Speaker 1: Case I will call this meeting of the Natick Planning Board to order at 7 0 9 and to say that this is a hybrid in person and remote meeting because I, I actually don't, can't read the introduction because I don't have the copy. I can read public speak, but I don't have the notes for the fact that we're, we're being televised recorded by Pegasus and will be available for the public.
Public speak will roll into next. Any 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. This section of the agenda is limited to 15 minutes and any individual addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. And with that said, we moved to our first order of business. I have not seen anyone raising a hand for public speak. Yes, sir. Speaker 2: I'll just say Saturday morning, 10 o'clock at Doyle Field
and Leominster, the girls native high school girls championship soccer and then followed by the boys team as well. So we go back to back, back to back at, yeah, I girls at 10 heard about that boys at 1215. Where in Leominster Doyle Field. So exciting. Awesome. Speaker 1: So it's amazing. And speaking of fields, we were, we are continuing the development review public hearing for 52 Everett Street, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Stevens. And we, we have, I believe we had a, a site visit
since we last met. Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you. Just to update quickly, I think it was probably a month ago we talked, we were sort of narrowing the project in a little bit on some offsite work that do some sidewalks, some one line issues that we had that we talked to DBW about. And we were attempting to sort of lock in our site plan at that time. We had some confusion, some discussion about unit calculations. Since that meeting.
We did do a site walk with several planning board members, some open space members and conservation to show the location of proposed buildings and the proposed trail and the proposed open space and some of the invasives and some mitigation work that needs to be done. Our meeting two weeks ago was canceled, but prior to that meeting I had submitted a memo dated November 3rd, which talks a little bit about the density discussion, assuming everyone's had a chance to take a look at that
and if you would indulge me, I'll spend five minutes kind of running through it. Thank you. As you may or may not remember this zoning, this particular cluster zoning morphed. It started with Graystone Lane and some of the old 1980s faff projects where you had to have a million square feet minimum before you could do a conservation cluster, which we probably would say it was a predecessor to our open space development. Then from probably 2021 through 2023,
there were several different versions, several different modifications. I do believe that our wayside project was the only project built under the first iteration of that open space. And then last year, or just before last year was the current iteration of that open space. And we did meet, I think I was part of the conversation on helping to update that as, as you recall, call the board took the time to modify the inclusionary zoning. So it wasn't like creating density bonuses
of three different programs and trying to add it back to the first program. So right now is a much cleaner bylaw. I think it's, it's where it needs to be. And the only other project that did come under this current version would was two 16 science. So this is the second. So this is the second application if you will. So obviously this open space bylaw is laid across any residential district R-S-A-R-S-B or RC. So in an RSB it has a certain density
and an RSC typically that density would double in an RSA, that density could easily triple. So currently the only projects we've viewed have been under RSV 20,000 square foot zoning. So our initial math calculations were about 11.13 units based upon the total square footage of the lot. But then we looked as presumably two 16 South Main Street did with a generic provision about waivers in the open space bylaw, which would allow if we grant the planning board some leeway
depending on the project, depending on the, the benefit of the project depending on the open space in the project. And I think a lot of factors, whatever the planning board determines is appropriate vis-a-vis what site you're at. Are you in an RSV? Are you in RSC? Are you in a busy area? Are you in a quiet area? So I think, and if I recall in some of our meetings in working through this bylaw we left, there were some gray areas that had been dealt with in the past, but we sort of, I brought them up, but I think we deliberately left them discretionary if you'll, so
what my memo from early November was trying to point out that we're very clear that you have this ability as a planning board to make a decision upon a waiver based upon project itself. That's exactly what was done at two 16 South Main Street. I think we got ourselves kind of caught up in the weeds because we were trying to start with a round rounding, start with a 10% and then start with a waiver. And I don't know, I think practically it starts at
11.17 units and it's a waiver request. It's not round up at 10% and then do a waiver request because the 10% would be a waiver request and then you'd be technically, I got another wave of request. The language was, that was written for two 16, which I put into, I repeated in the document made that reference, it made a rounding up and a 10%, but then it jumped by about 94%. So it went from 13 and changed units to 26 units. We took a look at our project prior to bringing it to this board.
We brought in several renditions, some renditions actually combined some of my windy mirror lane, some of 'em used most of the back part, the landowners had previous studies done by other folks who had it up to 16, 17, and 18 units because they were following the language of two 16. I think at our early design review meetings, both with staff and with a couple members of the board, we talked about most important part about the project would be the open space in the back, maximizing the open space.
There's potential for additional open space adjacent to this parcel down the road. There's no really, there's no other public open space in this little section of south native. So it, it represented something we didn't have there. Even though we have larger lots, we didn't have any public open space. So we had settled on initially a 16 unit project and after further looking at it, looking at the two most important things being open space and in our opinion street view from Everett, it made a lot more sense to work on the two buildings out front
to not have very large buildings out there and to do single units, a duplex but a smaller duplex. And then a single, a single family across from the beautiful White House on the corner of, of cottage in Everett. So what we're trying to argue is that we would like a waiver address, I don't know necessarily know if we have to discuss the rounding or if we have to discuss the 10%. We feel. And our attorney feels very clear that the language of the open space bylaw grants, the planning board
that authority, it's not my right, it's the planning board's authority. So this is a request and I think it was our job to prove that a 15 unit layout would be superior to the 12 unit layout and to, and to show the reasons why both from a project standpoint but also from a talent standpoint. So our memo included a a couple of items and it included an alternate layout plan if we were to do the 12 units. Obviously if we do the 12 units, the land price has not changed for me. So some of the financial obligations
that I proposed for the offsite sidewalk, because we, we always felt important to connect a trade microphones with this one here. This, Speaker 4: Okay, sorry about that. We always felt it was important to connect the base of Windermere Lane along Everett Street and complete the sidewalk in front of our project at 52 Everett and make the connection to cottage. So we had thought that represented a town wide improvement or at least an area wide improvement. So we included that in our 15 unit proposal. In discussions with Bill McDowell, he mentioned
that the new water line had been completed down cottage and teed off to a 16 foot, 16 inch connection along Everett. But there's only one length of pipe in essentially because there's two old water lines on Everett. And I'm sure the master plan is that at some point the 16 inch line com is completed up and down Everett. So he requested and we agreed that our entire frontage of Everett would, we would replace the WA existing water line with this new 16 inch water line before we brought it into our project. Finally, because we have a financial equation with having
to do the larger houses and turn them more into a single family look under a 12 unit layout. And I don't know Amanda, if you have that, if you could go to my first exhibit, actually It was part of that memo that the November 3rd memo and it's attached as one file and I, so when I just emailed you two Speaker 5: Had it open, I just, yeah, there you Speaker 4: Go. So go up to the GIS plan above, if you don't mind. Tough to see. But that is the in red represents what
sidewalk connection we will have when we're done if down to the south we had already done 3 0 3 Elliot, which is the third house in from Windermere Lane when we built that house about seven years ago. And then the next two houses are Windermere Lane houses. So we completed that sidewalk, if you recall, that was a sidewalk we needed to drop down so we could improve the site line along Elliot Street. Obviously there's a new sidewalk all the way up and down wind Deme lane. And now we'd make the connection across the five houses in front of Everett on Everett Street, which
and the frontage along 52 Everett, which would bring us to the base of cottage where a crosswalk and signage would be installed, which we already had talked about. So given the discussion about the density, we proceeded to do, oh, excuse mind, scrolling up. Speaker 5: It's really up or Speaker 4: Down. That one. Yeah, keep going. You can shrink it a little bit. Yeah, that represents a 12 unit plant. So obviously the three larger units in the back, we'd probably, they'd be larger than the larger units we proposed in the 15 because we would almost turn them into
free standing single families. They probably would not be part of the condo association or they'd be part of a, a roadway maintenance, but not of the landscape side of things because we'd have to target those to a little bit different market. And the open space would drop by about an acre and a half would be 116,000 square feet of open space, which is the requirement under the bylaw, under the 15 unit plan, we were going up to about 190,000 square feet, but 116 would be the minimum requirement under the zoning.
The circle doesn't change, but all of the smaller units would become single freestanding units. So that's the 12 unit entrance doesn't change. But then if you go to the 15, so this is the original 15, this is the one we had at our last meeting. You can see the open space about 183,000 square feet larger trail system, obviously more condensed. We're only using, I think about 2.9 acres in the front, in the field area. On the number side of things, between the 12 and the 15, the three extra units, if you will, between 12
and 15 still have to be smaller units because of the 25% requirements. So under 12 you have three large units. Under 15 you have three large units. So your extra three units are small units if you will, the 2000 square foot or less. And then it's, as I mentioned, there'd actually be more buildings in the 12 unit because we'd make 'em freestanding. We have to raise, try to get the pricing up a little bit on 'em. There'd be no offsite work, not as many unit types and less, less open space.
So that's just a quick summary. I know I kind of blew through that. I'm happy to answer any questions or dive into it further if anyone would like. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Amanda, is there anything that you would like to add or, or raise? Okay, so Doug, Speaker 2: Just procedurally, what, what are we doing with this tonight? Are we ready to vote? What Speaker 1: Are we, I think, what are we doing? I think we're trying to make a determination about whether the waiver or a waiver, not necessarily the one that's proposed. Okay. Is something the board feels is of
benefit to the community and the use of the land. Okay. Speaker 2: I'm convinced. I mean I think that everything you've laid out makes sense. I think we worked, you know, long and hard with, with you over many, many meetings trying to get this plan, you know, to where it is. And you know, I'll just come at it from my own perspective. We're in a housing crisis people and I'm not gonna sit here as a planning board member and quibble over three units of housing, especially if they're going to be a relatively more affordable type of unit
that's delivered to this community. That's why we wrote the bylaw the way we did. It's open space reservation preservation. That's what's happening with this bylaw with with this project. There's a lot of cost associated with putting in sidewalks. I know that I'm in the business. I, and I think this is a bonafide good faith presentation of, of the benefits of having more units on this site. It's, it's defensible. It's justifiable. And I think, you know, this applicant has shown good faith.
I think the type of design and the type and quality of project that, that Ben Stevens delivers to this town is extremely high quality. And I think he'll do that here. So I am 100% in favor of 15 units on this site. Okay, Speaker 1: Thank you. Andy, I know you had some concerns when we, when the subject was starting up. Speaker 3: Well I I'm, I'm never a big fan of subjectivity for the planning board. I, I try to keep as many subjective decisions out of this as possible. Sometimes you can't. First thing
that really jumped out at me, do we all remember with 2 16 2 18 main Street that we waived a 95% increase in the density on that project? Do we all agree with that number? I ben that's saying Speaker 2: That they actually ring a, it rings a fade bell, but, but what Speaker 3: That's 13 units originally and I, and we did settle on 26, which is, you know, basically double Is that Speaker 6: You did, you did significantly increase Speaker 1: Number. Actually let me see if we can get you a mic that Speaker 7: I don't have it off the top of my head. I can pull it up if you'd like. But you did significantly increase that
because they were providing the units. Speaker 1: If, if we could, if we could check that. 'cause I, I remembered thinking that seemed higher than I remembered, but I won't. And I remember Speaker 3: How hard we worked to get those, you know, to get that design and I don't know what the future of that project is, but, but the 95% increase jumped out at me. So assuming that that is the number there is precedent to us using these waiver capabilities. It's a very clever submission tonight because clearly the 12 unit
plan is contains no sidewalks. There's less open space, you know, it's not preferable to the 15 which has sidewalks, no one. Now if you had proposed you can use this mic instead. Speaker 8: Problems with this one. Speaker 3: I figured out our audio issues, they're all quite the same Bad box could be. Speaker 8: Alright buddy, thank you. If you had proposed 12 units on the front with sidewalks and all the open space, obviously we would jump at that, but you didn't. So between A and B I'm, I I think,
I think the 15 is a better, is a better project because I think the sidewalks are important and I think the open space is important. Now we've rec received some letters from people I really respect and they are absolutely adamant that we deny this and there's a lot of history and there's a lot of knowledge in these letters that we got. But I don't know if they know the history of this bylaw. I don't know that this bylaw started off as a kind of a clunky one. We had to issue a moratorium because the applications that we got were so rotten subjective, it was a misery
and it's an unusual act planning board after moratorium recommended a moratorium for something they just recommended passing. But that's the process. We did come up with something that essentially you've worked with and complied with. So with all due respect to the folks that say that this is outta scope and inappropriate, I I'm afraid I just disagree. I, I take their, I, I take their expertise, but it's a little hard to use that criticism on a project which we basically asked for. We basically designed it in the bylaw. So I, I am comfortable that the images
that we've seen if brought, if brought to fruition would have buildings facing effort street that are appropriate, that that face the neighborhood. We started off with units that kind of showed the backside. There's not a doubt in my mind that people are gonna take advantage of the open space and the walking trails. They're gonna take advantage of the sidewalks. N now the sidewalks going through Windermere, they would not exist unless this project they, they were not part of the, I guess that's a question I have here. There's sidewalks in Windermere. They're shown, they're shown on your memo here. They would not be built otherwise. Speaker 4: No, they are built. I was They're already built.
They're already built. Mostly they would be built but we had, we actually did a sidewalk on 3 0 3 Elliot when it was a single family lot because Speaker 8: So the actual part that you are sort of offering to build sidewalks would be on Everett Street? Speaker 4: Correct. Speaker 8: Okay. I, I know that's a busy street, but I do think people will take advantage of using the sidewalk. So I don't want to necessarily call the 12 unit a red herring, but it's obviously, I think the inferior proposal to the two and I get why you did it the way you did it. But I, I think in terms of livability, once it's built
and done and people live there a little while, I, I just, I just think it's gonna blend in and, and I think it will look fine and we get more open space, we get more affordable units and that's, that's what we wanted when we designed this bylaw. So it would feel kind of inconsistent at this point point to, to argue against those things. So I find myself comfortable with the, with the 15 unit plan. Speaker 7: And so you're aware 2 16, 2 18 South Main Street originally came in with the 14 unit project and then was increased by a waiver and that actually was permitted with 26 units.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Speaker 1: I'm fine, thank you. Thank you for checking that. Alright Peter and Alan, I have not forgotten you Speaker 9: Following the numbers as best I can. It sounds as though and hearing our, my colleagues here, it sa falls into place properly. I, I too agree with the 15. I would say that the site visit that I took from my perspective as architect and looking at the neighborhood and structures that are proposed, I think it's gonna be a fine looking presentation, a fine looking project. I really do and I think it'll blend it fine.
It's gonna be a whole lot better than what's there and I believe we'll work very nicely into the streetscape and the people who will object. I suggest that they will object as I think's been said for possibly a year and they'll get used to it and they'll enjoy it and they'll be fine. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Alan, comments, questions? Speaker 8: Just kind on mute. Speaker 10: Yes, so actually few things I, I kind of repeating I think a little bit what other other said, I agree that I think
that extra, you know, the extra couple units is, well it's a great offset I I guess to the sidewalk, I'm looking forward to the sidewalk. I think the site has been designed really well and I think that's gonna gonna mitigate a lot of concerns I guess about overcrowding. And then I guess as far as the unit count, you know, I was trying to, you know, make everything match in my head at least. And I did look back at the two 16 and I saw that they said, well we, or they did the double rounding kind of, that was part of this calculations, but the fact that we went down to the 15 units, I think
that kind of, it works in my, in my head, you know, my do doing the middle school math, if we even didn't do the double rounding but still allowed the 10%, an extra couple units kind of offset by the sidewalk, the 15 units works for me. Then on top of that, I think the site, it, the 15 units works for the site. I think that this project is a good project and I'm in favor of the 15 units. Speaker 1: Great, thank you. And I have probably just a couple of questions
or clarifications. One is whether I, I know and I realize that it may be an open question that whether this week could have required that sidewalks have been built along Everett Street because certainly there's a, there's a need for it, but what i, I would have thought is that we would have seen it as an imperative to incorporate sidewalks there and I understand that.
Are we going to be having a public, not a public shade tree, a scenic road hearing for this? So it's, it's a, a question that can, can come up then, but would why would we not have compelled a sidewalk be built at this point? Because it, it was, there is clearly a safety issue and I appreciate the fact that you're, that you're proposing it and not kind of seeing it as a, a burden. But I also see it as something that having a sidewalk makes it a whole lot more saleable
to people who see the opportunity to walk and I, they might not demand it, but they would find it a much more appealing development with that. Then the other, my other kind of comment is not related to the first, but trying to understand how, how the footprints of the 12 unit and the 15 unit compare because there, there are, I know there are concerns that some people have about the significant increase in the number of units, however, if I'm understanding that's not
as simple as that because the units are smaller. So I'm trying to, to understand that it actually is not the surge of an impact of three additional units that it might appear because these units are smaller in scale and I'm just, I'm leaving that open at kind of asking Okay, your thoughts on both of Speaker 4: Those things. I think what you're think you're, I I think what you're asking, well I'm gonna answer what I think you're asking. You can correct me in the 15 unit plan because they're more duplex.
You sort of have, especially in the asphalt, you have an economy of scale. You, you you're bringing things in tighter to the street. You have less pavement, you have less turnarounds, you have situations that are normal in a, in duplexes where you can back out into the street as opposed to sort of, and I'm, I'll probably wait for Andy to come back, but in the single family you almost have to play the market there. You can take the same duplex and I can put it next to somebody's unit and I can sell it for x, I can put it over there
and make it a single family and I'll probably get 150,000 more. So quite honestly the 12 unit is more profitable to me. It'll just take a lot longer, it'll be a lot more invasive 'cause you'll have long driveways, turnarounds, you know, so on and so forth. So in actual roof load cover, I'm guessing you have less in the 12 only because the three large units went from, they were modest large units because they were in the, when they were sort of encumbered by the other condominiums, we couldn't have
a 6,000 square foot condominium and a 2000 square foot. So he had a 2000 square foot condominium and a 3000 square foot condominium under the 12 unit plan. I took windy mirror houses and put 'em out back three car garages. You know, they ratchet up in pri price point but it changes the everything, it changes the deed structure, it changes the condo structure, it changes the buyer structure where you almost have to play the markets a little bit differently. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't know for a fact but, well we can do the math.
The 15 unit has 3000 extra square feet undercover under roof, but the big units went from 1500 to probably 2,500 footprints. So it's probably equal in building cover between the 12 and the 15, but significantly larger in pavement in the 12 because of all the proportionally. Proportionally, yes. Andy, you are out. I just wanted to mention that and I know it's a let's I, we actually called it the ugly plan. It is the ugly plan, but it is,
but it is more profitable, which makes no sense, but it's more profitable. 'cause I have single little houses that are, you know, 150 to $200,000 more valuable. They're not any bigger. They just happen to be private and isolated and, and it's a whole different market. And I looked at the 12, I'm like, I should have done this, but it would take me longer and it would be more complicated and a little bit more involved structurally between the condos and, and single family deeds and so on and so forth. So it's not necessarily a financial
situation, it's more what's practical for the site. To be quite honest with you, part Speaker 1: Of why I was asking that I was asking the question is because, you know, we've heard from people who are concerned because they, they see the additional units as additional ground coverage and so forth. When proportionally it's, it is ultimately, but on a plan by plan basis, it's a much more efficient, efficient and less oppressive or less congested. What I ironically to, to have the larger plan
because the units are smaller. Speaker 2: You mean the 15 unit plan? Yes. Yes. Got it. Speaker 1: Yeah. And so I, so it, it actually speaks for itself in terms of by requiring smaller the, the mix of smaller units. It is not the kind of the demon that I think some, some folks have seen or that they, that they are concerned about. Speaker 2: Yes. And, and just comparing the two plans in terms of connectivity with the walking path, to me again, you know, looking at what's proposed between the 12
and 15, the, you know, the 15 unit is I think a much more inviting way to access the open space because the 12 unit plan, you're walking through a neighborhood, you're walking through what would feel like a very private residential compound past multiple buildings, people's yards, people's driveways to get to the back as opposed to the 15 unit where, you know, you're crossing the little cul-de-sac common and then boom you're into the public, you know, public walkway.
So I think it's much superior open space Speaker 1: That's a, you know, Speaker 2: Trail plan that is the, the the 12 unit. Speaker 1: I think it, I don't think it's as simple as just the number of units, it's, it's how, how they're organized and how, how they're, how the open space is accessed. So Peter, just Speaker 9: Adding on onto that, it seems as though a lot of folks that hung up on a number as it relates to this site. I took a little, a little different perspective on what was out there and I tried to look beyond the site
'cause it's oftentimes I say to a client that the this thing is not in a vacuum. This project is building it not in the vacuum, it's part of a hole. What is the hole like and how does this fit in with the hole? And that's the, I was looking at the site up there and I just thought it was 15 units in the entry and then the whole just fine again. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Speaker 4: And to that point, it still ends up being a density of one unit for every 2000, 20,000 square feet.
So it's barely dropped from an RSB to an RSC zone. It certainly hasn't turned into a, you know, downtown natick zone. I mean it's, it's, if we can't, as a state, a Massachusetts can't decide one house on 20,000 square feet is a, a respectable density. When sewer and water are provided, then we're in trouble. That means there's gonna be a lot of big lots out there for a long time. So Speaker 1: Sounds like we have a certain amount of unanimity on the issue of the waiver.
If I am not mistaken, and please speak if you think I am now what I, what I would like to see us do, and we've, it's something that we've fallen away from in recent years is coming up. If we do have a waiver that is voted that, that the board kind of have makes a finding as to why this is deemed to be superior rather than simply saying we we're, we are going to approve the waiver that I, I would like
to see us construct and in a decision, the, the intentionality of it that it wasn't, it was designed deliberately for creating superior movement through open space or you know, public, public access, so forth. And I think if I'm, I'm seeing generally a nodding that we can, I'm Speaker 9: Wondering how do we quantify this? Why are we doing this? The reason, the rationale that I think it would, it doesn't seem
as though it's gonna be something, Speaker 8: Well the language qualified in three F says the planning board may waive strict compliance with provisions of this three f by a four-fifths vote. If it is found that the granting of such waiver will benefit the neighborhood in which the or SD is located result in the preservation or enhancement of the natural environment or yield superior design. So we have language that we can use so we can say, you know, motion for a finding that under the provisions of three f we Speaker 1: And then i I think that will be important. Yeah, yeah. So, and we can take, we can lift the language or if we want to, to identify specific
kind of amenities or values that, that will be useful for this project. Speaker 9: What we do, take each one of these items one by one and just develop a little narrative. Speaker 1: I I think it's almost what you read. I think Speaker 8: It it just say that, you know, under, under the provisions of three F, we can have a finding with a forfeits vote that we are granting the waiver of of up to 15 units so that there will be a benefit to the neighborhood and result in the preservation enhancement of the natural environment. And I think
Speaker 1: And it, and it may be, and you know, because it will include, you know, whatever access, if you wanna identify how much access to open space or anything that, I don't wanna say it can be enumerated but it can not sound simply like a cookie cutter little, Speaker 9: But it's a little difficult to enumerate elaborate. Speaker 8: Yeah, I think I tempted to avoid the math. Okay. Yeah. Speaker 1: And Speaker 8: Just go to here's the number and here and here's the but Speaker 1: To, to make it clear that that was, that was the grounds on which yeah, we could justify that
because I think otherwise Speaker 2: I think that's good practice. I think it's good practice to begin with. So what I would suggest, this is a special permit, correct? Yes. So Amanda, she drafts a complete decision, right? The special permit decision. Speaker 8: And and and it does include site plan review. Speaker 2: It it does, right? Yes. Okay. So right, so you know, a complete special permit site plan review and waiver. Do you know, decision that's supported, documented all the proper findings for all of it and circulate that as a draft before we vote
Speaker 1: And do we want to have this done? Is the, does the scenic road public hearing in any way affect none of, I'm not, it doesn't affect any of the prop, the property itself. Speaker 4: Sorry, I don't think we need scenic road for the main project we needed for the sidewalk. Yeah. So, and after discussions with Bill, we walked the site together, we're down to two trees that have to come out and so we, we thought it would be a lot more, but we played with the location of it and we thought we had to take about eight, now we're down to two.
So it should be a little bit better. Speaker 1: It, it feels, and I realize that just sounds like, you know, taking kind of small bits but to, it would be good to have that dealt with before we wrap the decision. Speaker 2: What dealt Speaker 1: With the, the, the, the no no Speaker 6: Because they're almost just, Speaker 7: They're almost two separate items because the sidewalk is on the public facing side and that would be something that they're gonna need to work with collaboration with DPW on. And this is for the actual site and everything else.
So it Speaker 1: Would, okay, Speaker 2: I mean we can certainly condition the approval of this to going through this, the process, Speaker 7: Well one of the conditions is the installation of the sidewalk. So the sidewalk wouldn't be able to be installed if the public scenic road modification wasn't obtained. So therefore they wouldn't be compliant with the decision of the planning. Speaker 1: 'cause there, there wasn't the need for Yeah, Speaker 2: That's Speaker 4: Fine. Yeah. Speaker 1: I just didn't wanna get cart before Speaker 2: Horse. Does that make sense? Procedurally what I've suggested, do we have a draft decision fleshed out? Speaker 1: Well I think, you know, I understand Amanda's point is
that because because this it's the sidewalk that is ultimately the trigger that it, and that is a kind of a public facing amenity. I I would still like to see it close and that and that's just Speaker 7: See Speaker 1: The kind of see Speaker 7: The what? Speaker 1: Just to, to see the, the scenic road hearing opened, opened, dealt with and closed before. Just Speaker 2: Is that even in process? Speaker 4: Yeah, we finally, I did talk to art a little bit and like I said, I did walk with Bill
so now we know exactly what we're filing for. Okay. And we did clear with the, the five abutters, the specific trees and such so we could file it. I mean it can be like any other condition. We have conditions and subdivisions for offsite. Speaker 1: I think that I, I think would, would be very sensible. 'cause I'm also conscious of somebody coming back and going, well wait a second, this is, this is a scenic row. Why, why did you do it that way? Right. And so that it's, it's clear what we are, what our intentionality is, what we're, what we're trying to, I Speaker 4: I think it's just for the sake of
making sure we have everything. I held off filing the storm water permit until we had this wrapped. So now I'm going to conservation the first week of December. Presumably that's two meetings. It's a fairly simple thing. In the meantime we'll do the scenic road. So I think it probably would make the most sense to have a draft, have it out there. But we may not be voting on that draft till 2026 I think. Okay. So that makes sense. Speaker 2: Not want to have you come back, let's say the storm water management permanent changes something right. And then we gotta come back and reopen the hearing. And so I think that's good. I Speaker 1: Think there's a reasonable se
sequence and kind of schedule. Speaker 4: So yeah. And that way everything, if the plan changes, we can make sure that the correct plan is the one referenced in the decision. So Speaker 1: Always a good idea. Yeah. Okay. Alright. So then makes sense. When are we likely to need to, Speaker 7: We can meet, we're meeting next on Speaker 1: December. December 3rd, Speaker 7: Third and the 17th. Speaker 4: I would say the third is probably too early. Speaker 8: So for the 17th we wanna have our scenic road hearing 'cause I think we should have that. Speaker 4: Oh, we could have that on the third? Yeah, yeah, Speaker 7: We could do that. Well Speaker 1: We, oh, Speaker 7: We'd have to get it on the 17th because we'd Speaker 4: Advertise no advertising. Okay.
Speaker 7: But we can get that, we can get it advertised the week of December 1st and December 8th for the public hearing on the 17th, but 'cause next week's Thanksgiving. Speaker 2: Yeah, let's do that. Let's do the 17th for the, Speaker 1: For the, for the s for the scenic road. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 7: Okay. And then we'll also have a decision drafted for the 17th. Speaker 1: Terrific. Okay. Alright. So I will entertain a motion to continue to December 17th. So Speaker 8: Moved Speaker 1: And a second. Second. Alright. And, and because I can't see, is Alan still there? No, Alan Speaker 7: Dropped off sometime around 7 52.
It was very like short minutes ago. Alright, Speaker 8: Well lemme ask you this. Should we, if we don't fight, we don't vote that finding tonight, which is a four fifth vote. We would typically, tonight we would like vote on the site plan in, in years past and then we would vote again on the decision. But we are, we are not voting tonight. So that when we have the decision, we will need to vote the finding and we'll need to vote approval. Speaker 1: Okay. We, we could right vote it tonight
because we have four votes. Speaker 8: Definitely Speaker 1: Assume, I mean Speaker 8: However, under, under the, the possibility that the site plan might change. Okay. I think we can wait until the 17th but let's not forget to vote that finding and hopefully the language will be in the decision too. Okay. Yes. Are we okay time-wise with the, with the hearing clock? Speaker 7: This one we're okay because it is a special permit. Special permits don't have really a timeline of a clock. They have a clock to open the public hearing and then as long as you're collecting new information, then you're fine. Okay. It's when you are no longer collecting information, you're just continuing it for the purposes. Okay.
Speaker 1: Continuing it. Yep. And this gives us the time to now tuck in the, the senior route Speaker 8: And we've had several site plans, so we need to pinpoint what the latest and greatest is. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. So on a roll. Oh I don't need a roll call 'cause we're all here. All of those in favor of continuing to the 17th. Aye. Aye. Aye. Hope Speaker 7: And Alan's back. Speaker 1: Alright, very good. Okay. Thank you. And thank you. Thank you. Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you. So next up we
have, oh Speaker 1: You have something to Speaker 8: Read? Something to read. On Wednesday the 19th at seven o'clock the planning board will hold a hybrid meeting in the school committee room, excuse me, located at 13 E Central Street in person and via Zoom to review the application of general growth properties, also known as Brookfield Property Retail for T Market slash Ricky Zang the applicant. The applicant has applied for a special permit for the installation of new exterior signage pursuant to section three 20 highway overly districts
and section VH signs and advertising devices and section five six DD special permit and site plan review of the Natick zoning bylaws. The property is located at 12 35, 12 45 Worcester Street and it's located within the commercial two industrial and industrial two zoning districts and the Mall center, regional center overlay zoning district, a copy of the application can be reviewed in the Community and Economic Development office. And on natick's open gov website, the virtual meeting link will be located on the posted
agenda for order. Terry Evans Chair Natick Planning Board. Speaker 1: Okay, Speaker 7: So the applicant is here just to orient to everyone, just to make sure everyone's on the same page. This is the tea market that will be going into, what was the former Wegmans? The Wegmans signage has come down. These are signage for the new tea market that would be going into the place, but they are larger than what was there previously, which is why the building commissioner sent them to you. Okay. And the applicant is also online? Yep. Speaker 1: Mr. Zang, is that Mr. Zang? Speaker 11: Hi, good evening everyone.
Speaker 1: So hi. Hi. So Amanda, if you just wanna walk through the, the, the, the difference in scale with the signage, it's not the number of signs it's but the but the size that, Speaker 7: Or would you like the applicant? Speaker 1: That would be Speaker 7: Fine. I, I'm more than happy to show it. I can do it, I just didn't know. I don't wanna just steal his thunder. Okay. Speaker 1: Nope, very happy to. Speaker 7: And you will see two copies. One copy does not have the stamp, but the Brookfield Properties, who is the owner of it does sign off on this, so Right. Speaker 1: Alright. Yes. So I first I'll also say welcome to
Natick, although I know it's been, things have been building out for a little while now. So if we can walk through the, this the sign package that's proposed. Speaker 11: Yeah, sure. So on this page, so we trying to do 3, 3, 3 sign on the building. So they're all the same exact size. So, so each sign is going to be located, one of them is located on the left side of the building and one of them is located on the east side of the building
and one of them is located on the west side of the building. So you know, all three side is where the Wegman side used to be. So the size of the side, you know, is like much smaller than the Whiteman. So, so, so they are located on the exactly same exact location, you know, on the building where the we man is. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Speaker 7: Sorry. It's like not scrolling but Speaker 1: Not, not playing well with others. Speaker 7: It's like I'm scrolling, but it's, well
Speaker 2: So the proposed signage, there's the, you said they're the exact same square footage, 175 square feet each Speaker 1: And Yes, yes, Speaker 11: Yes. Speaker 1: They all face a different direction. So there's not an issue of sign Speaker 2: Count just for comparison. Do we know, I mean it visually it looks smaller than the Wegmans, but I don't know if that's in fact true. Speaker 1: Do we Speaker 2: Have, do we have a dimension on the Wegmans sign, Speaker 11: The, the, the, the slide or is already taking down and I, the landlord also sent send me the dimension where, like, where the,
the Redman site used to be. So the old, if you can, I should send you some picture, you know, I can download from the Google map. Speaker 2: I'm, I'm actually looking at the, at the comparison between the mockup of the T market sign and a photograph of the Wegmans. If you look at the Wegmans sign and you'll see sort of the three, let's call them cutout bays that kind of articulate that facade right on the, I think that's the west facade. You'll see that the Wegman sign kind of extends over the one, two, even the third bay
as a, as a, as a length. I mean we can, we can, and then if you look at the tar at Thet market, it's only the two. Speaker 1: So it it is, we can, and we can get these off the original decision. Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm just saying just as a visual. Yeah, it, it's, it's smaller. Speaker 7: What the, the reason why the building commissioner did also send 'em here was because if you look at the Wegmans, it's calculating the area, but the as senders and the D descenders didn't are part of that. But what is the trigger here is that the t and t market, technically t is not a descender 'cause the T doesn't fly up or down
and it's the red square. If it was just the market, that's not the problem. It's, it is the red square that goes around the T because that's taller is what the building commissioner sent it. Speaker 1: Although I thought there No it's not. Yeah, Speaker 2: It's, it's not. Speaker 1: And and I would think that it's not, it's not a descender, but there have been cases that we've had before with signage. It's not just dangling, but it can be a, a capital L or you know, something else that has, Speaker 2: I'm gonna profess my lack of, of
experience with the signed bylaw. Okay. And why, and again, I think I've brought this up before and somebody please slap me out of my stupor here. Why are signs before this board as special permits on a, on why Speaker 1: There, it's not a, it's not a special Speaker 2: Permit, but what is it coming here for? Speaker 1: No, it's because it is larger in size than what, Speaker 2: So what is the exact trigger? What is the exact bylaw provision under which
this application is coming forward to the planning board? Speaker 1: It is, oh God, it's in five. Well, Speaker 2: Let's, well Speaker 8: It's in the announcement, it's five H signs advertising devices and six DD special permit site plan review section three 20 highway overlay district. Okay, Speaker 2: But Speaker 1: So what would, Speaker 2: So what what does that mean? What, Speaker 1: What, what traditionally we have done and is it's not, if it falls within the size and scale requirements, then it doesn't need to come before us. But if it, if it is over overly large,
and I think the comment here is that the area of red, that's the background is added into the calculation, then it means that we, we review it and there is a, there's language in that section that says the planning board believes that this is appropriate. It doesn't, it's not offensive to the rest of the, you know, because Speaker 8: I think letters can only Speaker 1: Buildings around it. Letters Speaker 8: Can only be 36 inches high. Yep. And the, the t for example is 47 inches. So I think it's two. I think essentially it's dimensionally.
Speaker 1: And, and so the language, and I apologize 'cause I didn't bring my my book today, but it, it more or less says what we are doing in issuing the special permit is more or less saying yes, but you know, it looks appropriate here. That's basically the informal determination that we're being asked to make by issuing a special permit. We're saying okay, it doesn't necessarily meet the, did Speaker 2: Did we issue one for Wegmans? Do we issue a signed permit for Wegmans? Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah. I'm looking at your files right now. And you did review the Wegmans size when it went from JC
Penny to Wegmans. Okay. Speaker 2: And Speaker 8: Dick's, Dick's was another one. 'cause it was so big Speaker 1: And, and I'd say this is a perfect example. It's one of the sec the sec sections of bylaw that i, I like because it says be reasonable if, you know, it may be too big in, it can kind of inches and feet, but it feels appropriate in the context of where it's located. And I, I gotta say I'm, I, I don't see a problem with that. And I would be the first to kind of step up and say applying this logic,
applying the language that's in that. Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm okay with I'm not, don't get me wrong, I'm okay with having oversight. I just want to know why or how applicants are directed to this board in these kinds of circumstances. Speaker 1: 'cause that's, that's the, our responsibility under the zoning bylaw letter Speaker 2: Height. Okay. But it's not, it's not compliant. What Amanda said earlier was that the building commissioner decided on review like the, like so I'm I'm I'm thinking he had a decision to make right there at the desk. Correct. And he could've said, yes, I approve this or no I don't. Correct. Okay, so why,
Speaker 7: Because he's in his review it exceeded what's allowed in the bylaw. So he's sending it to the planning board for the deviation. Okay. Speaker 2: 'cause that's different than what I heard. I thought it's not the correct, correct. If, if I'm wrong, the market, you said it was smaller or or larger than the Wegmans. Speaker 7: The market is where it says market that is completely compliant. Like that's not the issue. It is the red t because of the area. Speaker 2: It's like the elephant on the Yes, Speaker 7: Exactly. Speaker 2: That we had to, Speaker 7: This is also the same example of Ready When Ready came in.
They're at cloverleaf because they have the orange behind Speaker 1: Ready. It's counted as the Speaker 7: Sign. It's counted as the sign. So that is what Speaker 1: Okay. But I think this is a perfect example of why we have this language in the zoning bylaws so that someone can say, yes, I understand that strictly speaking the measurement makes it too large. But the reality is if you see it in context as it appears on the, in the renderings, then it, it, it feels that it warrants us making the approving the special permit.
Speaker 7: And on April 10th, 2017, under decision 11 dash 17 planning board voted to modify a special permit. And it was for the three signs for Wegmans and one sign for volcanoes Mexican kitchen. Speaker 1: That was part, that was a, an kind of in in-house restaurant for Wegmans. Yeah. Speaker 7: And it's Speaker 1: Wasn't there very Speaker 7: Exactly what you would, you approved exactly what they, but it was just 'cause it was large. Speaker 1: Yes, yes. Peter Speaker 9: Is this market taking the two floor is what Speaker 10: Amanda, in that decision, did it say how large
or the letters were or how large the sign was for Wegmans Speaker 2: Alan? I think P Peter had a question. I'm sorry, hold on a second. Oh, Speaker 10: Sorry. Yeah, Speaker 7: I would defer to the applicant 'cause I know there was two vacant floors, but I'm not, I have not been there. So that would be a question for the applicant. My Speaker 9: Concern is just that Wegmans was to taking that whole building. If now the tenant wants to come in on the other floor, if one this market's only taking one floor, will we have a concern for a sign? Speaker 2: The applicant's here, we can ask him. Speaker 9: Mr. Zang. Speaker 11: Hello? Yes.
Speaker 9: Is is this market going to take the entire space previously occupied by Wegmans? The, the Speaker 11: Two? No, it's much smaller. If you, if you look at the, the second notch, I mean the, the second last page, you can see where the existing web main size is. Speaker 2: Sir, we're not, that's not the question. The question is are, is the T market going to occupy the two floors that was Wegman's or one floor interior inside Speaker 11: 2 2 2 4. Two four. Okay. First and second. Four. Thank
Speaker 2: You. Okay, thank Speaker 9: You. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 12: Can you read this? Oh my god, Ray, it's there. I just can't Speaker 1: Read what this size. Yeah, so I I mean it seems, it seems really logical. It looks at six feet. Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean the merits of this, I mean just the merits of this is Speaker 1: It, it is, I'm Speaker 2: I'm Speaker 1: If you look at it in context, the reason that we, we, we have restrictions on letter height is because we don't want signs that are overwhelming. We review when that's the case and, and can see
before us that no, it's not overwhelming. It's fine, it's appropriate for the context in which it's seen. And Speaker 8: I'll just say as a total tangential comment, as I drive around and as we do fewer signs, I'm seeing signs particularly the, the, the slots that go into freestanding signs getting tinier and tinier with more verbiage on them. And there are more and more examples that are unreadable as you pass by. And I know it's a free speech issue, but I contend that a sign that is too small is actually dangerous. Is dangerous. And it's not free speech. It's more like we should, Speaker 1: Well there's only one, there's only one place
where we say there's a minimum and that is for the street address. Right. And and that was specifically so that people could read it. Speaker 8: Well there, there are some new signs like just like I described and they're getting tinier and tinier and I think we should kind of pull back some of that. Speaker 9: They made for way finding from the road or just interior Speaker 1: Pedestrian. Oh, I it we're fighting from the road. Speaker 8: It'll be a freestanding sign with the name of a business, but it's got a logo, it has a description, it has script and it's only this big. And if you're driving along and you're looking up and you're Speaker 9: That, that's my point.
I just wanna be sure that they aware signs that are relative to drivers. Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah, yeah, Speaker 9: Yeah. The speeds and so Speaker 1: On. Yes. Going down route nine, that's Speaker 9: The safety Speaker 1: Factor. I think that's, I think that's a fair topic to consider going forward. Speaker 8: Well I think, I think the idea is nobody can say no to whatever's submitted. And so it's like, okay, fine, fine, fine. But I do think there is some, some justification of looking at them and really seeing if they're like legible, you Speaker 1: Know, and well, or just, I mean for a start having a minimum, if, if the minimum is, is put there for
of way finding and and street address, is there a reason why that should not be the minimum for, for anything else? Speaker 8: And I'm sorry, I mean Speaker 1: That's sort of rec No, that's for and that's and that's for another day. Yes. But worth considering going Speaker 8: Forward as, as far as this application goes, I'm, I'm happy to move approval based on the signed package submitted and I'm just looking for a date. If anybody sees one first, let me know. You get a prize. This over here seems to say
7 16 25. So I will say, okay, Speaker 1: So the, so the the, the submission dated Speaker 8: Yeah, that's what, Speaker 1: 7 16 25? Speaker 8: Yep. And I so move. Speaker 1: Alright second. Seconded. Seconded by Mr. Denson. Any comments, questions? No. Alright then roll call vote Alan, Speaker 10: Include your aye. Speaker 1: Doug Speaker 8: Landry. Aye My aye not Speaker 10: An aye. Speaker 1: And Terry Evans. Alright then Speaker 8: Do you wanna close the public hearing or wait till we do the decision? Speaker 1: I am happy to close the public hearing. Speaker 8: So moved. Alright, Speaker 10: Before we go on, I, I, yes, I just want
to say welcome to Mr. Zang, welcome to Natick. And I guess my only other question would be when do you guys think you guys will open? Speaker 11: Actually I cannot answer you this question because I'm just the side guy, I'm the side contractor. I'm not Oh, okay. I'm, I'm sorry about this. Okay, Speaker 8: Well let me ask you this. Would you have any interest in, in putting up a temporary sign that says something like coming soon? We used to grant those at times like this just to let the public know what's coming. Speaker 11: Honestly, I don't think the business owner will, will do this because, you know, if, if he wanna do this,
he's done that earlier, you know, because he taking over this space is more than, I think more than nine months already. Speaker 8: Okay, fair enough. Alright. Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, so close. So we're in the middle of closing voting, close the public hearing and Okay. And all those in favor of closing the public hearing. Speaker 8: Aye Meyer Aye. Speaker 1: Evans Aye letter. Speaker 8: Aye Speaker 10: Your aye. Speaker 1: Alright, very good. Public hearing is closed. Thank you very much. Speaker 11: Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you. Bye-bye. Speaker 1: Leading us to planning board Business 2026 Town Meeting
Review and preparation. Speaker 7: So very brief on that one. We did, we were successful at the fall town meeting, so you do, next time we meet, we will see a new zoning bylaw with the updates plus an addendum which has been posted online. The printing was just the use regulation schedule because it goes to landscape mode, was causing a little bit of chaos. I wanted it so you could open it and not have to keep flipping. So you'll get those for the next meeting. Excellent, excellent. In that we are looking at the 2026 fall town meeting or Springtown meeting, I mean, sorry, the one item that we are just working on is a final review
of the use regulation schedule because that does close out the project. Tommy members are expecting us to continue finalizing that review and everything for the fall was submitted to the Attorney General either today or tomorrow. But the form seven has gone down, which is a requirement. So hopefully there's nothing flagged in that. Other than that, I think if we do anything it'll be reviews of what we've already done and just to make sure everything is in good shape. And then in the fall we would expect to be kind of doing more of like maybe the golden triangle.
Speaker 1: So. Speaker 2: Well nice work Amanda. That was Speaker 1: Terrific. And I Speaker 2: And everybody, all the, all the members, you know, I know Andy at town meeting, you know, said nice things and think, helped push things over there. Carried, Speaker 1: Did all the heavy lifting. Yeah. But, but you know, people were very are and I people continue to be excited when they talk about what, what's kind of possible for West Natick. Speaker 2: I got 3000 likes or or or impressions on a LinkedIn post I did about it. So I think there's a lot of really Yes. From all over the, all over the country actually.
Really? Yes. You Speaker 1: Know what's amazing to me is that interesting. It is watching us take something that had been truly a transportation corridor without a kind of a coherent series of connections and I'm ex I am very excited to see where this will go. Me too. Yeah. Long time coming. Yeah. Speaker 2: If I could say just one looking into the new year, I know that, you know, I'm glad Springtown meeting will be kind of zoning light, which will be, which is good for our own energy. But I know we've talked about this before
but I think we should really hit the planning board rules and regulations strongly at the beginning of the year and glad to help Speaker 7: Already. Well I sent you an email already. Speaker 1: No, we're got the already starting got the, Speaker 7: So yeah, we have a draft. I'm doing some updates. Okay, excellent. I emailed that to you. Oh Speaker 2: You did? Thank Speaker 1: You. He's, he's busy. Speaker 7: It also include a update to the fee schedule because right now we don't even have a fee for scenic road modifications. Our a and r fee may be a little bit not right
in terms of like what we're actually doing versus what we're charging. So we've done an analysis of that. So we'll bring that forward in December. But we have got the first nine sections of rules and regs drafted. Site plan review is the 10th. That one's drafted but needs some more tweaking so you'll have those in December and January so we can move forward. Speaker 1: That that is excellent. Thank. Awesome. And do you know if we're gonna be able to have a, a new zoning map? The, well the zoning map for the 12 31 23? No, 24 20.
Speaker 7: 24 4. Yeah. Yes we will. That'll be in the December meeting. Speaker 1: Oh good. Speaker 7: That's, I just needed Rich to get us the map for the AG submittal. Speaker 1: I know, I know. And Speaker 7: There's, he's like right on top of that so he's great. So it's Speaker 1: Again, if there's anything I can do to no help, Speaker 7: It was just a matter of getting OW meetings. And who does the map? Rich Eames James. He's our Speaker 2: Director. Did you wish him a happy national GIS day today? Speaker 7: I didn't. Well you should. I didn't even know. Should Speaker 13: Have. Is it already National GIS? Can you imagine? We just had it. I know, my god. Just start shopping in August.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Shoot. Alright, so any, any other business from members of the board? I, Speaker 10: I think we had discussed this before, but as far as zoning, we were Route nine, the eastern section over by Oak Street. I think some of the zoning is a little funky over there. We have a, a number of businesses that have recently closed out there, so I wasn't sure if we want to take a look at that in this upcoming year. Speaker 7: So we would start the looking at it, but we wouldn't wanna bring anything until the fall because the, and the reason why I say that is because the Golden Triangle is a series of underlying zoning
and overlay zoning that kind of burge on top of each other. But then when you actually go out towards Wellesley on Route nine, that's also an overlay district. So we'd wanna be doing all of that because that touches what we know as three 20 through 3 29. So that is also gonna be underneath that umbrella as well. 'cause it's a good time to review that area since 9 27 but also the vacancies in that area that are pretty significant. Speaker 1: Okay, Speaker 7: Good.
So, no, that's a good point but that we will be pulling that all in together. Alright, Speaker 1: Great. Okay. Any, any further business of the board. Hearing none. Motion to adjourn. Thank you. In a second. Second. Alright. Roll call vote. Mr. Cloutier. Speaker 10: Cloutier. Aye. Speaker 2: Aye Speaker 1: Mayor? Aye not son. Aye Evans? Aye. Alright, we stand adjourned. Thank you very much.