Speaker 1: For the meeting of the Natick Planning Board at 7:04 PM this meeting is being recorded. It's being broadcast on Pegasus. To those of you viewing from home to comment or ask a question, use the raise your hand function. If you're on a phone, press star nine. An individual wishing to speak during public speak or during a public hearing must display their first and last name on their screen before their microphone can be unmuted. To make changes to your name as it appears in the screen in Zoom, click on participants. To open the participant's menu. Hover your cursor over your address entry and click on more.
Click on rename and type in your first and last name. So moving then as we do to public speak, any in individual may raise an issue that's not included on the agenda and it will be taken under advisement by the board. There'll be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. Anyone in, in any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. So is there anyone wishing to speak in public speak? Yes, Mr. Greaser. Speaker 2: Hi. Good. Can you hear me? All right. Good evening.
My name is Paul Greaser. I'm a town meeting member from Precinct seven and member and chairperson of the Charter and Bylaw Review committee. I'm here tonight to just to say to you, we had looked forward to being able to discuss warrant Article 31 and specifically zoning counsel with you this evening. But unfortunately neither the CBRC nor Article 31 is listed on your agenda. Our council has advised us that and the AGS guidance provides that with regulation that the agendas must be specific.
That language, like any or all town meeting Warren articles doesn't work. So unfortunately, I've had to cancel tonight's meeting of the CVRC. I look forward to communicating with you or the staff and getting, we have a month before town meeting starts, but hopefully we can get on a future meeting. I know you meet every two weeks. I know you've got a very busy agenda this evening with two projects and a bunch of zoning articles that had to get kicked over from last week to this week. And they've gotta make the FinCon deadline. So I'm going to sit down and be quiet and return the rest of your meeting.
Evening to you. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. And, and I am sorry that I, I was not aware that the, the language about fall says fall town meeting warrant, article review, non zoning articles. And I had not realized that that was not specific enough to they, Speaker 2: Apparently they want like what specific article. So, okay. Who's we? We look forward to it at the future Speaker 1: Meeting. Yeah. Who is, who is it? Who requires it? Who's Speaker 2: They? The ag Speaker 3: And how does the ag weigh in on our agenda? If you could please explain Speaker 2: That to take up a matter that's not adequately noticed on an agenda.
Speaker 3: It's on an agenda is a is it's on an agenda. We can, we can talk about it. It's on an agenda I thought there. So we'll be talking about it later on for debate will be not Speaker 2: To take up a matter that is not adequately noticed specifically on an agenda. I disagree. It's an open meeting. Law Speaker 3: Honor. We're gonna talk about it under planning board business the first point. So look forward to it. Speaker 1: So then, and Amanda has anything come up on, on this? This particular point that you're aware of? Okay, thank you. Alright, so then moving forward for development review and public meeting.
Continuing 43 Cyprus Road. So Mr. Grossman, Speaker 4: Recording in progress. Speaker 5: Perfect. Thank you Madam Chair. Brian Grossman on behalf of the applicant, Mell Construction. Mike Dean, I think is with us online if needed. We appreciate staff getting the draft decision out to us. We've had a chance to review it. We had a little back and forth with Ms. Loomis. Appreciate the cooperation. I have nothing further unless the board has questions for us or something comes up in their review of the decision. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. I know we, we had gotten some, some feedback and Amanda, I think I know you had worked closely with counsel. Speaker 6: Yeah, so there is a drafted decision
in your packets tonight. There was only two, two minor changes and that was just in the findings where the Y had was going to be, I had it drafted as 22 feet. It's actually 25 feet. So I did update that and hear based on the comments. And then we did just clarify condition or sorry, finding 4.2 0.7 and it will just, it all, all it reads now is, although the open quotations proposed road, a open wide layout as shown in the site plans open and gives the material will be used for frontage for lots.
1, 2, 3, and four. Because even though they're not using that as their constructed way, that is gonna be the frontage and then the Y head goes within that layout. Okay. So we just made those two minor changes. Speaker 1: Thank you. Other than Speaker 6: That, everything else was the same. Speaker 1: Thank you. Board members, any comments or questions after having reviewed the draft decision? None here. No. Alright. All right. Speaker 3: Peter has, no, Speaker 1: Sorry. Okay. I thought you said none here. I did. Okay, thank you. So then we had, we had left the hearing open
while the decision was being drafted. We have a motion to approve the decision as reviewed and presented. Speaker 7: So moved, Speaker 1: Motion made and seconded. Speaker 8: I'll second it. Speaker 1: Discussion, hearing? No, no discussion. Oh yes. Speaker 8: I think may, maybe just a question, maybe I should have asked this last one. Yes. Previously, one of the meetings we asked about lot four about just the maintenance of that. Does that include in the decision as far as you know, that little spur of land? I think that's more of a question for Amanda. 'cause she spent a lot more time with the decision than I did. I thought
Speaker 6: We were including that as part of the homeowner's association. Speaker 8: Yeah, correct. But I'm saying is that, is that a requirement in the, was it actually there in the decision or is that showing on the plan or Speaker 5: There is the same note on the plan or the, the updated note on the plan and then it was address is my recollection is addressed in the decisions. It Speaker 8: Was a long decision so Speaker 5: I was like, yeah, yeah, there there are a number of things where that talk, the decision talks about it being the responsibility of the homeowner, homeowners, corporation or trust. Okay. Speaker 6: And it's also a little different now with the roadway, not the full why had not or why had been going in
and not the full cul-de-sac. Yep. But the homeowners association will maintain the entire cul-de-sac. What layout is. Speaker 8: Okay. Speaker 1: So very good. Any other questions or comments? Ready to vote? Motion was made. Seconded all of those in favor and because Andy is from home, we do this with speaking our names, with our votes. Mr. Meyer. Speaker 9: Aye. Meyer aye. Speaker 8: Clear? Aye. Speaker 10: Aye. Speaker 1: Aye. And aye. Evans. Alright, very good. Motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Okay.
Motion made. Seconded. All those in favor say aye Evans. Aye. Speaker 10: Your aye. Aye. Speaker 9: May. Aye. Thank Speaker 1: You. Alright, Speaker 5: Thank you very much. Very much. Speaker 1: Okay then we move on to our next development project. And that is 52 Everett Street. Speaker 6: Yep. And there are new documents within your electronic package. Speaker 1: Alright, let me pull those up. You want the ones at the top on the evaluation memo con com Comments and traffic safety report. Okay, thank you. Should we start there? Speaker 10: Yeah. Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 7: Start. Okay please. Ben Stevens stress development along with Matthew Stevens stress development. I see Dan Es from MDM, our traffic consultant is on. There are three items we're hoping to just touch on tonight. Just a quick update on, I know open space has reviewed it and I did send a note to Claire on conservation talking about the trail maintenance. 'cause there's some discussion about the ability for the HOA to cut the trails and maintain the fields. Her comment was obviously the, the commission would have to see where the trails are and to see the extent of it.
But in general it's an accepted policy. And our next step is to arrange a meeting, a walk, a site walk with open space and with conservation. And our other two items we'd like to talk about would be the traffic study. And we did get a letter from town engineer Bill McDowell about a potential offsite sidewalk, what it might mean, what it might involve, which is in, I believe in your packet. I'm happy to talk about that. But I think first, since Dan is available, if we could, except we might need Amanda for that.
Yeah, sure. Speaker 10: Where'd she go? No, Speaker 7: What's that? Where did she go? Why don't we go to, why don't we go to sidewalk then? Yeah, do that. Okay. Okay. There was a letter, I don't know if anyone got to see it from Mr. McDowell. He two went out there and took a look. We had done a preliminary layout of a sidewalk out in front of, there's four houses between the sidewalk. We need to commit to the end of 72 Everett Street. Then there's 70 Everett Street, 66 Everett Street, 56 Everett Street. And then we're at our property line.
So there's essentially three houses, four driveways, but three houses there. I did speak to all three of them a little bit, but Mr. McDowell went out for us, took a look. There's no curving there now. There's no asphalt curving couple of catch basins that are sort of one somewhat functional one for the most part. Water is running right past it. We do appear to have enough room to put the sidewalk in. There will be two significant trees on 70
Everett that will have to come down. Two large spruces, probably 12 inch, very minor trees. After that we understand we'll have to go to Scenic Road. There's no stone walls. But we will go to the, for a scenic road approval. And I'm assuming there'll be a tree replacement plan, which those three residents were all happy about that there would be trees being put back in two outta the three have little kids. So they're very excited about the opportunity to have a sidewalk connection that could potentially get 'em up to cottage and, and get 'em to the center of town.
'cause it's a particularly dangerous part of Everett Street right there. We have to verify, we know we have a minimum five feet. There's one area of the road, we may only have five. So I think if we proceed this direction, we'd have to work with town engineer about asphalt curbing a butting the sidewalk availability for grass strip. But we did put our engineers ongoing, we got permission to do survey work out there and we have our engineers doing sort of a full grading layout to make sure that we don't affect grading patterns on any front lawns.
But I, to summarize bill letter bill's letter, it is feasible and in his opinion I think would be that it's a, an appropriate location for one to be added based upon having one at Windermere and creating one to cottage. Happy to answer any questions relating to that. It's Speaker 1: Within the layout though, correct? Speaker 7: It's within the layout. We are near our narrowest point from edge of pavement and it's one of those where is the edge of pavement type of roads? It looks to be about five and a half feet. So we don't know if we're gonna get the grass drip the whole way, but we would get the five foot sidewalk.
We have one private telephone pole that's a problem. It's not the main line, it's a, it's a house service line that comes from the other side of the street. So it's one of those, we'd have to see what options we have on that. I think putting the sidewalk around the telephone pole might be an option for now until we can figure out if that can be moved. So, but that's a private pole but it is on down property, so. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. And I, Speaker 7: And I didn't Speaker 1: Know, I'm assuming that that Amanda's going to be reining us shortly.
Speaker 8: We'll talk as far as sidewalk, I think that's really important to have out there. I think just looking at the speeds that we're in the traffic report, you know, 85th percentile speed, 35 miles an hour. I think we really wanna separate pedestrians. I envision a future where that sidewalk goes all the way down to route 16 might take a while. So I think that that's an important connection. I think I've mentioned before, I, I want to continue to along your entire site frontage, even though it doesn't connect to anything yet. Speaker 7: Right, okay. Because Speaker 8: Someday it will. Right. You know? Yeah. Speaker 7: Hopefully. Speaker 8: Yep. And,
and I wouldn't want that to be the missing piece, but I think that'll be really important too for any pedestrian in that, in that area. Speaker 7: Understood. Yep. Speaker 1: I I, you know, it's, it's funny, when I first joined the planning board, there were many comments about just that when people would, when, when an applicant would talk about not needing a sidewalk 'cause there weren't other sidewalks and it's like that starts becoming tautological. Yeah. Because you just, you don't have one because no one before you put one in and, and I have to say I'm the, the kind
of risky character of the speeds with which people head down there. And I, when I am heading down to South Natick, it's startling and startling how stop, sign and signal optional drivers tend to be along, especially along that street along Everett Street. Speaker 8: I saw a study years ago that sidewalks reduce the pedestrian crashes on the side of the road, not kind of crossing the road by 90%. So I think it's an important amenity. Yeah. Speaker 7: And living there, I can tell you that we have a lot
of dog walkers in the area and they, they, they're stuck. There's not a lot of options. Speaker 1: See, and just tons of walkers period. Yeah. And I don't know if they have a particular destination, but you, you sure see a lot of people just simply out, out and about for a walk Speaker 8: And you see a lot of Mont Cotter Street where, I don't know if you they were there, you know, before the sidewalk was put in probably. Speaker 7: Absolutely. So, yep. Speaker 1: So, Speaker 7: So I think our next step is we'll get the survey work done. I'm, I have there, like I said, there'll be one neighbor I need to speak with, but I would probably reach out to tree warden about what type
of trees would want to be replaced. 'cause I think that was his biggest concern. What trees would be replaced when I take his spruce trees down. But we can find out what would be appropriate and then I'll have a conversation with him. We might need, as Mr. McDowell pointed out, we might need some temporary grating easements so we don't trap any water. I, there's a, there's a catch basin that's sort of a problem area in the road right now. It's, it's, if you drive down there, there's a driveway easement that goes to the back and this is sort of at a low spot. And we actually built the house right there. Then we did work for drainage around the back of the house
and the catch basin really, and I'll talk to Bill about that, probably should be a double catch basin brought into the gutter line. Right now it's sort of flowing towards other people's driveways and I'm sure Bill and is, I know that Claire was aware of it, but when that per certain person had the long driveway, had a dirt driveway, it was a lot of silt in the road. Now he has somewhat of an asphalt driveway. But I think when we do this, we'll be bringing that catch basin back into the gutter line and installing a curb. So I'm hopefully, and I'll have Bill sort of weigh in on this, should make
that issue a little better. 'cause a lot of the water that's getting there is missing a basin about 50 yards up. So I, I'm hoping in about two weeks when I come back next for a more global look at the layout of the units, I'll have some answers, some final answers on the sidewalk on what it might take. So, Speaker 1: And I understand the, the, the logical need for a a tree replacement. Is there a minimum caliper that we, I'm trying to see actually, Amanda, is there a minimum caliper
that we require for replacement trees? Because these are mature. Speaker 7: Yeah, they're 13 to 14 inches spruce. Yeah, I don't know. I I know that your stormwater bylaw now requires replacement but not a caliper calculation. And Speaker 1: It's as much because of, of what was contributed not just psychologically, but to the, to the scenery by that. And because it's a scenic road, it's that taking special care to retain it, the character of the road.
Speaker 7: Right. I I don't think there's anything written in the tree. 'cause we don't have a tree bylaw yet, right? No, but in our we do, we don't have, we don't. So in our scenic bylaw, I think it says if trees are removed they need to be replaced and stonewall need to be addressed and, and things like that. But I don't think there's a caliper calculation and or replacement calculation. This person has about 90 feet of frontage. There are other trees right. On his property. So we're removing two, my guess is no more than three would actually even fit there. But, Speaker 1: So, and we'll I know we'll go into this when we have the public, not the public shade tree hearing.
Yeah, the public shade, shade tree hearing. Amanda, you, what were Speaker 6: You Yeah, no, we don't have an exact number. I know we've been just like either replacing with a maximum of which we, what we did at two 16 South Main Street, which is a different project or I think the number is like $800 a tree. So, Speaker 1: Okay. We, we can, again, again, if you talk Speaker 6: About Claire and Art, put that together. Good. Speaker 1: And do we know when that's likely to happen? The, the he the public hearing? Speaker 6: No, I've gotta talk to art. Speaker 1: Okay then we'll take that up then. Okay. Should I
Speaker 8: Get a question? The sidewalk were, were you planning on doing the work? Yes. Speaker 7: Okay. Yes. Yeah, we're, we're bringing the sidewalk down in front of the house that was built on the corner of my new road. Probably doing that next two weeks. We're kind of familiar with the area 'cause we have built the other house. We kinda understand the drainage patterns. So our intention be when we do our sidewalk work and when we start our project, we just connect the two. Okay. So we wouldn't be, it's on private property? No, it's on town property. But I believe it's okay for me to, since I'm, you know,
essentially it's not a bid contract or anything like that. It's, it's my contract. So I think it's fine. But Speaker 8: Yeah. As long as you're following top standards and Speaker 7: Right, right. Amanda, would you lo let Dan, and unless there's more questions on sidewalk, I'll have Dan talk a little bit about traffic. Oh Speaker 6: Yeah, he's already logged in. Speaker 7: Okay. And Speaker 11: Yeah, I'm here Speaker 6: Is if, lemme know if you can't share, if you need to share anything, you should be able to though. Speaker 11: Sure. Let me, let me see if I can pull up the couple of slides. Just to go over Dan Dume, senior project manager at MDM,
we did the traffic memo for this project. We basically looked at some baseline speeds out there as well as traffic volumes. Let's see this one. Alright, so we went out and collected volumes along Everett Street during the daily. It's about 800 trips over a course of a day on that road. Peak hour volumes just below a hundred, about 75 vehicles. And then directionally it's higher eastbound in the morning and westbound in the afternoon as part of it. We also collected speed data
along the roadway about a hundred feet east of Everett Terrace to gain the speeds. 30 mile an hour posted speed. The average speed's 50th percentile is 30 in both directions. And the 85th percentile is right around 35 miles per hour. So people were going around the, the pose speed but but slightly higher. So we looked at the, the site lines for the driveways, which is the up top here. We looked at eastbound and westbound. And when you, when you clear it out and put in the driveways as well as the, the sidewalk that's gonna clear out some of that vegetation on the side there.
And about 450 feet traveling eastbound and 500 feet looking east westbound. So you need 250, 240 feet depending on the, the direction. So you have more than enough visibility there to safely stop traveling along Everett Street itself at the driveway. We'll get into the location of the crosswalk. We also looked at a crosswalk at Cottage Street. Sidewalk along the front edge would cross over to the existing sidewalk and great visibility at that location as well. So it's a good location for, for visibility for the crosswalk.
We also looked at the intersection site distance, which is exiting the driveway itself onto Everett Street. And again, looking east and west, you have more than adequate distance for the 85th percentile speed here as well as the, the ideal speed for the regulatory 30. So if you were to pull out in front of somebody, they would not have to slow down by more than 10% of their speed with the distances you have shown As discussed, we're looking at a sidewalk along the frontage with a connection over to Cottage Street. I apologize this, this plan is upside down. So plan north is, is to the bottom of the page.
So go along the frontage crosswalk, a DA compliant ramp, which will connect over to the existing ramp system and panel over here. And we're looking at the appropriate signage. So we'd have pedestrian signs with the down arrows at the crosswalk itself and then about 275 feet in advance in each direction. We would have the pedestrian ahead signs just for enhanced visibility out there. The last thing that we looked at was the ability for a firetruck to come in circle around the site. So the site's been designed w with this cobblestone
or go area in the middle. So the firetruck come in, does not have to cross the center line of the road. Oh second, can zoom in on this thing, Zoom in so you can see it. But the firetruck here, this blue line is the overhang of the front bumper does not have to cross over onto the, the exiting vehicles. And likewise the exiting vehicle does not have to cross over onto the incoming vehicles. Kind of in summary of the traffic study itself, that the project's gonna generate less than fewer than 10 peak hour trips. So it's not a very high traffic generator
can be accommodated at the adjacent cottage street intersection in the site driveway where level service a so very good level of service. We looked at existing travel patterns along the roadways for the distribution of the trips and we see no problems with the trips in terms of the capacity or qualitatively. We think the sidewalk enhancements and the crossing would be a good benefit to the area and hopefully they can extend it down to Windermere to enhance the existing pet environment as well. I'll answer any questions and thank you very much. Speaker 1: Great, thank you very much Amanda.
Is there anything you wish to add? So, and Alan is, is our colleague and and traffic engineer. Speaker 8: Not too, not too much because I, I think I was always kind of agreement it's not a big traffic generator of a project. So I think I've been really focusing on the pedestrian safety out here. Dan, did you notice any other, any other safety recommendations at the intersection of cottage in Everett? If you Speaker 11: Can look at that? No, we did not. We, we did a quick review of the crash. It has not come up as high crash location. The volumes are, are fairly, fairly modest for
an intersection within tx. We think it works pretty well and I, I think with the enhancements of the sidewalk along the, the southern side site front is going down, it's gonna clear out some of the vegetations that's down in the corner next to that neighboring property. That's all gonna be a sidewalk. So that'll increase your site line visibility. Looking to the right from cottage as well. Speaker 8: I'm looking at your plan with the, the pedestrian signs, the cross with a crosswalk. Do you have, sorry, I'm, I'm having trouble making sure I know the leader, that leader is pointing to. We have a, the W 11 dash two sign
that's on the pedestrian warning sign that's on Everett Street on the other side of the driveway. Correct? Speaker 11: Correct. That's gonna be about 250 feet in advance of the intersection. Speaker 8: Okay. I just saw a leader that kind of pointed up into the driveway and I just, Speaker 11: Yeah, the leader is across the driveway. It points down with the note on it. It's two 50 feet. I can, I can actually pull that back up and zoom in just so everybody else knows what you're, you're pointing at. I can zoom on it. Yeah, so it's this one over here. So the, the leader up here, it says place approximately 200 feet from the crosswalk and it points down to this one. So it would be well in advance of the driveway over here.
And likewise on the other side. This sign would be about 275 feet from the crossing back on the other side of Cottage Street. Speaker 8: Okay. I don't have anything else. Okay, great. Speaker 1: Thank you. Other questions or comments from the board? Speaker 3: Just pick, is this the minimum or maximum amount of signage that has to go out here, Dan, from a regulatory point of view, Speaker 11: What was that question? I missed that. It Speaker 3: It, I'm asking if the signage is a a minimum amount. A maximum amount. What's It's a lot of signage and you know, so Speaker 11: The signage are, the signage that we're showing is,
is the typical signage, the the two, the two signs, the ahead signs aren't necessarily needed as long as the site distances are adequate. They're generally provided just to enhance the crossing so that you know that the crossing is coming up before you get to that singular sign. But it's, it's generally the standard amount. Speaker 8: The ones on at the crosswalk are back to back. They're Speaker 3: Back to back. Yeah. Speaker 8: So it looks a lot more on this than it really is. Speaker 3: Yep, agreed. Yep. They're not hawk Correct. Speaker 11: Yeah those would be back to back. So you could flashing, you can see
Speaker 3: That it's hawk, it's not a hawk design or Speaker 8: Function or RFB. No, no. These are just regular signs you're proposing Right. Speaker 3: Static, Speaker 11: Regular signs. Right. These are static signs. Yep. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 1: Well and it, it would seem to make sense because it's a new crossing and just getting people who drive through their use to the fact that there is now a crossing. Hmm, okay. Speaker 8: It being the speeds getting close to 35. You could, that is according to the F-H-H-W-A guidelines that starts kind of getting you where you can,
the RFB is a valid consideration. Yep. I've argued for some on lower speed Speaker 7: Roads because you know there's a lot of pedestrians but definitely no hawk or anything overhead but as far as the flashing signs that could be considered. Speaker 1: Good. Alright, so going forward Speaker 3: Was there anything else? I'm trying on the, on the new, I have a question the, we had a question about the, maybe you answered this last time. Wait, this wasn't on the agenda last meeting, right? Speaker 1: No. Okay. We knew no
and that was probably, it was continued to our last meeting but it had not gotten Yeah. Speaker 3: Noticed just the unit calculation and kinda the backup on that. So if that's in the works, great. If you have it tonight that'd be great. Speaker 7: I have top of my head but that's, I think we did go over that once. But essentially it's because this is, this is A RSB, it's total area minus wetland area divided by one half the zoning or 20,000 square feet Right. Gets you that 11 plus rounded to two
to 12 potential. 10% bonus under the special permit would be another 1.2 units around to 14. And we had talked a little bit about single units spreading the project out because we're well over our open space requirement, but it seemed to make more sense to do duplexes to tighten things up a little bit. And we proposed doing 16 units right Speaker 3: This board. So I thought we left it though. You were gonna have your counsel sort of write
that up, formalize Speaker 7: It, you're he does owe you that. Yep. Speaker 3: Okay, good. Yep, please. That would be, Speaker 7: I think he did it but I think it's been Speaker 3: Uploaded. Okay. Speaker 1: Actually getting the cal, the formula in calculation. Speaker 7: It's done. It's done. Did it get uploaded? Is that could be my fault. Yeah, I think the calculation and the justification 'cause rounding up twice, right? He did do it. Okay. I saw it. But whether I uploaded or not, you'll be back. Okay. Okay. Speaker 3: That's Speaker 7: All. And our next step, we wanted to make sure that we were sort of locked in on the crosswalk of the entrance location and the configuration and we're hoping to come back and the next meeting was sort of a,
a really locked in site plan, landscaping draft plan and start talking about a little bit more on the visual on how we see this, how, how it looking. We've had some conversations with all, every neighbor and some are looking for some specific things on privacy and and such. And I've talked to across the street who's been a great help because they're, they have a, they have a nice beautiful house on the corner about details and we're hoping to sort of incorporate them all into a site plan that will remain static that we can sort of work around the landscaping plan as we need to go from there.
So that would be our next step. Okay. So, Speaker 1: And I was going to ask when you started talking about this specifically of whether the privacy issues were proposed to be addressed through landscape or fencing because the idea of landscape feels far superior because so much of what people love to be preserved about that site is in the sense of the natural Speaker 7: Yeah, we don't see any fencing unless it's low decorative, not privacy wall, you know, big white vinyl fences.
We don't see that. Both the buts to the east and west. We've talked about green screens with essentially plantings. Not Speaker 1: As long as not all I variet, Speaker 7: We've talked to both of them to the right looking at the project. I just finally spoke to him last week 'cause I had talked to him about the sidewalk. He has some mature trees in there, some are in trouble. So we're talking a little bit about what makes the most sense based upon where I'm gonna place the unit and his house is. But I told him we would meet on site and figure something out which made most sense for both of us. Good. And then it's a question I think for the board,
how we, how we perceive it from Everett Street, not, not the neighbor of view, but everyone driving by the site view. What's, what's, how do we want this to look? And that's what we're gonna work on next time. Speaker 1: Okay, good. So should we set up our Speaker 7: Next date? Yeah, and I don't know, I probably need at least three weeks to get us something nice and fleshed out. I don't know where you're at meeting wise these days. Speaker 1: So our next, Speaker 6: So your next meeting is,
so, oh gosh, we're already outta September. Yeah. Speaker 1: Do we, do we have something on the sixth? Speaker 6: We have October 6th. Sixth Which is a, which is a Monday, right? We have October 22nd, November 5th. November 19th, November 6th is the only date. That's not a Wednesday. Everything else was a Wednesday. Speaker 1: Oh you mean October 6th? Speaker 6: Yeah, October 6th. October 22nd. November 5th. November 19th, sorry. Speaker 7: 22nd would be fine if that's available Speaker 1: Of October. Okay. Yeah. So, alright, so we will have the documentation from counsel on the calculations on the number of units. Yep. Talking
Speaker 7: About and I, I would hope to have a fully landscaped layout plan and a fully, we tweaked some of the units and we're gonna advance them architecturally. So we're gonna put the details on 'em. We talked a little bit about, you know, how do we come in the back of a unit but feel like you're coming in the front of a unit. So we're gonna, we've spent some time working on that unit, which we'll have at the next meeting. Speaker 1: So yeah, I think that's gonna end up being a real kind of hinge unit for the, for the complex. Okay. Because I think people have talked about how it can be perceived to feel more natural with the neighborhood.
Okay. So we want to, is there a motion to motion to continue? Continue to the 22nd. The Speaker 6: 22nd. Speaker 1: Okay. Motion made. Seconded. I'll second it. Second. Okay. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Continuation Evans. Aye. Landry Speaker 7: Aye. Cody? Aye Speaker 6: Meyer Aye. Speaker 1: Very good. Thank you very much. We'll see you on the 22nd. Speaker 12: Did you see that half? Speaker 6: Yeah, I we, that's why we were running a little league. Another one too Speaker 7: Because if I got it it means everyone get a special Speaker 6: Permit guide. I just sent it to like every single person. But yeah, Brian got that Speaker 7: $5,000 wire transfer from NA
for our special permit filing. Yeah. So it wasn't from her. Speaker 1: Isn't isn't it amazing what scams, how how refined scams seriously. And then our Speaker 12: Attorney went after a customer for a deposit on the house. Oh wow. God. Using both. It was Speaker 1: Terrifying. Speaker 6: Oh yeah. No I was in a meeting and your name on it. I was in a meeting when you guys called and they were like did you send, I was like I no I, no I didn't like thank you for checking Speaker 12: Usa.com. That doesn't seem right. Speaker 6: Thank you for checking on that. Speaker 1: Alright then moving on to our town meeting zoning articles, mu much discussed
and we're finally getting everything locked in. Yeah. Do you wanna take them in the order? Well Speaker 6: That's what I was gonna ask. We do have people, so for 20, 21, 22, 25 we 23 we do not have anyone here for but there are people here Yes. For 29. So I don't know if you wanna take 29 first. Speaker 1: I think that would be great. Speaker 6: Okay, great. So we'll do signs first and then Speaker 1: Heather they're welcome. Speaker 6: There's four here and this is what's in the packet here for tonight. And Andy this is in the packet under,
I think it's 2025 meeting and this is for 29. Speaker 1: Okay. So there's, and that's also the agenda. Speaker 6: Alright. Speaker 1: Alright. Speaker 6: Would you like me to start or do you wanna go Speaker 1: Since and it it's because we are not the applicant as we as we often are from many of the articles, you'll drive this to a degree in terms of telling us what's, what's changed and developed since I guess the last time we
had a discussion on Speaker 13: Well we thank you. My name is Heather Rockwood and we did take all of your comments to heart and we came back together and made some changes which Amanda drafted. One of which is you can see that the definitions are right up front so that we have the definitions before we even get into the zoning bylaw. So that's very helpful and I think I will let Amanda point out the rest of them 'cause I know she knows this front words and backwards. Speaker 6: Okay so in this I think we had a really good conversation
as much as the conversation was kind of jumps in, jumped around and kind of went a little bit in different directions than we expected but we never put out a bylaw and expecting it to come back the same way that we put it out. So with that being said, as Heather had mentioned, we did take and update all of these definitions and in looking at the actual existing sign bylaw, you will find that there's not a lot of definitions. So we did create a lot of 'em. It is with the intent that if we in the future
actually update the signed bylaw that these definitions will carry through for other parts of the town. So we don't have to keep recreating definition after definition. In that being said, if you will look at the very first part, so what we did was we put the process in the back to actually highlight what is and is not a in the procedures. So I'm just gonna pull this up quick. And this is in your packet and this is also in the paper that was just provided. So in this what we are looking at is this is only focused on the downtown mixed use and the center gateway. And so we always have to remember center gateway is much
different than the dm. So we have different sections or different types of signage. The different types of signage are outlined in a table to make it as easy to read as possible. Each one of these types of sign is defined within section 200 that will be alphabetical based on sign. So this is basically telling you what is and is not allowed if it is allowed by Right. And when we say allowed by right, it still requires the creation of a sign box and then it will always require a building permit when signs do change. So with that being said, we went down, looked at all
of these and looked at 'em a little bit more in detail. There was a couple that we realized the terminology was just, we meant we were saying one thing, someone else was saying something else but we actually meant the same thing. Example would be freestanding stein and monument sign, freestanding sign. We just meant that it was standing by itself but then it was understood after, you know what that probably meant more of like what you see at McDonald's. The big huge pie law sign. That's not what we intended. The monument sign is what we see at actually Trask at 99 East Central Street anthology or the Natick community senior center.
However, with that we are only limiting it into certain places. Continuing on, we then looked at the dimensions. These are the dimensions and so what we did was identify a square footage but then we in this existing bylaw carried over if there was a certain height of letter which also helps the building commissioner because that was one thing that he said was extremely helpful with the wall-mounted sign specifically was it's a two, if you have a primary it's two foot max letter height or one foot, which is what the existing is one foot for the secondary.
So we did look at both of those. Then we continued down, we moved everything together. One item that should be noted is the sidewalk sign. It is also, so we did define it, it's also known as an A-frame sign or a sandwich board. It's whatever you decide to call it. But in this we're calling it a sidewalk sign and you'll see two asterisks and we don't like to put footnotes and everything, but this is one that you did need it. It's 27 inches wide, 46 inches tall. And if you go down to the asterisk, you'll note that that includes the usable face where you actually write on, it includes the legs or the stand, the frame
and also the hardware so that it kind of cannot be, you know, a small sign on a five foot tall SI legs. And then we'll get into more of that in a short bit. Continuing down, this is specifically for when something is attached but projecting, we wanted to make sure that everything was kind of consistent with what we already have. Like a, a wall mounted sign can only be six inches from the face of the facade and it has to have a certain height. The same thing with the projecting hanging sign and the blade signs because if everyone remembers correctly
with the blade signs and the projecting hanging signs, they are gonna be over the public sidewalk or a way that snow removal activity. So they have to be a certain height from the ground to the bottom of the side to ensure that a snowplow or someone can get through continuing down. Then we have sign requirements. These sign requirements are specific to again the DM and the center gateway, but making sure that is consistent with what Natick Center, the merchants we're looking for and also what Natick Center wants moving forward.
And so we didn't want interchangeable letters. We want like internal, not internal illumination and also moving parts. The only exception was the barber poles and the clocks because those are standard in downtowns and they also have moving parts. We talked about the first floor. And then we also, if you continue down Wall mountain sign has specific requirements as does awning signs and with awning signs it can only be located either on the slope or the vertical portion. It would not be if the awning stuck straight out and then comes up, which is typical
what you see in like New York City, like in the theater district, but this is not what we're going for. And then you cannot put the name or logo or address on the sides of the awning. It could only be on the front side. Sidewalk sides, there are specifics. There's only one permitted per building establishment. The multi, the multi, oh God I should say multi. Yeah business building owner can only, they can actually get a sidewalk sign but it can only be one per publicly accessible entrance. So if you have five doors on one side,
you're only getting the ones that are open with a maximum of four. So you cannot exceed that. Then we have details regarding the monument side. For right now the building commissioner did not want monument signs in the downtown mixed use district. So it is allowed in the center gateway, which are where we actually see the monument signs. We did also include a little bit more detail in terms of sign maintenance because we wanna make sure that they are in good repair. They don't fall, well definitely not falling off, especially if we're having projecting signs. But then they also represent Natick and wanting people to come down to Natick center.
So in terms of the permitting procedures, definitely heard what everyone was saying. So now we have basically permanent and temporary. So in terms of permanent signage, the planning board will be the authority for creating the sign box. The sign box does not include the actual sign. It creates the box on the building, whether that be the wall-mounted sign, where the blade sign goes, the projecting hanging sign, goads, you're putting the location of where those will be specifically stuck to the wall. If they decide later that hey we have this square box
and we want a rectangle, but it still complies with the bylaw in terms of dimensions, they do have to come back to the planning board to get the REISE sign box. Now if the A, if the applicant decides well I need a 50 foot sign and the town only allows a 20 foot sign hypothetical numbers, they would then come to the planning board for a special permit. You would be the special permitting authority to determine whether yes it can go forward. No it can't in moving that forward. Did meet with the DRB last night and the only thing they said if it was a special permit they
would like to be just a permit con advisory to the board. And that seemed like pretty consistent with what we were doing. They would also be advisory to you in this if it was a new building permit. Once you have established the sign box, then it would go to the building department to get the sign building permit for the signage and then it would be installed. They can remove and replace just like they can today. As long as it's within the sign box. Temporary signage that actually goes to the select board because that would be on an annual basis making sure that there is an annual agreement with the sandwich boards
or flags or I think those are the only two ones we were allowing that there's an annual agreement and with that agreement it would be where that sign can be located contingent conditions on hey, if it's like X kind of weather it needs to be pulled out. It also allows them to enforce it a little bit better and also remind the users of the signboard you need to comply or you're not getting another one next year. So then public signage, this is the one we talked about. This is a little bit different. This is, we would expect to be more
of a collaborative approach, but public signage is wayfinding signage owned by the town. So whether that be directional signs like tecans here, but we wanna make sure that the police, fire, DPW, all those guys review this to make sure that since it's not attached to a building, it doesn't have a specific owner of it that it actually has to make, it does not block lines of sight, create accidents cause causing pedestrian issues. So then you can just see what we did delete, which we try
to pull into the first part but expand based on the needs of the community and then also the needs of the merchants. So I don't know if there was anything that anyone saw. We did have, like I said the DRB talked about this last night and they just asked to be in part of the review. Caris has reviewed this, she made a couple tweaks, we made those today it was more about making sure that we were compliant with a state statute, which is content. We cannot prohibit certain things. So we removed prohibiting other things. So it was fine.
And then the building commissioner has reviewed this as well and also the sponsor, I have to hope So I don't know if you want, if you have any details you were providing, if you've talked with anybody. Speaker 13: The only comment I would like to make is that, although we love to hear that you really wanted a-frames and flags, we also want to point out that second and third floor businesses are also businesses that we would really like to have signs outside for. So that's really important to the Natick Center Associates
to really advocate for those businesses as well. Speaker 1: Thank you Amanda. Just for clarity, at the beginning of your remarks you had said, well of course you know Center Gateway is very different from downtown, from from dm. And I just wondered for those following along at home and even us to to what are the notable differences in that? Because I don't think that's instantly clear to a lot of people. Yeah, Speaker 6: So what the idea is, is was the center gateway was created to be a transition from less dense to a high density,
which is what ick center is. And so the setbacks are actually different. So in a center gateway you have a little bit more of a setback area, which is why we were saying monument signs would be more common in the center gateway, which is why we were allowing it in there. And then where you could down to the DM or Natick Center, there's typically not a front setback or there's a lot of different businesses within there and the monument sign was not specifically to be advertising all the different businesses. It was specific specifically for like one
or naming like if it was like the block or something of that nature. So that was the reason why. But the center gateway is less dense serving as a transition, but it is a little bit more setback and just the layout compared to when you get to Natick center and the high density. Speaker 1: Okay, great, thank you. Questions or comments from board members? Speaker 14: A couple thoughts. The sidewalk signs we probably would be well to document what kind of required clearance the sidewalk has. The sidewalks vary the distance from the building
to the curb varies trees, everything else. And I'm pretty sure we've got a code that would indicate required clearance on a public sidewalk. Speaker 8: Yeah. So we could either quote a DA or pro A or we can give them to match Speaker 14: It, quote something that we want to use to document it. So there's a consistency there and we don't have any problems that would go along also with actually saying in the temporary sign location that it can't be too far away from the building and there any, it should be up against the building,
otherwise we're gonna have in the sidewalk somewhere on one side of the sidewalk or the other side of the sidewalk. Maybe the clearance is still there. Hmm. Speaker 1: Yeah. Was was there not language that that was talked about? About like something like three and a half feet? Yeah, Speaker 8: Well minimum would be three, but I think we, maybe we would say four feet, but I think maybe if we just from Speaker 14: What Speaker 8: A pedestrian path that we need to have a pedestrian pathway of four feet to around by the side left, left over. Got it. Because I mean in, in a way it might depend on the location. Some areas it might be better to have it against building some areas. Maybe you have a tree belt, it might be better to have it on the other side. If
Speaker 14: We document the required clearance, we've probably answered, yeah, that problem of it being anywhere Speaker 1: I thought we had. Speaker 6: So what we did was, because the sidewalk varies in area, we did say sidewalk signs displayed on the public sideway are prohibited from encroaching into the walkway of the sidewalk or interfering with pedestrian tr travel in any way. Yeah, Speaker 14: I would suggest that we d we put a dimension in there that what somebody might consider it shouldn't encroach on. We know it can't encroach on.
So put a dimension in there if we go, if we're gonna require five feet or whatever, let's put a dimension in there. Otherwise it's, it's somewhat ambiguous. Yeah, Speaker 8: I mean I kind of, I was wondering about even just saying encroaching, I was concerned about how the line that said encroaching into the walkway of the sidewalk just because of the vagueness. Okay. Yeah, so I, I think that maybe, maybe we could have it read sidewalk sciences pled public sidewalk prohibited from interfering with pedestrian travel and in way Yeah something like a minimum of four foot pathway shall be provided. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Kind of a clear path, a clear, Speaker 14: I think we four foot clear pathway, I think we have to have that dimension in there. Speaker 8: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So do the second sentence, minimum four foot path shall be required just to get, 'cause otherwise what some person thinks putting up the sign you might say think one thing versus, you know, a town of Fisher might think another thing and we don't want to be trying to define these on at the sidewalk, Speaker 6: So I just wanna read this so we can make sure, so we could have a minimum of four foot pedestrian pathway shall be main at all times. Yeah,
Speaker 8: That sounds good. Speaker 6: And is it, is that the correct term though? Pedestrian pathway? Yeah. Speaker 8: Yeah. Speaker 14: Okay. Yeah, Speaker 1: Thank you. I just, I, it felt very indeterminate by saying, are you encroaching? What mean, what does that mean? Well Speaker 14: That's, that's the whole reason putting the number in the sign box, that's probably one of the most significant facets of this whole thing in terms of the location, the sign is the sign box. I, I think maybe I've been misunderstood. I would like to see some consistency
in this signage in town. I don't mean every sign's gonna look alike. However, the consistency I think is important is what I've mentioned as an example is the corner of West Central in Maine and that's the card store, paper fiesta rather. And the jeweler and the frame store, they're all, the signed box is almost defined by the architecture in that case, very clearly defined by the architecture. Other buildings like the box, it may not be quite that much.
However, somehow per building we have consistently, we have a consistency in the location of the sign box. It can be this long or this long, but it might be limited in its length or its height by the, the design that the location of the box on the building. And within that box, that's where we get our flexibility. We get our design, we get our creativity because we're not telling anybody what the, the narrative should be in there to a great extent.
So let that be the colors, anything else, but there's a consistency in the location and I think that's very important and I think we get a feel for that. The Clark bark again has already prepared us for that and in most cases I think we've stuck with it. But I don't see anything in here that specifically says that per building multiple use, the sign block box is going to be consistent with every store. Not the size necessarily. Well the location of the box, it's gonna be determined. Probably the height will be fixed, but,
but the location might not be, I mean the, I'm sorry, the length might Speaker 6: Not, and that's actually the reason why the planning board was reviewing its location because then when you actually are reviewing it, you would see the proximity of the other locations and you would be establishing it. So there might be some deviation, but that's why the planning board actually reviewing and approving the sign box location, you're tweaking it to fit Speaker 14: Well. I'm suggesting that we don't leave it to the variation.
There might be some some variation. I'm seeing that saying that something's probably the top and the bottom of the sign box is consistent in any given building and somewhere it should be defined. When that building, when we start looking at signage on that building, if the architect hasn't actually located, somehow we've gotta figure out what the consistency it'd be. Otherwise we might have here, there and everywhere. As you look down the elevation of one, one building and it's a half a dozen different stores.
Speaker 6: So if you actually go to page four of the document, right at the top, permanent signage, installation guidance to eight in the positioning of the permanent signage, the following guidance shall be followed. And it says wall mounted sign six inches, projecting the distance from the ground to the bottom of the sign is a minimum of 10 feet. The distance from the ground to the top of the sign, it's not applicable, but the signage, the spacing from the top of the sign to the top of the building or bottom of the second floor windows has to be a minimum of three feet. And then spacing from the edge of the sign to the edge
of the individual business establishment has to be two feet. So it was trying to help hone those in to give them guidance. But again, the plenty board would be looking at it as a whole because some buildings, just because of their nature of their archite, they change even though they're extremely long. Sometimes you see as you know, the center is that grand architecture while the rest of the building kind of spans out. I don't know if I, I'm not using my architecture words. Speaker 14: No, I, I watch the hands and the, Speaker 6: You got, you got the art deco kind of thing. The message thing.
Speaker 14: I think, well all, I just have some consistency. I'm not going to be very happy, I won't be very happy for whatever that counts to see signs where there, if you look down this, this building the elevation of this building and you see some up, some down tops and bottoms. I mean, yeah, the whole block, the box around should be consistent, probably top and bottom, more than anything. The 10 feet up from the, from the ground as a minimum that may possibly have to do
with the design of the building. And so, you know, I'm not sure why the 10 feet is there 'cause it's, it's only six inches off the wall, so it's not gonna interfere with traffic. I don't, I don't see how, so I'm just looking for some consistency there. Speaker 1: Well, and, and I'm assuming that in many instances, and probably Clark's block is one, you have the kind of that coherence and consistency, the desire of the property owner because they're looking for something that feels attractive and and coherent.
And I kind of imagine they're the best advocate for that. About a thousand years ago when I first started getting involved in kind of Natick Civics, I, I was, Steve Evers and I were on, there was a grant that a, the predecessor name of kind of Natick Center Associates, and they got a grant for facade improvements, sign and facade improvements. Relatively few of them are left now because the businesses have turned over.
But it was a wonderful thing to see this kind of collective opportunity to kind of fine tune the face of the face of downtown business. And it seems like this gives a framework, there are grant opportunities that can then be applied. And I imagine a, a stable, coherent signed by law makes for more attractive applicants for grants than going forward. Speaker 14: I think it has to do with the look of the whole town. Sorry, Speaker 1: Can I apologize. I, I didn't mean to kind of No, that's alright. Jump Speaker 14: The line.
I hesitate, I heard at the beginning to leave it to the different, to the building owners that they're going to be Yeah, no, I I would not, I would not be very, Speaker 9: Excuse me. Peter, did you happen to click your microphone off? I, I am not picking up on what you're saying. Speaker 14: No, it's, oh, can I turn it off and off, off? It was off. Switch it. I'm terribly sorry. Switch you the other one. Yeah, Speaker 15: You go. Yeah, Speaker 14: That's better. Thank you. I, I think, yeah, no, that wasn't what I was, it's just, just leaving it to someone who's there today
and it might be not there tomorrow. And then the, the, the last, oh, how do we define the upper level establishments? We've got some that have frontage and probably some that we don't have any frontage. Speaker 6: So we, we actually established there anything that's not on the first floor is a non-first floor individual business establishment. And so one of the big things with this bylaw compared to what's looking now is like one south main street was
allowed to have first floor and second floor sign boxes. And underneath this bylaw only the first floor would be able to have a sign box. There is a directory. We made sure that that was in this as well, but it was just, it's not precedent to have a sign box for second floor establishments. Speaker 14: Absolutely. I, I agree with that. And the directory is the direction I was heading because I don't think you can have for the variety of types of functions up there and their specific locations, you really, I don't see
how you deal it with that, with anything but a directory, something at the primary entry or entries of the building. The means in which you get up to that per that establishment. Yep. So I, I'm, I think I don't see that defined It almost. I think as I read this the first time, it might have been that it, Speaker 6: It's right in section 200, a directory wall sign, a sign that is located on the exterior wall next to a publicly accessible entrance that is installed and maintained by the multi-tenant building owner to identify commercial businesses
and their location within the building. Front Speaker 13: Page. The front page. Speaker 6: We wanted to make sure that that was exterior because if it's an interior directory sign, you don't always know and you don't need a, you don't need this kind of permit for it. So we wanted to make sure it was exterior to the publicly accessible doors. Speaker 14: Absolutely. Yeah. And that, that will be the only place outside that the tenants and the upper levels will be located. The, we will have a sign, Speaker 13: Blade sign and then window signs. Speaker 14: Blade signs and window signs. Yeah.
Speaker 13: Establish sign establishment window. Speaker 14: Okay. I I, the window signs, I don't know, I, I'm seeing around town, we, we have no control. I guess o of the, let's say the, the mall this, 'cause there's a huge window sign facing SP street. I guess it is for the, what's the, I know the, I know the sign unit. Oh, where Sears was the upstairs there and it's a window sign. It's an enormous, I think it's kind of gruesome,
but that, that's, we have no apparently no no say in that. But I wouldn't want something like that to happen here. Now I know we've qualified, we on window signs to some extent, but, Speaker 6: So in terms of the window signs, we've gone back and forth with this one. And so it would actually be window establishment for the first floor it was 12 square feet. But then on the upper floors it was 50% of the window area. But I think we actually changed that to 50% of the total window area. So it was just, the maximum that you could do was 50%.
So some windows where it's completely covered that has actual signage that would be not compliant, but you could do 50% of the total window area. Speaker 14: Alright. Speaker 8: But no products. Speaker 6: It was more of like, oops. Oh shoot products. What do you mean? Speaker 8: So I was through a neighboring town, not Natick, and you can see a whole bunch of, in the windows, it's Coors Light, this duh, you know, and advertise. I think it's important to not allow that because it really looks, Speaker 6: I think we removed the allowing of advertisement.
Lemme just double check before I speak on that. But if you go down to somewhere like the bagel table or Cecilia's or something like that. They have like bagels like logo bagels. Yeah. That are not, Speaker 3: I mean I'm looking at Debon sign here for example. It's Deon's, we don't know where that is. Right? But it has Benjamin Moore, it's got a, it's got a product logo with it. How does that fit? And Speaker 1: Usually 'cause they help pay for the, they get paid Speaker 3: For the sign. What, what's our opinion about that? Speaker 14: Well it's a, it's a real tough one, but it can be ugly as sin as far as, that's
Speaker 8: Almost a spot that's almost a sponsorship type, Speaker 14: Right? Speaker 6: It's not a sponsorship. It's actually you could remove Debon because Benjamin Moore is the franchise and Debon is actually just the individual name of it. I only know this because my dad owned Benjamin Moore. So not the actual whole thing, but the Benjamin Moore is the store and your name is just the ad. Speaker 3: That's a tricky one. That's a tricky one. But Amanda, how mu Sorry Peter, you No, go ahead. Go ahead. So how much of this is sort of model bylaw stuff?
Speaker 6: So in terms of model bylaw, there is, it's signage. Signage is unique for every community. Signage is one of those things in terms of compliance with federal law in terms of content, we've made sure of that. We have looked at other communities that are, communities that we have identified that we want have like, that are good examples of what you would like to see those communities include. Concord, Brookline, Salem, Wellesley. Why am I trying Newburyport?
We also looked at Portmouth, New Hampshire, Portland, Maine, Burlington, Vermont. What were the other ones? Morgan, do you remember? Saratoga Springs. Saratoga Springs. Speaker 3: That's a And then Speaker 6: Also, also that's a good sample. And also Somerville who also did it. So we were looking at what they did in terms of certain things. And I have to say some communities did certain ways, other communities did it differently. And so what we did was looked at what they had and then made it how Natick wanted it and also what the business needed. Because I don't, you weren't here at the last meeting, Doug, so I don't know if you were if reviewed it, but Heather had some really like unique numbers
regarding the different types of signage and like how people it drives people in. So we were really trying to make sure we had those, but we also didn't wanna restrict. Yeah. 'cause there is a lot of creativity. Like Tecan, they've got those cool banners that come out. Yeah, they have other different, Speaker 3: They, you know, the sandwich board, you know? Speaker 6: Yeah. And then it's also like we get that the second floor and up, no one knows they're there. Part of that's lack of directory sign. But then also we don't wanna see a bunch of signs on a door and it clutters that causes an access issue
because you can't see if people are coming down. So if we allow the building owner to own the sandwich, board sign or the sidewalk sign, they can tell people who's up or down. So we were trying to cover everything while creating natick's uniqueness, if that makes any sense. Speaker 3: No, that's, yep. What is, what will be the effect of this board's volume on a public hearings with this? Speaker 6: So the idea is that hopefully, if anything, a lot of these will be, so it should not increase the volume
of the planning board's review in the sense of any new building that is coming into the downtown or center gateway is already under site plan review. So you would do this as part of that initial review, just like you did with one South Maine and then, gosh, the project right next to the tavern, you already established those building signs when you did the site plan review. Native crossing, native corner, native corner. That's what it was. Yeah. So in terms of that, and like we know that there's quite a few more new buildings that will be Eric expected to come along. So that would be part of just streamlining that review.
It would be also hopeful that you would take and look at like the Clark Clark's block and almost like do an independent review of, okay, here are their building block or their sign blocks, this is what they're using today. You're approved to go forward with that tomorrow. So I don't see a significant increase in the volume of work other than the projects that are gonna be coming in Speaker 3: That will come forward. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 6: And again, this, the reason why we wanted this sidewalk signs to go to the select board was because one, that's gonna be an annual thing. It can't be a once and done because landowners change
Speaker 3: On the sidewalk sign. You said the hardware would be included in the hinges. Would the hinges would the braces, I mean I, let's not get crazy with it, but Yeah. Speaker 6: Well the only reason why I said hardware was because in some of the A-frame signs, it's a lot of piping and then they have like two pieces of chain that hold the sign. So it was just making sure you really don't need to have hardware. It was more of just, it, it sounded caught. Everything. You're gonna move hardly. It's, it's really the frame.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 6: And the legs and the, Speaker 14: Yeah, we don't want to sign. Have you seen any way up any other mechanisms to do what the A-frame does? The sidewalk sign does? It's mounted very differently. It's just heavy weight, more or less at the side, right down on the ground and a pole. And then things are secured to a single pole. I mean it's, it's just we, we could get, one of the things that's pointing out to me 'cause I've seen them, is that there are other ways of doing things. We start talking sidewalk sign that very specific about hardware. What is the hardware on us? They may not even use it.
And then what do, there's some gotta be something allowed there for various. Would a the sign box location be something that this board would look at in in reviewing, in reviewing a new proposed building? Speaker 6: What, sorry? What Speaker 14: Would the sign box location. Yeah. A sign box location for building be something that we would look at and ask for it to be defined. Yes. In the architectural, in the presentation of the Speaker 6: Absolutely. Yep. And that was something that it was also, so it's our
Speaker 14: Peer view Speaker 6: We're talking with under, Speaker 3: Under the sign. It would not, not site plan, night site planning. Okay. The signed by large, correct. Yeah. Correct. Speaker 14: That that is a part of, yes. Maybe that's something that is in the initial part of it that sign boxing is to be, is a part of the review process of the sign. Something that's not in here. Now Speaker 3: I have one more comment and a quick question. So in, in all of those communities you scanned any of them non zoning bylaws, non zoning signed bylaws? Yes. Speaker 6: Yes. That is correct.
There was quite a few that were in the general bylaws or they were in the zoning bylaws. But at this time, since ours is in the zoning bylaw and we've had a, there's a request to allow four sidewalk signs and other signage, we figured let's get this in here and then hopefully at the different town meeting we would actually take and move it out of the Speaker 3: General. General. Yeah. Okay. And last comment would be, you know, I think it'd be helpful aside, and I'm not suggesting this gets embedded into the bylaw itself, but you know, maybe there's a design guideline
or some brochure or something Speaker 1: Kind of helpful, Speaker 3: Helpful, you know, helpful design guidelines that illustrate what we're talking about. So Speaker 6: The ultimate goal, if everything works the way it would work is that actually having Natick Center Associates be that point of contact to help with the actual design so that we're not getting involved in content per se. But since they have gone, a couple of 'em have gone through the whole sign review before that they would help guide that
and then they would build upon the design guidelines that have already been established to actually formalize those to move 'em forward. 'cause there are, it's like a 20 something page page document where it doesn't fit into zoning. It fits into actual design guidelines. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And to be able to hand that to an owner. But also the same thing is like with talking with A DRB and hopefully I don't misrepresent this, is they're gonna request a checklist of all the items which Peter usually asks for as well. Putting that up front. So it's gonna be built into, 'cause we're gonna do an overhaul of the open gov, putting
that as part of the site plan review. So this, for the sign boxes would be a checkoff like architectural rendering, showing locations or site plan, showing sign box locations. So it helps streamline that. 'cause the goal is to streamline while creating a thorough review, Speaker 1: But terrific to have Nat Center Associates as a partner and a guide. Yes. Speaker 13: As a kind of a, it's, yeah, a handshake at the beginning when a new business comes into town to help them along with their process so that when they do get to the town, it's more of a Yes, everything is ready to go. Speaker 1: No, that's great. Yeah, Speaker 6: There is, just so you remember, there's a hand
Speaker 1: Raised in the public. Yeah, actually no, I had not seen it. Oh, oh, because I was sharing. Alright. Speaker 16: Brinley Vickers. Speaker 1: Oh, Brinley. Okay. If you unmute yourself, what do you have to say? Hi Speaker 17: B Brinley Vickers Precinct eight Town meeting member. Thank you for allowing me to speak again. I just, I know I brought this up last time we were having this conversation. I just feel compelled to bring it up again. I'm really loving the partnership with the native cultural district.
I just wanna make sure that when we're doing this, we're really not being so restrictive with every aspect of the sign that we're losing creativity. I really, as a consumer, especially if I go to a new town, I'm, I'm really appreciative of being able to see the creativity that store owners have in their own signs. And so I just wanna make sure that we we're really not trying to be too restrictive in the sense of allowing for creativity. I I, I get the conversation about wanting the bottom heights
the same and the top heights the same, but maybe it could just be the bottom heights and not the top heights. Or maybe, maybe there's some way to have allowance in there for some creativity so that everything doesn't look exactly the same because no stores are exactly the same. And I really do think it's important as we're trying to cultivate businesses to come here, that they don't have a sense of not being allowed to have the spirit of their store in their sign. That's all. And thank you very much. Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. And Heather, I, I would turn to you since this is kind of your organization's
voice in this, and I can look at it and say, no, I see this as anything, but, and anything that would either over regulate or stifle. But you can, you may have other, other points to make Speaker 13: As Speaker 1: The sponsor. Speaker 13: I do think that the creation of the sign box will create those dimensional restrictions, but I think that, you know, color text and, and images like Bailey B has a b on their sign. So creativity can happen within a dimension limitation. Absolutely. So I, I think having, having a sign box
and a dimension limitation is fine because of aesthetics, but I think that business people will be very creative within those dimensions. Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. Good. And I see Paul Joseph has his hand raised. Speaker 16: Thank you. Madam Chair. Can you hear me okay? Speaker 1: Just fine. Speaker 16: Great. Good evening planning board. Paul Joseph, I currently chair the economic development committee, but I'm not speaking on their behalf. We, we will actually have this as a potential for endorsement next week at our monthly meeting. So as a body, we've not discussed this at all, but I will say I've participated in this working group
as a business owner, as a second story business owner. And I do wanna kind of, kind of echo what Ms. Vickers said. And I think the response you just had was, was perfect. I think the concept of the sign box was to allow the phrase that I've been sort of mentally kicking around, it's contrived creativity. It's like, yeah, yeah, you want, you want the box, but you want out of the box thinking within it. So I, I think your goals, design goals will be achieved. The look and feel. Everyone wants the same kind of, what I'll say consistency without smothering flare. So I, I I think this achieves that. One of the concerns I had at the last meeting was,
and I couldn't really articulate it as well, but the, just to understand, we've had multiple business owners participating in these discussions. So the concept of how big should the A-frame sign be, what do we really need in terms of visibility for signage and the, like, a lot of that has been baked in here. So, you know, I I, as an individual business owner, I, I encourage your support of this article because I do think it, it speaks well. Is it perfect? No, but I think it makes progress without doing harm. I also think it, it addresses some concerns that many business owners have coming into, you know, the next few years with new businesses coming online,
uncertainty in the economy, and then eventually the main street construction project going on. I think things we can do to enhance visibility and attract attractability to our Natick center is critical as a second story business owner. I do think it's important to look at the whole proposal here as opposed to just the temporary signage one, because there are disadvantages we do have that are not at site level. I used to have a first story business, which many of you know, I had to close this summer. Finally, I guess I just, I I heard the conversation earlier about minimum clear path and the like, remind me please.
The a DA required minimum. Is that defined? Speaker 8: Yeah, so for a DA for a roadway, you need to have a minimum of four foot. Technically you can right now to fi two, three feet around an obstruction, but you're just good to not go that, that narrow. Right. And, Speaker 16: And gi and given that, I, I think as a former select board member, and having been involved as the interim executive director of the cultural district, we had to put a provision in place for temporary passage on Adam Street with regard to dumpsters and, and food bins around that
sidewalk did not obstruct the sidewalk there. I think I, I appreciate the, the discussion that you had about putting at least four feet or having some kind of firm dimension, but just in terms of writing a clean bylaw, I would recommend just use the legal language that cites the a DA requirements. The select board must comply with that. And this is an annually reviewed and behavior based decision. So I think the provision of allowing the elected officials to do their jobs responsibly will do that without necessarily prescribing four feet. Because I, I, one of you made the point in some cases,
given the way that the sidewalk is engineered with boxes for trees and benches and other things that are fixed in the sidewalk, there might be a situation where the, the A-frame needs to be away from the building. So by being too prescriptive, I think we create situations that become confusing for enforcement, but all of those issues would be addressed on an annual basis when they go for review to the select board. So thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Alright, so this, this it leaves us are, are we taking up
that, that language or modification of language regarding how kind of four feet or less, I'm just trying to figure out if we, we, we want to vote on the motion and I just wanted to make sure that what that we have in hand the motion we want Speaker 6: So we can incor I've incorporated what Alan had stated, so we had that in there. Speaker 1: Good. Speaker 6: So I don't know if Speaker 8: I, I think I would lean towards having in a dimension
because the person putting out the sign, like, as opposed to just referencing the aada, A person putting out the sign doesn't necessarily familiar with the ada. A I mean it's true they requirement can change over the years too. But it's a, I mean we're, we're gonna say minimum, you know, we we're not gonna say exactly where the pedestrian pathway needs to be because it could be different locations depends on trees, benches, what have you, of course. Speaker 1: But, but, but broadly speaking, what we are proposing to, to vote on as a motion includes that, that language what,
what we're trying to say. Yep. Okay. And then want that to slip away. Yep. Speaker 3: The gentleman on the back wants to say something, Speaker 1: They're delicious. Come on down. Delicious. Speaker 6: I don't see any more feeling podium. Speaker 1: Oh, and hello again. Have Speaker 18: To feel Hello. Andrew Driscoll, co-owner of Licious Chocolates in furtherance of the discussion that we're having right now. Something that was mentioned immediately as far as the forefoot requirement and, and a follow up to something that Paul had said.
There's, there's a tree box immediately outside the entryway to 11 South Main Street. There's several businesses upstairs that would be disadvantaged by not having some type of signage, particularly temporary signage. So instead of a hard and fast number, say four feet, maybe if the language could include, if this would be acceptable to the board, if the language could be sum to the, to the effect of whatever current EDA requirements are for acceptable passage
on a sidewalk, it would allow for upper floor businesses to utilize temporary signage without running a foul of that hard and fast forefoot recommendation. Speaker 1: And Speaker 14: I was un Speaker 1: Al What's that? Speaker 14: Were you gonna say something? Speaker 1: No, go ahead. Speaker 14: I was unaware of the fact that the select board would be reviewing these things with regard to a DA and if that's the case, then I think we've gotta have some reference in there
to the a DA requirements and let it be the responsibility of the just one of one additional bit of information we give the, the new tenant or the tenant and they're responsible to follow it. And if they don't follow the a DA, well then we'll pick that up maybe in a review we ask has this followed the a DA requirements for this area and let it be at that. But if, if the select board is required to follow that, then I think it behooves us to include some reference to that. And it, by the sounds of what Paul said, it will include
various situations that we have. You like what you're citing? Speaker 18: Well, so a a four foot rule for businesses that are gonna be on the up upper levels of 11 South Maine, that would disadvantage them in that there, there wouldn't be a place for them to put a sign necessarily tight to building and allowing that forefoot. So they may have to consider an alternative location for temporary signage. Speaker 8: A absolutely. If the sidewalk is not wide enough to have a, the sign board and have people get by it, then they won't be able to have a sign board.
I mean, we can't have Right. People who can't get by the sidewalk. Speaker 13: Right now, our special dispensation, one of the requirements we've been given is to have the sign directly next to the building with no other kind of allowances for away from the building. Speaker 8: Okay. So for instance, like in where the chocolate place is right now, being the tree belt, probably the best location for it would be in the tree belt. Yes. Because the where's the real pedestrian pathway is It's totally obstructed. Yeah, exactly. You got trees, you got parking meters, what have you.
Yes. That would be the best spot for the signboard because you're gonna have a nice clear path next to the building. But it's not the same everywhere. Right. So Exactly. Yes. But are Speaker 14: We saying that we would not, we just wouldn't put the forefoot in there if, if a DA is a requirement. Speaker 8: Yeah, I think it's just a, a concern is, is too, is everybody familiar with the requirements of the A DA? I mean, but Speaker 3: I hear you. I mean, Speaker 8: These aren't people building a building. Understand They're putting up with their sign. Speaker 3: Understand. In the design guidelines though, you know, you tell 'em it's four feet.
I mean that if the, if the a DA says it's four feet Speaker 8: Yeah. Speaker 3: They'll know it Speaker 8: Can't have people in wheelchairs can't not be able to come by on sidewalk. No no's Speaker 3: Be a DA, it's gotta be aada a compliant. Yeah. The whole time. So, you know, so Speaker 8: There's some sidewalks that are six feet wide. You won't be able to put a signboard if it's too narrow like that right. Speaker 14: Now, does that negate the four feet that we were talking about Speaker 3: Earlier? I would say I would. Yes. Yes, I would think so. I would go with the ada a reference I under, I I appreciate, I appreciate what Alan's saying to make it, you know, someone will reads the bylaw, they understand what they gotta do. Yeah. Versus going and seeing another reference document. Speaker 14: Well, Speaker 3: It's like, you know,
Speaker 14: Drawings that have to be building code, you've got Speaker 1: Code, you have to know what the building code is. Speaker 8: That's, I mean, if we reference it too, if they change whenever they change the next version of the a DA, we won't have to bother changing our, if did change, we wouldn't have to change our bylaw, I suppose. Right. Speaker 1: And, and so realizing that we have other articles to go through this evening, but just to say, so if what we are saying that we support or that we would would recommend favorable action on it, is the language has described referencing
a DA requirement. Yeah. Speaker 8: So I think the second sentence, rather than saying minimum or can Speaker 6: We, can we just clean it all up and just say, sidewalk signs displayed on the public sidewalk shall be placed in compliance with a DA that Speaker 1: Works. Like Speaker 6: Rather than having maneuvering everything Speaker 1: That works Speaker 6: Straight, simple. Yeah. Speaker 1: So somebody disability. So I can make a motion. Speaker 6: I'll spell out, Speaker 1: Spell out favorable action, put Speaker 6: The ada Speaker 1: Sure. On the, on the article with that language. Speaker 3: Yeah. So, so moved, I mean, moved to recommend favorable action on article Speaker 1: 29 29 Speaker 3: With reflecting the conversation
and discussion we just had here around 88 88. Compliance with sidewalk signs. Speaker 8: I'll second it. Speaker 1: Okay. Made and seconded further discussion, please say no hearing, hearing none. All those in favor say aye. Mr. Meyer, did you have, I, I didn't mine. Okay. Speaker 8: Aye. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 8: Include your Speaker 3: Aye Landry. Aye. Speaker 14: Nuns and Speaker 1: Aye Evans. Aye. Alright. Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you for all the hard work that you guys have been doing. Speaker 1: Lemme just scribble this down. One sec. And, and to anybody following along at home, I'm, I'm the member of the board who tends to be the one
who writes up the recommendations for the town meeting book. And so I'm scribbling down my notes so I can remember what we're, what we're doing where. So is there a motion to close the public hearing Speaker 19: Motion? So moved. Speaker 1: Yep. So moved, made, seconded. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Evans Aye. Aye. Aye. Alright. Alright. So the, that is public hearing is closed. All right. Next. Do we want to go back to 20 Speaker 6: Or 24? There are people here that Speaker 1: Are interested. Oh, course. I'm sorry. Oh, Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 1: Yeah. So Article 24 is Neighborhood Corridor
and Limited Commercial Zoning Districts. Yeah. Speaker 6: So there's two items with Article 24 and it's gonna have to almost be in a two part situation. And I say that because we have a couple proposed amendments in the use regulation schedule, which is Article 23. So that'll impact the use regulation schedule of 24. Not in terms of a lot of items, but it's more of just shifting a couple things in terms of conversations with council. And it's more in the sections relative to off street parking, like parking decks.
And also in conversations with the building commissioner, we just changed the language. So we'll get into that when we get to the use regulation schedule, let's go through the rest of the bylaw. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 6: In terms it's in your packets. So the West central corridor, we've been reviewing this for quite some time and this has been updated since we had the last discussion. The Speaker 1: Idea, and this is 23, Speaker 6: We're in 24. Speaker 1: 24 We're in 24. Speaker 6: Okay. We're in 24, but 23 will impact this.
Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 6: So we'll talk about that after. So this is actually the use or the bylaw, the big part of the bylaw, not including the use regulation schedule. So with all that being said, a lot of this you already saw at the previous meetings that we had. I would request that based on a conversation today with council, that if possible to hold a special meeting next week, that would be great in the sense of we will be meeting with the attorney general's office to make sure that they are all set with the divisions of creating the subdistricts. Subdistricts, as you are aware, are not as common,
but we are not creating overlay districts, we are creating districts and they just wanna know how to move those forward through the ag. Would you rather have 'em come forward as individual districts under a whole umbrella? Or can we move it forward as we are? So we're supposed to be meeting with her on Tuesday. The recommendation from council was that you will see on page two it says SUBDISTRICT two, which is the west central single residential. She recommended we put that as reserved and we'll put reserved in the intensity regulation schedule in addition to the use regulation schedule as well.
With that being said, is that, where Speaker 3: Is that? I'm sorry? Where is that? Speaker 6: Oh, on page two, it's, oh, I see it. DD, yep. Okay. The reason why she said to put it as reserved as, because at this town meeting we were not populating the single family zoning area of the map because we're putting that into the spring. So she said what would happen is just take that same language that you already drafted, don't delete it in forever, but just put it reserved. And then in the spring when you populate the S two, that language goes right back in there. That was the recommendation. So that made sense.
We did not change anything in terms of the outlines of what they are. I know one of the big conversations is regarding the activation of the ground floor. So really just wanting to 'cause with Doug being here, having a full conversation on that. And then we did update the open space requirements that the open space has to be within the build box and not within the side setbacks because they wanted it to be usable space. Speaker 1: And where that was in which Speaker 6: That was gonna be in the section E four. E
Speaker 1: Four E. Okay. Speaker 6: Moving forward in conversations with the review, like I said, I had a meeting yesterday with the design review board and I know that we were trying to figure out procedures, the design review board would be part of the review for the S five S four, which are the bigger, larger areas. And they're, again, advisory. But it was also questioned if we could have them or a representative of them be present at the opening public hearing so that they heard everything
and they could get everything they needed also to move forward with their design review. So that was just something that wanted to confirm with you all. So that is really all that's changed. Speaker 3: And is that prescribed here? Speaker 6: Yeah, it's in section five. Speaker 3: What if that person is not available? What if, I mean, are we saying that's a must? Speaker 6: No, it was more of a, it'd be great. Speaker 3: Yeah. Is that what this, but how is it reflected here? Speaker 6: So that's what we just wanted to double check. We might need to amend it, but I think we removed the requirement. Speaker 1: Sorry, that's, it's in section Speaker 6: Five. It was in five originally, but I believe we removed it based on the last meeting.
Yeah. Speaker 3: I wouldn't wanna be in a situation where we're opening the hearing and, and Speaker 1: It can't go Speaker 3: Anywhere. Member of, of an appointed board. Speaker 6: Oh, it was in D, no, numeral I. So we'll just remove that. It'll just be the planning board. Remove that last sentence. Speaker 1: Okay. Sorry. Yeah. D Speaker 6: And actually I don't even know if we need, we might not even need D at all actually. Sorry, which page, Speaker 1: What page Speaker 3: Is it on? Page five at the bottom of page five. Speaker 6: It straddles five and six. Got Speaker 10: It. Speaker 3: I mean, I wanna make, you know, you've, we've made reference to the DRB. Yeah. Right. I, I get uncomfortable requiring
the DRBI Speaker 6: Don't think. Speaker 3: Take the hearing and be here for the hearing. And I mean it's good then. And they're certainly invited. Speaker 6: I actually don't think we need D at all. Speaker 1: Oh, collaboration, final review. Speaker 6: Yeah, because that's more of your procedures, Speaker 1: So agreed. Yeah. Speaker 6: Let's delete DI agree to that. And then I don't even know if we need, I actually don't even know if we need five because if you're gonna, Speaker 1: It spells out the what the DRB does though, in, in a,
in a more open way if you take out the the last line. Speaker 6: Yep. Speaker 1: I think it's helpful. Which last D Oh oh, the one that says collaboration and final review. D Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. And so, but, but I think it's important because it's important for whoever the applicant is to understand that we have a expectations and value. Yeah. It's giving the db the input from the D rv. Yeah. Speaker 3: It's given the DRB, you know, Speaker 6: And then Speaker 3: Authority to look at S five, S four. Yeah. So I, yeah, I'm fine with that. Speaker 6: Okay. And then C conservation commission or open space advisory committee. Land D being deemed, I didn't,
I don't think we need that anymore. I think that was one of the items that we were gonna delete. We didn't think we Speaker 1: Needed. Well I think especially now that you have the language in about being within the build box, because it was the, I think there was some concern that what I call scrap open space would be packed tack together under, under the guise that it was actually accomplishing something for open space when it was really just, Speaker 6: Yeah. And then also the other item that we were discussing that was just in the intensity regulation schedule was we had a 40,
if you actually scroll down, it's, I think it should be page six. It may have moved a little bit just 'cause I did delete those two that we just talked about. But it's adding the new section, no neural four C originally the building height minimum, we had it at 40 feet. But that was a discussion. So dropping that down. Actually Alan, if you go down one more Yeah. Right there. So on top going to 30 feet. Yeah. Instead, so it'd be thirties across for the minimum height and the maximum was 50 40, 35, 35, 35. But re just remembering that the 50 feet is subject
to the 10%, so that's 55 feet instead of 50. Just similar to what we did in the center gateway. And then also focusing on that, pulling the buildings towards the front of the, and also away from the rear of the single FAMs. And the Speaker 1: 10, the 10% is kind of all things considered. It's not in a given. Right. So Speaker 6: Correct. But it was that we worked it in there just like we did with the center gateway, where it was like if you were to be given it, you get to 42 feet rather than 38 feet. Which is still an odd number, but
it's, it's the way it worked out. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 6: So that's where we're at with this. It, it's really just at the point where we just need the ag and any comments that the board or anyone has on this. And like I said, when we get into the, it will not have major impacts on the actual use regulations, but it's the fact that we did move a couple of them in 2323. The use regulation schedule. So we have to update the use regulation schedule. If the board approves moving, those ones in there
Speaker 3: Wanna talk about that. Or Speaker 6: We can talk about 20 Speaker 1: And, and segueing very neatly. Okay. Speaker 6: Great. So 23. And this is just for each one's a packet. This is also what's in your packet. So Andy you do have that. Thank you. Speaker 1: A packet. Speaker 6: Okay, great. So this is the use regulations schedule that we are updating right now. We are really focusing on only a few, the fir, the first packet, the first few pages are the definitions. And these will be going into section 200.
So we'll either be updating where it says, amend existing definitions, tracked our changes. And then on page four you'll see new definitions. I did not underline those, just so you can read them better. And Speaker 1: Strike page four. Speaker 6: Four, yep. Four of that first, that first packet. So on page one of that definition packet, one of the changes that we did make was, we called it private residential garage. Private residential garage is basically for a single family home or a two family. But it says how many cars, this is something
that the building commission, like building commission or the building department likes because it's what basically prevents a resident from operating an entire landscaping company out of a single family home. So this is what they use to help with that. So they said don't touch it. The next one is parking or public parking garage, which is also on page one. Right below public parking garage is when there is not a another use on the property.
So it would be an example of taking the town's parking lot. And I'm not saying this is happening, but taking the town's parking lot that's located next to 13 East Central and building a parking garage. If we didn't own it, someone else did and you were operating it as a public garage that people could use it come and go. So we wanted to make sure that was included in there. If you continue down in the definitions, we do have all of the various definitions that we had previously talked about, like filling station, gas station, et cetera. One of the items on page four, the num very first one,
car wash with legal counsel reviewing this one. This is one that it was like, oh, I did not think of that. And it's like, where does it fit auto detailing. So is auto detailing a car wash or does it fall under a dealership or does it, like how does it fall? And so that's what we were trying to figure out. So we left it as car wash. If it is washing the exterior of the car outside. Speaker 1: And so that, but with interior cleaning and
or drying conducted manually by a vehicle operator or onsite attendants. Yeah. Speaker 6: So Speaker 9: That's What about the, from the mall garage? That's that, that's car detailing and it is sort of not outside, but it's in a garage. Speaker 3: Well, we're not saying it's gotta be anywhere. Speaker 9: Right? Speaker 1: Well it, Speaker 6: So, or do we just leave the interior cleaning of vehicles and or drying? Speaker 3: I mean if we're trying to include the use,
Speaker 6: I guess with this definition, Speaker 1: This is the technique you're looking at. Is Speaker 6: It, it's the technique. It was more of this one was, it wasn't really even detailing. It was more of the vacuums that are associated with the car wash that are exterior. If that makes any sense. So Speaker 1: There're that, the fact that they're a a, an attending use to a car wash Speaker 6: Because if that was indoors it wouldn't make a noise. But it's, it makes noises. Speaker 3: But this shows up in the, this schedule. Yeah. What if we just call it car wash in detailing
center detail or something like that. I mean it's Speaker 14: Almost one and the same. It is detailing, it's just a more defined or detailed way of washing a car. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. So I was gonna say a more intensive way. Speaker 6: That sounds good. So we'll update that one. Tips as Speaker 14: Opposed to a sponge or, Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 6: Okay. So car wash and detailing center. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 10: Okay. Speaker 6: Cool. Speaker 3: Back to the private residential garage. Covered space for the housing. So I guess by, and correct me if I'm wrong, please. I could be Is that limiting it to one Speaker 6: One commercial vehicle? Speaker 3: Yes. No one garage.
Speaker 1: Like how many garages, how many have Speaker 3: On their property, many one have on their property? Speaker 6: Oh, I believe it was one I'll double, I can double check with. But the commissioner, Speaker 3: That's not what this says though. It's, it, it tells you what a garage is. You could have multiple garages. Speaker 1: Well, because the definitions aren't supposed to be where the actual law or bylaw is. It's simply defining Speaker 3: Defining Correct. What the garage is. Yes. Right. So where are we saying one, Speaker 8: Why does it say non-residential uses? Speaker 10: Is it the, Speaker 8: This is garage private residential? Speaker 1: Is that for people who have like antique vehicles or, or it says non residential. Yes. Garage
Speaker 8: Private residentials. Speaker 3: Yeah. I don't know what is that for? Speaker 6: I gotta take a look at that. Speaker 3: I mean you're trying, what you said earlier, Amanda was one, you know, a garage for fewer but only one commercial vehicle, right? Yeah. Speaker 6: 'cause that's the second part. Including no more than one commercial vehicle. Yeah. Speaker 3: So I would delete non-residential uses for non re I would say covered space for the housing of four or few motor vehicles, including no more than one commercial vehicle that does not exceed yada yada. Speaker 1: And then it's, yeah, it was, it felt, that felt very confusing.
Speaker 6: Do you want, can you put in here a maximum one per, Speaker 3: I mean to Terry's point, it's a definition. Speaker 1: You don't wanna put that in the definitions, right? Speaker 3: It's a littleslippery slope. Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 3: But I know we talked about this before and I don't know if we ever came to a consensus on that issue. Speaker 1: About how many garages, Speaker 3: How many garages you can have on a, on a lot Speaker 1: On, on a residential, Speaker 3: On a, on a residential lot. Who needs more than one? Raise your hand. Speaker 1: There are people who, okay, so someone, if Speaker 8: They're one of those older, smaller one person, I mean not one person but one car. Like do we wanna limit the number of garages or the number of cars Speaker 3: Garages.
Speaker 1: Okay, so somebody has a detached garage, they build a in-law suite above the garage. They now would like to have some place to park their car other than a below the person who's now in on the second story can't do that. Speaker 3: I lost you. Speaker 1: Is if someone wants to kind of give away their garage to a tenant who's now living upstairs of that detached building, Speaker 3: It's detached. Yeah. So there's a, Speaker 1: They get, does the, does the, does the original owner
or the owner of the overall property have a right to have a second building that's a garage for himself or herself? Speaker 3: I would argue no, you've got a garage, you can have it to be four vehicles or not. Speaker 1: It, it may depend on kind of what their property allows them to fit, but they may not be able to make it that a four car garage Speaker 3: Then anyway. You know you've got your, I know it limits what you do with your property then I guess that's okay. I, I just, I for one would not want to encourage multiple garages on a residential lot. Speaker 1: And I ag I agree that I don't want to encourage it,
but I can we and should we prohibit it out in its entirety? I'm, I won't die in a ditch over it. I just, Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean I, I dunno if we wanna tackle that now or, or what but yeah, I mean I think, I think it's a legit issue. Speaker 1: Okay. But yeah, Speaker 3: But for the definition I'm good. I'm good with the definition. Speaker 6: Okay. So I'll update that And Speaker 1: Then that's taken you out for non-residential uses? Yeah. Speaker 6: Okay. Yep. So I'll update that definition. So if you go to the actual use regulation schedule. Yeah. So if you skip down to, I think
that they all have the same page number, but it would be page 25 where transportation, motor, vehicle and related sales. So one of the things is, is that if you see use header G, we've added transportation and then C use header H we deleted transportation it going back and forth. It kind of made sense to put all the transportation items together regardless if it was transportation, sales related services. And then have communication, other utilities were on the second categories. So what I did do was if everyone was okay with that,
I did move the helicopter basically launchpad, which is the private residential landing area up into G, which was previously as in H. And then also the public garage, which I don't know if I need to have that there 'cause it appears I have it twice. So it would be looking at those two items, if you also go up a few lines right above car wash, it would've been G six. It's crossed out, it says truck to, because it seemed like everything that we were allowing was actually a term truck terminal. And so we defined what truck terminal.
Terminal was terminal. Since we are trying to focus on that. So that was another change that I just wanted to make sure everyone was okay with before updating the other article 24. If you go down to now use header H, you'll see that the two H one and H two are both deleted. One got moved up, the other one was not needed 'cause we merged it into something else. But it did add something that we, I don't know what it would fall under otherwise, which was radio and television studio but without transmitting and towers.
So like what would a radio station or a television station and television spelled wrong Speaker 1: Without towers, Speaker 6: What would they be classified as? Speaker 8: Should we ask genetic Pegasus Speaker 3: Back? Speaker 6: Like Speaker 3: Is this something new we're Speaker 6: Putting new Yeah, I was, that's, I was proposing it in here because, and Speaker 1: You've got the typo fix, right? Speaker 6: Yeah. I just fixed it. Yeah. So it's, what would you cla 'cause it wouldn't be an office, but then Speaker 3: It's a broadcast studio.
Speaker 1: Well, but is it a broadcast studio? Well, I don't know. Speaker 6: That's what, I don't know. I I don't know Speaker 1: If you, if you don't have transmission towers are, are they trying to kind of rule out towers? Speaker 3: It's office. I mean isn't it office? Speaker 6: I, I don't know. That's what I was wondering. Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean Speaker 6: We were touching this so I figured I'll throw it in there. Have Speaker 3: A, have a podcast studio. They're gonna rent an office space and put a, Speaker 1: And put up something that people can tap into that doesn't, isn't distributed by a communication towers. I Speaker 3: Don't think we need to get that specific. Okay. I really don't need it. Yeah.
Speaker 8: As long as I don't have transmitting towers. Yeah, I mean you're gonna use the internet and like, Speaker 1: And I think that that was in there with about transmitting towers because of the kind of physical appearance and not blight but intrusion that towers different, that towers do. Do we Speaker 8: Have anything that specifies Speaker 14: Transmitting towers as far as its size, location and all that. Speaker 6: So that would, Speaker 1: There are limits that we we're con constrained in a lot of ways by the F-C-C-F-C. Speaker 6: So I'll delete that one 'cause it, it doesn't seem to be needed. Speaker 1: Delete the radio television studio, blah blah. Is that
Speaker 14: Included in ham radio operator? Speaker 6: Well I think a ham radio is allowed as of right. Yeah, because that's Speaker 14: A But what about the tower that usually goes with it? Speaker 6: I think that that's also allowed as, I don't think that you can, Speaker 3: I think that's an FCI don't think that's a zoning issue necessarily. I don't, Speaker 14: I'm not sure. I was just, Speaker 3: Yeah, I dunno. Speaker 14: Because they can be significant. Speaker 1: The same way that telecoms as Speaker 14: I'm concerned is if I were a neighbor, I'd say it's a significant, could be a significant tower. I didn't know what, what limits might be on it. Speaker 1: And I remember this with communication towers back in the day Monday and it's like, sorry Charlie, you can't do communic.
You can't protest that. Speaker 6: The other one is what now is labeled H three public service utility. It was just kind of merging a couple of them together. 'cause it seemed like, what was H seven facilities for housing Telecommunication equipment such as sites was the same thing as a public service utility. The only thing that public service utility excludes is the wire commun wireless communication facility. Because that's in its own category. Yeah, Speaker 1: So So public service facility is defined. Yep. Speaker 6: Added the Speaker 1: Definition here. Okay. Speaker 6: And then if you scroll down, so those,
I'll make those changes and then update the article 20 fours. Just wanna make sure everyone's good with we're subdividing K into two, which will now be a K for more of like the lighter uses and N is industrial uses. And so K, we're focusing on light uses. We've kind of gone through all these. I didn't make any changes since we've last talked on these ones. And then when you go to N, that's more of the industrial uses. More of the heavy uses. And I haven't amended those since we, it was more of just those upper two sections.
I just wanted to double check before I made the amendments because Speaker 3: Could we move N under K? Speaker 6: Yeah, I thought about Speaker 3: That. I think we should do that. Speaker 6: But then we have to go and change. It's not me being lazy, it was just I know, Speaker 1: But But they are close enough to the same. Speaker 3: I would do that. Thanks. Speaker 6: And the, Speaker 14: You'd have to change L and m, Speaker 3: Right? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 6: And I could do that. It was just more of like, I didn't wanna throw everyone I know, Speaker 3: But yeah. For, you know, most bylaws would kind of flow that way Speaker 1: And it makes it cleaner. It, Speaker 6: It totally does. It was really just like Speaker 1: I, I, I Speaker 6: Didn't wanna cause chaos. I know in all of this 'cause Yep. Alright, so K
Speaker 14: Makes a lot of it suddenly appear Speaker 1: Blue. So So N moves into, moves into K. Moves into K. Yes. I'm just gonna Speaker 6: Turn N turns to L. Speaker 3: Yes, yes. Speaker 6: Yeah. L okay. Yes. But I'm going to leave it at the bottom for right now just so it doesn't ping everything out and then I'll deal with it after to make it look less. Speaker 3: And if we are, and if we are changing car wash in detail. Yep. Make sure that's under G seven. Speaker 6: Yep. Car wash in detailing center. Speaker 3: So how does that affect 24?
Speaker 6: It wasn't significant changes, but it was the enough because I have been basing 20 four's use regulation schedule on everything that you were doing in 23. Okay. So now that you, we weren't gonna move forward with like the TV one. I don't have to add that into a line, but now I have to actually go back and move every N to L. So it's not a big deal. Speaker 1: It's not substantive. It's Speaker 6: Not, but it's accurate. Yeah. And it was, I didn't wanna make the changes because also if you did not like the change in truck
terminal, then I had to change it in both. It was just making sure that you're all good and then also with changing the transportation from H to G where it moved up, helicopter and stuff like that. It was more technical stuff, but I just wanted to double check before moving things. Okay. So Speaker 1: There then therefore we're, we're kind of voting on 23 and then 24. Speaker 6: Yeah. So that's why technically. Yeah. And that at how meaning it would go 23, 24. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 6: So
that is that piece. My next question comes down to is, and like I said, hopefully we can have one more meeting before so I can get everything just finalized. Is we had a conversation at the last meeting of Yes, moving forward. The three, the four parcels on North Main Street. That area, if you remember it was, and I'll pull it up on a map, it was zoned commercial two that ran Speaker 1: It is the one across from the car dealership. Speaker 6: Oh, Mercedes PORs. Oh, dealership. And so we were going to rezone those as
what we call limited commercial. So technically the zone doesn't change, but the contents of that did. And I don't think anyone had any issues with the use regulation schedule or the intensity regulation schedule of that, with that one being that way. We were also gonna rezone those four residential properties in the rear that had that strip of commercial two and we were gonna rezone that to RSSA. So that is the landowners were notified of that in a letter. Terry, you saw the letter. Yep. And no one has makes sense, said anything to object to it.
So hopefully everyone is okay with moving that forward with 24. Yeah. Okay. Yep. The other area that we were talking about rezoning, and it was a question of moving it forward now or moving it forward at the Springtown meeting is the area on route nine where we do have an opportunity to rezone it as, I'm going to just pull up a map geo, just so you're familiar with the area. It is the area on route nine where you have just, could Speaker 1: You move Theus box on, Speaker 6: Oh, whoops, sorry. Speaker 1: Thank Speaker 6: You. You have this triangular piece.
This parcel is the McDonald's. McDonald's, yeah. Joanne Fabrics. There's the small use. Then you have, what was the gentle movers or Gentle? Gentle Giants. Gentle giants. I don't, Speaker 1: I'm not sure it ever had an operation there. Speaker 6: It, I don't think it Speaker 1: Did. No, I, it just has a home for their truck, Speaker 6: Which is zoned as you can see, residential seat. And then you have the office building, which is also zoned residential C. And so we were looking to rezone those, that area along Route nine, just the frontages as light commercial. Speaker 1: But this is what we're talking about doing for next.
Speaker 6: The question comes down to is are we committing to do it now or at the, like we talked about it, but we never said a hundred percent. So I just want to figure that out. I, and then doing the other side, it's like pulling the residential piece that's split zoned over here. Getting rid of this 200 feet from the center line and following the actual lot lines, which makes the properties more useful. Again, we can wait. This is not urgency, it was just more of it.
We're gonna like, just pull it out. It's fine. Speaker 1: I think that feelings run high in that area about kind of what's going, what, what different types of commercial use might do. I I think you just want to have a little bit more of a chance to talk folks through it. Speaker 6: So we'll put this portion of Worcester Street on the Springtown meeting. Speaker 1: That would be what I think makes sense. But others may think differently. I think differently. Speaker 3: And some Andy had some things Speaker 9: About that. Yeah. I mean I felt like the last time we basically told a
member of a public that we weren't moving forward with this, but, so I think we need to honor that. But it would be good to talk about it, you know, for the spring and dig into it. It's like Terry said, there's a lot of emotion there. Speaker 6: Cool. Speaker 9: But I, I, I wouldn't be real happy putting on for this particular town meeting. I don't think there's been enough time to really study it. Yep. Speaker 6: Great. So I'll just add that to the 2026 Springtown meeting work plan. Speaker 8: Cool. I just want to bring it, 'cause you brought up a good point about did we have some parcels that don't match up with the property lines now?
For the most part, I think yes, absolutely. We want to push it all to the spring, but I think one of 'em might be where Party City is. Yes. Right. Would that be a big deal as far, I mean, I guess is it more parcels than just that or, Speaker 6: Yeah, it's, it's basically that entire, Speaker 8: I'm just trying, I'm trying to think of, hey, you know, they're out of, they're out of business right now. Is that going to hamper ability to so redevelop that parcel. The fact Speaker 6: That actually it hurts a lot of parcels on this area, so
you can't really see it very well. But a lot of these, these you Speaker 8: Could see the building is, Speaker 6: Yeah. So you can see this is the parcel Okay. That you're talking about. This is the Starbucks next to it. And this is the Wendy's or former Wendy's. You can see that this parcel where Party City is the whole entire rear is commercial, which is where the mini golf course Yeah. Is. And then as you continue to traverse along, some of these parcels aren't going to be as big of impact because the sunk away is there. Yeah. But then actually as you traverse this area,
you're also getting into the same situation. A lot of these commercial buildings are actually split right down the center. And Speaker 1: Some of that was not done, was actually done deliberately because in, in long before I lived in Natick, there was a move to zone so that the backside of a commercial enterprise could not be built on or used for commercial purposes. So they, they actually zoned it so that the front of a lot would be commercial in use
and the rear was a nice neighbor to the residents behind them and not usable for commercial purposes. That's where all of that I, as it was taught to me, came from. Speaker 6: Well that's it. It, it makes sense. But the buildings are all a lot. The zoning line goes right through the middle of the building. Yeah. Well Speaker 8: Clearly Speaker 1: They weren't developed out but find, but find, but find, find me. Which of those buildings was standing when they made that decision on zoning? Speaker 6: Hmm. Yeah. I don't know. But it's So it's not just that one. Yeah,
Speaker 8: I think we Speaker 6: Should, it goes along the entire way and then even when you get over Speaker 20: The alley, Speaker 6: It's not as bad over here. It's really that area. So we can put that on the spring 2026 and we actually look, I think maybe from nine and 27 all the way to the frame or the Natick Wellesley line for that one. So we'll take that one off. And I just wanted to more just confirm I didn't want to take it off without a hundred percent, but we will move forward with the parcels at the, across the street on North Speaker 1: Main. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 6: Okay, great. So we can get that all updated. So, Speaker 1: Alright, so this is for, that's for 23 and 24. 23 Speaker 6: And 24. So if the board can meet one time next week, just so we can have a final document, that would be great. Speaker 3: What day? Speaker 1: Final document for Speaker 6: Motions and stuff. Speaker 3: You need time to advertise? Speaker 1: No, but for both of them. Yeah. You don't feel like either is at the, okay. I Speaker 6: Want to just, I, I want to have these clean. I don't want them Speaker 1: Okay. Ice from notes. So, so next week are
on the third, the 30th is when fin comm is meeting. Yep. To consider some of our, so we, when are we trying to meet? Speaker 6: If we could meet Wednesday, even if it's vir, even if it's virtually that's fine. Yep. Speaker 3: I'm good for Wednesday. Speaker 1: What's the date? The Speaker 3: First. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 3: You good? Speaker 14: Yeah, I can do that. Speaker 1: I think I'm good. Great. Speaker 6: And that'll give me, 'cause like I said, I'm meeting with the ag on Tuesday, so Speaker 3: Seven o'clock, call Speaker 6: It Speaker 9: Wednesday. The, can you, can you meet on Yom Kippur? I don't know, but that October 1st seems to be Yom Kippur. Speaker 6: Shoot. I didn't realize that.
Speaker 14: Just call me Heathen Speaker 3: Tuesday. Speaker 1: Yeah. Cantu. No. Tuesday's when FinCon is meeting on some of our stuff. Yeah. We just have to time it. So that, Speaker 3: Do we need to be there? Speaker 1: There are articles Yes. Speaker 3: At the, Speaker 9: You wanna meet Tuesday at like five for an hour? Speaker 6: Do that. Speaker 3: Do that. I'm good with that. Speaker 8: Yeah, I Speaker 1: Can that Tuesday the 30th. It's Speaker 3: Virtual. We can do that. Speaker 6: We can even meet at six. Speaker 9: We're supposed to be clean. All set to good to go. Right. Maybe we can review 'em in advance. Y Speaker 6: Yeah, like I'd like to get this to you guys by tomorrow with the final, Speaker 1: Could we say enough time Speaker 3: Time to advertise and get it for a meeting at on Tuesday? We good? Yes. If
Speaker 6: I put it, if I advertise it tomorrow. Tomorrow, yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. So Tuesday the 30th. Do you want us, can we say five? Speaker 3: I'm good with that. Yeah, Speaker 8: Because I, I have to be, have a work thing in at six 30, Speaker 1: So, and then works and then we're gonna be hanging out with the fcom. Yeah. Speaker 6: So we'll just meet and then we'll just go right upstairs. Speaker 1: Okay. And what time? Speaker 3: Five o'clock on the 30th. On Tuesday the 30th. Speaker 6: Great. Good. And so we'll have just articles and Speaker 3: Will it be, can it be virtual or not? Yes. Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 6: So we'll have just articles 23 and 24 on that day.
'cause I think that day. Yep. 'cause Article 25 does the A DUI think you guys can take care of tonight. Speaker 1: Good. Okay, Speaker 6: Great. Speaker 1: You say that's level to be only an hour. Okay. That, oh, it's less than that. I hope up most you Speaker 6: Great. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 6: So we can go back to the top of the agenda if you're Speaker 1: Okay. Hang on a second. Lemme just get my, Speaker 6: Or if there's any public comment. Yeah, Speaker 1: We also, member of the public, I think Yes. Members of the public wishing to speak either the sitting mic or the standing mic.
Speaker 21: Don't mind. I'll sit here. Okay. Good evening. My name is Jamie Faye, Fort Point Associates interested in addressing Article 24. As I think I've said before, this really fantastic approach to addressing the zoning in this quarter and very thoughtful in its approach and creating the different districts and the different zones that really, I think gets you to where you hope to be in terms of addressing the different kind of land
that fronts on this street. We've had the opportunity to provide some comments to you in the past, and I understand you're still making changes on, on the text of this article and I don't believe we've had the chance to see, see how it is finally drafted at this moment. But I thought there were a few questions I had that I was wondering if I could ask and perhaps comment on. So one, one issue is, is the open space issue, and you know, this in particular,
I'm interested in the, you know, the District five or whatever the title is. Yeah. And my understanding is in that most of the zoning districts in Natick that you're sort of more or less typically requiring a 10% open space except for perhaps single family residential. And in this particular version you're looking at an open space requirement that's substantially higher than that, perhaps as much of as a third of the site.
And I think that gets to, I, I understand the goal, which is to have some really good usable open space and, and that's definitely a shared goal, but the, the way that it's structured, it's the open space requirements are really substantial. And since you're not allowed to count any of the setback areas as open space, it's, it's adding, you know, well above what I think you probably require in any other district. And, and again, this is a transit oriented district in which you're
presumably trying to achieve a higher density, not a lower density. And so you may be to some extent be working at cross purposes. So I think that might bear some discussion. The second area, I just had a question about how it's working. The, the goal, I think you've expressed that, of trying to provide some, some balance on the rear of the site where the railroad tracks are to the single family neighborhood in the back. Certainly a great issue to address, at least the last version I saw it, the, the setback
for the building is described in two different ways in two different parts of this article and in a conflicting way. So that at a minimum just needs to be clarified. I don't think it needs to be stated twice, but if it is, it should at least be consistent in how it's measured. And it, it's not clear to me reading this what what there, there's sort of an issue of making sure the buildings aren't too close to the rear of the site, the setback of the buildings. But then there's also this concept of a buffer
and it isn't, I, I think the wording is not terribly clear about what a buffer is and how that's executed and how that relates to the building setback area. And if the whole buffer, that whole area, which could be I think up to 45 feet in the rear of the site, cannot be used for things like, you know, emergency access and fire department circulation and loading or parking or anything else that I think that can become
a significant constraint. And I don't know if that's what you are trying to achieve or you're trying to achieve a density of vegetation, the strip of vegetation that's a visual barrier or you're simply trying to get the building further back from the property line to reduce its apparent height. So that's just another kind of question out there. I think the design review board, I guess you're still working on how that's gonna work out. I think that's fine. It just is not terribly clear to me. I guess that's, that's an advisor, I think the member
of the design review board came to last meeting. I indicate they want to remain as an advisory review. Right. So that's fine. So, and then still interested in the final wording and language on how you're dealing with your ground floor activation uses. So I think those are just, those are the issues that it's come really long way. I think it's a lot of really great changes and at this point I think it's trying to make sure that it says, the actual wording says what you want it to say more than any kind of really substantive changes.
Speaker 1: Thank you for that. When you were talking about the wording and and language about grant ground floor activation, what is unwrap that for me a little? Speaker 21: Well, I I just don't know where it stands at the moment in terms of the versions you're looking at, but I think originally it was looking at trying to make sure that there was some ground floor uses that like came, there's a whole list of acceptable uses on the ground floor and a percentage of the total ground floor. And we talked about, I think at one of our meetings how you have some lots that are long and narrow
and you know, if you're trying to, I think the goal was you're trying to activate the street and, and have something there that's attractive both to pedestrians and vehicles passing by and you know, like create some life on the street. Right. That's the goal. So I think we had suggested you look at making some percentage of the frontage of the building on the street and an active use rather than percentage of the total footprint. Right. And because otherwise there's no, it could be put at the rear
of the site and probably wouldn't be successful. I think you want to encourage those uses to be in the front where they're visible from the street and where they're gonna be more successful. So, Speaker 1: So, and, and it's, I had wondered if it was getting into that notion of commercial uses that were only for kind of the use of residents of, of the, that particular, that property, that building. If I was trying to understand if that was Speaker 21: Well I think that Speaker 1: A concern, I know that had come up Speaker 21: Again my, my, just from an urban planning standpoint, I think it's, it's less who the user is than
that the people are using it. Like the people coming and going. Right. So if it's, if it's something that people can walk to and utilize or drive to and utilize or if they live in the building, they come down and utilize, I'm not sure how much difference that makes. As long as it, there's an appearance of people coming and going and being active inside the building. Right. That's what you're trying to create is some visibility to whether that's a, you know, a gym for people who live in the building or a gym that's open to the public.
It still has the same impact Speaker 1: PO possibly, but but Speaker 21: It's slightly different. Yeah, I get it. Yeah, Speaker 1: Because, because one is discreet as opposed to kind of mingling. Yeah. With other, with other people, with other populations. So questions and comments. Speaker 3: I'm curious about the open space comment here. How was that meant to actually, Speaker 6: So the goal, Speaker 3: We get 60% S one 90% s two 60%. How does that Speaker 6: Well S one is actually, Speaker 3: It's open space.
Speaker 6: It's open space, right. So that was really not ever intended to have much. S two is the single family homes and currently you have the ability to only have a 30% lot coverage. So because it's written different here. Speaker 3: Okay, it's the opposite. Speaker 6: It's just flipped open space for S3. S3 is 30% open space because you could see townhouses, two FAMs, that's predominantly what's on those lots. So it was trying to maintain that but also increasing the density because it was going from single FAMs,
which you have a lot more open space 'cause it's just a single fam house to a two fam townhouse. And then with the S four, S four was 10%, or sorry, 20% open space 'cause that's a little bit higher. Those are the connectors where you would see a little bit more. But you might have lower, you have lower density and then it was 10% open space for minimum requirement for the S five. So you would have that, that's a minimum open space requirement because we were not having a building coverage. It was, take that 10% figure out
how it works, works within the project. The setbacks are more minimal. Within that though, if there was going to be a residential component that there would have to be some amount of space for the residents and that was not in the setback. So that would be open space, whether it be pocket parks or terraces or just open yards just for them to have ability to have open space rather than walking out onto a parking lot. So we'll look at that Speaker 21: And I believe that was what 200 square feet per unit think.
Speaker 6: So. Speaker 21: And a unit is, you know, 500, 600 square feet. It, it's a lot. I mean if you add it up, it, it's actually a lot. So, and that's in addition to your 10% and you can't count it, the setbacks towards that 200 square feet. So that, that's the big issue. Speaker 6: I'll highlight it and I'll take a look at that. Yeah, can we, yeah, yeah. 'cause it's, it was just standard usually 200 'cause or a hundred. But then, yeah, I'll go back and double check. 'cause the 200 square feet was kind of, could be anything but a hundred percent, a hundred square feet of that had
to be open space that was pervious. So like 200 or 100 of the open space could be pervious area like courts or something of that nature. Whereas the other, and it could even be a balcony or rooftop terrace. Whereas a hundred square feet per unit had to be some type of pervious surface to help one stormwater and stuff, but also allow people to have access to open space. Mm. So, but we'll look at that. I just highlighted it. Yeah. So I'll go back and check out that section. In terms of the street activation, it was 50%
of the first floor of the frontage facing the road and that was gonna be 25 feet deep with 50% of that being allowed to be dedicated to residential uses if the building was residential. Speaker 21: So that's a, so you'd say half of half the frontage has to be active and of that 50% Speaker 6: Could Speaker 21: Be area half of that has to be, yeah, Speaker 6: As we were looking at Beverly, that for Speaker 21: That one think that works. I think that works. Speaker 6: Yeah. Okay. Beverly uses that and then it has to be a minimum of 25% or 25 feet. Speaker 21: Yeah. Deep. So that's useful. Yeah. Speaker 6: Yeah. So it was trying to, we do understand like
you don't wanna have commercial space that's open or vacant 'cause you can't fill it 'cause of far back corner. But it's also like trying to make sure that it's activated in some sense. Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean especially the stuff facing 1 35 should be very easy to Mm Yeah. Activate usually. Yeah. The stuff in the back corner, I mean unless it's a gym karate or something like that, Speaker 6: That's still hard to a more difficult get. Hard to get to. Speaker 8: Yeah. Well I mean, but you're not gonna have a coffee shop or whatever if it's around the back Speaker 6: Unless to speakeasy there. No. Speaker 1: So those, so this will wrap up on six week Tuesday. Yeah.
Speaker 6: Okay. So we'll get those comments. I'll update this between today and tomorrow and we'll get this out to everybody so they can review it. Can you make sure, yep. Speaker 21: So procedurally from here, how does this work in the next three weeks or something? So Speaker 6: The next three weeks, so what this will happen is next week they'll have the final language, we'll get the final language out tomorrow so we can get their final comments. So we can have the final, final language for Tuesday night to have the motions. They'll vote to recommend or refer back or figure out what they wanna do, their sponsors. And then on October 7th it goes to the finance committee.
The finance committee then reviews it to make a recommendation to town meeting. And then we have town meeting that starts Speaker 21: 21st. 21st Speaker 6: Or 20, yeah, 21st. Yep. And then it'll go to town meeting as of right now. Okay, Speaker 21: Great. I just have one other question on this. Are we, you know, I think, man we had talked a little bit about how, how this gets worded and how the motions are made and whether it's a 50% vote or two thirds vote. So Speaker 6: Census does have a residential component. I believe that this is actually a majority vote and not the super majority vote.
'cause it has multifamily housing and, we'll, I'll double check that on Tuesday with Count Council and Ag. But based on the way the statute reads, anything with multifamily I thought was, it's it's majority. Yeah. But it would not, we're not submitting it for the MBTA. Speaker 21: No, no, no. But still you can take advantage of that if you can. Speaker 6: Absolutely. Yeah. So this would be a majority, but I'll double check that 'cause I'm not a lawyer. Speaker 21: Just the, the pieces of this article that relate to the, the commercial district with the things that kind of caught my attention. And I don't know if they fall within that umbrella or not.
Speaker 6: Yeah. So since it has a commercial or the residential component in the whole thing, the whole thing gets calculated as, 'cause it's one boat. Speaker 21: Yeah. It it, the stuff not, yeah, not the ground floor re commercial. But the other parts of this article that deal with the, you're changing some of the commercial zoning elsewhere in town, right? Through this article. Speaker 6: Oh yeah, I think it, Speaker 21: I mean if it works, that's great. I'm just, oh, Speaker 1: You mean I see what you're saying on Speaker 6: The north main Street? Yeah, I don't, yeah, Speaker 1: It could be, Speaker 6: If it was, it would be, we would put that as a separate motion. Correct. We would just put that
as a separate motion and that would be different. So this is probably gonna have three motions, which the first one is the bylaw, then the zoning map, and then the North Main Street stuff. Okay. Speaker 21: Yep. Super. Speaker 6: So at least the map and the West Central get the majority and the north the one get a super majority, but hopefully no one's against rezoning three force, but parcels. Speaker 21: Well thank you so much. I appreciate you giving us the opportunity to comment and thank you for look forward to tell meeting. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Okay, so we will come back to this and review.
I, I hope we'll get a chance to do it. Speaker 6: I'd like to get you a copy of this tomorrow. Speaker 1: Awesome. Thank Speaker 6: You. And then the final for Tuesday, right? Based on if anything changes Speaker 1: And Yes, Speaker 22: Hello there. Good evening. Hello Lou Louis Frache with the Native crossing corp. I have just a quick question. And this is regarding the, the activation of some retail or some other use in a building that is not gonna be, and that's not residential. My question being is, you know, I, I operated that site
for many, many, many years. It's very difficult to, to have tenants that are gonna be standing. I I just know from experience, I understand what the whole process is in the mindset, but being that far out of town, it's a very, very difficult process where there's not a lot of walk by traffic, but more so I'm concerned about the parking regulation. Okay. So if I read through, and maybe I'm, I'm reading this incorrectly. In order to have a successful retail area, especially
where it's not a downtown area where you have a lot of walk-in traffic, you need to have ample parking in front and signage and you have to be able to bring people in to make it easy for them to park in front shop or eat or do what they need to do. I, I didn't think I read it correct. And maybe I read it incorrectly, but if you could help me through that process in the parking, 'cause I thought a lot of the parking had to be on the side of the building or the rear of the building and not in the, and, and maybe I'm wrong. And also the ratios, I mean, what kind
of ratios are you going to impose? Are these gonna be difficult to, to achieve? Because if you're gonna ask for X amount of retail or some type of service, you need to have certain amount of parking. And it depends on the type of, let's say I, I want to, you know, we're able to get a, a medical or some type of service like that. Your, your ratios in, in Natick, you know, maybe three to 1, 4, 4 to four to one. And, and, and it drives up the amount
of parking that's required. And especially in front, you can't hide a par you can't be a successful business and ask a a, a shop owner, again, not downtown that's wa a lot of walk-in traffic, but you can't expect a shop owner to rent space from you and there's three parking spaces in front. Impossible. Where are the employee's gonna park? It, it, it, I mean just I, and again, please help me out with the, 'cause I didn't understand how the parking worked. Speaker 3: I mean, I'll speak to the, I dunno what the ratios are, but there's many, many successful designs
of look at Linden Square in, in the, that's a different, in Wellsley Speaker 22: You keep going back to that, but it's a different animal guidance. Grace Speaker 3: Can, can, can I finish, can I finish please? That's an example. There are what they used to call lifestyle centers that have retail wrapping with parking on the, on the interior. So, you know, we're trying to create the market with residential activation, which activates the retail. So maybe it won't be, you know, retail tenants
that are gonna be drawing people in from all over the place. It might be localized to the neighborhood that we're trying to create with the zoning. So, you know, this isn't a strip mall, it's not strip mall zoning. What we have here, what, you know, no, no offense, but you know, that is a prime piece of property that needs to be reimagined. It's not gonna be a strip mall with parking in front. We're gonna do something. We wanna see something much different. And you know, using the area
that you have there and creating a different kind of feel. And I do like, well Lyndon Square, I think that's an excellent example. Beautiful. So that's what we're trying to, you know, we're trying to do something different there. Not a let's park it, let's put the retail in the back and park in front and call it a day. That's not what we're trying to achieve. Speaker 22: And I understand that, but that's not what it's, we, I thought that it was going to, you know, to design or, or the the project or the, the re zoning was for multifamily. Yeah. And I don't, I don't, I I shop at the Roach Brothers in the square all the time.
I lived there. I saw it from my hardware store way back, way, way back. And I used to shop at, at the deals. Speaker 3: Yep. I Speaker 22: I, okay, so I know the whole history and I've saw, I have seen it evolve and I love it there. But that's, but there's very, very, very no retail I know residential except for up the street and, and the neighborhood. So it's a different animal. What we are, what we were envisioning, or at least I did when I came to the planning board before 19 20 19 in my vision was this
is a residential center because I know how hard it was to do retail and and other businesses. But if you're restricting, and, and again, if you're restricting the parking and you don't want people to park out front, but you have to have x amount of square footage of retail, it's not going to, it's not, it's a loss. It's the loss for the, the development to have retail that doesn't have parking. Because there's not, there's not gonna be a lot of foot traffic.
It's not that type of area. Speaker 3: It's gonna get foot traffic from the residents that go are going to live there. We need to think about it in a different way. It's not gonna be the status quo of a, of a shopping mall. A a strip mall next to the train tracks. Speaker 22: I'm not saying, I'm not saying it's a strip mall. I never even want a strip mall. I I, it doesn't need, I mean, what I'm trying to explain is you're not, you can't live a, a business can't survive on a hundred units, 200 units coming to Activate. I lived at De Meck in, in Waltham. They built a, a mini roach brothers there.
They went outta business, couldn't survive. And they thought, and they have 300 units there, mult many of the businesses they tried and they flipped over. There's a bank, there's a, a workout studio and that's about it. But most of the people come from outside and they have massive parking area, massive parking at those places where, where are the people gonna park? That's what I don't understand. They're gonna park in. I mean, Speaker 8: I think parking might be part of the driver of the development of the site. I mean, we, you're not necessarily gonna be able
to build a five story building that covers most of the, most of the size of the site because then you won't have room for the parking. So I mean, we're gonna have to have the parking for the residents. They're gonna need a certain amount of parking. So yeah, parking's absolutely gonna be a limit, a limiting factor, I think. But it's not like the, the bylaws don't require the first two floors. It's 50% of the site's frontage of 1 35. I don't think that's a, a big ask. That's not a, Speaker 22: And that's all I'm saying is, but people want, in order for a business to be successful.
Yeah, okay. And and to lure a business to come into your building, to lease to them. 'cause I'm, I'm in that business. Yeah. You they want to have parking. Oh yeah. I mean you need employee parking is a big thing. First of all, it doesn't even, let's say all those traffic people that walk in are your, your residents or the neighborhood. What about the employees? Yep. You, I mean, it depends on the business. You could have five, six employees needed. Where are they gonna park? I'm just trying to explain to you when I know I run through, when I lease property
to people, they ask me, what's the parking ratio? How many cars can I have in here? And especially if it's a service business and where, you know, let, let's say it's, you know, beauty salon type of thing. First of all, you're gonna have six wor hairdressers, if you will. Then they're gonna have six people, hair people they're working on plus people sitting. That's, that's just on a regular, I mean, that's a minor thing. I had jam time. It's a kid's place. You know, you had three or four employees plus the moms and and dads that are driving the kids to go there. Probably. I mean those, those, I mean, again, you have
to think about the number of parking needed just to, and also who wants to, who You look at a building and that, and retail, if you see cars out front, hey, I'm gonna pull in. This is successful. If I see no cars and it's a sub, you know, let's call it subway or a restaurant and there's no cars out front, are you pulling into that restaurant? Probably not. You're gonna keep going. So all I'm trying to explain to you is parking is a very, it's, it's so important. I don't wanna parking lot. Absolutely. It's stinks.
But you gotta have we there and, and the ratios are very important because if you want to have a service business that it's a higher ratio office, lower ratio. I, I, I'm, I'm, I have, I have builders and buildings that I run into this solve the problem a time that you have to talk to your tenants with and, and then you have to maneuver which ones can fit and what can't. I I I just, I I love the whole idea of what you've done with all the, the, the districting. But it just that when I, when I, the concern is when there's no, when you, you, you, that
retail or some type of use, and again, it's not a lot, but it's, you need to have that element. I'm just telling you, you you, that it's gonna be what's worse. Having a, a space that's use useful for the building or a space that's at for lease with a big sign out front and it sits there for 3, 4, 5 years and that's all it sits there and it's for lease that's worse. It's all boarded up and and papered over. That's not what you want. No, Speaker 1: You know what, what to me was surprising was when
you started talking to residents of, of West Natick and particularly the residents on the north, on the other side of the tracks. And I was really surprised. I was not expecting the, the sorts of comments that, that I heard. And it was, they're so excited because they're in a residential neighborhood that doesn't, doesn't have, I mean they, they love their neighborhood, but they see the south side of the tracks also as their neighborhood. And I, you know, or with the possibility to kind of be
where they, where they extend their sense of a neighborhood. I wasn't, I was surprised by that. And I, and because I saw something, they saw something that I hadn't considered. And I think that that is something that this notion of knitting together, that that part of town. And I think this has a, a, a great opportunity to do just that. Speaker 22: But again, I don't want to keep beating on it, but I I'm not understanding what you're saying. When they were ex excited about having what might come something what might new there or something.
Yeah. Yes. And that's great to have something new. But what again, I'm going back to in Speaker 1: Walking Speaker 22: Distance, the, the use of the space, and again, it used to be a strip mall. Okay. It had many, it had restaurant and nail salon, it had a hair salon. It, it had kids programs again. That's fine. And they were very, they were vibrant. The, they don't get me wrong, half the building was office. It didn't work. But also the, the, the retail, the, the, the the square foot rate rent that you,
the square footage doesn't pay for it. You, it's, it's not, you're not getting the same as you're getting downtown where it's a higher rent district. And it's great. You can't put a no, no. Restaurateur is coming into that space because it's at the end of a a, a strip and end of the town. No one's coming down that end again. You, you nail I don't wanna beat it. But again, I, I I'm just, if the parking is just is, I'm sorry. I thank you for your time. Are Speaker 3: We, are we proposing any changes to the ratio of parking in this district?
For the residential? Yeah, for the residential. Are we changing anything with the commercial? Thank you. Let's move on. Okay. Yep. Speaker 1: Very good. Then we will, we will follow up on this next Tuesday. Yep. And I see we have the meeting already posted. I'm amazed. Anyway, so moving on now we have 20, 21, 22 and yeah, so and 25. Speaker 6: Yeah. Speaker 23: So legal counsel has reviewed these. They just asked that be able to Speaker 1: Do, sorry, which one are you? Oh, Speaker 23: Actually all of these. But Article 20,
Speaker 9: Has your microphone been turned off? Speaker 23: Oh yep. Speaker 6: Sorry about that. Sorry. Article 20. So legal counsel has reviewed article 20 in the motion, which is in your packets for tonight. They did just refer request that you allow for just one final review prior to it going in any amendments that are required. But article 20, which is the removal of earth products that has been reviewed by DPW, the conservation agent, the building commissioner, legal counsel, and then also it's gone through the planning board process
to propose the amendments as presented. Speaker 1: Okay. And okay then 20. So can we, Speaker 3: Can we dispense 20? Speaker 1: Do we, do we have the motion in hand? Yeah, the Speaker 6: Motion's in the packet. It's just Speaker 1: That, yeah. Speaker 6: Okay. Yeah, it's in the packet. And then I did, just so you're aware on the second page it would not be part of the motion, but just for reference purposes I did show the track changes. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 6: Just so we have the Speaker 3: Strikes. I see. Speaker 1: Anyway. So just, would somebody like to make a recommendation
for favorable action on the supplement matter or article to make a Speaker 3: Recommendation for favorable action from the planning board on article 22nd? Speaker 1: Second from Mr. Sson. All those in favor with name Andy Speaker 9: Meyer? Aye. Speaker 3: Conclude or aye. Landry Aye. Sson Speaker 1: Aye. Evans Aye. Motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Speaker 9: Second Speaker 1: On the motion by roll call vote. Andy Speaker 9: Meyer. Aye. Speaker 3: Aye. Aye. No an Speaker 1: Aye Evan's. Aye. All right. Okay. 21 article. I know, I'm just, I have to take notes.
Speaker 6: Article 21 is the proposed, Speaker 1: Can you hold just one sec? Thank you. Okay. Speaker 6: Article 21 is the deletion of section noman numeral 5G flooding I would just replaced with reserve. This has not been changed. This has also been reviewed by DPW, the conservation agent, the building commissioner, legal counsel, and has been reviewed at the public hearing. No one has requested any amendments or proposed to keep it. We do, as everyone is aware, have other bylaws that have come in in place such as the a PD floodplain district and et cetera.
So we are proposing to delete the motion is in your packets. Speaker 1: Very good. So on, on the motion. Speaker 6: And the same thing for this one, that legal counsel has one last chance to review the motion just to make sure it's Speaker 1: Excellent. So a motion to recommend favorable action on the subject matter of article 21. Speaker 3: So moved. Speaker 8: I'll second to that one. Alright, Speaker 1: And on that vote by last name Mr. Nason not and Speaker 8: Aye. Speaker 3: Landry Aye. Including Speaker 8: Aye. Speaker 1: Andy Na Aye. And Evans Aye. A motion to close the public hearing. Move. Move. Second.
Seconded Second. All those in favor, Andy? Speaker 9: Na Aye. Speaker 8: Including Speaker 3: Aye. Landry. Aye. Evans Speaker 1: And aye. Evans. Aye. Okay, so we've reviewed, voted, closed the public hearing. Okay. 22 and then 22. Speaker 6: Article 22. Article 22. As you'll see in the packets, I did include the ags letter. This is a requirement of the attorney General. It has been reviewed by legal counsel. I did run through it with the building commissioner as well. And so it was just amending limited site plan review
definition in section 200 as required by the ag. Speaker 1: Did you thi you think we'd ever get to this stage? Okay. So on, on the, that the subject matter for article 22. Speaker 3: Motion to recommend favorable action pound meeting on Article 22. Speaker 1: Okay, second. Speaker 8: Second. Speaker 1: A oh, Alan get you to it. Okay. On the motion made and seconded by role by last name vote. Andy, are you still there? Speaker 24: But I'm supposed to do that. Speaker 9: Are you waiting for me? Yes. Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah.
Speaker 9: My aye. Speaker 1: Thank you. Concluding your aye Speaker 3: Landry. Aye. Not Speaker 1: Aye. Evan's. Aye. All right. And the motion to close to public hearing. So moved. Seconded when seconded. Speaker 8: Colu Aye. Speaker 1: Andy Speaker 3: Lander? Aye. May Speaker 1: Iye. Okay. Not high Evan's eye. Okay. Closed. Okay. And now we're in 23, 24 and 25 is the last of it, right? Speaker 6: We got two more. Article 25. Article 25 is the accessory dwelling units. This one is also per the ag I provided the ags letter.
Legal counsel has reviewed, did run it through with the building commissioner, but everything that is amended is as requested and required by the ags office. So, Speaker 1: So it's not like we got a lot of choice. So I, Speaker 6: I tried to actually maneuver some things and I got shot down very quick. Speaker 1: Oh, nice. Alright. So on, on the motion to recommend favorable action subject matter of Article 25. Speaker 3: So moved. So moved. Speaker 1: Moved by Mr. Landry, second by Mr. Sson. So by roll call or by last name vote. Andy Speaker 9: Meyer. Aye. Speaker 3: Fluid Aye. Landry. Aye. Mountain and
Speaker 1: Aye. Evans. Aye. Motion to close the public hearing? Yes. Speaker 3: Motion to close public hearing. Seconded. Speaker 9: Move. Second. Speaker 1: Seconded Andy Speaker 9: Meyer. Aye. Thank Speaker 3: You. Aye. Landry. Aye. Speaker 1: Sson Aye. Evans. Aye. Right. Okay. Speaker 6: And that would actually be it. Just so you're aware, the motion was drafted for Article 26, which was you had already voted, closed it, so it was all taken care of. It has been reviewed by legal counsel. It's good to go. Yeah. Speaker 1: So that, that one I had written off already. Speaker 6: Yep. But I just wanted you to be aware it's, I appreciate it. Ready? Yep. And we will be meeting with the finance committee on Tuesday
night at seven o'clock. Speaker 1: Very good. Thank you. This was ambitious and productive. And so we're, we're, I'm guessing that most of us will want to be doing this virtually. Speaker 6: Yeah, I thought we were meeting just virtually on, on Speaker 1: Tuesday. Just double checking. Just Speaker 3: Virtually. Speaker 6: Just virtually. Is that okay? Yeah, yeah. I don't have a room. Yeah, Speaker 3: It's good for me. Speaker 1: Okay. Then we come to, of 2025 fall annual town meeting non zoning articles. And I think that there was a question regarding Article 31
as it involved the planning board. Speaker 6: Yeah. I wasn't aware that we had to specifically call him out so we can call it out for the next meeting or Speaker 3: We don't No, we don't have to. It's not, so this is not a public hearing. Speaker 1: It's not an advertised public hearing. It's, Speaker 3: We want can someone run down the gist of article 31? I don't have it in front of me. Can somebody, Speaker 6: I think Andy actually he's available. He gave a really good summary of it. Speaker 1: That Andy? Yeah. Okay. Speaker 9: Yeah. Well the, the, the, the gist is this is from the zoning and the, the, the bylaw review committee. And they have been toying with the idea, I think we talked about it even a year
or so ago, about this notion of creating sort of a, a, a zoning review subcommittee that would be external to the fin com and external to the planning board and would have access to a zoning council. And the idea would be, I think to sort of help correct past problems that we've had where zoning articles that have been, have been passed and they either needed to be stopped by moratorium or they revealed themselves to be flawed
or incomplete or an error. And, and the idea is to avoid that from happening by having access to a specially comprised committee. And I would even go so far as to say the committee would, you know, the the committee is designed to work perfectly. It would be populated with people that know the town, that know our zoning, that have access to funding for town, for, for additional zoning council who would also know our town, know the sensitivities that go into good bylaws
and what's good for the town of Natick. And you know, under those circumstances, which, you know, I use the word perfect or nearly perfect, you'd have I think something that would be valuable to consider. Nothing's perfect though. And I can see problems with this too. My inclination is that this is worthy of a discussion. The, the person who came forward spoke tonight felt that they couldn't go forward because it wasn't specifically addressed. I think there's a difference of opinion on that, but I, I think, I think courtesy sort of mandates that we have, even, even not just for us
but like for the citizens of the town that we have a conversation about this and having it at the planning board level I think is a good one. They'll probably also talk at fin com about it. But I think we're kind of specially qualified to have a conversation about the pros and cons of such a thing. And I think, you know, I think a conversation like that wouldn't hurt. So that's my understanding of what is being proposed. And I sort of obviously went into a debate there at the end giving my personal opinion. Speaker 1: So, but thank you Doug. Speaker 3: Andy, we can have the conversation anytime, anywhere. How many ever times we want to have it.
We can have it tonight, we can have it next week, we can have it anywhere. And I'll continue to say it every time it's brought up. It is a ridiculous proposition flat out. And let's make no mistake. Okay, what the intent of this is for someone to, to come here and say our process is flawed. We don't have enough expertise, we don't have enough process to deal with zoning matters. We have other people in the community who might be experts. The planning board by statute is the board across the state that is empowered to
propose zoning bylaws. We have a process. There are required public hearings, there are informational workshops. There are fin com hearings, there are selectman hearings. There is enough process built in to the zoning bylaw revision process, statutorily and in the town of Natick to vet any kind of issue adding an any layer of appointed appointed. If you want to, if you have opinion about zoning, come to this board, come to the hearings, come here,
state your case, have the debate if you wanna really affect it. Run for planning board. Be a part of this, this this board, an elected board, but a appointed independent commission, whatever you wanna call it, using financial resources, which are scarce in this town to begin with, to pay for legal counsel. Now lemme just also opine for a second about how we got here in terms of our zoning bylaw. The very people who might be proponents of this are the ones who are self-appointed zoning experts
who have twisted this bylaw into Gordian knots that this board is unwinding. And the irony of this article, the irony of it is it got referred back to the proponents because it was unclear. That's ironic. It's a really bad, really bad idea. I don't know how else to, to state it. It is unnecessary process. Another layer, Andy, just one sec. And it is, it is the worst signal you could possibly send out of the good work we have done in this
board in front of the public. And anytime, anywhere someone can come to this meeting, sit in this audience, come up to the mic and participate and we're gonna actually send out a signal. Oh, we don't know what we're doing. I personally take offense to that. I am an A ICP certified planner. We have training, professional development, ethics, everything else that we are trained to do. The woman sitting at the end of this table is an A ICP certified planner. We know what we're doing on this board. We know how by, I've written zoning bylaws, so has Amanda.
So no, this is a ridiculous proposition and I really hope town meeting sees the light again on this one. Speaker 1: Thank you, Andy. Speaker 9: Nothing you said surprised me and I respect your opinion. Let's have the debate Speaker 3: Come and have the debate. Sit here. We have it on the agenda. They could have been here tonight. You wanna put it on the agenda again? I'll put it on the no's, put it on the agenda six more times. I'll say the same thing. No, Speaker 9: No. Out, out of, out of respect for the gentleman that came tonight. He was, Speaker 3: He came tonight 'cause he knew this was gonna be on the agenda, yet he's gonna take issue with it being general.
How did he know it was gonna be on, on the agenda? Speaker 9: We're dealing with two of the smartest people I know. There was a difference of opinion. I am encouraging us to not have the debate tonight, but to put it on agenda. Have the gentleman come in if he can. If he can't, then, you know, you only get so many bites of the apple. But, but I, I took in good faith his comment tonight that he felt that he was not going to proceed due to the lack of specificity as he understood it. Fair enough. It it, you know, I that I I think that's what what sidetracked this. So let's schedule it. Let's have a debate.
I would love to hear the proponent make an argument. I'd love to hear your response. Others respond. I mean, this, this is a, this is worthy of a reasonable debate here in town. Speaker 3: I disagree. But again, anytime, anywhere show up. I'm happy to have the conversation. Speaker 1: I will say I, one thing because it was, it's kind of a two part article and part of it is talking about legal counsel. There is something to be said for reinforcing legal counsel in part because we like many other communities with
the MBTA Communities Act and the ADUs and so forth, we have more of a need for legal counsel. I I understand that. I agree it, I hope that if there is an opportunity to have additional counsel, it can be from current town council's firm so that they can work in partnership. We rely very heavily on the, the council of those who kind of are legal experts
or authorities in municipal governance and specifically in planning and zoning. So I turn to them and I think if, if, if that's an issue that there needs to be, there need to be more resources so that car or town council is not forced to juggle so many different kind of clients and issues. I un I understand that. I think that that is one possibility. I think the prospect of having a
call it a self, a self-appointed board that chooses not by coincidence to say, oh, you know, I think I'm gonna come to I to to the planning board because, and talk to them. We, we reached out last year multiple times, inviting those interested parties to come and meet with us and were rather roundly ignored, not responded to and so forth. And, and, and in fact, if the issue were how is
how it was advertised, it would not have, should not have surprised others that, that we wanted to have a conversation about it. And what happened tonight was that they very deliberately made sure that they, what they considered shouldn't happen. It, it wasn't that our agenda came out and they said, my goodness, I we haven't, we haven't, we didn't know they might be thinking of this. Of course they did. And I think that, that I found greatly disturbing.
And then the last thing, and I will shut up is that having two voices of authority, what if this committee is established and there's a disagreement, a a substantive disagreement whose authority is followed? And I think that is a very dangerous position to have an, an appointed oversight committee or the elected planning board. And I am, I, I do think it lends itself to, to make me feel very concerned by how those two bodies function.
I think I'm not concerned how this body functions because I think it does well. I think it has a good track record, especially in the last several years. And I, I think I like to think that we're moving in the right direction. I'm very pleased to have two colleagues on this board who very specifically bring planning board related expertise to us and as well as having a strong head of community economic development. So I am, I I guess I I was disturbed tonight
because it, it wasn't serendipity that that, that those who are proponents of of this kind of route set it up so that the only thing that, that they felt could be done was that we couldn't hear it tonight. Speaker 3: We're not hearing anything. Speaker 1: No. Well, that we do. Would not talk about it tonight. And I think that's childish. That Speaker 3: That's being kind. Speaker 1: It is. It's, it's deliberately trying to avoid that conversation. Sorry to see that. So
Speaker 14: I believe we already have, as you were talking about oversight committee that presents the opportunity for having two contradictory opinions. And then where do you go? I believe we already have that in, in this town, not necessarily here. And we'll leave that, my feeling about that alone because anyway, I I, it sounds to me as though someone thinks there's a very significant problem here and I don't think we'd address should address a problem by bringing in another Speaker 9: Group Speaker 14: Of experts.
We've got 'em here enough. It's been working that way for a long time. And I think if we discuss anything, we should discuss what exactly is the problem that is trying to be solved by bringing in all these other folks and these other things and spending all the dough and all the details that go along with it. That would be the discussion I would envision. Other than that, at this point, what, what I have heard very little. I would, I can't see it at all. Can't see it. Thank you. Thank Speaker 1: You. And any other business identified by members
of the planning board? Do we have any, do Speaker 9: Do you think this will be rescheduled? Speaker 1: What's that? Speaker 9: Will, will we specifically reschedule? I I don't, so the gentleman is comfortable coming in and talking, you know, presenting what it is. I Speaker 23: Can ask for October 6th. Speaker 3: I'm not gonna be here October 6th. Speaker 1: So I Speaker 9: Mean, that'd be a shame. It would be good if you guys are both in the same room. Speaker 3: We were. Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, Speaker 9: I, I mean I take on good faith what he said. If others don't, that's fine. But I, you know, I I I think the town would benefit and I think it might not be a bad idea
to actually address. It's what Speaker 3: Some of the, it's really bad idea. Speaker 14: I, we got, well, Speaker 9: Come on. Now I get to finish right. Is Speaker 14: Now Speaker 9: We're together. We we're expressing, sorry, Speaker 3: I, I apologize Andy. Sorry. Speaker 9: We're expressing opinions. Yeah, we're not expressing facts. And the, the, the best part about this board is that people can express their opinions and not, you know, and, and, and remind people that they are opinions and that they are not facts. And I think even if we were to potentially bang out the concept of a compromise, which would be
specific expert zoning council within our current town council's firm, we could probably all agree on that. And I think we can address, I Speaker 1: Think as a resource that's, that would be, I would think that would, that would be helpful there. Speaker 9: So I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm saying that if, if you scratch through all the, the, hey, here, there is a possible potential for compromise. There was enough bad stuff that happened in years past, some traumatic stuff that happened to me as a result of loose zoning articles that passed. And that's what this is coming out of. That's not to say that's, that's where we are today,
but I, I think that there is a, there is a value in having some of the best minds in our community having a conversation about this and, you know, just missing or getting close and not having it, you know, I I guess I'd like to advocate for an opportunity to have it some night when, you know, some of our best thinkers are in the same room and can have a conversation about this. I think, I think the time would benefit, Speaker 1: You know, Andy, I appreciate what you're saying. I'll note that last year when this article was submitted along very similar lines by the same sponsors, I reached out any number of times to invite them
to come to a planning board meeting and, and, and to provide us if we could with the, the motion language that they were proposing. And I was met with radio silence and that kind of said, well enough of what I don't, I needed to know. I don't, Speaker 3: I, you know, I I don't, I don't appreciate the grandstanding, the so boxing, the, the, the drama around this. Okay. I really don't. And we, I was a town meeting member for, for nine years. And there were many nights where perfectly fine zoning bylaws,
perfectly fine zoning bylaws were put up in front of town meeting. And a few self-appointed experts in zoning would get up and create doomsday scenarios about commas and ands and oars and misplaced colons to the point where, you know, I don't know what the point was other than to come across as the smartest person in the room. I don't know. And I don't wanna get personal. Okay. But that is the, that is where this is coming from.
And again, if you want to express your zoning expertise or your opinion about zoning bylaws, participate in the processes we have run for planning board. That's how you do it Statutorily. We are the body that takes care of the zoning bylaw. We are the ones that are bylaw charged with making recommendation to town meeting and reporting to town, meeting about zoning bylaws. Not an independent commission, not the selectmen. It's questionable about the finance committee. I've had my opinion about that. But we are the body
that does that, and that's how it should be. And if we want to have Natick open for business in creating tax base for this town to do all the wonderful things we need to do, the last thing we want to do is create more process that drives more people away from this town. Because we are in fact recovering our reputation out there in the market as a place where, you know what Natick actually is a, that's a place we wanna do business in. Believe me, I have many people who have told me in the past because of this board and the makeup of the past board, they would never
consider coming to this town. 180, 180 from, from then. Okay, let's not screw it up. Speaker 9: Well, I, I lived through those days. I, I witnessed those days firsthand. Despite all of that, I try to avoid any kind of personal feelings or associations with this stuff. And it does sound like there's some personal stuff happening. I'd like to advocate to keep it professional and on the highest intellectual level. Leave all the personal out and have, and just have a a, a good, clean discussion about it. And the results will, will take care of themselves. I, I, I think we'd benefit from it.
Speaker 1: So, Speaker 3: Motion to adjourn. Speaker 1: Motion to adjourn. Accepted. Second, third, and fourth. Alright. Roll call vote Andy. Speaker 9: Aye, Speaker 1: Alan. Speaker 3: Aye. Including your aye Landry. Aye. You like Speaker 1: The blue? Aye, Evans. Aye. End. Good night.