 10: EI, I would view it as a opportunity. Like we really like a project. The trouble is it comes in at 46 feet and I'm sorry, the answer's no, you can't build it. Having the ability to wave it to, to, to, to make something possible as, as a way of not having to say no is a nice little thing to have in your pocket. But I, and, but that's kind of how I look at it. You know,
Speaker 1: But you just have to figure out how not to have it be abused Speaker 10: Well, right. Speaker 1: Or, or misdirected. And that, that, that is the challenge of, Speaker 10: Well I I'm hoping it's a good faith, good faith, I guess type of description where this building comes in at 48 feet, what can you do? You know, you hate to say no and, and you know, and, and flush 'em out. So having the ability to get there with the additional benefits that we would see, again under a good faith proposal, it'd be nice. I think it'd be nice to have that. Well Speaker 9: I guess the question is, are we going for five stories or four stories? Yeah, that's the question. 'cause if it's five stories,
50 feet is, no, it is just not gonna work. You're gonna have to have something higher than that. 55, whatever did. So what are we, did you say, what are we going for? Speaker 10: Did you say, Amanda, you're working with somebody that can do some depictions? Because honestly as I stand here using my brain to look up and think 50 feet, four story, five story, it, you know, some people have a great eye for that. I really don't. I'm thinking that five stories is about as tall as we have in Natick. And the idea of having those up and down the west central corridor district that may be more than people want. At the same time, I don't, I don't want this to not work.
You know, I don't want to say, geez, if you only made it 50 feet, we would've had all this wonderful, you know, these proposals coming in, now it's four now, now it's a four story building. Speaker 9: We're the market has no interest in it. That's another thing that I do not know, I guess what I'm saying. Right. So if we're teasing people to say to go to 45, you know, you can go to 40, you've got 40, you can go to 45. What are you saying? Right. You know, I mean, are we saying we'll we'll accept the, the other five and go to 50 and make it a workable project. Let's say it if that's what we wanna see. But to but to tee somebody with something that's not, not really
Speaker 12: Well would it be better to deal to say how many flaws? Speaker 9: That's Speaker 12: Because Speaker 9: Well that's where we, this is where we went with the rezoning for. We do that with the downtown mixed use. Speaker 1: Yeah. We we changed it from being floors to being feet. We did because we Speaker 9: Did. Yes. It went the other Speaker 12: Way. Because then they're gonna put undergrad garage. See that down cow. Yeah, but you go to feet. Speaker 1: Yeah, we Speaker 3: Removed the number of floors because, because it, it was too variable because if you're in a lab, it was one, if it was commercial, it was the other. So it was just figure out what Speaker 1: And feed our feet where floors aren't necessarily floors. They're consistent with one another. Speaker 9: You get what I'm saying though? I mean, it's just,
you know, what are we going for? Speaker 12: Well if you talk about, if you're talking, you're talking limited by feet. But this Speaker 1: As opposed to floors. Speaker 12: As opposed to floors. Speaker 9: Stories. Speaker 1: Stories, yes. Thank Speaker 12: But stories. But the function will change will have a direct bearing on the on correct. The dimension on the feet, like a commercial floor floor to floor to floor on the commercial is gonna be, but, Speaker 1: But don't you remember when we did this, was it last year when we, when we went through and said, okay, so in this zoning district,
you know, you adjust, here's how many feet are allowed because it's where, you know, you're likely to try to get multi-story commercial buildings. And so we went through and, and did that for exactly that reason. Because you, you don't want 50 feet everywhere. Speaker 9: Right? Speaker 1: You want that, that that's how you control it. And I thought, I actually thought that made a Yeah, I think so Speaker 9: Much sense. I think we, I, you're right. I think I remember that now we, so we, we fit the gateway, we fit the height limit to what we wanted to see as scale. I'm just raising the question here. What is the scale we're trying to go for?
So, and saying that you come in with a 40 foot, you know, maximum and say I want 10%, four feet, Speaker 3: So Speaker 9: It doesn't get you Speaker 12: Anything. Can you say something like four floors or 50 feet, whichever is Speaker 9: I think we ended up taking all that Speaker 1: Out. Oh, we did take, Speaker 3: Yes. We just took all that Speaker 1: Because, because guess we Speaker 3: Are Speaker 1: Fixed. The Speaker 3: Best way to look at it is a foot center gateway. Yes. Is a building is a new zoning district that we created. We created two different types of height based on what the use was. If you were doing straight residential, it was supposed to be 32 feet, but we did 32 feet
because you could do the 10% affordable. So 32 times. So you could actually get a 35.2 foot building if you were doing straight residential. But then we did the, I think it was like 48, no, 38 feet if you were doing a mixed use. So times 10. So you got about 42 feet. I Speaker 1: Actually thought that was very, that that was kind of a really smart way of Speaker 3: Approaching. So, but then if we look at it, what actually got built, we got the project next to the tavern. First floor is commercial, three stores, three stories,
sorry, of residential. And that is 41.8 feet because mechanical is not counted. So that's 41.8 feet. So if you actually figure out what it would take to get to five stories based on that calculation. 'cause those are standard heights. Speaker 9: So I'm sorry, that's the three, three residential over, it's four stories. Yeah. Four stories at 41 feet. Yeah. Including the res, the commercial on the bottom. Yes. Speaker 1: Yes. 'cause that was, Speaker 9: Okay, so another nine feet, Speaker 3: They would've gotten a, would've Speaker 9: Been a fifth floor. Speaker 3: 'cause we do not calc mechanicals here.
Speaker 9: Right. Speaker 10: So I can't imagine there is a developer that would want a five story building. 'cause that fifth floor I think is all, you know, the construction costs are essentially the same do, but that's East Central Street. This is West Central Street. Right. They're roughly similar in, in the way that the road, you know, way people travel. So I just wonder if, you know, using that standard might, I mean do do we want a five story build? Do we want five story buildings? Speaker 9: I would say yes. 'cause it's a transit node and you want to have density around transit.
Downtown Natick is, you know, essentially five story, whatever. It's 50 foot buildings down there. If you're gonna have density somewhere Speaker 1: It has been. But they have had those buildings for 125 Speaker 9: Years and then it's great 'cause it's the downtown Natick and we've got a transit center there now. We have West Natick, which is a transit station. And I think we, if we want to have density, that's where we want to have it. And this is a little bit of a blank slate here, you know, let's set the rules for that. Speaker 10: Now I think I tend to agree with you, however, I I know that there are people that could not disagree with us more. Yeah, they are, they are just absolutely
terribly concerned about the, the potential building out of, of, you know, five story buildings that have four stories of residential above a commercial. You know, and it's a little, you know, I I I do not lightly dismiss those, but Speaker 9: No, I'm not either I would come, come here and Yeah. You know, or Speaker 10: I do think that's the place of it. And I've never been afraid of density. I do think that, you know, creating spaces for people to live and to use a, a commuter train where they can walk to it and all sorts of things. It's gonna be a very desirable place to live.
And you're probably gonna have enough, you know, I know you're gonna have car traffic, but I I I, I think print principles of smarter development justify it. So I mean, I, I think, I think I would probably side that way. I don't want, I don't wanna be opaque here, but you know, if, if that's not the will of town meeting or, or you know, if, if people are uncomfortable with that, I I'm not gonna dismiss that and I, I'll understand it and if it turns out it gets revised to where it's a four story type or you know, I I I'm okay with that too. Speaker 1: You know, it's interesting, during, when we were working on, on 2030, we,
we had posters that we put up at town meeting and it was showing said, which building types do you, do you, you know, are, do you think are great that you think are okay? You know, which ones do you like the most? Put a dot. And there were all commercial multi-story. There were all commercial low, there were all residential multi-story. There was ground floor commercial with residential above. And what we found was that nobody wanted
an apartment building that had nothing to, to give anybody on the ground floor. Something that was straight residential, but but apartments that, that, that, that wasn't, people didn't want over a certain height. And there was a question about whether kind of five stories was pushing it. But then people, people went for kind of what I would call the, the mid range, the kind of three to four stories mixed use because it felt like a scale people could Yeah. Imagine Speaker 10: Maybe some of these depictions will help.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. When we can we see having, working on these with graphics. Speaker 3: Yeah. And Speaker 1: We'll have some somewhere. I may still actually have a, a photo of that poster Speaker 3: And we have those. And so it's your comments like, we'll look at them and I'll make sure they do that. But if s fives allows for a potential of five story, whereas s fours is limited to the four story. Right. And the S3 is limited to three stories that gives you Speaker 1: What Speaker 3: You were kind of looking for. Speaker 9: You're saying the 45 foot maximum, Speaker 3: We would amend those. What's that? We would amend that to figure out how
to make sure that it Yeah. Hit the Okay. Speaker 1: Makes Speaker 9: The, but then we might be there. Speaker 3: But if you're, if, if you're in agreement that S five would aim to allow for five stories. Speaker 9: That's my yes. Speaker 3: Yeah. And then the s fours would aim to do a four story. Yes. And Speaker 9: Then the Yeah, I I'm not advocating for, for 50 foot buildings in, in the other districts. No, no. I'm really, I'm talking about concentrated around. Speaker 3: Yeah. And then the s threes would be like three stories. 'cause that's kind of what they're there for today. So I'll run the numbers. We're Speaker 9: Not that far. Yeah, I, okay. Speaker 3: Yeah. So I'll run those numbers and I'll make sure that Jeff, who's our consultant works.
Jeff, who's it? Jeff Saer. He was at Stantec. Speaker 9: Oh, okay. Speaker 1: Yep. So as we're kind of wrapping up this session, can I see if we have any comments from people who have been here listening to us patiently? I Speaker 3: Need to grab my charger Speaker 1: Of course. Speaker 3: So I'll be, do you wanna start that Speaker 1: Momentary recess? Okay. Yeah, no, I won't actually get him up there and I'll be back before that. Okay. Speaker 9: Just locked herself out. Speaker 1: So, so comments, questions, observations? Yes. And, you know, yeah, Speaker 22: Good evening.
Cody Jacobs 16. I live at 16 Tamarack Road. So I actually got one of the little, little notices and live right on the other side of where, you know, a lot of this change would be taking place. I, I read through the, the materials, it was very helpful. One thing I did note, it would be great to be able to see the, and, and maybe I just missed it there, but the, the, this slideshow is really clear and it would be, it would be really helpful to be able to see that, like I saw the other materials that are already on the, the, the website. But it would be helpful to see that as well. But overall, I just wanna say that as someone
who lives there, you know, talking about what people in the neighborhood think and I, you know, of course there's a diversity of opinions about that I'm sure. But I just want you to know there are a lot of people in the neighborhood who really, really are excited about this and think this is great. You know, I, I can only speak for me, but I did talk to a few of my neighbors about this over the last couple of days and you know, I think a lot of us are excited about the opportunity to, you know, because this is what's being proposed. A lot of it is mixed use development, you know, the idea of having more amenities that we can walk to, you know, a lot of us do walk over the, the Boden Lane bridge all the time
and you know, to be able to, you know, not just go there to go to the train station, but to go and have things that, you know, we can, we can really walk to and use, I think would be, would be amazing for us in that neighborhood. And I don't care if it's five stories. I mean, I can only speak for me. I know other people may disagree and you know, you'll, you'll hear plenty. But I can just tell you as one data point that, you know, I would be, I would be very excited and I think you should do what you need to make this a attractive, where we will get that in development. I think it'll be a, a positive for the town as a whole
and a, and a positive for, for us in our neighborhood. So I would be very excited for that. I think, you know, it's, it's important to remember that it's not, it's not always easy necessarily to motivate people who agree with the idea to come out and talk at these kind of meetings. And so you kind of manned up with a disproportionate picture or to write, right? So you may not end up with a disproportionate picture, but I just wanted you to know from people who live there that there is, there is support for this and I hope that, you know, you continue your, your work to get the details right Of course.
And that it goes through town meeting and passes. So thank you. Speaker 1: Thanks Cody. So other questions, comments? Di you always were a woman of few words, but very meaningful sometimes I do have one online. So what's that? Oops, Speaker 3: Sorry. There's a person online that would like to speak. I would, Speaker 1: We would love to have them. Speaker 3: David Coffee. I think that's how you pronounce Speaker 1: His name. Okay. Yeah, that's David. Speaker 3: So they just have to unmute themselves. David, Speaker 1: If, if you can unmute yourself. Sorry, I, Speaker 23: I thought I did Speaker 22: Try Speaker 1: Again. Try again.
Speaker 23: I think I'm unmuted. No, Speaker 1: You're good David. You're okay. You, Speaker 5: But we're here something in the background as well. Speaker 23: Yeah, I, I just muted my television. Thank you. There you go. Speaker 1: Ah yes. Speaker 22: Turn your radio. Speaker 23: David, David Coffee. I live in Ranger Road and as excited as some of Mr. Jacob's friends are, I know other people who are not as excited about this. So obviously there's gonna be a lot of room for discussion. This I would like to applaud Ms. Loomis and the board for addressing some of the concerns that were raised at the prior meeting at the community
and senior center about the setbacks and the heights of the buildings facing the train tracks because you know, that is an issue for some people and I really am happy that that was taken into consideration. One thing though I would like to point out is at that meeting, I believe quite a few names were taken of people who were at that meeting and wanted to stay in the lube on this. Is there possible the next time there was a meeting of the planning board bringing up this thing that those people who left email addresses can also be notified so that they can
attend the meeting and be heard once again since they did take several hours out to attend that prior meeting and be heard for? Speaker 3: I can address that. I greatly apologize. We had a staff member turnover and who was responsible for managing that lister, but I did learn today how to do it. So I didn't want to send an email out today 'cause it was very last minute. So I will be sending an email out tomorrow to everyone that did provide their email addresses for that listserv and tonight is not the end.
So we will get that and we do have their contact. So I will be working on that one. Speaker 1: And also, I I, I'll encourage people to at least for the duration of this process, if they want, if you wanna sign up to be, to get planning board agendas so that you'll know not, may not necessarily be for for special events, but for checking and seeing if the things that you care about are coming up. Speaker 3: Yep. But we'll take care of that tomorrow. Awesome. Speaker 1: Thank you. Yep. Oh, so yes, come up
just so we can hear you on a mic. Speaker 9: Thank you. Thanks Dan. Speaker 24: Thank you. My name is Jamie Faye. Speaker 1: Oops. Speaker 9: Associates. Jamie is the green light on? Okay. Speaker 1: Whatever you want. Might be better. Yeah. Speaker 12: More comfortable. Speaker 24: Is this working? Perfect. Speaker 1: Is there a bright green light? Speaker 24: Oh, bright. There you go. Sorry. Yeah. Okay. It's dull green. I'm bright green. Okay. Now it's working. Speaker 1: And you came back. Yeah. Speaker 24: So again, I'm Jamie Faye with Ford Point Associates and I'm here tonight on behalf of the property owner, Lou Franci, who is here in the audience tonight, as well
as Joe Shea from Gables. And just wanted to express some concerns on behalf of both of those parties. I did put my comments in writing and hopefully you all had the opportunity to review those and some of your discussion tonight really speaks to those. But I, I do just wanna say, I mean, I think you, you've really done a great job here in putting this forward and, and I particularly like your idea of calling it a quarter rather than a neighborhood because it is a quarter and you know, what this zoning proposal really represents is
a, a really thoughtful way of addressing both density and open space and uses along that quarter. Right. And there's a lot of logic behind it and it, it, I think it both respects the existing developed environment but provides something of a vision right. Of what the community would like to see. So obviously very much building on on what your master plan is already laid out for this area and the public meetings that have taken place already in, in terms of public process. So yeah, I just wanted to say, I think it really, it it's,
it's kind of visionary in and of itself. So yeah, I I, I highlighted some of the things that came to me as I read through the proposal and I think, you know, it's probably more discussion on some of those about the, what these findings are and how they work and is it as of right versus special permit and you know, what the plurality of votes is is appropriate for those kind of things. But listening to your discussion tonight, I just thought I'd share a couple comments on things you were talking about first on height,
lots of different ideas about what height should be, but I think, again, not so particularly related to the parcel I'm interested in, but you know what, what seems to be is yes, there are these elevation changes along the roadway that just happen, I think for the most part happen to coincide with the areas that you're assigning a lower density development to. And so they yes, are appropriately, you know, two or three story buildings and then the areas that you're targeting
for higher density in higher heights happen to be in some lower areas. And so it isn't maybe that you're trying to make it all be the same elevation, but just because of the way it lays out and because of your planning objectives, you're ending up with higher buildings around certain development nodes and lower things elsewhere and, you know, kind of works out. So I think, I think that's, that's helpful to think of it maybe that way, you know, with regard
to the, the density bonus issue. Yeah, I mean I, I think I raised the issue just because from a practical standpoint, you know, getting the 10% I guess that your zoning bylaw allows, you know, can solve a design problem but it's not a density bonus. Right? And that, and there's sort of two different things there and I think you just need to sort of think through whether there are some, and I assume a density bonus would be arrived at through a special permit process as opposed to just as a, right, right.
So things that you can get for the community out of a special permit process that would allow for greater density, whether that's greater affordability or greater open space, what whatever it is you decided is that are the things that you know, would be beneficial to achieve in return. It also helps, I think, sell it to people saying, you know, you've got a certain level of development, but if we get more for the community, then they can get some additional height and additional density. And, and I think it also relates to parking and not that familiar with the other projects
that you were referencing down the street here. But you know, what tends to happen if you're on these projects, if you're at four stories or even three stories of residential over a commercial, you know, what do you do with your parking? You, you don't have enough density and value to create structured parking generally. So one of the things that you do hit when you get to a five story level is that you can actually create that parking as interior space rather than an expansive asphalt outside of your building.
And that kind of also gets to some degree, I think, to some of your goals about open space, right? There's more opportunity for open space if you have structured parking than if it's a sea of asphalt around it. So just some things to think about on that front. And you know, the, just the other thing, and I appreciate it, Amanda reached out to see if we can find some time to just talk through some of these technical issues in a little more detail, but how this relates to your design review process
and some of the things here, whether it's the step back, you know, in the front, is that something that's better dealt with through a design review process or is it, you know, embedded in zoning as an absolute requirement that can't be varied? And I just think given the nature of this quarter and the different kinds of uses, maybe maybe look to a design review process to, to achieve some of those things. If that's, if that's what you're trying to get to. I think that the setback in the back, you know, probably works well just as a, as a guide
for any kind of development. But, and then the final thing I just wanted to talk about is the, the public activity, I guess at the ground level, which seems to be something that everybody's looking for and appreciates. Whether it's a neighbor wanting to work, walk over and use that. And, and I have to say just, you know, I'm not from here so I don't, I don't come here a lot, but when I come here I am really impressed with how many people are walking on that street. I mean it's, especially around the train station, I mean it's, it's a lot of people walking and riding bikes
and yeah, I don't think you have the infrastructure to really support that. I've been here on Speaker 9: A second Monday of April and seen how many people run. Yeah, Speaker 24: It's a lot. Speaker 25: Yeah. But that's right down the middle. Speaker 24: But I did just wanna say on, on the issue, I know you want to activate the ground floor. I think that's a great goal, but every site is different and every building layout is different. And I think, you know, maybe I'm would suggest you think about activating it based on frontage rather than the total footprint of a building. Because really first of all,
that's, that's what people want. They want the act of frontage. And if you're not on the frontage, it's really hard to have an active use 'cause you just have no visibility. Right? So maybe, maybe there's a way as some percentage of your frontage that is in active use, I'm calling it active use, who knows what it would be, but something that benefits from visibility and generates, you know, foot traffic or whatever it is. So anyway, just thoughts. I just wanted to compliment you, I think, and, and Amanda in particular on coming up with a really
creative, creative approach to this and appreciate you keeping this on track at town meeting and Speaker 1: Oh, thank you. Thank you very much and thank you for being so engaged with us on this, Doug. Speaker 9: Yeah, thank you very much Jamie. I, you know, known each other for a long time. I respect your, your, your opinion very much. The talk, talk to me about the four fifths plurality thing. Tell me what your concern is with that. Speaker 24: Again, I think that's probably something to talk through at town council. We could provide, I think, I believe that at least
for a residential use for zoning, which provides a density bonus, you cannot require more than a majority vote. Yeah. It's gonna be majority on state Speaker 9: Law. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. That's what I thought you were getting at. Yep. Speaker 24: I think technically maybe possible for, you know, if you had a commercial development, but for residential bonus I think it's gotta be just a majority. Okay. Speaker 9: Yeah. Amanda, was that something that Caris looked at or we Speaker 3: So that was something that we, sorry, we have to review with Caris. Speaker 9: Yeah. Speaker 3: So we'll be looking at that. It was, yeah, the first 10% is always as of right.
It was just if you were gonna deviate as a combination thereof, so we'll execute that better. Or we might not even need it. Yep. It might just be straight 10% if that's what the board wants to go with, which is again, a by right process, which we have as part of our site plan review. Speaker 9: Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 1: Yeah, Speaker 24: Thank Speaker 1: You. Thank you very much. Anyone else speak now or come back at our next meeting? So we will be taking this up. Speaker 3: Oh, just hold sorry, sorry. I just wanna double check online just to make sure we don't have any other hands. Oh, we do have one more hand. Oh good. I'm sorry. Okay.
Thank you. I'm gonna probably mispronounce this dei. Speaker 1: Okay. I'll, I'll say Miss Dei, how are how are you? Yes. Speaker 26: Good. Can you hear me? Yep. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 26: Okay. I, I sent an email, oh, Deirdre Bergeron 17 Tucker Street. I sent an email to the a Loomis at, I'm not sure if that's the right thing for public comment. So just about an hour ago. Speaker 1: Okay. She said yeah, she, yeah, sorry she just got an hour ago. Speaker 26: Sorry, I didn't like, I haven't done this very often, but I just wanna say I live in that neighborhood and I I support what you're planning to do very much.
I live right off cemetery and on a daily basis I drive down Spain and when it, the weather permitting, I walk and bike that way. And it's really nicely landscaped all the way up to the CVS. It's very, there's a safe sidewalk. It's, you know, it's, it's, it's feels perfectly fine. And then you get to the corner at spin and it all falls apart. And there are businesses, even when I'm driving, there are businesses that I just find very difficult to get into. It's hard to find their driveways. You can't, you certainly can't walk or bike there. And I've long felt like the, you know,
west Natick area is really disconnected from Natick Center and it's, it's too bad because Natick Center is really vibrant and West Natick is really vibrant and then there's this like kinda lost area in between. So I very much support this and I just wanted to make sure that got into public comment. Speaker 1: Thank you very, very much. Thank thanks for sending in your comments too. So anyone else or shall we move to continue this conversation? Yeah. To September 10th. Speaker 9: Question for you though the rest of the agenda on the others. What are we doing with these?
Are we discussing any of these other ones? Amanda, are we, Speaker 1: Do you wanna go through our, the full, the fullest or some portion of it tonight? Other than then because we Speaker 9: Opened, we opened those hearings already, right? We Speaker 1: Did, we did. Speaker 18: All the rest of 'em are open. They, they were all continued. Speaker 9: Is there anything you are presenting on any of them or, well, we've already Speaker 18: Talked, we've presented through all of the other ones. The only Speaker 1: Ones I'm not sure your mic is on. Yep, Speaker 3: That's be helpful. Right. Sorry, I was typing, I didn't want it to be in there. So we've already opened all of these other articles previously.
We do not need to go through these tonight. I, what really need to do is have car just do her double check on these items and she has not gotten to them yet. So if we want to continue them to the next public hearing. Also, with that being said, if anyone has any amendments to the use regulation schedule, do send that along just so we can make sure those are incorporated in there. Okay. 'cause the other ones Earth, the removal of earth products flooding are both very straightforward, right?
Yeah. And then the definition for limited site plan review is really based off of the requirements of the ags office. And so the use regulation schedule is just the last part and I think we captured everything, but I just wanted to have someone double check it. Speaker 1: Yeah. And, and because we went through them on the kind of the drop, not really the dry run, but Yeah, on the, the the set of hearings that we had Yeah. Before the warrant closed. Speaker 3: Exactly. Speaker 1: That, that left us in good stead. Speaker 9: So I'm, if you won't mind, I'd make a motion to capture all of these and continue the hearings until
Speaker 1: September 10th. Speaker 9: September 10th. I'll make that as a motion. Speaker 1: Alright. You make motion second. All those in Speaker 8: Favor? Can I have a a, I'm just, I guess question, I guess that's for discussion. Yeah. What are we doing? Like are these going to be on the fall town meeting? Speaker 1: They're in the, all of them. They're on the warrant. Yep. Speaker 8: Okay. So they are on the warrant. Okay. Yes, they're, Speaker 9: Yeah. And then we're gonna make a recommendation Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 9: At the close of the hearings. Okay. Speaker 12: Further discussion. Excuse me. Did you say earlier that you would not be able to likely be here on 10th? Speaker 9: On the 10th, correct. Speaker 12: Yeah. And this would just
Speaker 1: In any, any, in any form not like zooming, being able to zoom in or I Speaker 9: Don't know yet. Speaker 1: So we should talk if there's something that you find yourself saying really need to make sure we cover this either. Speaker 3: Yeah, you can send your comments soon. Edits prior to Yeah. Will Speaker 1: Be good. Okay, so Speaker 12: Motion maiden second. Yep. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Aye, aye Speaker 8: Aye. Aye. Great. Speaker 1: Alright. He's Speaker 12: Okay. Speaker 1: Continued. He's gone. Okay. And do we have
any planning board business? Speaker 3: Yes, please. Just a follow up on the email I had sent out to Monday, or was it yesterday? I forget on the warrant I sent out a list of potential items that you may or may not be interested in and Speaker 1: I sent you back. Yep. Speaker 3: I've added an additional one, which I think was number 30, but if anyone else has any 1 31 31 1. Yeah. Oh yeah. So we had 30, what Speaker 9: Does that pertain to? Speaker 3: What was that? What does Speaker 9: That one pertain Speaker 3: To? So I sent out the 2025 fall town meeting warrant, identifying potential articles that you may
or may not be interested in and if you wanna presentation and just asking if anyone else had any other ones. Speaker 1: So the one I, the one I marked was con concerned with bringing back something that had been on the warrant or actually at town meeting in the spring. And that was about having engaging an attorney who is an expert on zoning and considering or, or, and or considering having a committee
or commission or some sort of structure that would review zoning articles before they went to town meeting. She says quietly. Speaker 10: So us to review that. Speaker 9: What was the disposition at town meeting though last time? Wasn't that what happened with it? Speaker 1: I think they ended up withdrawing. Speaker 10: Yeah. I don't think, I don't even think it was a referral. Speaker 1: No. Yeah, I think, I think they, they withdrew before, Speaker 10: But that, that's a, that's a, that's a bylaw review committee submission, right? Speaker 1: It's Speaker 10: Yes. You know, I think I I think that's one we should talk about. I if if the, if the proposer will be here, Speaker 1: I, that's the challenge we, we got, we actually
never got, could get the motion Right. And some, I think perhaps fin com gave me a copy of it. It, I think that was, that was the frustrating part is because we were interested in considering it but considering Speaker 9: It, Speaker 1: But talking about it, I mean, Speaker 9: I mean sure, I'll talk about it. It's a horribly bad idea. So whoever wants to come here and defend it, Speaker 10: It comes from a reflection of what I think might be a slightly different time. Mm. And sometimes this happens Tom meeting will, will get a proposal for something that happened two or three years ago.
Yep. And I don't know, I mean, Speaker 1: But you know, we'll discuss it. Speaker 10: I, I throw, I throw my 2 cents in that it would be probably good to have a review of it if, if it's, if it's a serious, I mean if it's really being submitted and it's a full motion and it's a serious proposal, it is. If it's a sketch then not so much. But if it's a real thing, yeah. I don't wanna talk about it. Speaker 1: It is what what will be the challenge will be obtaining the motion. Speaker 10: Well, yeah, I mean come on, there's a process again, I gotta, you gotta, you know, you gotta, but this would be just sort of acting as an advisory capacity, right?
I mean we just make a, make a recommendation to town meeting. Yes. We're not, we're not obligated to Speaker 1: No, no, we're not. No, no. I, I just had just put it in because it directly involves this board and our process. Speaker 10: I looked through the list, there weren't a bunch, of course they never jump out at me to review them to be fair. But that one I'd say okay. I didn't really see any others that I was hankering for. Speaker 1: No, God knows there are enough of them that are ours. Speaker 3: So would you like me to request them to come to the planning board? Speaker 1: Oh sure. Thank you. Definitely. Speaker 10: Yeah. I mean this is a, this is a good time.
I mean this is, this is a, a real idea and it's worth debating and this will be a good time to, good place to Speaker 1: Have it. The challenge, the challenges that is that is, is actually getting the proponents to attend. Speaker 10: Well, right. And I, I guess, I mean I'm, I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm not trying to advocate or I'm not trying to squash anything. No. If, if the, if the applicants are unavailable to show up, then you know, we will, we'll come up with some kind of a recommendation one way or another. Yep. Whatever it is, is what it'll be.
Speaker 1: But we're, we are engaged and I think yeah, but much of the rest of the warrant, there are a number of them that are either it's planning board sponsored or town administrator sponsored and so forth. So. Speaker 3: Okay. And then the only other business that we have is CPC. Just so everyone's aware, if anyone's interested in seeing the CPCs applications received, you can go right onto the CPCs website, which is off the CD website. We've got eight applications reviewing public hearings start next Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. Speaker 1: And I'm very sorry to to tell you as I, as I told the rest
of the CCP c that the dates that we are hearing those I am in Delaware. So they had a hard time finding a time when everybody could make it. Yeah. So I'm doing, I'm working on scoring and so forth so that I can give them numbers even if I'm not there in person. Speaker 10: So this is new to me. So would the CPC take all this public comment and does your committee then vote recommendations on their own proposals to the proposals they've received two time meeting? Yes.
Speaker 1: The what, the way the CPC works is it, it, it reviews the letters of interest and then they, the actual application. And what we're doing now is hear kind of hearing those to determine and to vote as to whether we will recommend to town meeting or we will recommend that they go forward to town meeting. If we, if the CPC votes against something going to town meeting, then it is not heard by town meeting. Speaker 10: Oh, interesting. Hmm. Okay. Oh, and what is the quantum
of voting like simple majority on all these? Speaker 1: I believe so. Speaker 10: And how many committee members do you have? Speaker 1: I believe it's nine. Nine? Yeah. Speaker 10: Could you in one scenario, approve all of them to go to town meeting? You're not under any restrictions, like with financial, like that's too much money. I mean, are is it more just, Speaker 1: I I don't, we haven't, we haven't had a point where we would say, gosh, we wanna spend, we wanna propose, you know, more than we have money for. I don't think that's, that, that's not certainly not an issue. Now if, can I imagine that there would be
more articles or more more proposals than there, than there was was a budget? I, I would be surprised. Speaker 10: So, so Speaker 1: I think we, we wanna be very careful. Speaker 10: Well that's why I'm just curious. Like, let's say as the night goes through, I dunno what he order to take them. Oh gosh, darn it. Dang it. I'm just curious. Like say like the night goes through and approval, approval, approval approval. Your re your positive recommendation, I'm, you're not approving the spending, but your recommendation, is there like a running tally of how much money there is versus how much Yes.
How much the pro, like if the last proposal was the big one for like $20 million and like well we don't have the money for that. I, I just, I'm just kind of curious how the order of these things comes up, particularly as it's, it's new funding. I, I dunno what do you have $3 million or something like that? Speaker 1: Oh eight. Yeah. And I will say it will not exceed that Speaker 3: If you go on the CPC website, you can actually see all the projects and much I did, I did. I looked at it requested. But it actually has how much, I think it's, it totals up to like 1.6 million in some change. Yeah. So we have extra funds, but in the case of what you're asking for,
there may be projects where in the future you may come forward and be like, Speaker 1: We can bond Speaker 3: With, Speaker 1: We have bonding authority. Speaker 3: Yeah. So you can say, Hey, we need $2 million but we need it like over five years so that they could approve that over the five years with the anticipation of expected amounts. Speaker 10: And last question on the website, is there a list of what the criteria is by which you guys judge? Speaker 3: Yes. The evaluation criteria for the general and for the specific are both on there.
And then also the application information's on there as well. Yeah. Speaker 1: And, and I, and I believe judging very recent conversations with, with several folks that as we expected would happen, this is our first round, we see things that worked have, have been working well and less well. And there are things in the process that I know that we'll be reviewing and revising. Speaker 3: But one thing that is on there, there's a table it's towards the end. It's graphic, it has housing, open space, recreation,
and historic preservation. And it'll tell you the different types and it'll say yes or no. So if you look at that, and then you can actually go in Speaker 1: To the play Speaker 3: It's allocated and see what the specifics of those are. Yeah. 'cause the evaluation might, yeah. Speaker 1: And, and bear in mind there are several projects that fall into more than one category. Speaker 10: Right. Speaker 1: So, Speaker 3: Which creates a mess that we found out. Speaker 1: It creates a, Speaker 3: It creates a mess. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 3: Because if you fall under one, you actually, the project may be simply yes, absolutely a fundable. But then sometimes when you're trying to reach for an additional one, it actually muddies the water
because it throws it into is this maintenance or is this actual? So therefore, sometimes it's better just to do one. Speaker 1: I I, yes. We Speaker 3: Have one project like that. Now. Speaker 1: I, yeah. Anyway, so it is, it, it's, it's daunting, I think how we get information, how we get kind of the data to consider. We can, I just, we can work on how it's collected and presented. It makes it easiest, easier for we lowly nine of us representing can figure out. Speaker 3: There's some really cool ones there.
Speaker 10: I saw. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 1: I, I mean there's, there's nothing I look at and say, that's ridiculous. How, you know, what, what were you thinking? I think in some ways the fewer we have, like, I would not wanna see 25 of these come in next year because it's, it's a lot of different directions it pulls to pull in. So, and Amanda has been, Speaker 3: We're having fun. Speaker 1: Oh Speaker 10: God. And then town meeting votes each one separately, is that correct? Yes. Yep. Oh Speaker 1: Boy. But to your point, you know, what order do you vote them in? Right. That probably depends on how the
select board, I don't know how they, how they show on the Speaker 3: Warrant. So right now there's two warrants for the CPC one is just the allocation of the funds into the three buckets, which is that standard. You have to do that. The next one is, it's very high level, it's the appropriation of selected projects. So the warrant is high level, but then the, once we get the motion, it'll be motion, a project motion, B project. So each, but the point Speaker 1: Is, but the point is, who says what goes first? That would Speaker 3: Be the CPC when they develop their motion. Ah,
Speaker 1: So this is what I have to look forward to when I come back from Delaware. Speaker 3: But in this time it's not as much of an issue. 'cause there is more than enough funds. But yeah, it would be in a different time. Also, the CPC can say, you asked for a million dollars, but we're only giving you Yes. 500,000 this year. Reapply again next year. They can. And no one asked for a million dollars, but that's just a round number. Yeah, Speaker 1: No, and it, and it's hard because to your point, you know, if you say, oh, I really like project A, but it wasn't, but,
but they voted it, it didn't pass. So, oh, I would've liked to have gone if I, if I, if I wasn't gonna spend my money, if I wasn't gonna spend the town's money on this, I would've voted on that other one. Speaker 10: Right. If I knew that was gonna fail. Yeah, yeah. Then I would've voted for that. Or some, I mean, it can get a little like that. And Speaker 1: I, and I, and I think that that will be very real Speaker 10: Motions to reconsider. You know, I, I can, I can see this get, you're gonna have to dust off time, meeting time. There's gonna, I mean, there might, oh, who knows how these things will happen. I'm sure it'll go real fast and smooth though. Just like always. Yeah. Speaker 1: So anything further? Motion to adjourn?
Speaker 10: Second. So moved Second. Okay. Speaker 1: All all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye, aye. Alright. We stand, adjourn.