##VIDEO ID:https://videoplayer.telvue.com/player/994DtmGEsi0VDYK3jJI2BJ72GfgNIpU2/media/927425?autostart=false&showtabssearch=true&fullscreen=false## <v Speaker 1>Told And we do have a quorum.</v> This meeting, the opening of the planning board meeting for today, being the 15th of January, we'll open at 7 0 4. This meeting is being recorded. This meeting is meeting is being broadcast on Pegasus. To comment or ask a question, use the raise your hand function. If you are on a phone, press star nine. An individual wishing to speak during public speak or during public, a public hearing must display their first and last name on the screen before their microphone can be unmuted. To make changes in your name as it appears on the Zoom screen in zoom, click on participants to open the participant menu. Hover your cursor over your entry and click on more. Click on rename and type in your first and last name. We'll begin the meeting with public speak. Any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda and it will be taken under advisement by the board. There will 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. Anyone here in the room who would like to have participated in the public? No. And Amanda, I I'm not doing, I'm not seeing any hands. I'm not seeing <v Speaker 2>Any hands. We only have,</v> <v Speaker 3>Sorry, I'm not seeing any hands in the public,</v> but if you could just reiterate the naming of your, oh, because we do have someone labeled Boston Jewish Film and so we're not sure who <v Speaker 1>The, if you want</v> to comment or ask a question, use the raise your hand function. If you are on the phone, press star nine. An individual wishing to speak during public speak or during a public hearing must display their first and last names on the screen before their microphone could be unmuted. To make changes in your name as it appears on the screen in Zoom, click on participants to open the participant's menu. Hover your cursor over your entry and click on more. Click on rename and type in your first and last name. And that should get you into the meeting. Okay, great. And there was no one in public speak. We'll start with the nine Yorkshire Drive. Amanda, have you got any prelim for us? <v Speaker 3>Yep. So I'm gonna actually defer over to the applicant.</v> I believe Mr. Taman is here to help present that. And I can share my screen just to have the plan showing if that would be helpful. And I believe that the landowners are in the public as well. <v Speaker 4>Thank you very much, Ms. Loomis. Mr.</v> Chair members of the planning board, Benjamin Time and counsel for Daniel Wiener and Carrie Shar of 12 Yorkshire Drive, both of whom are in the audience this evening. We have applied for the board's endorsement of the a and r plan that Ms. Loomis has put on the screen. This is a straightforward plan to support the conveyance of a triangular piece of land, which Ms. Loomis is hopefully circling her cursor around. It totals 1,178 square feet roughly. And that tract of land is going to be conveyed by the owner of nine Yorkshire Drive, which is Waverly Street Realty Trust, which has submitted the appropriate authorization paperwork along with the a and r plan application to my clients at 12 Yorkshire Drive. As a result, the eastern boundary of my client's property will change in the manner that's shown and the plan also shows as lots five and six, lot five being my client's property at 12 and lot six being the abutting property at nine. The square footage changes that will occur in both lots. So my client's lot will increase from 34,394 square feet to 35,572 square feet. And non Yorkshire drive will be reduced by that amount amount, but not in any manner that creates any zoning non-compliances for, for either lot. And so we're here to respectfully request that the board endorse this a and r plan and happy to answer any questions the board may have. <v Speaker 1>Thank you.</v> Doug, would you like to begin? <v Speaker 5>Yes, we had.</v> <v Speaker 6>Yep. Thanks.</v> So we have the stamped copy here in the Mylar here. 'cause the one that's on in their packet was not. So we have the, we can actually endorse this tonight. Okay. Yeah, I mean it's not a subdivision, it's entitled to the endorsement. My only question or comment is I don't, I don't love the note on here. Planning board endorsement of this plan does not reconstitute compliance with the town zoning. That's fine. But then the next one, state area requirements. I don't know of any state area requirements that would apply, but that's neither here nor there. It's still, in my opinion, still entitled to endorsement. So when the time comes, I can make that motion. <v Speaker 1>Okay. Terry,</v> <v Speaker 7>No questions. Thank you</v> <v Speaker 1>Alan.</v> I don't think I have any question. <v Speaker 7>I was gonna say, can the, because this Yes.</v> Involves subdivision of land, can a Alan cannot, <v Speaker 1>Well can vote.</v> I think I can ask questions. He can ask questions. He can participate I guess in the, in the, <v Speaker 6>You should have count.</v> You should have like a countdown. It's March 25th whenever. <v Speaker 1>So, okay. Glen and Glen, sorry.</v> <v Speaker 3>Glen's here.</v> <v Speaker 1>Oh, thank you Glenn. I,</v> <v Speaker 8>I have no questions.</v> <v Speaker 1>Alright. And is Andy on?</v> <v Speaker 3>I have not seen Andy yet, but let me,</v> Andy Meyer. Yep. I apologize. Let me promote. He's coming over now. <v Speaker 1>He's coming on. Yep.</v> <v Speaker 3>Okay. Or over? He was in the audience.</v> <v Speaker 6>Oh, there he is.</v> <v Speaker 1>Andy, you with us?</v> I am not hearing Are you in there Andy? <v Speaker 6>He's muted.</v> <v Speaker 1>Read the</v> directions again about unmuting. <v Speaker 3>Oh, here he is. He unmuted.</v> Beg your pardon? He just unmute. <v Speaker 8>Muted. Sorry about that.</v> <v Speaker 1>Oh that's all right. Welcome.</v> <v Speaker 8>Thank you.</v> <v Speaker 1>Do you, we</v> just went over some of the, we're into questions on nine New Yorkshire Drive, the and R Plan. You have any thoughts or comments on it? <v Speaker 8>We did get the letter from the town engineer, right? Yep.</v> Requesting endorsement. Yep. Good by me. <v Speaker 1>Okay. And okay with me. And is any Oh,</v> <v Speaker 7>Oh, oh, go ahead.</v> <v Speaker 1>Any, oh action. Anyone care to talk about? No.</v> Then we have a motion <v Speaker 7>Move move to endorse the plan for nine</v> and 12 Yorkshire Drive as presented. <v Speaker 6>Second.</v> <v Speaker 1>Motion made and seconded. Any discussion?</v> Further Discussion. Take roll call vote <v Speaker 6>Do roll call. Yeah,</v> <v Speaker 1>I'm sorry.</v> <v Speaker 6>Do roll call for this 'cause the Glenn?</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah, but okay, well I start here. Oh,</v> <v Speaker 6>Sorry.</v> <v Speaker 1>Yes. Doug. Terry Evans.</v> <v Speaker 7>Yes.</v> <v Speaker 1>And Ellen don't have a vote on can't he can't vote.</v> Okay Glenn. <v Speaker 9>Aye.</v> <v Speaker 1>Andy Meyer. Aye. Mountains and aye. Okay. Alright.</v> So be it made past <v Speaker 6>So we can, we have three members here as a majority</v> and we can sign it and they can leave with it if we wanna do that right now. <v Speaker 1>Fine. You want to take that? Is it right?</v> It's right here. Just one place. <v Speaker 9>Yep.</v> <v Speaker 1>Good.</v> We'll take it with you and we'll be on our way. Thank you very, thank you very much. I appreciate it. You're welcome. Thank you. Good evening. <v Speaker 9>Alright.</v> <v Speaker 3>They get both but then they scan it</v> and send it back to us so we can, we can upload it to the files. <v Speaker 7>Do you know, would you like to leave it there</v> or we'll just come over and sign it? Yeah. <v Speaker 1>Oh it might be just,</v> <v Speaker 7>It might be,</v> <v Speaker 9>Yep.</v> Sorry. Move this outta way. Go ahead. I might get my, oh, thank you. Yeah, <v Speaker 6>That's how much of data?</v> So much of data too. <v Speaker 9>Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 6>1 15, 25.</v> <v Speaker 9>Thank you.</v> <v Speaker 6>There you go.</v> <v Speaker 1>Chair. Yeah, I,</v> <v Speaker 9>I won't put it back in here.</v> Yeah, you want this back? <v Speaker 3>I think Doug's got the cap.</v> Alright, if you could just have us get us a scan copy of that. <v Speaker 9>Sorry. Thanks.</v> <v Speaker 1>All right.</v> <v Speaker 7>Bruce and I are having a raise to</v> <v Speaker 1>See this meeting into the town meeting public hearings.</v> First on the list amend the zoning bylaws for body art establishment. <v Speaker 7>Are we opening this?</v> <v Speaker 6>Yes. But</v> <v Speaker 1>Sure we, sorry,</v> <v Speaker 3>Could you just</v> by chance just in case we have two people online, could you just let everyone know about 79 speed and two 16 South Main Street? Just so if <v Speaker 1>Oh that they're being Yes.</v> Thank you. If anyone is here for project review of 2 16 2 18 South Maine and 79 SP Street, both are being continued to the 29th of this. <v Speaker 7>Do we need a motion to that?</v> You should move to continue the public hearing for 79 SP Street and for 2 16 2 18 South Main Street to the 29th of January. <v Speaker 1>I'll second it. Do we need discussion?</v> Aye. Aye Terry. Aye Peter <v Speaker 6>Aye.</v> <v Speaker 1>Aye. Andy Meyer? Aye Glen Aye. Aye.</v> Thank you. So moved. Were you guys here for either of those? <v Speaker 7>No, we're here for the</v> <v Speaker 1>Body.</v> <v Speaker 7>Okay. Yes.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 7>For the first</v> of the amend zoning bylaws, one of them already dropped. <v Speaker 1>Okay. So those are, so</v> <v Speaker 6>I've got the public hearing</v> announcement if you want me to read that. <v Speaker 1>Okay. We are all the pub, the public hearings are open.</v> <v Speaker 7>We're all ears. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 6>All right. Yes, that's where we are.</v> Okay, you're gonna open now. Yep. So Natick planning board notice of public hearing pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 40, section five. The Natick Planning Board will hold a pub hybrid public hearing on Wednesday January 15th, 2025 at 7:00 PM in any Edward h Delo meeting room located at 13 East Central Street NE mass in person participation and remotely via zoom for the 2025 spring annual town meeting. First order was amend zoning bylaws, body art establishment to see if the town will vote to amend the natick zoning bylaws by amending section three dash 8.2 point F nine. Body art establishment amend section 200 definitions for body art and personal services establishment and further amend any other associated sections where applicable or act in any other manner in relation there to second item amend zoning bylaws. Section 3 2 6 height to see if the town will vote to amend the natick zoning bylaws by amending section 3 2 6 0.1 height and further amend any other associated sections or applicable or act in any other manner in relation there to third item, amend zoning bylaws and zoning map indoor recreational overlay district to see if the town will vote to amend the natick zoning bylaws by amending section three dash L indoor recreational overlay district. And further amend any other associated sections or applicable or act in any other manner in relation. There to the fourth item amends zoning map indoor recreational overlay district to see if the town will vote to amend the NA zoning map by deleting the indoor recreational overlay district or act in any other manner in relation thereto. Fifth item and last item, amend zoning bylaws. Use regulation schedule to see if the town will vote. To amend the natick zoning bylaws by amending section three dash a two. Use regulation schedule. Use categories within the use headers. One professional and medical offices. I'm sorry, I professional medical offices J research and development laboratory and technology uses K manufacturing and industrial uses M. Other uses and amends section 200 definitions and further amend any other associated sections were applicable or act in any other manner. In relation there to a copy of the full text of the proposed articles may be inspected in the town clerk's office, the community and academic development office and on the website@wwma.org And the link to access the virtual meeting may be found on the posted agenda for tonight per order. Peter SSON chair NA complaining board. <v Speaker 1>Thank</v> <v Speaker 6>You. And it was advertised in the Metro West</v> Daily News Tuesday, December 13th, 2024 and Tuesday January 7th, 2025. <v Speaker 1>Alright, with that open I think we could go right to</v> first is the body arts itself <v Speaker 3>Alright?</v> <v Speaker 1>Oh yes, please do. Please.</v> They're more comfortable And just be sure the little green light is on on the, if it's not, press the button right there and you'll get that copy <v Speaker 10>You have to see on the visual.</v> <v Speaker 6>Right.</v> <v Speaker 1>Alright fine.</v> <v Speaker 11>And so I'm gonna speak on the competitive dis, excuse me,</v> <v Speaker 1>If you'd be kind enough to just introduce yourself.</v> Oh yes. Your name and your residence. <v Speaker 11>So my name is Matthew Trager, I'm the owner of Mundo Salon</v> and Spa and I'm with Brooke Alex Anderson. And Brooke Alexander is an esthetician at Mundo Salon and Spa and I'll be speaking today on the competitive disadvantage in spas and Natick today. And Brooke will speak on the difference be here. <v Speaker 7>Can I just interrupt? Yeah. Just confirming these are all</v> ones that the board is Yeah. Sponsoring. Correct. <v Speaker 6>Let me just ask are you don't mean to interrupt you here,</v> but are we having a presentation from Amanda and then you will comment or what is the situation? <v Speaker 11>Sorry. It's</v> <v Speaker 3>Okay. I thought the pre, I thought I was,</v> since the planning board's sponsoring this, I thought we were gonna go through the two options which we were considering and then at the board had questions, which is what we had discussed before that members of the, yeah, like that they would be here for questions. I apologize <v Speaker 7>But you could stay there in the meantime.</v> <v Speaker 11>Of course, of course. This is,</v> this is our first time. Yeah. Okay. <v Speaker 12>Mine</v> <v Speaker 1>Too.</v> <v Speaker 3>All these so far I can go</v> 'cause I don't know the technical pieces. I know the land use piece. So. So with that being said, this is something that the planning board had actually reviewed under a citizen's petition. So in the spring of 2024, town meeting voted to allow for body, or sorry, basically microblading permanent makeup to be added to body art establishments, which is typically tattooing and piercing, not ear lobes. Ear lobes are exempt from that. So they allowed it to expand from its small location up in the golden triangle to Natick Center, which is the downtown mixed use district. At that time during the public hearings there was question by this board and members of the public as to why only Natick Center and not other places. And so that is what we are looking at today because that was something that the board did take an interest in looking to see if it was actually viable in other locations. And so what we are here tonight to talk about is bringing an article to town meeting to do just that. So we have two options and what you're seeing on the map or the table right now is the language that was published in the Metro West Daily News for the legal notice, which would also be warrant language, maybe some amendments. But what we want to do is look at the zoning map and see. So we do know that this green area, which is at the intersection of Main Street and South Main Street, west Central, east Central, that's the DM zoning district where it's currently allowed 'cause permanent makeup is allowed in body art establishments. There's also a very small piece up in this golden triangle, not even throughout the entire golden triangle. It is, I forget the exact address. It's on the backs on the south side of Route nine. Do you know the address by chance of the locations where it is? <v Speaker 11>It's, so it's also allowed, I believe at,</v> at the Sola Suites at 1400 Worcester Street on Route nine. <v Speaker 3>So those are the only locations it's allowed.</v> So what we would be doing is looking at two options. Option one is really just amending the body art establishments to allow it in Commercial two. Commercial two is predominantly up on route nine. And so that would just be that one expansion the board may consider to allow it to expand to other locations. We would also delete a footnote, which is what we've been trying to do for a while. So that is option one. That is a very conservative approach that would allow for body art establishments, which this use already is located in to be up basically on route nine. The pink areas are where you would be looking at it. So this is the Natick Mall, the area which is part of Sherwood West. Then you can go down onto the intersection of Speed Street and 1 35 kind of where on the north side of that. And then you would at be at nine and 27 intersection. So on the north side where like the stop and shop is, there's Subaru, Honda, et cetera. And then you would travel along the north or sorry, yeah, the north side of Route nine out to Wellesley. And then there is a little bit of PA pocket on East Central once you get past the community senior center on the north side. This is the C two district, this is the C two district. So, and there's a little bit in South Natick as you can see, but it's very sporadic where it is. The other option that we could consider is actually removing cos permanent cosmetics, permanent makeup, micro-pigmentation and microblading from the body art category and putting it into personal service. Personal service is kind of like hair, skin, nails. 'cause this use is typically within a salon or like those other uses, which we can get more information on if we put it into personal service, leave body art where it is in the C or sorry dm. And at 1400 Worcester Street, you would then be expanding these permanent makeup uses to the PCD, the dm, the commercial two industrial one, industrial two. Hm. One with a caveat on that one. And then the lc zoning district, because those are the locations that personal services are located. So, <v Speaker 7>And PPCD is largely residential, correct?</v> It's that it's the residential, <v Speaker 3>It's West Natick Village,</v> but there is a little bit of commercial I think on the one <v Speaker 7>Village.</v> Well yes, one. One establishment. Yeah. <v Speaker 3>So that would be the only locations.</v> So that does expand it much further. You may opt to go with option one and just expand body art in its entirety. So these are the conversations that we do need to have. But we have options, which is great in terms of the board of health. They view this as body art because it's basically going through the skin, but they would be able to work with this as well. So, so I can slide back. So <v Speaker 7>They didn't have a preference to either option?</v> <v Speaker 3>Well we haven't fully gone through that.</v> We wanted to get the public hearings open to see which way we were going. 'cause the other option that you could is if you wanted to go with option one and just expand body art two, the C two industrial one, industrial two HM. One and lc or whatever variations. And when I say a fraction of HM one, so in HM one, which is highway mixed use one, it cannot be the primary use, it has to be accessory. And there's a limit on the square footage. So it couldn't be, you know, a 250,000 square foot building only for this. So <v Speaker 7>That would be one heck of a, a production facility.</v> <v Speaker 13>I, I guess those tend to be large developments.</v> Could it be just a small parcel that is doing the body art itself, right? Like the old windows. <v Speaker 14>It is very hard to hear. I</v> don't know if a microphone's not on. <v Speaker 13>Oh no, I'm probably just not talking.</v> Your, you mentioned about it can't be the primary use. What if it is on a small parcel, like say the old Wendy's or something like that where it's not, <v Speaker 3>So that's not in the, hm one, the hm one is really kind</v> of like MathWorks exponent. So they're bigger. It could be like they could build another building onto it, but it couldn't take up the whole site. I <v Speaker 13>Don't think the, anyway,</v> <v Speaker 3>Yeah, but this would be kind of like an amenity naughty</v> <v Speaker 7>To, to me it seems very practical simply to extend it</v> to the C two district. That's where mo much of our retail and service establishments are located. You know, there are commercial zoning districts that wouldn't necessarily or are, are far less likely to have this as a service. <v Speaker 3>And it's one of those things where you could expand it</v> and re-look at it again because we are doing so much with the zoning bylaw that it could be expanded later. Later. <v Speaker 1>Does anyone else else on the board got some thoughts?</v> Andy or Glen? Oh, <v Speaker 3>It seems like Andy dropped off.</v> <v Speaker 6>Maybe he's coming. I don't have</v> any comments at this point. <v Speaker 13>No, I think I would like to, I I I have</v> to admit I know very little about any of this, so I would definitely, <v Speaker 3>I've had to look it up every single time. So</v> <v Speaker 6>I mean, just</v> <v Speaker 1>Can, can this</v> <v Speaker 6>Fundamentally just so body out established as,</v> as it's defined Yeah, they're not allowed, although they're operating. Are there, are there any operating in Natick <v Speaker 3>Under</v> <v Speaker 6>That sort of definition?</v> <v Speaker 3>Under the definition? So do you mean per permanent makeup?</v> Yes. Establishment. So there may be one, I'm not sure if they ever got through the whole like, board of health process that would be located in NAIC Center. And I'm not sure, does 14 Worcester, 1400 Worcester Road have one? <v Speaker 11>So I know 1400 Worcester Road, it, it's a bunch of suites,</v> whether it's here, stylist estheticians, massage therapists in there. I I know it's, I know it's zoned to do it, but I don't know what practitioners are in there. Okay. I'm unaware of who trying, <v Speaker 6>Who's working.</v> Get a sense of what the, if this is a solution, what is the problem and if it's a definitional problem, because these, these establishments want to be in Natick or need to be legitimized by the zoning. Oh yes. That's, that's what I want <v Speaker 11>And I can, I can jump into that right now too.</v> <v Speaker 6>Oh,</v> <v Speaker 11>Oh, okay. Oh, perfect.</v> So I'm gonna, I'm gonna chat about the, the, the, the current, like what's going on in spas right now and the current competitive disadvantage in Natick. And Brooke is gonna talk about that. These services that we're trying to get approved in Natick, these services are much more similar to people with hair loss alopecia for people who go in for hair extensions. And I think there's a distinct, it's like a beauty distinct between what these spa services and body art. So the disadvantage currently in NAIC in regards to microblading and lip blushing is these are two of the most popular services now in spas throughout the country. So what we're starting to see is we, we're starting to see some of our spa business leave Natick and go to Framingham, Wellesley, Waltham, Norwood, Westwood Newton and, and other surrounding towns as well. Because in those towns you can go to those towns, you can get your hair done, you can get your nails done, you can get a facial, you can get your microblading lip flushing, waxing, and just do it all from the trusted professional professionals in the trusted business that you're used to going to. So, so that's the, so that's the issue in Natick right now is it's very similar to like, when Wellesley was a dry town and everyone went to restaurants where they could have a drink, which was everywhere, but Wellesley and Natick was a huge beneficiary of it. Newton was all the surrounding towns were. And so now what we're starting to see is the surrounding towns are becoming the beneficiary of taking spa clients out of Natick. And that's what we're starting to see happen. And then if we lose a spa client to framing him or Wellesley, then we're also risking, maybe they'll find a nail technician at that place, a hairstylist at that place. And, and, and we don't want, and so it makes sense to not have a competitive disadvantage. And then also in the same respect, if it can be done in Natick Center and at 1400 Worcester Street, it's now creating a competitive disadvantage for the spas in Natick that aren't at one of those two locations. And there's a, there's a lot of us, obviously I'm advocating for myself, but my gut says that even if like we, if, if if we're luckily able to get zoned in and others aren't in a year, you'll be chatting with more spas asking for the same thing. <v Speaker 7>I think one of the things that this is, is doing</v> C two is our kind of standard commercial. And as I was mentioning earlier, that it's the sort of place where it's, it's it's zoned. So that C two tends to have services such as this other professional services where I don't necessarily see something so urgent is in places that are zoned for, you know, commercial office. I don't see a reason for that. I don't think that would cause any disadvantage. <v Speaker 11>Are we, are we in C two?</v> <v Speaker 7>Yes. Oh,</v> <v Speaker 11>Oh, oh, oh,</v> <v Speaker 1>Awesome. So</v> <v Speaker 7>Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 11>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 7>And it,</v> and it basically is C one is what we today call downtown mixed use. Okay. So C two is just another type of commercial. Okay. And yes, and what we're talking about doing is changing it, whether we change just adding it to C two or do something something else or something larger and more wide ranging. Oh, thank you. But yes, in, in either scenario that we're talking about, you would be covered, which, <v Speaker 11>Oh, thank you.</v> So we're located at 1 54 East Central Street in Natick, Mundo, salon and Spa. And, and Brooke, she's an, and Brooke can actually talk about the service specific services themselves as well. <v Speaker 15>They, they just more are like beauty services.</v> They're just to enhance like features. A lot of people with like alopecia or hair loss maybe have had like hair loss from cancer or anything like that. That's what like bring, like the eyebrows is like the microblading is bringing that back to your face. It kind of makes your entire face. So, and then the lip bushing is just like emphasizing it a little bit more. So this isn't like, it is under tattooing, but it's not like I'm gonna go, it's not like I'm not looking to des like do designs or do actual, like tattoos. It, it's similar, it's a different ink and it doesn't go as deep in the skin. So it is like different. But that's just like, I think the only thing that they really, where you could put it under. But it is more of like a beauty thing than it is like under tattooing. So <v Speaker 11>Because Yeah, and, and often</v> 'cause like when people come for hair extensions, it's, you a lot of times hear loss alopecia and things like that. And even though microblading 'cause it, it's semi-permanent, right? It's semi-permanent. Does fade semipermanent not permanent fade. Yeah. And it does fade. And so it, it, it, even though it's not hair extensions, people who come for this service, it's often Ali clients who suffer from alopecia and hair loss or after doing waxing for 30 years, there's just, they, they just lose the volume and they just wanna feel good again. And our job is to make them feel good again. So the whole why we do it is completely different. And it, <v Speaker 1>You right now located in a salon nailed salon or,</v> <v Speaker 11>So we're 1 54 East Central Street in Natick.</v> So it's a 4,000 square foot facility. And then if you walk, when you walk in, you'll see the reception and then, and then to the left is a huge here salon. And then, and then in the here salon, there's a private room that has that, that is the nail room. And then in the back of the building is a private spa that has four treatment rooms. So the, the, the, the nail salon in the, it's all under one roof, but the, the hair salon has 22 hair stations. The nail salon has two pedicure stations, two manicure stations. There's also two makeup stations and four treatment rooms in those four treatment rooms. You know, one's for Brooke for her services. Another could be for massage therapy, but are the rooms are used by estheticians and massage therapists. <v Speaker 1>Okay. Did I get, Glen,</v> did you, did you have anything you wanted to add to this? <v Speaker 14>I, I did not.</v> I can say that just in general, I think the term body art scares people, scares some people. I personally am not scared by the concept of body art and or, or any salon that, that wants to perform these services legally, inappropriately with, you know, the board of health and all of that stuff involved. So I think that, I think that this is something that we should certainly support. <v Speaker 1>Thank you. Andy's, he's back. He's handy back.</v> <v Speaker 6>He's, hi. He's hiding behind the Thank you.</v> <v Speaker 8>Can you hear me okay?</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah, I just can't see you. That's</v> <v Speaker 6>All.</v> Yes, but you're sort of hiding behind a There you go. <v Speaker 8>All right. I'm on, I'm on my phone</v> 'cause my computer's acting up, so I'm sorry about that. But I, when we talked about this last time and we had the two options, I was in favor of the option that extended and made these uses available. Not only just because the, the owner of Mundo is, you know, runs a really nice establishment. But to me this is about, this is about competition and people are leaving Natick to go to, you know, one town over to get these services. And I think it was probably just oversight really, that maybe people weren't aware that these specific services had to be called out. So I don't think there's anything wrong with them. I think we should have them available in our town so that the people would shop in Natick and not go to Framingham or Wellesley. And I think that they should be available in, in all of the zones where we have any of these uses. So I, I'm really, I'm really just in favor of making these available to all the people in Natick, just from a, strictly from a, a, a competitive advantage. 'cause I'll admit I don't really understand what these services are. I just know that people are leaving Natick to get them. So I, I'm in favor of us sponsoring this if we haven't done that yet. And then I'm in favor of the, the broadest possible allowance of uses in our town if we're choosing between two options. Thank you. <v Speaker 1>Thank you.</v> <v Speaker 11>Thank you Andy.</v> <v Speaker 13>So I guess I kind of have a question,</v> maybe it's more for the board. So for option one, we would expand not only the use of the microblading and lip blushing to all of C two, essentially we're allowing other body art tattoos or whatever to all of C two. Correct. Okay. And then the other option, option two doesn't really change the tattooing, but basically allows microblading lip blushing into a whole lot of districts. <v Speaker 3>That is correct, yes. So</v> <v Speaker 13>One's not necessarily more broad than the other, it's kind</v> of how you apply it a little bit. <v Speaker 3>Yeah, it's piercing</v> and body art are the original ones of body art establishments. And this was an add in in the spring of 2024. So this is where it fit at the time. But since that time we've also updated the retail section of the use regulation schedule, which that's why it's like, it's hard 'cause it's like it fits, but it also fits in the other one. What, where does it go? <v Speaker 13>And I guess for, I mean, board of health</v> or whatever has to sign off on normally the stu you know, hair salons or whatever. And then do they do something different I guess for, you know, tattoo parlors or whatever? The health inspector? I, I don't know what they, <v Speaker 3>So my understanding is, is</v> that there is an initial startup review just to make sure everything is in proper procedures, which is standard. And then I believe that there's an annual. <v Speaker 13>Okay. Oh, so they would do that regardless</v> of whether they're just cutting hair or obviously different, <v Speaker 3>I'm not sure about cutting hair,</v> but if it were microblading or tattooing <v Speaker 13>Anything puncturing the skin. Yeah. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 3>Because I don't know, do you get an annual review of your</v> <v Speaker 11>So yeah, we get an annual review of our salon</v> and also of our spa. Our spa is reviewed separate from the salon and the nail department is viewed the same time as the salon and bo and, and usually yeah, the, the, the, the spa we already got reviewed for the spa. And I'm guessing we'll be reviewed for the salon probably any day. <v Speaker 1>The review of of this has to do with continuing licensing.</v> <v Speaker 11>Yeah. So state</v> <v Speaker 1>License to do this,</v> <v Speaker 11>The Mass Massachusetts Board of Massage Therapy</v> comes out every once a year. And the Massachusetts Board of Cosmetology comes out once a year for a full review of every of the entire facility to ensure it's up to code and that everyone's licenses are current. They, they check every single hairstylists license. They check every single aesthetician's license, they check every single nail technician's license. They, they check everything. They check the shop licenses as well. And also, and, and also in regards to microblading and lip flushing, Brooke can talk about this as well. There's, there's a program, anyone who wants to do this, they have to, they have to work under company and they, they're the mentor and apprenticeship 200 hours and then, yeah, chat, chat. Feel free to chat about that real quick. On, on, on, on that program that everyone has. So <v Speaker 15>It is its own program that you have to take.</v> It's like, I think the course alone is 200 hours. And then after that you do have to do an additional 200 hours with, as an apprenticeship like learning and with, with that person before you can even begin to do this. So it's not like a quick thing. It is something that takes like a lot of time and education on. <v Speaker 1>So the apprenticeship is under someone</v> who is already licensed, already <v Speaker 15>Licensed and already does it. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 11>And and licensed to teach as well.</v> Yeah, like I know j Jelen, J-H-E-L-L-E-N or J-H-H-E-L-A-N, Jelen Beauty, they're right in Lynden Square and Wellesley. So they're a certified company that does that, does this training on top of providing the services as well. So people who need this would have to, whether it's Jelen or another company, they would have to go to a company, a a, a place that teaches professionally trains professionally. And then that person is a, learns under them as well. And then, and then they can do it too. So the state of Massachusetts has good programs in place. Is there <v Speaker 1>Any continuing education required for</v> that license? The individual license? <v Speaker 11>So as far as continuing education goes, the,</v> it's a good, that's a good question actually. I think <v Speaker 15>It's a personal, like you would keep, continue</v> to do it on your, like it was something that would be up to you, I think to continue to do it after you have your license. I don't, I don't know if there's any, <v Speaker 11>So one thing that we have at our shop is we have mandatory</v> continuing education for our hairstylists, our estheticians, our nail technicians, our massage therapists and our makeup artists all the time. But these are internal programs that we, that, that we as a business demand, it require from our employees and ourselves because it's the only way to, to, to, to be the top of the industry at something. So we, we do tons of education. I know on the hair side, you know, we have, we have quarterly national educators come in. We also have quarterly national educators come in for the estheticians as well. And also we also have the estheticians and hairstylists as well. They, they probably pick and choose their own classes they want to go to every month. And we send them to that too, on top of the mandatory stuff that, that the business demands. They also, every month they pick out their own classes and they do their own continuing education. And that's the only way to set the trend in the industry. Either that or you're just following your competition. <v Speaker 13>Yeah. So everybody else, not necessarily</v> what you guys are doing, everybody who's gonna do any of these processes, they have to be licensed by the state of Massachusetts, correct? Yes. <v Speaker 11>Yeah. And you, you have to, everyone has to go</v> through this, this training program. And then if, if you want, I can even pull up one of them right now and just read it out loud. If, if you just, so, just so I don't give any say anything incorrect too. <v Speaker 14>As interesting as this is, is it, is it relevant to</v> what we're doing here tonight? Oh <v Speaker 7>No,</v> <v Speaker 11>Probably not. Not deeply</v> <v Speaker 13>Just, well, knowing that it has,</v> <v Speaker 1>Just trying to understand the industry a little bit.</v> Yeah. We looking to, for any motion here for this Terry? <v Speaker 11>I don't think we need to have a motion.</v> <v Speaker 7>Do we wanna, do we want to vote on these tonight?</v> No, that's what I thought. No, no, <v Speaker 3>No, no.</v> Thank you. And they say that in the sense of we have two options on the table. Yep. I think that we need to decide <v Speaker 7>Which one, which</v> <v Speaker 3>One we're gonna do</v> and let's refine it. <v Speaker 7>But do we want to do that tonight?</v> <v Speaker 3>We don't have to. This may be something now you have</v> information, we bring it back on the 29th with more information. Like is there something relative to like the actual locations of option one or option two that you wanna see more of? Like, like where it's more competitive or anything like that? 'cause we, like, I, we don't have really any locations, but we do have salons that are located throughout the community that could really be benefit. <v Speaker 7>Yeah. I I think a lot of them tend, tend to be in C two</v> because those tend to be smaller, I guess again, service. <v Speaker 3>Yeah, like the ones off the top of my head.</v> You have the one up in Cloverleaf Plaza. You have Natick Mall. <v Speaker 7>You're talking about salons or</v> <v Speaker 3>Salons are, I mean,</v> <v Speaker 7>They're everywhere.</v> <v Speaker 3>Oh yeah. They're, but when you look at it, it's a lot on</v> Worcester Street, north Main Street, Natick Center, west Central. <v Speaker 7>I'm, and I'm, I feel like I, I have enough information</v> to, to go ahead and, and determine which one I think I would support or that I'd prefer to support. But if we want to hold off until, <v Speaker 3>Well, if you wanna make it</v> <v Speaker 7>No, we can, no, in case there's comment,</v> there are comments that come in from anybody. <v Speaker 3>If you wanna set a direction, that's great.</v> 'cause then we can finalize that. Also help counsel review it to make sure that it's all ready for the January 29th meeting. <v Speaker 7>Others have strong feelings. Could we</v> <v Speaker 8>Just review the two options?</v> I, I was having difficulty zooming in, so could we just review, I think I know what they are, but I just wanna just get a double check on what the two options we're considering. Yeah, <v Speaker 3>Yeah, yeah.</v> So the two options, oops, hold on, bear with me for a second. All right. So we have the two options. One is they're both expanding the, the allowed use into the C two. The first option would be just to take and in the use regulation schedule under F nine, which is located in retail or consumer service establishment, we would actually take the N out of the C two and replace it with an sp unless plenty board members want it changed. We could expand this based on the conversations to allow it in the industrial one, two, the center gateway, HM. One lc, et cetera. We would also at this time delete the footnote, which is preexisting from quite a while ago. 'cause it is no longer needed since we have a definition for it. But it is still there. That's option one, option two. Oops. What was that? <v Speaker 7>I thought those, I thought option one was C</v> two expansion only. <v Speaker 3>Yeah, two</v> <v Speaker 7>Is IN one IN 200 gateway</v> <v Speaker 3>Lc.</v> So that would, if the, it is a yes or no, I say that because right now all we're doing in option one as proposed here. Yeah. Oops. That's where, oh there we go. Is we're showing it only being expanded to C two. Right. However, if the board was like no body art should be allowed elsewhere, we can expand that further. 'cause that's not outside of the scope of what we've advertised. Option two does not do anything to the use regulation schedule. It only amends section 200 definitions because what we would be doing out of the body art definition, we would remove permanent cosmetic cosmetics, permanent makeup microblading, or sorry, micro pigmentation microblading. We would take and paste those into the definition for personal service establishments. Therefore body art would only be allowed in the DM or downtown mixed use district. And at 1400 Worcester Road, which is tattooing branding or <v Speaker 13>Where Where it's allowed now.</v> <v Speaker 3>Correct. But then we would take</v> <v Speaker 7>Option one seems a whole lot more sensible.</v> <v Speaker 3>So then just to real quick,</v> benefit personal service establishments, because that is like hair nail salon. Those are already located in the use regulation schedule in more locations. So it's just a matter of which way you want to go. So that's why I got it. We've got option one and two. <v Speaker 13>Amanda, can you just say which ones the personal</v> use would be under? Show the table if you, <v Speaker 3>You have it.</v> <v Speaker 13>Oh there we go. There we go. Few 50. Yep. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 3>Oops.</v> <v Speaker 8>Alan, can you turn your microphone on?</v> I can't quite hear you. Oh, <v Speaker 3>Bear with me. My thing is,</v> <v Speaker 16>Oh there we go.</v> I thought I had it on this whole time. Okay, <v Speaker 3>So if</v> <v Speaker 16>You much better.</v> Are you sure? So <v Speaker 3>If you look on the table that's in the packet tonight,</v> if you look online F seven, which is personal service establishment. That is where if you only made the definition change of copy or cutting and pasting, these uses from body art establishments, interpersonal services, these uses would be allowed in the PCD, the DM C two industrial one, industrial two center gateway, the HM one A and B. So <v Speaker 6>That's the more expansive.</v> Correct. So the option two is the <v Speaker 16>More expansive, it's more expansive for these services.</v> However, the option one actually expands the ability to do tattooing. Correct. <v Speaker 3>Because we would then be take, if we did option one,</v> it would only be F nine. And so currently body art establishments is not allowed in, tattooing is not allowed in C two. And it would be if we did option one <v Speaker 7>But only being added to C two, not universally.</v> <v Speaker 3>So that's why I wanted the board</v> to look at both options there. You can, you can argue both ways. It's just dependent on which is the best and that's why we, you don't have to vote it tonight. We are, in terms of timeline, we're great. <v Speaker 7>Yeah, no, I'm, I'm pretty comfortable</v> <v Speaker 1>It just to, in the 29th, if we just defer this</v> until the 29th, what's our agenda looking like? It sounded like it's, <v Speaker 3>So the agenda for the 29th is basically the same agenda</v> that you would've had to tonight minus the a and r review because we've already gone past the deadline to advertise any new prob projects for public hearings. So you would have 79 speed street, 2 16, 2 18 South Main Street and then Alright. <v Speaker 7>And five Auburn</v> <v Speaker 3>And five, yes. Sorry. Yep.</v> <v Speaker 1>Alright, well I'm in, I'm inclined</v> to just prefer it. I I'm still trying to understand exactly what I'm trying to understand, understand a little bit about the industry too. So I have some idea where I'd like that industry to, to be located. It sounds as though I'm looking at option two that it would not be located with typical body art, say typical the tattoos. Is that correct? <v Speaker 3>That's option two. Yeah. You would separate,</v> you separate the uses. But in option one they're still coupled but allowed more places. <v Speaker 1>But in option two you could be located this,</v> this function, this could be located with a hair salon nail. Okay. Is that, that seems like a, I don't know from your perspective, that seems like a good competitive Yeah. What about the kind of space that you needed? My, <v Speaker 8>My worry with option, my worry with option one is</v> that we will hear back from facilities that are located in home occupations and in other areas in town and say, well, you know, you didn't include us and now we are at a competitive disadvantage. So I, I think option two is a, is a clean across the board improvement to the competitive disadvantage. IIII I'm leaning towards option two myself. Can <v Speaker 7>It be a home occupation? Is that what you were saying?</v> <v Speaker 8>Well there are, well there are, you know,</v> there are home occupation beauty shops. I'm sure they exist. And you know, they would have the ability to, you know, to be personal service salons and instead of trying to, you know, leave people out in option one, option two would just allow wherever these are currently allowed just to provide these services, which I think a much cleaner way to go. <v Speaker 1>I'm concerned about what I just heard about home.</v> <v Speaker 11>Oh, I, I, I can actually speak on that a little as well.</v> So just with the state of Massachusetts, the board of cosmetology, I I I, I know this with the board of cosmetology, I, I have to do reading on the, the board of massage therapy. But with the board of cosmetology, you cannot open a business in your home. Hmm. You're not allowed to do it. If you do do it and somebody decides to report you to the mass board of cosmetology, the Massachusetts Board of Cosmetology will show up and shut that house down. Yeah. So if, if there's any, if someone's trying to do something in their house that they're not supposed to do, it's just, it's, that would be a call to the Massachusetts board. 'cause there, there, there's, when you open up a, so a salon or a spa, there's huge checklist with the Massachusetts Board of Cosmetology, the Massachusetts Board of Massage Therapy and you cannot deviate. And obviously, you know, <v Speaker 1>Well it's a licensure issue</v> and that I would correct say we don't want to do any suggest anything that so is not gonna allow <v Speaker 8>I I stand corrected</v> <v Speaker 11>So, oh.</v> So yeah. So we should be okay Andy with that. 'cause anything we are going on, the state of Massachusetts is board. They, they, they, they police that so very well. We should be okay with that. <v Speaker 1>Okay. Was it to the favor of the board to</v> make the suggestion and do you want an idea consensus of what we wanna do, what we're gonna, <v Speaker 8>Well, if we don't wanna vote tonight,</v> maybe we could prepare option two and vote it at the end of the month. That, although I'm pretty comfortable, I I don't know. Amanda, do you need more work on it just to get the <v Speaker 3>No, I just like to have it like you wanted any</v> amendments or anything like that. I just wanna have you vote a clean document. But if I would also just like to make sure everyone's good with it. But yeah, it's just a matter of option one or option two. And if you wanted any amendments, but <v Speaker 7>I don't need any amendments.</v> I prefer option one, but that's just me. <v Speaker 6>I lean towards option two. Oh, I mean to by you. I mean I,</v> <v Speaker 8>I'm an option two guy.</v> <v Speaker 6>Yeah. I mean Alan, I don't see how that expands anything.</v> I mean, body art would still, tattoo would still be the definition of body art and body art has its own line <v Speaker 7>And it would be allowed under C two.</v> <v Speaker 6>No, no.</v> <v Speaker 7>Oh no. Under option one it would be allowed in C two.</v> <v Speaker 6>Correct. But option two leaves body art alone. Yeah,</v> <v Speaker 16>Absolutely.</v> That's what I was saying. <v Speaker 6>And it elevates</v> <v Speaker 7>And do we want to leave it alone?</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah,</v> <v Speaker 6>I'm going to, yeah,</v> we're not talking about tattooing, we're talking about body art and so expanding, expanding the competitive landscape for body art. I think option two does that. <v Speaker 7>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 1>And I think what was just said very really</v> <v Speaker 8>Yeah, tattooing stirs people up.</v> I, I, I don't, I'm not sure I wanna tackle that. Changing the tattooing policy. <v Speaker 1>Yeah. The terminology of body art to me is,</v> well I could go back. Yeah. 50, 60 years in the Navy and that was what it was. It was <v Speaker 6>Hazing</v> <v Speaker 8>Or you could go forward</v> to the present when it's ridiculously common. <v Speaker 7>Everybody has tattoos.</v> <v Speaker 1>Yeah. Well I know that I'm just, but I'm</v> <v Speaker 16>Still, so I, I think I'm leaning towards I think option</v> two as well because I was on the fence until I had to take another look at the zoning map just to make sure it wasn't expanding it, you know, greatly. But it seems like the zones that it would be allowed and make sense and it doesn't tackle tattoos, which I think is a whole nother discussion. <v Speaker 1>How about if we just leave it, it be worthwhile one</v> but I guess the 29th and maybe have it written way that might add or amends certain things that we've said tonight. Simple understanding of it and leave it at that we know I think generally where we all have some opinions. Yeah. Leave it at that and go on to, I don't have, <v Speaker 8>Do you want a motion to continue?</v> <v Speaker 1>Yes. Motion to continue.</v> <v Speaker 8>Will we continue the public hearing till January 29th?</v> <v Speaker 6>Second.</v> <v Speaker 1>Motion made. And second. Any discussion? No.</v> Andy. <v Speaker 8>Aye.</v> <v Speaker 1>Glenn.</v> <v Speaker 8>Aye.</v> <v Speaker 1>Doug. Aye. Ellen. Aye. Carrie. Aye.</v> Aye. Alright. Thank you. Thank <v Speaker 11>You everyone for your time.</v> We really, really appreciate it. I'm Morning. <v Speaker 1>Yeah, thank you very much. This</v> very learning helpful. Thank you. <v Speaker 11>Oh thank you. No, this was great. We really appreciate it.</v> Thank you for your time and for, and for helping us with our spa. We really appreciate it. <v Speaker 1>If it's been a help then that's a plus.</v> We're really, that's good. Oh, thank you. Thank you. What was your <v Speaker 11>Name again?</v> My name is Matt. Okay, nice <v Speaker 1>To meet you.</v> It's nice to meet you too. I've seen the sign, I just can't picture where it's right on North side. Used stuff. Used to be in London Square. <v Speaker 11>So Yeah, so I'm the second owner.</v> So the, it was in Wellesley 1980 through 2005. And then when the whole roach brothers development went up, the old owner bought that condo at 1 54 Central Street in Natick. So we never have to worry about moving ever again. Right. Thank you. <v Speaker 1>Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you Andy.</v> Thank you too. Thank you. Alright, thank you <v Speaker 8>Peter.</v> I'm gonna try to log off and log back on just so I don't, don't have to use my phone. So I, I'll disappear for a moment and come back. <v Speaker 1>Fine. Thank you. All right. Height.</v> I don't wanna take these home, but I, she might, my wife might see it, but totally up to you. You take them. Thank you. <v Speaker 11>Thank you so much. We really appreciate Thank you.</v> All your help in, in listening to us and I thank you. <v Speaker 1>Good luck. I'll take, I'll keep them. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 3>Or actually I'll keep mine.</v> Don't give 'em to the board of health <v Speaker 1>So they can have those move on height.</v> Peter. Yes, we are moving on to amending zoning bylaws. Section 3 26. Height building height. All right. <v Speaker 3>This one's awesome. This is something that is</v> what we think might have been done in error. And when I say in error back in 2004, 2005, there was a zoning amendment to add additional sections to three 20, section 3 26 of the zoning bylaw. When it did that, it actually separated the, lemme just share what I'm looking at. It separated the table from the language and so therefore it seems like it was an unintended insertion. So that seems like we could try, you know, it might be just a error but it's a matter of also looking at it as a whole and making a couple updates. So this is in your packets that was previously, so back when 3 26, what is now point 12? It says as follows, in the current zoning bylaw, this blue text does not exist. However, since there is as follows, it indicates that there's something else after, just like in 3 26 13 it indicates public way and it's the same thing and there's a table below it. But then when you look at 14 it ends with a period and then this random table's below there. And in looking at it, it actually seems like the content of the tape or the table should be up in three 12. So that is one of the items that we would like to do is just cut it from under three 14 and put it back up into three 12 with no changes. So that is just kind of just like administrative. The other item in looking at this is we use a lot of acronyms but we never define them oftentimes. So it's like one time in the very beginning of the bylaw, but never again. So in 3 26 11, I would just like to put highway overlay district rather than <v Speaker 17>Districts or</v> <v Speaker 3>District It's districts. There's</v> <v Speaker 7>Multiple, there are, there are several of them.</v> Several, right? <v Speaker 3>Yeah. Yep. So just so it's clear</v> then if you actually read 3 26, 12, the existing language, it's unclear but it also doesn't really get to what you're trying to do. So therefore I would like to clean that language up because this is looking at all of the highway overlay districts. Yeah. And so it was just trying to clean it up. So it's, this is what the height is going to be everywhere. We don't need to call out the regional center mixed use or the mc overlay. It's what it is <v Speaker 7>And And because it's the section that says</v> depending on your proximity to residential, it's important. So <v Speaker 3>Yes.</v> <v Speaker 7>Clarity to the for.</v> <v Speaker 3>So I'd like to change that.</v> The other one is in 13, it's the same thing. It's just consistency because if you look at it, it actually says regional center mixed use. And I would like to add open rcp, close friends overlay district because it's actually not development. Yes. <v Speaker 7>Right.</v> <v Speaker 3>And then if you look down a little bit further,</v> that should be RCP overlay district. And now saying that out loud, back up in 11, we should keep the open OD just so we have that consistent. And then it's the same thing in 14. It's adding mall center open and close around the mc and then changing the development. 'cause again, it's not a development and we do need to delete. Yeah that, so that is the changes that I was proposing for this article. If we're already there, we might as well. <v Speaker 7>I think it's not changes to the heights,</v> you're just cleaning up and reconnecting them. <v Speaker 3>This section is, oh Andy's back on this section is</v> difficult to follow in its entirety. But just if we're already opening this, it made sense. Yeah. <v Speaker 6>Question. Okay. Yes.</v> Yeah, I super straightforward, easy, no-brainer in my opinion. But is there any way we could change the designation of this section to M and make it consistent with the rest of that sec of that section of the bylaw versus the numerical? <v Speaker 3>It's funny that you say that. Okay.</v> We can't do M because we just gave M to accessory dwelling units. Oh. However, an article that I have that's not advertised for tonight is actually looking to do that <v Speaker 6>To make it n or whatever,</v> <v Speaker 3>Whatever it would actually be locating a bunch of it to</v> section two of the entire bylaw so we can then get rid of this section numbers. <v Speaker 6>Okay. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 3>And so we would like to do that</v> 'cause it's that and section one is the same thing. It's, <v Speaker 6>Yeah, it's 102, it's a series of, okay.</v> <v Speaker 3>Yeah. So we're, that is our next tackle.</v> <v Speaker 6>Okay, that's good.</v> <v Speaker 3>But it's a little bit</v> outside this one just 'cause we have to make sure that the cross reference. Yeah, yeah. <v Speaker 6>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 16>What is the reference to on a lot</v> of budding town owned land? Oh sorry, on the 3 26 0.12, the old one that was getting deleted. Was there a reason for that? <v Speaker 7>Possibly because at the ti I'll bet at the time this was</v> done, might have been when the fire station was in west, when the old fire station was in West Natick. I'm trying to think of <v Speaker 3>2005.</v> <v Speaker 7>A lot of budding town on land</v> in the highway overlay district. <v Speaker 3>I wonder if that's where it's,</v> 'cause it does highway overlay. Districts do expand all the way out to nine and 27. Yeah. So I'm It might be there. <v Speaker 7>Yeah. 'cause you have the highway corridor district. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 3>Overlay district. So it's probably in that location.</v> 'cause there are a lot of residential properties and districts right nearby. Yeah. <v Speaker 16>So were they trying to have it less or more?</v> I, I, I, I guess I'm just confused with that. Maybe that's a good reason to get rid of the language. I, I mean also there's a town, the Town Forest, I was also wondering about <v Speaker 7>Yeah.</v> But there's nothing around, yeah. The Town Forest that's commercial that about say, except possibly McDonald's, whatever's at that end, or Joanne Fabrics or whatever those, yeah. Yeah. But I, <v Speaker 3>It</v> <v Speaker 7>Does, I think at this point it's,</v> <v Speaker 3>It goes up the hill</v> because it goes on the other side where the furniture store was. <v Speaker 7>Yes.</v> <v Speaker 3>So it goes up into that area as well.</v> <v Speaker 7>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 16>Okay.</v> I mean, I'm fine getting rid of it 'cause that's the furniture. <v Speaker 3>I couldn't understand it,</v> <v Speaker 16>But</v> <v Speaker 7>I, whose parking lot is significantly</v> in a residential zone. <v Speaker 3>I can't remember the address on that,</v> <v Speaker 7>But I, but I remember the problem.</v> <v Speaker 3>So that's, again, it's, it was not intended</v> to be a major change, it was just <v Speaker 7>Cleanup. Like</v> <v Speaker 1>We looking to, well let me first ask is, Andy,</v> do you have any, anything further? <v Speaker 8>Looks like I'm not muted. Okay.</v> No, I don't, I don't think I have any questions. I'm just curious. Our, our project on Washington Street in downtown that ended up being a little higher than the library and it is that somehow related to this? <v Speaker 3>No, I don't believe so.</v> This is just focusing on Route nine and the Natick, or sorry, the golden Triangle area up on Speed Street. <v Speaker 8>Just the highway overlay district. Okay. Yes, correct.</v> <v Speaker 7>The problem, the problem with the library, the, and the,</v> and the project next to it is that the calculation for MEChA building mechanicals and so forth is not counted. So you can have building mechanicals that push the actual height above that of the building next door. But it doesn't count as that. So it's just the semantics of not including, well <v Speaker 8>I don't know how many more times</v> <v Speaker 7>I hadn't realized it at the time.</v> We, I hadn't appreciated it at the time that we were dealing with this project. <v Speaker 8>I don't know how many more buildings we'll have,</v> but that's a lesson to be learned for next time that, yeah. But anyway, as far as the highway overlay district and the RCP overlay district, I, I don't think I have any questions. Peter. Thank you. Thank you <v Speaker 1>Glen.</v> <v Speaker 8>Nothing.</v> <v Speaker 3>And the only other item</v> that I do ask from the planning board perspective, since we are here and just looking at this, when you look at that table that we're cutting and pasting, it says distance from residential use slash district in the future. We may wanna define, sorry, wait. Oh, sorry. In the table in 3 26. 12. 12, okay. It says distance from residential use slash district. In the future, it may be helpful to define the use. Is it the property or the structure like itself on the property? Like, 'cause when we measure things, it's to the property line. But when it says residential use, is it to the front door? Like Yes. What are we talking about? So it's just something to think about in the future or now. <v Speaker 7>And I, I think I, what they were trying</v> to do unsuccessfully is to treat, say a preexisting non-conforming residential U residential use. But it, you're right, it is completely unclear. <v Speaker 6>Well how does that, huh?</v> So how would that apply to Novell? <v Speaker 7>Oh, but Novell's under RCP, that's why,</v> that's why the RCP district was developed to accommodate mixed use, including <v Speaker 6>Residential s located adjacent to a residential use.</v> <v Speaker 7>Well,</v> <v Speaker 6>Which is Novell, that's a residential use.</v> <v Speaker 3>Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 6>So this would limit height around</v> a Ntic mall if the Ntic Mall would want to go up? <v Speaker 16>No. Is that a</v> <v Speaker 7>Overlay district?</v> No. Well, I'm trying to remember, 'cause this came up when we had the lab, the potential lab development. There was a question about distance from residential Yeah. <v Speaker 3>On Abby Labs</v> <v Speaker 7>Two. Not ab No, not Abby</v> <v Speaker 6>Neman. Mark</v> <v Speaker 7>Neiman Marcus.</v> The Neiman Marcus. Oh yeah. You remember that. And they, they were saying, well they wanted it to be a certain distance from residential. So Yeah. But I would, I would probably say it would need to state like property line or, you know. Well, <v Speaker 3>But then it shares a property line.</v> <v Speaker 6>Is it property line or is it the building?</v> <v Speaker 7>Well, again,</v> <v Speaker 3>That's what I don't know. It's</v> <v Speaker 7>The reason that they developed that, that the,</v> I think it's the RCP district was to specifically to accommodate Nouv val at the mall. And that was just before I came on the board. Andy may remember it more better than <v Speaker 6>I do.</v> Yeah, no, I'm just saying the applicability of this. Now you've got residence, a residential use in the middle of a commercial establishment. And if that commercial establishment wanted to redevelop and go up a a story or two, it's, you know, by Right. Whatever. It can't because it's adjacent to a residential use. <v Speaker 3>And this is, it seems</v> <v Speaker 6>A little odd.</v> <v Speaker 3>It's the same thing for the clover leaf plaza. Yes.</v> Because they're right next to Avalon or is it? Yes. Yeah. So any of those uses that are right there along and those buildings are nine, 10, and 11 story. <v Speaker 6>And that's A 40 B.</v> <v Speaker 3>That's a 40 B. Yeah. So during the</v> <v Speaker 7>It can go anywhere.</v> Yeah. And it, it, it came after there was commercial <v Speaker 6>As supposed the way around.</v> <v Speaker 7>Well,</v> <v Speaker 6>Okay. So as you have it drafted in 36, 12 Yeah.</v> You're trying to, you're trying to preserve the district in use. Right. <v Speaker 3>I was trying to make nons substantive</v> changes and now it's like <v Speaker 6>At the, you're talking</v> <v Speaker 7>Sentence,</v> you're talking about leaving it as it is until next time. That's <v Speaker 3>What the question is.</v> Like we can, or just so <v Speaker 6>Restore the, you have struck out the word uses</v> after residential in that last sentence. Oh, yep. Leave it. Yeah. So that, that should go back in. Okay. Okay. <v Speaker 3>Yep. Let me, yep.</v> I have to go to a different 'cause that's just a screenshot. <v Speaker 6>Yep.</v> <v Speaker 3>So I'll restore that uses after that one. Yep. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 7>Actually, and in fact what it says in terms of,</v> if you go down to 3 26 14, it says accept in case of regional RCP. <v Speaker 6>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 7>No building</v> or portion thereof shall exceed 80 feet in height. So the except for covers the clause. <v Speaker 6>Right. Okay. Interesting.</v> I mean I think we could vote this tonight, Peter. I mean I think it's pretty, <v Speaker 1>Are we looking for a vote to rather than</v> <v Speaker 7>Anything that you want to is</v> <v Speaker 1>Just,</v> this is straightforward as it sounds. Why don't we just do it? <v Speaker 7>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 6>I would agree with that.</v> <v Speaker 7>Mr. Terry, will you entertain a motion?</v> <v Speaker 1>Oh, certainly.</v> <v Speaker 7>Thank you.</v> I, I move that the board sponsor the article for section 3 26 modifications as appears on the document dated 12 24 20 24. <v Speaker 1>And we have a second on that. Second.</v> Second motion made and seconded. Any discussion? Why don't we start? <v Speaker 6>Aye. Aye.</v> <v Speaker 1>Terry.</v> <v Speaker 7>Aye.</v> <v Speaker 1>Allen. Aye Glen</v> <v Speaker 14>Aye</v> <v Speaker 1>Andy, may aye and none</v> and a I fine. <v Speaker 14>Do we need to have a separate vote at this point</v> for our recommendation or do we need to hold a hearing and then come up with a recommendation? <v Speaker 1>Would</v> <v Speaker 7>That's right. 'cause right now we're</v> simply voting to sponsor it. So yes, once we do have to have the, then the, the what the, like the town hearing this is like the planning board piece of it. So yes, I think that's the case. <v Speaker 6>So we won't close the hearing.</v> We won't close the hearing on this. We, we voted to sponsor it. <v Speaker 7>Well no, then I think, don't we have to then have,</v> isn't that all this article that, that this does right now is to, to sponsor <v Speaker 14>This looks like a normal hearing to me.</v> Yeah, but the text of the agenda item just has the text of the, of the, of the motion, you know, to see if the town will blobbity blah or any other manner in relation there too. <v Speaker 7>That's true. We do have to have that.</v> <v Speaker 14>And that's what's there, that's</v> what we're working on off the agenda. Tonight's agenda for all of these things. So I don't think I, I don't know. I mean this sounds, sounds and smells like the hearing that we normally have, <v Speaker 6>But yeah, this is the hearing under the zoning</v> act for these articles. Yes, yes, yes. So I guess what we're trying to grapple with you, we, we have a mo we agreed to sponsor it. Yep. Do we now have to have a motion? So we'll send for recommendation, <v Speaker 7>Well we'll send it, but we'll send it to the select board.</v> It's gonna go in the warrant. And then once they do that, they'll, they'll kind of send it back to us and say, okay, now you have to make a recommendation. <v Speaker 6>Wait,</v> <v Speaker 8>I, isn't that its own public hearing?</v> <v Speaker 6>Yeah. Jumping now. Yeah, I mean that</v> I thought there were choice might be practice, there might be that might be practice. But lemme just ask you what else do we need in terms of information to make a motion for recommendation from the board? <v Speaker 3>You just have to vote a recommendation. 'cause the</v> <v Speaker 6>Public, do we need to see the specific</v> language? Like, I mean <v Speaker 3>Well, no, 'cause this is what would be the language.</v> And then what I would do is basically what is for this one, not the one we just closed, right? But this language that is advertised in the legal ad would be what we would submit in the warrant. Okay. 'cause the warrant is very high level, not specific. So we, we <v Speaker 7>Submit it in the warrant.</v> Correct. But then we have to have a hearing is the for what is in the, is this counts? Is it? Yeah. Ah, yes. This is the hearing <v Speaker 3>We're getting.</v> We are so far ahead of where we usually <v Speaker 6>Are.</v> Nothing wrong with us doing this. Yeah, <v Speaker 7>I, and I had misunderstood.</v> I I thought we could get something out of the way, but Oh <v Speaker 3>No, this is like, you won't have to touch this again</v> until we go to FinCon to get recommendation. I'm happy. So it's, you vote to sponsor it. You can vote a positive recommendation from here if you say yes, this is, what're <v Speaker 7>Would like me to do that?</v> Yes, you should. Yep. And I would And <v Speaker 6>Just, Alan, no offense,</v> let's not record the vote of, <v Speaker 14>Before we do that, can I just ask one other question?</v> I'm sorry for interrupting you Terry. That's okay. If, if there is no warrant and can we actually recommend favorable action on something, if there is no warrant, then this is not on it because there is no warrant. <v Speaker 3>Yep. Yes. So a public hearing</v> is actually good for six months. So you can have a public hearing as long as it's the, it's taken within six months of the town meeting. So we are good. This is teed up for the SPRINGTOWN meeting <v Speaker 6>And that's under the zoning act of the,</v> the state zoning act allows us to do that. <v Speaker 7>So I move to recommend favorable action</v> on the subject matter of the article on section 3 26 as it appears in the document dated 12 24 20 24 SATM, section 360 1 3 26 0.1. <v Speaker 3>As amended.</v> <v Speaker 7>As amended.</v> <v Speaker 6>Second</v> <v Speaker 1>Move made and seconded.</v> And any further discussion. Let's, and Alan, you're gonna stay clear This one? I believe so. Okay, Terry. <v Speaker 7>Aye</v> <v Speaker 1>Not an aye. Aye Glenn. But soon you'll have</v> <v Speaker 14>Power.</v> Aye I guess. <v Speaker 1>And Andy.</v> <v Speaker 8>Andy aye.</v> <v Speaker 1>Thank you. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 3>Alright.</v> <v Speaker 1>Hi overly district.</v> <v Speaker 3>So moving right along. This one also hopefully is another</v> straightforward simple one. So what this is, is this article proposes to delete, or sorry, amend the Natick zoning bylaw and to amend the Natick zoning map. <v Speaker 7>This is the indoor recreational overlay. Yep.</v> <v Speaker 3>Share that. Yep. Indoor over, oh whoops, sorry. Yep.</v> That would, that would be helpful. Sorry, I was looking at the screen and, alright, so what we would be doing is basically deleting section three L indoor recreation overlay district, which is actually located in the East Natick tech park, which is up off of Oak Street and Tech Circle. The image that I'm providing here, it's kind of up in the ear of what the dog is, but it's only half of it. So it's everything on the east side of Oak Street that's in currently zoned industrial one. This was a article that was put into place because of a specific use. However, based on the work that the planning board and town meeting has been doing, indoor recreational, which is what this would be classified as, is allowed in the zoning district, therefore no longer needing this overlay district. So we can delete section number three L from the zoning bylaw. And in that same time we would amend the zoning map by deleting the overlay district. And there goes one more overlay district that we can reduce <v Speaker 7>One of the shorter lived overlay</v> <v Speaker 3>Districts.</v> Yeah. So this one, looking at it, it is straightforward, it seems like cleanup and then in its place of section three L we would just put reserved or something just so it doesn't fall. And then we could actually hopefully slip the high or the highway stuff into. So that's, that's it. I'm in, <v Speaker 7>I'm ready to make a motion. Okay. Yeah</v> <v Speaker 1>Go for it.</v> There's, so there's two. So there there'll be two <v Speaker 7>For the map.</v> Yep. Okay. Okay. Yes. So I will move to sponsor the article for spring annual town meeting to delete to strike section Rowan numeral three L indoor recreational overlay district and replace it with section three L reserved. And second, I'll make it a two part motion. Can I do that? Can I do that To amend the zoning map? To remove the entry on the map for the indoor recreational overlay district, <v Speaker 1>We</v> <v Speaker 7>And ISO move.</v> <v Speaker 1>Alright mo motion made and seconded.</v> But I'm questioning in discussion when we take the vote. Is it for both? <v Speaker 7>Yes I may. It was a two part motion, one vote</v> <v Speaker 6>And then we're gonna have to come back and</v> do the recommendation. Yes. <v Speaker 7>Okay. Got it. But we're sponsoring them both.</v> <v Speaker 1>Okay. Okay. And the vote Terry?</v> <v Speaker 7>Aye.</v> <v Speaker 1>Aye.</v> Andy Aye. Glen <v Speaker 14>A aye</v> <v Speaker 1>And nun. Aye.</v> <v Speaker 7>Alright. And I will move to, oh sorry.</v> <v Speaker 3>Yes there are members of the public</v> <v Speaker 7>Just,</v> <v Speaker 1>Just, oh</v> <v Speaker 3>One's not labeled but one is, so does anyone have any,</v> <v Speaker 1>We have on the line a citizen</v> LA labeled identified as citizen. If you want to clarify that and give us a full name. <v Speaker 6>We'll do they want to ask a</v> question? I dunno if they wanna <v Speaker 1>Participate.</v> Any questions? No. How about <v Speaker 3>You can just ask if there's any members of the public.</v> <v Speaker 1>Well I'm opening to the members of the public.</v> I'm just looking at what I thought were two names of that are identified as wanting to speak. Are <v Speaker 7>They, they don't.</v> They just attending? They're just attending. <v Speaker 3>They're</v> <v Speaker 14>Not identified as wanting to speak.</v> They would need to raise their hands to do that. <v Speaker 1>No. Okay, then we have no one else. Terry</v> <v Speaker 6>Was in the middle of a motion.</v> <v Speaker 7>So a move to recommend favorable action</v> as follows to remove section three L, indoor recreational overlay district and replace it with section three L reserved. And then second to remove the reference of to the indoor recreation overlay district from the zoning map. Second. And I so moved second <v Speaker 1>And seconded.</v> Start going around Andy. Aye Glenn. Aye Doug. Aye Terry. <v Speaker 7>Aye.</v> <v Speaker 1>Aye. So moved. All right, so passed.</v> <v Speaker 3>So the last,</v> <v Speaker 1>The next</v> <v Speaker 3>Last one that have regulat</v> <v Speaker 1>Schedule. Yep.</v> <v Speaker 3>Is a use regulation schedule.</v> This one's a little bit more complex. I do not expect a vote and would not want one at this time 'cause there is more work that needs to be done. I just need to get a temperature gauge and also making sure that we are in the correct direction prior to. So what this article would do is continue the work that the planning board and town meeting have been doing over the past several town meetings. We have gotten up to section or use header I, which is professional and medical office use section use header J research and development laboratory technology uses use header K manufacturing and industrial uses. And then also one that we could add in at this time because this is at out of the three or outta the four is the least heavy lift would be M other uses. It should be noted that there are, after these three or four, there are now two use headers that would be remaining. We would tackle those in the fall and then in the spring of 2026 we would do a comprehensive look over to make sure that everything that we've done is where we want it and everything like that. So basically going back to review the work that we have been doing. So at this time what we would like to do is, the same thing that we've been doing at the other town meetings is one, reduce language put in the definitions, which is currently section 202 reduce redundancies and three update based on best practices. So in this, and this is in the packets that were provided, what we would like to do is just have it be business or professional office. Bless. And then we would define that term IT one use category that I would like. This is one that I would like to make amendments to the permitting requirements. We have administrative professional and to have a per business or professional office, you have to get a special permit when the intention of administrative professional district is offices. So it seems like that should be a allowed by. Right. And it's the same thing in the HM one A, just a reminder. Hm. One A and HM one B are both highway mixed use one. However A is when it's a smaller lot and B is when it's the larger lot. So it's, I believe it's 200 square feet or less. It's a 200 square, 200, it's square feet. It's more, the other space is consideration of adding incubator space, which is small. Kind of like what you're seeing at like Abbey labs and stuff like that. But not in research development. So it would be like small networking places, business training that would be defined. Yeah, we would define that one business training center. We would, this is a use that was allowed in the HM one B and also the lc district and the DM district. But a business training center should be considered for C two industrial, one industrial, two other places where businesses are located. So it would be recommended that we actually incorporate that use into the use regulation schedule for all zoning districts and permitted. And that would be a defined term as well. We would then delete administrative offices, clerical offices, statistical offices, because we would put that under business or professional office. We would then have medical, our professional medical office, which would be different. And this is something we've gotta consider, but we would define that. And then healthcare facility changing those. The other one is, so currently <v Speaker 6>Healthcare facility includes</v> healthcare professional offices. <v Speaker 3>Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 6>Okay.</v> <v Speaker 3>The other one, and this is just a question for the board.</v> We have animal or veterinary hospital, which we don't have a couple here in Natick, but in a lot of our items we don't have this, we can make it a footnote if needed. But provided is located 200 feet from the nearest residential dwelling. I don't know if that's still common practice. That used to be different fact years ago. What are <v Speaker 7>You, what are you,</v> <v Speaker 3>I'm just saying delete it.</v> You would keep the veterinary services, but why does a veterinary, because <v Speaker 7>They have dogs and the dogs often are outside barking.</v> Oh, many, many veterinary hospitals. And I can think of one in particular in Natick that that has also has, has a kennel. And so you're trying to avoid and and and I actually know people who lose some distance away and can still hear them barking. But <v Speaker 3>So would it make sense to,</v> <v Speaker 7>It's</v> <v Speaker 3>Like add a footnote because we don't add like in a lot</v> of 'em we don't include like provided is 200 feet. Can we add that as a footnote? Footnote? <v Speaker 7>That would just so it's, that would seem clear.</v> That would seem fine. Yeah. It's different from a regular hospital where most patients don't bark. But <v Speaker 6>What's the difference between an animal</v> and a veterinary hospital? Why is that distinct? <v Speaker 7>Oh no, they, that that's the one and the same.</v> <v Speaker 6>Yeah. So let's choose one.</v> <v Speaker 3>Which one would you like?</v> <v Speaker 16>Yeah, it seems like also, yeah, you're right.</v> I mean this being in the title just seems a little weird. Like unless you have a different definition for something that is located within 200 feet of a residential building, right? Yeah. <v Speaker 3>We could have this be a definition as well.</v> But would you like it to be animal hospital or veterinary hospital? <v Speaker 7>I would say veterinary hospital.</v> <v Speaker 3>And is a veterinary hospital different than a</v> <v Speaker 7>Veterinary?</v> All, all humans are animals. If you think, if you really come down to it, <v Speaker 3>It is a hospital,</v> veterinary hospital different than a veterinary office. So like I say that in terms of angel <v Speaker 7>Is</v> <v Speaker 3>An animal, hosp like a veterinary hospital.</v> But then there are some veterinarians that only do certain <v Speaker 7>Procedures.</v> <v Speaker 3>So what defines a hospital versus an office</v> <v Speaker 16>Versus a clinic or whatever? Exactly.</v> <v Speaker 7>Well I mean we, how do we differentiate</v> between outpatient human facilities? 'cause more and more medical procedures are taking place at in offices as opposed to hospitals. I think we have to treat them as not being wholly interchangeable, but in a sense, <v Speaker 3>Let me do some more research into that one. There</v> <v Speaker 1>A legal definition that might be come into play</v> between a hospital and what makes a hospital and what <v Speaker 3>Yeah, let me do a little research into that.</v> 'cause again, we're not closing this. Yeah. <v Speaker 7>'cause you can have day surgery at something</v> that is not a hospital. Right. So can I, I think that it makes sense for that to be treated as the same. Okay. <v Speaker 16>So perhaps the title might say</v> veterinary hospital or clinic. <v Speaker 7>Yeah. Or something.</v> I mean where where I take my, my pets. <v Speaker 3>And then I would also delete medical facility asterisk</v> because to be random <v Speaker 7>Including.</v> So <v Speaker 3>The next one is use header J clarifying this.</v> So what we would do is actually just have a definition. So it would be research and development. Take out establishment for research and development. 'cause that was from 1975. <v Speaker 7>Very</v> <v Speaker 3>Quaint. Yeah.</v> And then we would take JLA and move that up and move that around. My question to the planning board is really about the uses. So what we would do for the dm, I think that's DM or C two is bring the Y up 'cause that's what it was in the dm. Oh yeah. However, it's not allowed in commercial two industrial or sorry, it was allowed by not allowed in commercial two but then is allowed by special permit in the industrial districts. And is that something that, which way does this board want to go? And then also in HM one A. It's a special permit where HM. One B is allowed by. Right. So these are things <v Speaker 7>Yeah</v> <v Speaker 18>I I say move</v> <v Speaker 7>It up.</v> Okay, <v Speaker 3>The next one move it up is J two.</v> This is a question that I have for the board. 'cause when we moved all the stuff from HM one into the use regulation schedule, there were parts that it was specifically not fully called out. So in J two renewable or alternative energy research and development facilities. HM. One A is allowed by, right? Hm. One B is not allowed. <v Speaker 7>And remind me the difference between the two</v> <v Speaker 3>A 200,000 square feet size of area size.</v> Lot size. Yeah. So I would like to make that consistent with a, this is the use that I'm not gonna make everyone. Hold <v Speaker 7>On. Question. Go back. Yeah. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 9>So</v> <v Speaker 6>J one.</v> Yep. Research and development and then alternative energy research and development. Why is there a distinction? <v Speaker 3>That is something that I would need to check with,</v> I believe Jillian on. 'cause I think that was something with the greener communities. Okay. That there was a requirement or something. I have to go back and look <v Speaker 6>At that.</v> If there is, if there isn't a need for, I would, I would say you put that in the definition of research and development. As long as it tracks. <v Speaker 3>Yeah. Let me do a double check with Jillian on that one.</v> It's sustainability director. 'cause if we can eliminate lines, it'd be great. Okay. This one's a little bit more crazy in the sense that there's a lot more uses. There was a lot more. Okay. Yep. Okay. And so with this one, oops, just looking at it, this is something that I want the board to take a look at when they get it. <v Speaker 7>MKK,</v> <v Speaker 3>Sorry. Manufacturing and industrial. Is there</v> <v Speaker 6>An L?</v> <v Speaker 7>We already did. No, L is elsewhere. Yeah,</v> <v Speaker 3>We already did L 'cause that was institutional.</v> Yeah. And other uses at <v Speaker 7>Orphan somewhere</v> <v Speaker 3>Else.</v> Okay. So this one K one. And these have to be numbered. It's just there's no point of numbering them today when we're deleting things. So printing. Printing or publishing establishment. And the question comes down to is provided that not more than 5,000 square feet are used for working in storage. I don't know if that's necessary. If it is, could we put it into a definition then? A question that we have is wholesale bakery slash food production facility. Other communities are adding this. So it would be allowing for companies to produce food to market and sale. <v Speaker 7>But don't we already have that?</v> We had, remember when we were working with blue ribbon barbecue? <v Speaker 6>Oh that one went down in flames.</v> <v Speaker 7>No pun intended. No, no.</v> What We can talk about that sometime. I know. But however, but the, we had, there was language that said you can have a kind of production facility and have an ancillary outlet to sell the items. And that would include food. <v Speaker 3>Yeah. Let me get back to you on that one.</v> 'cause that was, there was one that we lost a potential retailer plus slash food maker. Yes. 'cause one line said one thing, one line said another thing. And actually I think you were the one that were like, oh, it's actually on this line that you can do it. But this other line said no. Yeah. So it went, it was one of those situations. Yes. So I'll look in that. Could you, could <v Speaker 6>You theoretically be allowed by specialer, by right.</v> Wholesale bakery and then there's another section somewhere else that says you can, you can do an an ancillary <v Speaker 7>Retail, but we already have that.</v> We have the ancillary outlet. Yeah. Okay. It's in the by. It is in the bylaw. Yeah. Okay. <v Speaker 3>It's just making sure that you're able</v> to produce, to sell. So we, I need to double check that. <v Speaker 7>That's, that would amaze me if we, it doesn't, we</v> <v Speaker 3>Do.</v> It's just, I can't remember where it was. Okay. That it's, one says no one says yes. <v Speaker 7>Okay. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 3>Another item</v> that has been a conversation is commercial kitchen. So you have a lot of facilities that have these industrial kitchens. Yes. That are, they sit dormant for a long periods of time until the primary use needs 'em. Churches, different organizations have these types. Is would this be something that you would want to consider allowing for those uses to be allow used? <v Speaker 7>One of the challenges is, it's one thing</v> to have a church kitchen that is used once a month for the congregation's gathering and a daily production facility. And, and I think there was some concern because actually churches are, in many cases located in residential neighborhoods. And then you start having an issue with commercial production. Regular commercial production. <v Speaker 3>Yeah. And so</v> <v Speaker 7>We, we had put that to one side</v> because of the implications for residential. <v Speaker 3>Yeah. And then the other flip side of that was,</v> and again, these are only out there just to have the conversation. They're not, <v Speaker 7>I'm having flashbacks to all these</v> <v Speaker 3>Is during covid, a lot</v> of people started faking in their homes. Their uses have expanded. Some have actually relocated from their homes to like facilities, but they're also unable to find them. So it's like, could this allow for the conversion of a garage or so. So that's, these are things that we like have to think about. <v Speaker 7>I was gonna say, I know, I actually know somebody</v> not far from where I live who had a chocolate making kitchen in his garage. Now I, I'm not sure I ever asked him how, how it was permitted, but he made great chocolate, <v Speaker 3>Ben and Jerry's. That's why I never asked</v> <v Speaker 7>Him.</v> Yeah. 'cause I need to cut me off. <v Speaker 3>So the other ones were just specialty craft fabrication.</v> <v Speaker 8>One minute Amanda, back of the commercial kitchen.</v> What, what are we proposing with the blue? <v Speaker 3>Oh, sorry. That would be, it's the blue is there</v> because that's a new line. So it currently doesn't exist. So it would be an insertion of a new line. <v Speaker 8>Well I think what I,</v> what I know about commercial kitchens is, is there greatly sought after I, I've had a couple friends that have tried to find spaces, one in particular ended up in Melrose. Hmm. So I, I think around here there aren't many of them. So these are real incubator, real business incubators. And I, I, I see sp in a lot of those, which means we'd have to take a look at the particular circumstances. But I, I, if if the proposal is to add it, then, then I'm in favor. 'cause I, I think it would be a good incentive <v Speaker 7>Because Right, right now it's listed and,</v> and it's shown as being a special permit in RS. And I would question that. <v Speaker 3>And so those can change too.</v> Like if you like commercial kitchen, you're like, you know what, we only want it in the DM C two industrials. We can do that. It was just trying to cover everything so the board could have a discussion on it. <v Speaker 7>In fact, there was, it was,</v> there was a church actually in Natick Center that was proposing to lease out their kitchen for use as a commercial kitchen. Is there? <v Speaker 6>Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 7>And, and,</v> and a number of the neighbors were concerned because of the traffic it was gonna mean on what is it was on school street and it, which was that stretch near the post office, which was pretty congested. Do <v Speaker 6>We run into Dover amendment issues with this</v> <v Speaker 7>As it's for profit?</v> They were getting paid for it. <v Speaker 6>Yeah. Yeah. So it was passing a hat around a pew. I mean,</v> <v Speaker 3>My understanding is, is it doesn't,</v> because it's not directly tied to the mission of the organization. If the mission were it, the organization itself was producing foods, then it would be different. But it's the fact that it's private. <v Speaker 6>Yeah. I mean, to Andy's point at the economic development</v> committee, ugh, maybe a year ago when I was on it, we had a whole, I think we had a whole agenda item about this. And I, there was a woman who came in. She was juice. Yes. Yeah. And she had to go outside of Natick <v Speaker 3>Because of that. What</v> <v Speaker 6>Was she doing?</v> What does she produce? She produces juice. <v Speaker 3>It was a juice. Yeah. And so she like</v> <v Speaker 6>Huge demand.</v> Huge demand. Yeah. And, <v Speaker 3>And so,</v> <v Speaker 7>So,</v> and well if people talk about home occupation, when, when is it a home? When is it a home occupation and when is it a commercial kitchen? That's when you, because is is and then, then you go to look at what our definitions for home occupation. And it says it's not a majority of what you do in the space and from the outside it's apparently invisible. <v Speaker 6>Yeah. Whenever your business scales</v> and you need to go to a commercial scale, then you know you to <v Speaker 7>Move. You're look</v> <v Speaker 6>Space somewhere</v> <v Speaker 7>Else.</v> So I'd argue that a commercial kitchen language doesn't belong in residential. But home occupation, assuming it meets the, the ring fencing for home occupation. Yeah, I hear you can suit it fine. Yeah. <v Speaker 3>And it's, if you're in your home,</v> typically it's usually just one person. Whereas if you're in a commercial kitchen, you're usually having a multiple. <v Speaker 7>Yeah. Or some, you know, the commercial kitchens</v> that have, it's a like multiple tenants. Yeah. Yeah. <v Speaker 3>I think, yeah. So I'm</v> <v Speaker 8>Not completely sure.</v> Well, let's put this way. I think there's a scenario in, I mean the, the physical requirements for a commercial kitchen are gonna kind of separate those that are really into it and those that are not. But if you are, you know, you have to have all the requirements for commercial kitchen, separate sinks, venting, et cetera. But if one person in say like their basement decided to set up a commercial kitchen to make some food product, which they could then put into a vehicle and take to a food truck or something like that. I mean you'd be, you'd really be, I think you'd encouraging really small scale o opportunities for people that right now can't find the spaces. So I, I think having it as a special permit in the RS, you know, may not necessarily be a bad thing. It may be a real incubator, it might be something we're considering. But <v Speaker 7>I'm just saying don't, don't treat them</v> as commercial kitchens. Treat them as a home occupation. You know, any sort of production. This just happens to be food and that will require something from the board of health. So, but I, it it, well it makes it less, it establishes the, you're not bothering your neighbors the rule. <v Speaker 3>So let me do some more work on that one.</v> 'cause it may be something where it's like a certain size, et cetera. And also we would even, we would need to define it too. It's like it needs a definition. So let me work on that one a little bit more. The rest of these were either defining or making changes to also the addition of makerspace would be something that the board could consider. And I couldn't fit this all on the same. So this is also on the K. So manufacturing of renewable or alternative energy, biotech manufacturing. Which line are we? Sorry. So sorry, this is still in K. Okay. It's right above K six. That was struck in out manufacturing of renewable or alternative energy, biotech manufacturing and pharmaceuticals. Craft beverage establishment. And so these were ones where we're not developing but it's actual production. They don't have to be in there. But a lot of times if certain things are called out in your use regulation schedule and someone sees it, they're more apt to continue to move forward. If they have to dig, they will continue to move on. So it's like trying to look at these uses also K six or struck the number's striking out. But warehouses, this would all go into the definition. So we would have a definition but then we would break it down potentially into size. Because you may be good with certain size warehouses in certain locations, locations and not in others. And we already broke it down in size in KA when it was for the DM zoning district. So it's just something if the board would like to do that, we can do it. If not, we could leave it one way. Commercial mower mover associated with associated storage facilities. That is something that other communities do have. Contractor yard. Something that other communities do have junk yards would be, we would need to define this because it's currently not defined. And then K eight was just trying to come up with an actual term. So would it a municipal waste facility be the equi equivalent of a town owned dump? I don't know. Town owned dump just sounds weird. <v Speaker 7>It does. And do we have, is there a junkyard at</v> or is that just across the line? In Framingham? <v Speaker 3>It's in Natick. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 7>Okay. That's what I was thinking.</v> <v Speaker 3>And then we would then on the flip side of that,</v> because we have town owned, it would be private waste facility. So it could be both private, AM municipal, but like usually it's separate. So that is use header K. And then the last one M other uses, this is a fun one, honestly. <v Speaker 7>You a really sick idea of fun</v> <v Speaker 3>And to you.</v> So M1 I've gotta do some more work on. So ignore that one. But M two other accessory uses normally incidental to a permitted use. Why don't we just call it accessory use and define the term as to what it is or do we even need that? But we also had it as M two A, which is when we brought it in from the downtown. Unfortunately, I don't think, but you never know. M three fallout shelter. It's only allowed in Natick Center. I don't know if you need it anymore. What? Didn't <v Speaker 7>We talk about getting rid of that? We</v> <v Speaker 3>Did, but we hadn't done it.</v> Got it. So this is, okay, this is where we're at. And then M four, this one has already been added elsewhere, but it was still in one of the districts. So we had, we can delete M four also in the footnote of this one. For some reason there still seems to be a hangar of drive in theaters. It doesn't want to go away. So there was a footnote article 45 spring annual town meeting of April 27th, 2010. Delete drive in theaters <v Speaker 7>D That was, that was one of the first things I</v> was involved in when I joined this board. <v Speaker 3>And we don't need the footnote though, right?</v> <v Speaker 7>No, we don't bad for having left that in.</v> <v Speaker 3>So,</v> <v Speaker 6>I mean on the billboards M1,</v> I know you said you wanna think about that more, but currently yeah, we don't, there's nothing in the file. <v Speaker 7>Isn't that covered under state</v> <v Speaker 6>It?</v> Well it is. It's under, it's a mass DOT outdoor advertising board permit. One of the requirements is, is it locally supported? Is it Right. So <v Speaker 16>That doesn't count the one, what is it for the heating?</v> <v Speaker 7>Oh,</v> <v Speaker 16>Cohen the ass. Is it Cohen</v> or whatever that's, yeah, it's <v Speaker 3>Pre-existing</v> <v Speaker 16>On one 30,</v> <v Speaker 6>On 1 35.</v> That's not state highway. Right? That's a local Hi, that's a local road. I'm just saying it. I I am not sure on this, but like on the pike, <v Speaker 3>Yeah,</v> <v Speaker 6>If someone wants to have a billboard on the pike,</v> they go through the state, go for it. You know, I mean Yeah. Is it tax revenue to the town? Probably. <v Speaker 3>It depends where,</v> <v Speaker 7>It depends on whose land it's on.</v> <v Speaker 6>Okay. Right. I'm just saying, you know.</v> <v Speaker 3>Yeah. This is what we do definitely need to look at.</v> 'cause it was kind of like signs here and after permitted <v Speaker 6>Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 3>Didn't really make sense. And then I'm like,</v> well maybe it meant billboards, but then I'm like, I don't know. So that's why I was like, <v Speaker 7>I'm not sure.</v> <v Speaker 6>Let me, yeah.</v> <v Speaker 7>Well you know, when we ended up putting</v> in language, 'cause for a long time, like the lc district did not have any signage language. And so there were things that were and and things in for home occupations and so forth. And we added those so that there was something that defined it before that something that said signs might've made sense. But it does. It's time has gone. <v Speaker 3>Yeah. So again, I don't wanna vote.</v> I was not intending a vote. This was to kind of get <v Speaker 7>Work in progress</v> <v Speaker 3>Pillars on it.</v> So I can start then. 'cause if something was like absolutely no, then I don't wanna spend the time drafting a definition. But if it was like need more information, like I wanna get that. So if we could continue it to January 29th, that would be great. Obviously you don't have to close it. Right. Continue it right now. But it was just <v Speaker 16>On the billboards as I'm looking to see what was accepted</v> before, there was a lot of yeses. I would guess that that wasn't really thinking about bill billboards there. <v Speaker 3>Right. I think it was just general signage. Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 7>Yeah. There, there's nothing dimensional to say</v> what it covers. Yeah. <v Speaker 1>And shall we just move off to the leave this for,</v> <v Speaker 7>Let's continue the hearing.</v> I will make a motion to continue it to January 29th. Second. <v Speaker 1>Great. And</v> <v Speaker 3>All right.</v> <v Speaker 1>Aye Terry. Aye. Aye. Aye. Flynn.</v> I see. Aye. And raise for Andy. Andy. Aye Glenn, I hear from Glen. Yeah, I said I, I'm sorry I missed it. It must be my hearing. Absolutely. Alright then we'll move on to planning board business potential 2225 spring annual town meeting zoning articles. <v Speaker 3>Yep. So there's two that I would like</v> to bring up to the board. These are not advertised. So we are not in a public hearing. This is more of does the board want to request the select board to refer it back for the purposes of holding a public hearing. So what was sent around, I believe it was yesterday as kind of alluded to earlier, is how do we actually make this bylaw more user friendly in terms of its sections. This <v Speaker 7>Is splitting it in two</v> <v Speaker 3>Kind of.</v> So what I would like to do, this is also not gonna be a do it all in one town meeting kind of thing because there are so many things that are moving. So the first two sections that I really would like to look at is section one and section two of the bylaws. So currently section one, which is called article one is zoning bylaw in general. But then when you go to number two it's use districts when you're actually within section one general of the zoning bylaw. You go from purpose and intent. Oops. But these are all labeled section 100. Section 1 0 1, section 1 0 2. Then it goes to basic requirements, particular purposes and intent regarding PCD district. Then you continue down and 1 0 3 is reserved 'cause we deleted that a few town meetings ago. Section 1 0 4 is purpose of highway mixed use 1, 1 0 5. The purpose statement, the purpose of highway mixed use two, why are district informations being located in general? Typically the general is more of like the authority, like not the authorities, but like what it is. So what I had proposed in the draft draft, I think you were just <v Speaker 7>Trying to gather, gather all the</v> purpose statements together. <v Speaker 3>Yeah. So what I would like to do is what was sent out.</v> I don't know if that'll change or at the stop share. Okay, there we go. Great. Is change this to section one? No numeral one. General, that's the basic title. Then we would have a title. So this tells us exactly what the zoning bylaws are and how we will reference them here and throughout the document. So we don't have bylaws, law, comma like, so it's all consistent. Also we have the authority as to how we have these regulations amendments. We make them in conformance with mass general law, chapter 40 a severability. This is something that we really should have in there rather than adding it into each section. It's if <v Speaker 7>It's like at the, like at the end where where it says</v> and anything kind of, if anything is flawed, it does not bring down everything. <v Speaker 3>Great. And so that's why it</v> should just be in the general sections. <v Speaker 6>Oh yeah, it definitely should</v> <v Speaker 3>Be.</v> Then. And I've men amended this based on some comments. E the purpose, what is the purpose of these bylaws? So we clearly state what the intent is. We delete a lot of language 'cause there's a lot about morals and ethics and everything else. But have it be straightforward. We're looking at the bulk height, size of the structures, what can be used, et cetera. <v Speaker 6>Section two, I mean that's the zoning act. Yep.</v> Right. Do we, do we, <v Speaker 3>We might not even need that.</v> This has not been reviewed by legal counsel either, but so that we have to review these. But these are just things, another one is requirements. So these are like when things are altered <v Speaker 7>Sorry, we're we're, I'm, I have no idea.</v> I'm completely lost. I have no idea what you're talking about and I certainly can't see it over there. Oh <v Speaker 3>Okay.</v> It's what I emailed out yesterday. But if you go to section one of your bylaw. Yeah, <v Speaker 7>I was just going back to the end.</v> It talks about validity and sections. We do have that in the existing bylaw. <v Speaker 3>So we might wanna put them in the front just</v> so it's straight up forward. Yeah. And then definitions. Leave it at that for section one. <v Speaker 7>Then</v> <v Speaker 3>If we move on the other section</v> is we're not gonna lose all of the, I'm sorry. Purpose and intent. I'm sorry, what? <v Speaker 7>There's, I didn't there, there's nothing in our folder on</v> <v Speaker 3>This.</v> I didn't put it in the folder 'cause I had done all the track changes and sometimes when you put it into the Google shared drive, the track changes get a little crazy, which is why I sent it in email. But I also didn't expect like full review with <v Speaker 7>Apologies I have</v> <v Speaker 3>Not read.</v> It was more of a high level conversation to see if you wanted to ask the select board to send it for advertising a public hearing. So then what we would do is section two youth districts, we would take all the purposes that are currently sitting in section one and put 'em in two. You have youth district purposes in the general section. Why are they not in the use district section? <v Speaker 6>And the youth district section lists the districts.</v> <v Speaker 3>Correct. So therefore it seems</v> <v Speaker 7>Like just separating the overarching from</v> the district specific. <v Speaker 3>Yeah, exactly. So then that allows us to renumber. Yeah.</v> And also just cut and paste. <v Speaker 7>And we're gonna do this for spring,</v> but we just have a lot, there's a lot that we have that we're moving around right now. <v Speaker 3>Yep. So that's why these two sections were actually safe</v> to do that because they aren't touching. I started to do section three and that's where a lot of the moving den, <v Speaker 7>What is section</v> <v Speaker 3>Three number rule three, which is</v> all the use regulation schedules, the DM and everything. So that's why if we just did sections one and two. <v Speaker 7>So wait, so so</v> what is in section two? And I'm sorry I'm <v Speaker 3>Being Yeah.</v> Section two is used districts. Okay. So what it does, <v Speaker 7>So things that are currently</v> <v Speaker 6>Just the list,</v> it's just the list of the districts. <v Speaker 7>It's just, yeah. Okay.</v> <v Speaker 3>Currently it's</v> just the list definition. So like without <v Speaker 6>Defining what,</v> <v Speaker 3>What happens is, is like you go,</v> when I go into the table of contents, if you look at your table of contents, you'll see general and you're like, oh purpose of the highway mixed use 1, 2, 3, limited commercial. But then it's like section two youth districts. And then it just lists the districts. But it never, what is the pur? Like why do we have the use districts defined? I wondered that. Multiple locations. I wonder all. So it was leaving the first section as general and then taking all of the youth district purposes, cutting them and just relocating them into section two youth district. So it was just, I <v Speaker 6>Like the idea.</v> I am not sure. Sure. It's, we could bite that one off and that's chew on it. Yes. This time around. <v Speaker 7>I</v> <v Speaker 6>Agree. I think that's what you're saying.</v> <v Speaker 7>Yes. Okay. But just</v> because there are, there are a lot of small fixes that we're addressing and I get nervous. <v Speaker 3>Yeah. No, but it's, that would be the intent.</v> 'cause then it would be Right, <v Speaker 7>The ul, I understand the ultimate goal. You don't</v> <v Speaker 3>Want, and ultimately</v> what it would be the big picture of everything right? Is that we would do exactly what the master plan or native 20, 30 calls out. Which is you have your residential uses, here's your purposes, here's the intensity regulations and everything like that. Then you go over here, here's our commercial uses, here's the purposes, here's anything that's specific to those regulations. And the same thing with like more industrial then what we call section three right now would be specific to the uses where it's different. So you'd be looking at it differently. <v Speaker 7>I think I,</v> <v Speaker 3>Again, that's why section three cannot be done right now.</v> Section three has to wait because we are moving a lot of things. Yeah. <v Speaker 7>Internally and it, I just, there's, I worry about</v> what breaks and I, and I understand you worry about that too. But it, this is, yeah. <v Speaker 3>So that's why I wanted to bring this one up.</v> And then the other one that I need to, to keep working on is West Natick <v Speaker 7>Within the context of MTA communities</v> <v Speaker 3>Act.</v> No. So we've submitted everything necessary for the MBTA communities, but Natick 2031 calls out. Yep. Reviewing that also there was during the MBTA is why is West Natick being left off the table? We would not be doing the entire thing. It would be focusing on establishing a core. Okay. So those conversations will <v Speaker 7>Establishing a core meaning</v> <v Speaker 6>We're gonna do three phases or Right.</v> <v Speaker 3>Yeah. So the</v> <v Speaker 6>First one next</v> to just to the west of the station. <v Speaker 7>No. For any, for any desperate</v> person trying to follow this. <v Speaker 3>So in terms of it, what it would be is</v> because from Natick Framingham municipal line Yep. All the way to, let's just say the dog park, there is a lot of different land uses and topography and also just characteristics of that. So you would not rezone it uniformly across because where you could actually allow more height or density is not consistent. Right. So what we would be doing is establishing a core around the West Natick train station to allow for like that to be the focal point. And you may have other focal points, maybe like where SP Street and 1 35 intersect. I <v Speaker 7>Refer to those, you know,</v> we talk about Natick Center being the heart. Yeah. And then you have pulse points. Yeah. And I think of these as actually being pulse points around <v Speaker 3>Or like nodes and stuff.</v> And then in between those it may drop like in terms of intensity and everything like that. So you can also not feel like you're being overpowered <v Speaker 7>To, to what extent will we as a board be able,</v> and I understand you're doing a, a lot of this in your capacity as the director, but to be part of this conversation. <v Speaker 3>So that's what I wanted to start having the planning board</v> actually either on the 29th start this conversation of like actually looking at the logistics and everything. So I didn't want the board to be like, wait, what's happening? Because there's a lot and it's not a, it is not a one town meeting item either. No. 'cause we might even look at some form of form-based code. We might not. But like that may be something that would lend to itself, to this area. <v Speaker 7>I'm, I'm, I'm sighing only</v> because when I was working on trying to revise the zoning bylaws a thousand years ago, I tried to persuade Patrick REIT that we should have a consultant who could, could talk us through like a form-based zoning and he declined. Oh, tell <v Speaker 6>Me.</v> Well if, just as an aside, I I just came off a jury for Smart Growth America on the form-based code national award for 2024. We gave it to the city of Kingston, New York. Oh cool. Unbelievable job. What they did, that is a model. It's, it is a, <v Speaker 7>It's a brilliant way to</v> <v Speaker 6>Just, the way they went about doing the public engagement</v> and outreach and the simplicity of it's complex, but the simplicity of how they communicate it and sort of the, the user manual that goes along with it and not, not to mention the actual content of the bylaw. It's, it's phenomenal And smart Growth America used to be, well the form-based Code Institute was its own thing. It became under the wing of Smart Growth America. They've rebranded it as the Center for Zoning Solutions. Oh cool. And great staff there. Like national expert staff. I'm heavily involved on with s Smart North America and Locus. So if we need any assistance or you wanna have a conversation with 'em, please let me know. I'll, I'll, I'll connect you with, <v Speaker 3>I think that would be a good option</v> if the board was amenable. Is <v Speaker 7>This, is this about trying to apply form-based</v> zoning in West Natick? I think it would be brilliant. Yeah. <v Speaker 3>'cause it's</v> <v Speaker 7>Really,</v> <v Speaker 3>It would help and it's,</v> <v Speaker 7>It's such a rational concept.</v> <v Speaker 3>Yeah. And it doesn't have to be what the textbook said,</v> you know, like back in 2010 or whatever it was. Yeah. Because like there's been a lot of successful examples of form-based code like Saratoga Springs, they did their own type, which is more on like transect lines in the density, everything, which is more science based. <v Speaker 6>I'll say this in, in the,</v> in the selection process this year we had, I don't know, seven, seven or eight candidates, a couple from Canada. You know, the rest of the United States. Some of them were really bad. Like really extremely complicated ex what's supposed to be flexible became extremely prescriptive. And like that's not the point of it. So I would take a look at the city of Kingston. Yep. And let me know if you want to be connected with those folks in dc That <v Speaker 3>Would be great.</v> So yeah, the planning board would be hopefully heavily involved just 'cause land use experts and also it's gonna need a lot of work. So that's all I had at this time for that and for like prospective zoning. 'cause it was just trying to figure out pulse of where we're at. Yeah. <v Speaker 7>I I just, I, and I understand your point about taking the,</v> the, the, the starting kind of first simple steps. <v Speaker 3>Yeah. And it's one of those things where just</v> because it's drafted, it doesn't need to go immediately. If that makes any sense. It's, yeah. We put it to the side. It also kind of, we come back with like fresh eyes. You're like, oh, we tweak these things. So that's, you know, the big focus is really getting the use regulation schedule. We have the accessory dwelling units in place. We're just finishing up some regulations to go with those to help support implementation. And then with MVTA communities, we are, we have not received compliance. But that's kind of question at this point. But in terms of mass general law, we are compliant because of the Milton case. Right. <v Speaker 7>But we don't know yet what's coming down the line</v> in terms of requirements. <v Speaker 3>Yeah. There were emergency regulations released.</v> So I do have to review those. I received a copy today. But in terms of mass general law, we are compliant relative to the MBTA communities and also what was previously prescribed by. <v Speaker 7>Okay. So it's where there's not likely to be anything</v> that's startling or throwing <v Speaker 3>This off.</v> No. The only item that I did wanna just put in the back of your heads was just if the regulations do not change or not that back up. There was one item when we were doing the MBTA communities that there was like pause, which was the affordability piece, which the states MGL versus the regulations <v Speaker 7>Not less than Yeah.</v> <v Speaker 3>Conflicted with each other. So that's something</v> that the board just may want to keep in the back of their minds of what happens because we're not sure what's gonna happen with the regulations. So that's all I had. <v Speaker 8>Just a question on that. It,</v> it sounds like the way the regulations were written was found to be not in favor with the decision the other day. They, they upheld the attorney general's right. To enforce it, but they, they felt that the way that the regulations were written was not done properly. So I'm, I don't know, but I guess I would infer that you're looking at a back to the drawing board kind of a thing. And I, I'm hoping that if the regulations do change, local communities will have the opportunity to amend or review or look at decisions that they made to try to meet the deadline with these regulations that, I mean, that would only just be fair to the local communities, I would think. Have you heard anything about that? <v Speaker 1>I, I thought that they were,</v> they were passed except for the <v Speaker 3>Well, so we have to comply</v> with Mass General Law Chapter 40 a, section three A. And that's what we did do. It was more of the specifics that they did not hold the proper public procedures to adopt the regulations. So they will be putting something back into place. We can't predict what executive Office of Livable Housing and Livable Communities will do, but it would be predicted that they are gonna do some type of formal public hearing process to really try to redo that. But regardless of that, anybody who has my understanding has been approved, they're not gonna backtrack on those decisions. Right. And so we, in terms of mass general law, we met everything that is required, which is the enforceable part. So I, I don't know if we would need to redo anything. <v Speaker 6>No. 'cause nothing we did was, I mean,</v> it was within the spirit of the, of the NMT Communities Act, but nothing specifically prescriptive about what we did. Yeah. Is anything different from just normal zoning? That's what we did. So I don't, you know, and the emergency regs are going probably be retroactive and you know, and then if there's tweaks that have to happen that go forward, they can amend the regs again. Yeah. At some point. I think it's just to cover, cover the gap between what the SJC said about the regs. Get 'em in emergency. Yep. And then, you know, deal <v Speaker 3>With it later.</v> It would've been different if we had created like an overlay district elsewhere in the community. But since Natick was already honestly ahead of everybody else in terms of what they had done in Natick Center, it was just, we were keeping in line with mass general law and, but if we did it in overlay district, that would be completely different where doing new, but <v Speaker 7>I feel sorry for communities that thought that was,</v> that was the way to go and then Yeah. But I told otherwise. <v Speaker 3>Yeah. So other than that, the only updates I have</v> for y'all is the, we did get comment letters in for the accessory dwelling units. The deadline was on Friday. My big concerns were one that how are these gonna impact the subsidized housing inventory? Because these are being counted as units when they go to take the census. <v Speaker 7>This is, you're putting out your, your, your</v> <v Speaker 3>Comments on it.</v> 'cause it, the regulations that they drafted did not even address that. And then there was a few others. We are good in terms of our bylaw. We're putting together regulations and building an application regarding MBTA communities. We submitted the application to the executive office of Livable communities well before the December 31st deadline. We did get notification that our application was complete. That was my bigger concern is, was it complete? Just because the table was a little crazy. I did forward to you all, is a basically a closeout report. It was not required. However, since we took numerous steps, because we are updating the zoning bylaw, I wanted the state to understand that this was not just a like rash decision. We were working on this. But also back, if everyone remembers in January of 2023, I believe it was, the state required each community to develop a action plan of how they were gonna comply with the MVTA communities. We did that, we submitted it, it was approved. Nowhere in their application did they ask you for any type of follow up or reference to that. So therefore the table was incorporated into my closeout report saying what we had done on those things and the reason if we didn't move forward with something just so it was all documented. So those are the big things that we have been working on. We also need to, I forget, oh, since the zoning bylaws have been now submitted to the ag, we are gonna be updating the site plan review application, which will be including that, that table that you have requested with the dimensionals. Yes. So we'll be including that. So we'll be updating that. So that's all I have right now. So wait, <v Speaker 7>So the ag has,</v> <v Speaker 3>They've received our</v> submittal, received them, yeah. Okay. <v Speaker 7>Yep. For a moment.</v> I thought you were gonna say they approved. <v Speaker 3>Nope. I got where the,</v> <v Speaker 1>Right, yep. Yeah. Right.</v> <v Speaker 7>So,</v> <v Speaker 1>Great.</v> Alright, for the business thoughts, I take I motion, last, motion going once, <v Speaker 7>Move to adjourn</v> <v Speaker 1>Second.</v> Aye. Aye. Aye, aye. Aye. Thank you. Closed. All righty.