Speaker 1: Oh four. This meeting is being recorded and is being broadcast on Pegasus to comment. It's for those of you who, who may be watching it from home. To comment or ask a question, please 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 a public hearing must display their first and last name on their screen before their microphone can be unmuted. To make changes in your name as it appears on the screen in Zoom, click on participants to open the participants menu. Hover your cursor over your entry and click on more.
Click on rename and type in your first and last name. That's all she wrote. So first order of business is public speak. Is there anyone here to, to speak on any subject? Not on our agenda. Alright. Amanda. Should do, should I wait until we get the screen up? Speaker 2: Yeah. I don't know why it's not doing what it needs to, but there is nobody on their hand raised. Speaker 1: There isn't. Okay, great. Then move ahead. The next item is development review public hearings. And the first is for the continuation
of zero Rhode Island af. Speaker 2: So zero Rhode Island Ave. Nope. Wait, sorry, what was it? Speaker 1: Pardon? Speaker 2: Did you repeat that? Speaker 1: That it was zero zero Rhode Island Ave. Yeah. Speaker 2: Oh wait, 31 Hartford. Wait, Speaker 1: Which one? What's that? Speaker 2: 31 Hartford. It's an A and R. Speaker 1: Ah, okay. That's it right there. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Alright, go. Speaker 1: Okay, A a and r review. Speaker 2: So Speaker 1: I did it again. I took my earlier copy of the, of the agenda, the, the previous edition. Speaker 2: So this is 31 Hartford.
It is the division of a oversized lot into basically three lots total. There is an existing house on the side where the frontage is on Hartford Street. And then there's two vacant lots that would be created that would have access off of Travis Road. They are both do have frontage and access and they are leaving the existing lot with frontage and access. So this is just a simple division of land induced three parcels. And the note on the application that I had was
that the historic structure that currently exists will remain because it is historic. Speaker 1: Alright, very good. And is are, is there someone here to speak to the a and r? Anyone who? Alright. Yes, if you'd like to come up to the microphone. Speaker 4: I wasn't expecting to speak so I don't know what I'm supposed to say. Speaker 1: Oh, sorry. No you don't. You don't have to. I thought you are you but you're the applicant. Yes. Okay. Is there anything that you, that you think is important for us to know? We have the plan before us. Speaker 4: I think it's all been accepted. Approved and whatever, so.
Alright. Just came to witness Speaker 1: To see it through. Speaker 4: See it through. Alright. Speaker 1: Just checking comments from the board. Andy, anything Speaker 5: Looks Speaker 6: Clear to me? Speaker 1: Doug? No comments and Alan? Speaker 7: Nope. I drive by it every day. Very large. Really large lot so not many times. Well that's too big. Somebody's gonna divide that at some point. Oh, Speaker 4: You have Speaker 1: It. You will. I Speaker 4: Didn't want to, but Speaker 1: It happens. Speaker 7: So fascinating how old that house is? There's a Speaker 4: Few 1733. Wow. Speaker 5: Wow. Speaker 1: So it was, it was standing when the
milestone marker to Hartford was on Hartford Street. You know where there's that in the front yard of one of the house on Hartford Street where there is an 18th century mile marker. Oh, I didn't know that. Still stands in their front, in their kind of up in their front yard. Speaker 4: Oh, okay. So Speaker 1: I have Speaker 4: To get my sign back up on the house. Ah. Of the historic society. Speaker 1: Alright, so with there being no questions and no issue to what's proposed, entertain a motion to endorse. Speaker 6: Yeah, I move. We endorse this as an A
and R under the subdivision patrol law. Speaker 1: Second a second from Doug. Alright, all of those in favor. And we, all of those who, who are present today, Peter is not able to attend. So we don't need a roll call vote. So all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Speaker 7: Aye. Aye. Speaker 1: Alright. Four zero. Okay. And thank you. And you have your law division and I do have the Mylar that we can sign after. That's right. Do we? Yep. Okay. Speaker 7: Right now. Speaker 1: Okay. For your dulce tones. Let me get Speaker 6: There. Speaker 1: That's next. Speaker 6: I have 43 Cypress.
Speaker 1: Oh, you're right because it No, it shuffled in the earlier rev revision. Rhode Island came first. Okay. So now it's a continuation of the development review for 43 Cypress Road and where we come forward, didn't even have to ask and we'll pick up where we left off at our last meeting. Speaker 8: Good evening. Speaker 1: So and so welcome and, and just introduce yourselves again for anyone who may not have been here last time and then if we can understand what's happened since you were here last.
Speaker 8: Sure. Good evening, Madam Chair. Members of the board. Brian Grossman, outside counsel to the applicant. I was retained after the last hearing, so I wasn't present at the last hearing. I did review it, I was present at the working group meeting on Monday with me is client representative Rick Morrell from Morrell Construction. As I mentioned, we did have a working group meeting on Monday. I was very helpful, very productive. I thought we received a lot of comments, a lot of feedback from Mr. Landry, from Ms. Loomis, from engineering and fire. We don't have a revised plan to present that kind
of turnaround, obviously when board wouldn't even had a chance to review a lot of things to work on. But by way of update in terms of where we are subject to some ongoing discussions with engineering, we think there may be a path forward to allow connection to sewer. A number of details with that still need to be worked out with engineering. Obviously final design needs to be approved with engineering, including routing for the connection, how sewer would run and the final connection and routing the end result there would end up with the town
with ownership of the zone one area. That would be part of the consideration for con for the connection obviously eliminates the need for the septic, which provides a, the ability to provide the land area in fee to the town. For the zone one creates some design options in terms of, in terms of the layouts for the lots and, and additional design options for, for layout for buildings. Some working group comments that focused on additional ways to reduce the impervious surface. We're looking at additional ways to do that
beyond the suggestions that came up during the working group. But during the working group, some of the suggestions that came up were hammerhead versus cul-de-sac Speaker 1: In terms of how, how they, how they drive Speaker 8: Is organized. We're looking at that. We're not sure if it's feasible for a couple different reasons. In terms of, in terms of overall frontage and layout. If it is feasible, obviously you need to make sure that it works from a, a turning movement standpoint for fire. But the initial feedback from fire is as long as those can be accommodated and conceptually they're not opposed to to hammerhead.
So we are looking at that. The engineers is looking at that and seeing if we can make that work. Another suggestion from the working group to reduce the impervious surface is omitting the sidewalk. I wasn't involved in the, in the preliminary plan. My understanding is that issues discussed during the preliminary phase and the, the sidewalk is included in the definitive plan you have before you, that was originally filed as a result of the discussions during the preliminary phase. In my discussions with the applicant were somewhat agnostic to that. It's, it's included as part of the plan it's shown and Speaker 1: This is all the way it's shown all the way around
as a no, it was just Speaker 8: One Speaker 1: Side or on Speaker 8: One side. One side. And the one side, if it's important to the planning board to include it, we'll include it. If from a a balancing of the interest standpoint, the planning board ultimately decides that the reduction of impervious surface is more important and would like us to eliminate it. We'll eliminate it. We we're somewhat agnostic on it. We would defer to the, the planning board's discretion on that and don't really have a, a firm position on it other than what the, the planning board would prefer. We would, we would show on the plan.
All of those things ultimately affect final storm water management design. You know, obviously we're still looking at ways to, the more we reduce impervious surface, the smaller we can make that and reduce overall clearing and effect on the environment. And so ultimately a lot of work to be done. A lot of comments and feedback to get from engineering in terms of things on, on the routing, looking at the hammerhead and getting their comments and, and fire's comments on hammerhead as well. Assuming that even works for us from our standpoint, we know the next meeting might be,
I know there may be a conflict with, with a, another public meeting somewhere on June 4th. Candidly, we don't think we're even gonna make that, we wouldn't make that. So we think the, the second meeting in June would be realistic for us to be able to get through this. You know, if another working group meeting is necessary or even just, you know, informally submitting and getting comments back from engineering and fire work through that process. Work with, work with Amanda on that. We think we'd be ready for the second meeting in June. Speaker 1: Okay. I think that's the 25th. Speaker 2: Yes, that is correct. And we would just need an extension of time. Yep. Speaker 8: We were aware that we would write that. Yes.
And I don't recall if this board has its own form or if you just need a letter from me. Either way we'll take care of it. We Speaker 2: Usually just have a letter from them. Yep. Speaker 8: Okay. I can submit that to you tomorrow. Speaker 2: Okay, great. Thank you. Speaker 1: When Speaker 8: Do you need through, oh sorry. Speaker 2: So if we're gonna present June 25th, but we don't meet again until July, Speaker 1: Well let, let's see if one of the things that we'll be talking about after this is about trying to get a second date in June because we have a lot of work to start doing ahead of fall town meeting among other things. So it might be good to, to, let's, let's see where that date
lands and, and see then what might be the best sequence to take it up. Speaker 8: I think for us, June 25th is, if you're gonna have something, I think that's earlier, before June 25th. I still think June 25th is a realistic target date Speaker 1: In which case that's good because there's lots of other stuff we, we have to do. Speaker 2: But the next meeting after that is not until July 30th Speaker 1: And I'll probably, depending on where things are with prep for fall town meeting, that's rough. We may wanna have a separate conversation about that. Not tonight, but with an awareness that we may,
we may need another meeting. We'll keep them short and focused. But just Speaker 9: When does the 90 day, when does the 90 day run out Speaker 2: On this one? So this was stamped in March 17th. So June, give or take around June 17th. Speaker 9: Okay. So we're gonna have to have, alright, so the extension will push that out. Okay. Yeah, Speaker 2: It's just usually have it two a days period. Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Doug, anything else? Yeah, I would just, anything you'd like to say about the Yep. Speaker 9: I would just say we, you know, the, I would echo what the attorney said about the working group meetings. I thought I was constructive, productive on many,
many issues including impervious surface and you know, the access to the sewer. One of the things we focused on was, was access, adequate access, you know, to that area. You know, we heard from neighbors in that neighborhood. It's a pretty challenged infrastructure to put it lightly and getting in and around there. But in terms of what we would look at for adequate access, I feel comfortable with it because there are, although we all focus on the Evergreen Road entrance into
that neighborhood Birch road, which turns into Cyrus, which turns into something else and then turns into Cyrus again is actually almost like a subdivision. Some of those roadways are sort of designed that way. It's not fully, you know, full carving or anything like that. But I do think that's kind of the way, way we should focus on our access into the, into the subdivision. So I like to see the alternative on hammerhead and see how that plays out and yeah, take it from there. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. And, and I assume that the, the decision
to try to get the connectivity to town sewer, water sewer is kind of like to our benefit? Yes. And actually probably ecologically to, to the benefit of creating more distance. Yeah. From the wells. Speaker 9: I think the sensitivity of the site to the, well, you know, bodes for that and the waivers they, they may be asking for in terms of impervious surface, we talked about reducing the roadway width as well. The sidewalk, the hammerhead might Speaker 1: What And what is the roadway width as proposed? It's 2022 right now. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 9: Yeah. Thank you. So,
Speaker 1: Alright Amanda, anything before I turn, or, or actually Andy do you, do you have something and then I'll come back to you. I Speaker 6: Wasn't here for the last meeting but I did watch and it seemed like we were sort of weighing a couple different things. There was this issue of the ability to subdivide the land. Has that been resolved? I'm sorry. Oh, go. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 10: I just realized that it's on now. Speaker 2: I, so I would also, since the applicant now has counsel here, I would also want them to weigh in as well. But the, the easement
or the restriction is not enforceable based on the information that there was no one left to enforce. So therefore the restriction is null and void. Speaker 10: Okay. I think it's important to cover that. The second thing is there was a lot of, you know, i, I do go on Facebook and I read comments and I, there were a few comments that I saw where it was essentially stated that this has already been approved. And I just want to clarify that we,
we've had complicated applications before. We've had simple applications before. This one's a little more involved, but it's, we we're sort of in the second or third inning. This is the beginning of the process. There's gonna be plenty of time for public input, plenty of time for questions. It's gonna receive a thorough review. Nothing, nothing has been like approved in some secret meeting. This is a public process and I think between the board members, professional staff, we, we tend to really not vote approval
until every box is checked and all those questions are answered. And that includes questions from the public. So just wanna say that in case somebody thinks that they might be attending something that's a done deal. It's not, there's a, there's a lot to go through. So we are, we're kind of starting it out. So just wanted to address that. Speaker 1: Thank you. Amanda, is there anything that you would like to add? Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's just important to have the council council let the applicant address anything about that deed restriction just 'cause it does continue to come up and we've had two attorneys weigh in,
but the applicant does now have Speaker 1: Mr. Grossman. Speaker 8: Sure. I I mean I haven't, I haven't reviewed that issue in depth. I know o other counsel has for the applicant, but in general those kinds of things, again are outside the scope and purview of, of a board In terms of, you know, the, a private property right like that or a private property dispute is outside the scope of the purview of a planning board or, or ZBA. My initial review of it is, as Amanda said, it's, it's something that was not done properly and would not be enforceable. And if, if somebody attempted to enforce it,
we would vigorously defend it. Defend our position. Speaker 1: Alright, thank you very much. So, and now I will take now comments from the public, ask that you state your name and address for the record before you speak Speaker 11: Sir. My name's Eric Fried. I'm at 14 Magnolia Road, which by the way is right at the intersection of where you said it's a subdivide. So all that traffic that you're planning on going in and out that way goes right by my house. Just so you know, again, it's a narrow street. Magnolia's a narrow street. Yeah. That Bayberry and down the hill, which is the subdivision Bayberry road is
wide, but I live literally right on the corner. So you're basically gonna make the assumption that all the traffic's gonna go right by my house. Which by the way, the zero Magnolia Construction, one of the construction trucks ran over my mailbox a few weeks ago. So, 'cause it's a narrow road and there are lots of kids and as one of my neighbors had mentioned earlier, has there been a safety assessment done on this and the amount of extra traffic, again, you're adding 60% volume to a 13 foot wide road, which by the way again, you're, you gladly say it's okay for them to go by my house, like be if it was yours. I've also reached out to JJ Cordell who is the trustee
who was part of the sale. So he is, he was the last trustee of the Cyprus Road Realty Trust, which was the trust that sold the property and enforced that by making it null and void. Now it also reduced the amount of money that they could have gotten because they could have sold it to a developer for a lot more than selling it to a single family home. So when they sold the house, they were clear and transparent during that sale process that it wasn't to be subdivided for 30 years or I'll say would've you sold it to any developer? They purposefully didn't sell it to a developer. So that was the intent at the point of sale. Also, other people who live in the neighborhood were told
that it couldn't be subdivided. So whether it be null and void, I've at least reached out to the, to the last trustee. And we will also make attempts to reach out to the bassinet family, the descendants of the Alma bassinet trust to see, because they could have made a lot more money if they had subdivided it themselves or at least sold it as a subdivided lot. So they left money at the table and they're just basically ignoring what they agreed to do. And a verbal contract is the same thing as a written contract. It was very transparent. 'cause I was, I looked at it myself and they're choosing to basically ignore that. Speaker 1: And I want that on the record. It's, I think it's important to understand that, Speaker 11: I know you can't enforce it, I know you can't enforce it,
but I've reached out to the trustee Okay. And see who's a lawyer and see if he's willing to enforce it. Speaker 1: So Speaker 11: Because he has standing and the, and the children or of Alba and also have standing because they left money on the table because they purposely sold it not to be subdivided, which meant they got a lot less money for the house than they would've gotten, which means they're getting more of a gain because they agreed to do that and then they're breaking that agreement. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Is there anything else you want to Nope. Alright. At least Speaker 11: For this meeting, because we don't know when the next meeting is because you said there wasn't one on the 25th.
I wanna make sure that whatever you're communicating with them, if you decide to change your schedule and have a meeting on the 25th that it's communicated a little bit more broadly to the group. Speaker 1: I will, I will say at the end of this public hearing today, we will do what we always do, which is declare when the next meeting is. Now, it's never earlier than what we vote. It's possible that if we say the next meeting's on, I know it's not on June 4th, we may then on June 4th say no it's going to be on the 25th. So we may it may be later, it will never be earlier. Okay. Well
Speaker 11: We just need to be informed. 'cause if there's no, we would just hope that we would get the same information that you're gonna give the applicants. Speaker 1: Of course. And and what I, and what I best say is if you, if you tune, tune in and, and kind of look at what we're saying when we, when we pick a date, I think you probably will still be here because we're all in all in this room right now. We'll be declaring the date to which it will be continued and that again, that's the not earlier it's possible that that date will come.
The applicant is not ready to move forward and it might be continued again, but it will, it will never kind of surprise you by being early and that's, that's ilaw. So. Alright, thank you. Lemme see if I, I'll take a sweep. Anything, any hands? Yes ma'am. In the teal top. Speaker 12: Hi, I am Julia Nan at 42 Evergreen Road. I think we're feeling the same way. You know, we're worried about the traffic on Evergreen. I know we talked about this and I know you have said
that there are other ways in and out, but one of us is gonna be stuck with it. It's either gonna be Cypress and Magnolia or Evergreen. I guess. I don't think you can guarantee that all the construction trucks and everything are not going to drive down Evergreen for the length of this project and the road keeps getting worse and worse. And when they finish the construction and we're left with a torn up road, who is going to address that problem? I know you guys came through like yesterday, did all the potholes, but this is like a bandaid and it like, it doesn't help in the long run.
I think you were just there a few weeks ago doing potholes and it's just you had to be come back. So that's just one concern. The other concern is we're being, one of the things that we have been told is that evergreen can't be approved 'cause we don't have sidewalks or, and the street is not a certain width. So if they don't have sidewalks, will they also be an unapproved road Speaker 1: That the the the road you mean the road that's part of the subdivision? Yeah, I don't know that that's, that's been what's the question? I'm sorry about whether, because if, if they don't have sidewalks, she said they, they understood that their road couldn't be, is not approvable because there are no sidewalks.
Sidewalks. And so the que the question is is is the section of road that's proposed for the new subdivision also not going to have sidewalks and therefore will it not be? Speaker 9: Well we, I don't think we call, we control that. I mean that's, Speaker 10: I saw a note that they are planning on having that to be accepted. That Speaker 9: I, I saw that as a note too and I think that's something for debate to be honest with you. Yeah, but this Speaker 1: Is for the new, the new piece or for the Speaker 9: Old new subdivision for the new Speaker 10: Street got approved and there we don't have any sidewalks. Yeah, I'm not sure sidewalk is the main deline. Speaker 1: It depends on the length of the street too.
Speaker 10: Yeah, it's, it's, it's how it's built and and so forth. But, but I'm on Prescott Avenue and we do not have sidewalks and we, we, we got it accepted. So it's, Speaker 12: I mean that's feedback we have gotten from the town over the years is, that's one of our issues is that we don't have sidewalks. Speaker 10: There's a very clear list of items that are needed. Sometimes they actually need the plans of the roadway and if the roadway is old, like we had to actually get a survey done of our roadway so that we could, you know, prove that, you know, where it was actually located. There is a process, but I, Speaker 9: My Speaker 10: Experience has been that the
sidewalks were not a factor in that. There were, there were several factors, but not sidewalks. But Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean there's a whole process to making a private way a public way and it could in, you know, because it's private it could mean betterments assessed to people to improve it to certain down standards. There's all kinds of ways would you to approach it. So would Speaker 1: You just explain what a betterment is to people? Speaker 9: I would char charging the however much it costs to reconstruct that roadway to sub to subdivision standards. You would be potentially on the hook to pay for that. So, you know, so it's, it's an interesting neighborhood
how it evolved over time. And I just wanna make clear that the role of this board, and excuse me, this chatter back there please. The role of this board under the subdivision control law is very, very limited. Okay. It's basically, we don't really have discretion. Okay? If you have a piece of property and you want to subdivide it and it, and it conforms to the rules and regs of the, of the planning board, the standards of the roadway, we must approve that plan.
The one discretionary thing that the planning board can act on is what I said before, adequacy of access. That doesn't mean within the subdivision, it means getting to the subdivision. And that is a very low bar, let's put it that way for courts or anybody else to determine what adequate act access is. We can all have our opinions about it, but in my opinion, evergreen is not adequate access. Just not, I mean, if you drive that down that road through the, that neighborhood, it's not however, excuse me, excuse me.
However, if you do drive down Cypress Road and again out to Birch Road, that part of the neighborhood, it's an improved road roadway. It's vastly superior to the other part of that neighborhood. So this board, in my opinion, would be very hard pressed to say there is not adequate access to this property, therefore the subdivision that's before us, we have to deal with it. It's four lots, it's not 16 or 20, it's four. And if the, if the plan is conforming to
what we require, we must approve it. Speaker 1: And I will say one of the important, and thank you, Doug, one of the important things to understand is that the subdivision control law was developed in a very different time of how we thought about planning and neighborhoods. And it, and it, much of those elements continue in subdivision rule control law. So to your point, we have to abide by what subdivision control law permits and does not. So it is, we have purview,
but we have limited flexibility with what the dec with the decisions that we can make or the rejection of, of a proposal that's before us if it complies with subdivision control law. So thank you, but thank you. Next, Mr. Luke? Speaker 13: Hi Andy. Luke precinct five. I've lived in this neighborhood in the, in my house for 53 years. I've been an elected town meeting member in this neighborhood for 34 years. I went to Ben, he as a student, Wilson the high school,
as did my wife who taught Natick for 37 years and she's still a member of the board at Natick Community Organic Farm in South Natick. So our roots go deep in the town. And before I forget the birch road entrance to the neighborhood that you're saying is so great. I had to go in that way today because DPW was making our potholes into bumps on evergreen and I couldn't get by him. So I had to go out that way. It's only one and a half cars wide. And there was a car coming out as I tried to turn in. I couldn't pull in, they couldn't pull out.
So we had a standoff. That's not a great solution as yay. That's our solution for a second entrance. But anyway, my, my main concern that I wanted to bring up is the environmental impact on the wells this lot that they wanna develop pitches two directions to Lake Constituit in both directions and towards the wells. And it won't take much for lawn fertilizer or road salt to run off and run right to the target. And we, we, in town meeting, we've had to appropriate money
to repair the town wells on different times because they got poisoned. So I'm, I'm wondering has a study been done? And if not, will they do it and will you guys make a study, environmental study a checkbox on your sign off? Speaker 1: Thank you Amanda. I'm assuming that conservation commission or the conservation agent work to try to reduce runoff on insensitive areas. I know that there have, there have been efforts in the last several years on that, so Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll have to check in with Claire.
She was on vacation last week. Speaker 1: Okay. But to, to see what can be done very much to try to discourage or or i, I don't know the, the amount of force we have to say that you a mandate, but certainly to work on opportunities of ways to treat the lawn lawns and not just there, but elsewhere in Natick, I know that there's been an effort by conservation to come up with alternatives and strategies to keep runoff out of, out of the lake,
out of any open body of water. I know that one of the reasons Andy, that that the, the proposal that we're seeing we're talking about tonight is an improvement over what was discussed at previous meetings is the fact that you're not relying on septic and that, that that will not be one of the, the factors because of the capacity to hook up to town sewer. And I think that is at least a small victory in helping avoid exactly what you're talking about. And I think, I know that's something that Amanda
and colleagues have been working on to, to try to secure the app, the access to town, the town sewer in that way. Yes. Speaker 8: Just one additional point on that, not only the, the elimination of septic, but providing the fee control of the 30,000 square feet in zone one of the zone one around the ball lab. Again, a significant improvement over, over current where it's it's in private hands. Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. So that the town would control to getting to the point about runoff and so forth, you know, that the town should take,
will will be taking its own medicine and and kind of working to ensure Speaker 13: Natick Army labs learned a $3 million lesson about runoff into the lake. Yes. Because it poisoned our aquifer for the springvale wells. Speaker 1: So, and I, I, I'd like to think that the lesson's been learned, although I've realized that that's a federal facility which is a whole different, a whole different creature. But it's good for us to be the example of stewardship of the wells by what watching if we do have oversight of the, that portion of the property
to at least care for that. And I think we can talk further with conservation about that. Speaker 13: So will they, will they add it to their agenda? Will it be a meeting that we could attend? Speaker 1: I think what we wanna talk to the conservation agent first and to, to sound her out and, and possibly see what strategies there may need to be if, if this project goes forward. As, as what's being broadly as what's being proposed. Speaker 13: Can you email me if they do have it on the agenda and if it's gonna be a topic Speaker 1: Do you think, is this something that would, will need to go before con com?
Speaker 13: No, Speaker 2: I don't know. I'd have to double check. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: 'cause it might be conservation, it might be Board of Health. Speaker 1: Okay. And yeah, if we can, if we can do that and yes, if it is going to be on, on a meeting agenda, Speaker 9: There's no wetlands jurisdiction here. Correct. Right. Correct. Let's make that clearer. Yep. Speaker 1: So Speaker 13: Alright, call me. Speaker 1: Alright, thank you. Anyone else sir? Speaker 13: Eric Speaker 11: Fried 14 Magnolia again, I was wondering if you could point me to the criteria for access. You're saying that access is one of the, it might be a low bar, but you must have some bar in some written out criteria to provide us for access
and so what we know what your criteria are. That would be fantastic if you could point us to that. Several court Speaker 9: Cases you can look at Speaker 11: If you could, if I have to do my own research, I'll do my own research. If you're not willing to provide me with Yeah, I'll do have to give that to you. I'll link. Okay, thank you. It's just, again, it's a 13 foot wide road. I don't know how you can consider one car at a time access. You can't even fit two cars, which Speaker 9: Is a 13 foot wide Speaker 11: Road. I live on the corner of Magnolia and Cyprus. So Cypress being from the Magnolia inter Magnolia Bayberry cypress intersection, that weird one all the way to their lot. I'm at the very beginning of that.
So Magnolia is, can sort of fit two cars kind of, but that goes to Evergreen. But that section of Cyprus between Cypress, Magnolia and Bayberry, which leads to their house, which is what you're saying is the access point is the na is narrower than Mag than Evergreen is the, how the actual help the street that this house that this subdivision's gonna be coming off of is actually narrower than Evergreen. So I'm wondering why it's not considered, if Evergreen is considered not an option, why is this considered an option? Speaker 1: I don't know that it's not considered an option that,
sorry, you, you were saying. Speaker 11: Well he, he had said earlier that Evergreen is a horrible rod and it's not considered a good option for access. Paraphrasing you, I'm not giving a direct quote. Cyprus itself is narrower than Magno than than Evergreen. The only reason why it doesn't have as many potholes is because there's only four houses on there right now, five houses. And even then it's still used as a cut through for people to go up Bayberry Cyprus and go up the second exit. So we, we have a lot of extra traffic due to people already doing that, but it's still just a one car road. If somebody comes, if somebody's trying to get through there and I'm trying to get to my driveway, I gotta back out and let them go by. Literally you cannot fit two cars without one car having
to go onto the road or onto the grass or dirt or leaves to have two cars go by, literally you can't have two cars pass each other. So I don't know how that is considered a adequate access. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. So no, no. Hand raised online. Alright. All right. So on the issue, on the issue of access, what is, where do we leave that if I the, Speaker 9: Of the adequacy of access?
We don't have to make any formal decision about it, it's just do we think there's adequate access to some standard that gets you to that, that lot that's being subdivided? Okay. That's the question. Speaker 1: And that's the, those are the, the previous judicial decisions that have identified that. Okay. Andy, Speaker 10: This is not probably gonna be a popular opinion, but we, we have observed a lot of controversial applications and a lot of time the primary concern
comes down to the number of cars in and out. One one I'm thinking of is when we worked on a, a FedEx delivery building behind the Hampton Inn and there were folks that were literally concerned that like the Beatle back in the morning would not function anymore because of the FedEx trucks in and out. And upon first pass it seemed reasonable. 'cause you think of FedEx trucks and you're like, oh my god, there's probably gonna be a million of 'em and yeah, we're probably gonna, it's gonna probably, you know, negatively affect the way we live our lives. So we did a lot of traffic studies on those and amazingly, even all the number of trucks
that are going in and out, it, it basically was a negligible amount of traffic based on the overall traffic that's there. And I mean that's been there probably at least 10 years. I don't remember ever seeing a FedEx truck go in and out. So there is a, there's a perceived versus an actual impact. And I know in a case like this, the perception is that four houses will generate like life altering traffic in and out of a neighborhood that was former campsites. And I, I, I know the condition of the roads,
it's been my observation and I'm not trying to convince anybody, I'm just saying it's been my observation that these folks become your neighbors and they are driving in and out the same amount that you are. It, it wouldn't even show up on a traffic study. The, the Im the, the, the actual physical impact would not show any raised bars on any graph. Having said that, I understand people that live in houses get mail deliveries and FedEx deliveries and oil tanks come in and I, I know that there is traffic. So I'm saying, I'm not saying there isn't traffic,
but that's not a standard by which we can flush a subdivision. As it was stated previously, our role here is pretty well defined. And I get that. It's funny, the neighborhood I live in, every time a new house was proposed, it was fought by the people who fought to get in. It's sort of like this domino effect, and I get it, you feel that, you know, the neighborhood is being impacted, it's being sort of assaulted. The potholes go from potholes to bumps and there's just general feeling that this is gonna make things worse. And so I'm not, I'm not, I'm not downplaying
that I acknowledge it, I've experienced it, but from our standpoint, we are looking at a mostly compliant subdivision plan owned by a private individual who has the right to do it. So we have to sort of focus from that standpoint. And I guess what I'm maybe gently trying to say is, over the course of time, it may not be as bad as you think, but I'm not trying to convince anybody. I I'm acknowledging your concerns and I appreciate you coming out twice, maybe many times to review this because I know it is a concern. So I as, as a, as a homeowner, you have my sympathies,
but I, I just wanna say that to a certain extent I've seen these things before and they've turned out that they work out okay. And there is gonna be more time for questions and more time for input. You know, this is not the end of it. We're obviously gonna continue it to another, another time going forward. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. Yes. If you could just come up to the mic please. Speaker 12: Julia Cowman at 42 Evergreen. I think we're also just wanna clarify that it's not just the traffic from the subdivision that I think we were worried about. You know, it's the probably very lengthy construction project and the trucks and I know someone who was here last time was talking about their grandkids
and there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood. You know, it's just like there's, it's already feels like somewhat of a dangerous street just living there already. There are frequent close, close calls, you're stuck behind trucks. Two people can't get by and just having to endure a large construction project I think is also part of the concern. I don't think the whole concern is just like four new or eight new cars. I mean that is a concern, but that's not just it. So I just wanted to clarify that Speaker 1: Now.
Thank you. And, and I will say that the challenge though, excuse me, the challenge is that what the time it takes for something to be built to say, well traffic, the traffic is dangerous, I understand that, but that isn't the grounds on which you can say, well therefore it shouldn't be built because during the phase of construction it will be kind of more challenging. It may call for a a lot of care when, you know, as, as a project is being completed, how traffic movement is coordinated
and in fact how any of the trucks going in and out are, are directed either how to get into the, the, the construction site and what directions they should take. That may, that may itself be an issue to examine so that everyone can, can know or can understand that if the trucks are going in this way, then they, you'll find another way in that you that that that they could have a designated route but maybe there any details don't I'm sorry you have to go up to the mic. Sorry. Speaker 7: I think while you're going up there, I'm gonna,
I think I almost asked the, pretty much the same question and maybe this is for you Terry, who has purview over, I'm thinking for during construction, like identifying any roots that, or maybe not identifying but enforcing route that they might take details or anything like that. Is that gonna fall under us, the building Speaker 1: Commissioner or, or the enforcement of anything? If there's anything in the decision like that would fall to the building commissioner, Speaker 7: But do we ever, and I'm, I'm kind of new to the board so that's why I ask more questions than most people in our decision.
Would we also likely put in things like, you know, that they have to take, you know, construction vehicles or construction vehicles over a certain size. You know, it's fine if the electrician shows up in his, you know, Ford but you know, anything larger that they have to take certain roads and you know, avoid evergreen or stuff like Speaker 1: That or, or to make a designated route. Amanda, we haven't, I don't recall having had a situation where it's, it's kind of this, you know, the road width is this constrained but in terms of for the construction phase to be able
to identify the route for construction vehicles, yes that can be done and put in as a, as a condition of the decision. No. Yeah, Speaker 2: It's a condition of the decision. Speaker 7: Okay. But that can fall within our, in our board. It's not, you know, on the police or whatever. Exactly. Speaker 1: Well the Speaker 2: Police can enforce but Speaker 7: Well yeah, obviously we're not gonna enforce it Speaker 12: But, so there would be a detail that would be higher that would be, they would cover the Speaker 1: Cost. Prob probably not a detail but but they would, they would, it would be mandated that this is the route they can follow and if somebody says, Hey, you know what they're ignoring
that then it, it turns over either to the police or the building commissioner or a combination of the two. Speaker 7: Yeah, so I mean I guess like especially if they're working on inside their site, they wouldn't necessarily detail, you know, if there was something more on site or something might be different. Actually, maybe I'll ask a question. Do you envision any non-typical type of construction vehicles? And obviously, you know, if you've been to the site, obviously you know you're gonna need the cement truck and you know, excavator or anything like that. There's no exactly big crane needed, very Speaker 14: Typical, no big cranes or anything like that.
It's just your typical excavation and concrete and you know, material coming in and out but not, you know, nothing crazy where you would need a, a detail Speaker 1: And, and I take it that you'd be willing if we, if we can map out a route to which vehicles can be limited that still gets them to the site. Yep. Yes. That you would be willing to abide by that. Yes. Because I think if you, if there's an expectation that there should not be, you know, trucks on, on road a
then it at least it makes it not safer but it makes it more predictable, you know, you know where the trucks should be going because the route has been designated. So sir, yes. Speaker 11: Har for, again one more question. I think I just wanna get clarity on the scope of this is the scope to just subdivide it and then sell each individual lot. So your, your project does not include the home construction. 'cause my concern is if you all, you all know zero magnolia and how long that stayed empty and vacant and stuff, building a home has a different set
of requirements than just building the road and subdividing it. So my question to the, to the applicants is, is it just subdivide the road and sell the land or is it Speaker 1: Actually, and the question's to me, and I will, I will Speaker 11: Put it through Okay, is is it actually, or is it actually including the home construction through sale? Speaker 1: So to to that Speaker 14: Question, my intentions are to build the houses. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 11: Okay. 'cause we haven't seen any of the house plans, it's just a road plan today. Speaker 14: We don't have Speaker 1: To, we understand that what you don't necessarily need to see the specific plans of the houses. They do have to meet setback requirements and other, other
things that are spelled out in, in the, Speaker 11: I'm trying to figure out the length of the time, length of time of construction. Is it just the road and out or, and then the road it's etc. Is, you know, just how long the entire construction process will be and how many, you know, like he says no cranes, but they're gonna need cranes to put up the housing usually at least to get the, to get the blueboard up to the second floor and stuff like that. So, Speaker 1: So, alright, thank you for your question. And so to you, I assume you say no cranes, Speaker 14: We don't have any details on, you know, timing right now. We haven't even figured out exactly what we're building
of course, so I can't really get into that, but we're gonna be doing the typical taking trees down, excavating the lots moving material. So I don't think everybody's aware of what we're gonna be using there. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. So next steps, Amanda, I know you'll talk with conservation, the conservation agent about what can be done or, or what can be put in place to kind of preserve or prevent runoff going into the lake
so close to the wells. Yep. And again, since we own the land or since the expectation is that we will, we will have control, the town will have control of the land then that can be captured in, in that part of the decision. Speaker 2: Yep. But we do need to, yeah, there's just a bunch of other items that staff needs to figure out. Speaker 1: So yes, Speaker 9: A motion to continue, Speaker 1: I believe in the next you were, you're willing to grant the extension Yes. Through the 25th of June. Speaker 8: Yeah, I think we need, we should give you some because
Speaker 1: I think 17 Speaker 8: A period of time after like 14 days after to assuming you needed time to write a decision and, and candidly if we need to adjust that we can. Speaker 1: Alright, so if you, if you can provide that, that Speaker 8: Amanda will have a letter tomorrow and Speaker 1: That sounds good. And so with that, that means that the next time we will meet to discuss this will be on June 25th. If for some reason it is later than that, you'll, you'll know about it on June 25th. But I will try to let folks know if it is not going
to be heard and, and at least so that people don't show up and have nothing to be hearing. So with that motion to continue continue. And second, second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Alright, we'll pick this up again on the 25th. Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 10: Next we have Natick Planning Board Notice of public hearing for the property at zero Rhode Island 1 54, 1 72 Worcester Street on Wednesday, May 21st, 2025 at 7:00 PM the planning board will hold a hybrid meeting in the de lot meeting room located at 13 East Central Street Natick. The meeting will review the application from Scrub
AUB for site plan review. The project includes improvements to site circulation, the construction of new off street parking modifications to an existing sidewalk and associated site improvements. Please note that there are no proposed changes to the existing use at 1 54 Worcester Street, 1 72 Worcester Street. The properties are located at zero Rhode Island Ave, 1 54 Worcester Street, 1 72 Worcester Street. Copy of the application can be reviewed in the Community Economic Development Office. The virtual meeting link will be available on the posted agenda@natickmass.gov per order. Terry Evans, chair of the Natick Planning Board.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much Ms. Garrahan. Welcome. Speaker 15: Thank you. Thank you. Good evening Madam Chair, members of the board for the record. I'm Kathy Garrahan from Chen Dewey and with me is Danny Paisner of Scrub dub. He's coming, he's coming over, he's coming on Great of Scrub dub and it's related entities, m and e Realty Associates, LLC and 1 54 Worcester Street, LLC. And we are also here with Chris Canton of Metro West Engineering. The Scrub AUB team is pleased to be with you again for this application.
As background, the owners of Scrub AUB have been speaking with the town for going on seven years about a safety related project due the due to the con discontinuance of Rhode Island Avenue and how that discontinuance impacted vehicular traffic on Oak Street. I'll ask Chris to if he can, to share in an aerial from 2016. For, just for context, you can see how Rhode Island Avenue used to operate in between came in in between the Scrub AUB lot
with operations lot which is lined in yellow and the property across to the right, which used to be bank property and, and now for many years has been open owned by Scrub Dub where they have their headquarters offices and that's at 1 54 Worcester Street. The project addresses access issues, especially those sometimes causing queuing on Oak Street at peak peak times, which were impacted after the mass, after the mass DOT work on Route nine
and the closing of Rhode Island Avenue. Yeah, so Chris is pulling up the aerial, which shows the current layout of, of the properties, which is how it has been since Ro Rhode Island Avenue itself was closed off. The project is a result of collaboration between the town and the business owner and it has incorporated a significant amount of feedback over these years. On the next slide for your background are the key findings of the traffic engineer, which MDM transportation
on what this collaboration would bring and which was discussed with town departments, boards, and town meeting. Before I go further, Mr. Paisner would like to say a few words and then the team will make, will continue with the presentation. Thank you Mr. Paisner. Speaker 16: Yes, good evening Madam Chair, members of the board. Thank you for your time this evening. I'm Danny Paisner, president of Scrub Dub, a third generation family business headquartered right here in Natick for over 50 years. I just wanted to give the project a brief context. We started on this endeavor a little over seven years ago in
2018. Kathy is our third attorney representing us as the previous two have retired. The reason we started down this road was because the redesigned Oak Street intersection created a traffic and safety nightmare for vehicles entering and exiting our longstanding facility. Previously, when cars traveled up Rhode Island Ave toward downtown Natick, there were two travel lanes and if cars backed up entering the car wash on a busy day, there was another lane for vehicles to pass
and continue straight ahead. When everything was redesigned, there is now only a single lane heading from Route nine to downtown Natick and if cars back up entering the car wash, it creates a dangerous safety roadblock. Not only can't emergency vehicles pass by, but everything comes to a standstill in vehicles. Back up onto Route nine. In putting our heads together with traffic engineers from MDM Transportation and then meeting with the police chief and the safety committee, we came up with this plan
to acquire a portion of Rhode Island Ave to help minimize the backup onto Oak Street. This minor project has been a collaborative effort with the town and it's not some big development project and should not be treated as such. Scrub AUB will not wash any more vehicles or bring in any additional revenue. This project is all about trying to improve an untenable traffic and safety problem that was created through no fault of our own. This is a voluntary project my family has proposed
to help make the roadway safer for the town and its residents. I ask you to please work with us to get this over the finish line and approve this project. We can't guarantee no vehicle backups on Oak Street, but we are certain with this new plan they will be substantially less frequent. Thank you very much Speaker 1: And thank you. I I will say as somebody who lives south of Oak Street, I'm painfully familiar with the, the traffic circulation or, or lack thereof in, in that area.
So understand the, the issue that this is trying to solve. Amanda, is there anything you would like to start off with? Speaker 2: No, basically we've had several DRT or development review team meetings with this police, fire DPW Board of Health Conservation. Everyone's been involved trying to really figure out how to make sure this works to allow for the traffic to be removed from Oak Street and so this is the design that is coming forward at this time. Speaker 1: Alright, yes, Speaker 15: Madam Chair would, we did have a little more of a presentation if you wouldn't, if you'd like us to Of course, yes please.
I'd love that. Great. And, and Chris, I don't know if you wanna pull up either the overview or or the existing conditions plan so that Yeah, Speaker 17: I can start off for the record, Christopher cant from MetroWest engineering. Last meeting we were before you for an a and r plan as been approved. If you're looking at the, the Plan North is up page, this parcel right here is 1 54 Worcester Street. You got Rhode Island Ave. Last meeting, the a and r basically merged these two properties together
and then to the left you have 1 72 Worcester Street, which is the car wash facility going into existing conditions. This kind of stretch right here is Rhode Island Ave. As it's existing conditions, it still has an existing sidewalk. This area that used to be Rhode Island Nav has been, basically the pavement has been removed and grasped over. However, the existing utility mains and utility services are still underground. Currently Scrub Dub uses
basically crosses and uses the access point for 1 72 Worcester Street going over Rhode Island nve. And essentially what we're proposing is basically adding a second queuing lane, basically coming over here to an already existing queuing lane. In that we would be basically building a module retaining wall due to existing grades anding the existing sidewalk due to the Q and lane. In terms of stormwater mitigation
or impervious area, I should say we're adding 17,050 square feet. So it's a quite significant amount considering the amount of area of the both com parcels. In terms of trying to mitigate the storm water, we're proposing a stone infiltration trench to the north of the office building and that will basically capture the roof run off from that building, allowing the storm water to infiltrate or recharge into the ground as opposed to going into
the parking lot and then going into Oak Street, during the DRT meeting that we had with the town officials and our design team, they were also looking for additional storm water management, which we were amendable to basically including a stone trench that would pick up the runoff from the sidewalk and that would be basically recharge back into the ground. Soils are pretty excellent with sandy soils, so I have no reason to believe that there won't be a problem with the recharge of the storm water.
With that, the circulation of the, the new queuing lane won't change existing. Basically traffic comes off of Oak Street, goes through the queuing lanes, and then they basically go into the car wash from the back and then basically they exit out of the facility. They can either stop into one of the vacuum stalls for interior cleaning or they can exit out of the site onto Oak Street. Again. With that can
Speaker 10: I just jump, jump in with one question. There's a third option if you want to like get your car detailed. You go to the southern part? Yes. And, and now there's a, now there's a, an arrow pointing down in the, in the left bottom corner. Speaker 17: Yeah. It's arrow supposed to go all the way Speaker 10: It's supposed to go up, right? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. 'cause that's the way you go to get your car detailed. I, I I thought maybe there was gonna be a ch so, alright, so that flow? Speaker 17: Yeah, there's no, there's no change in that direction. Okay. Alright. It, it, they basically go this way and then out through this entrance, in addition
to the queuing lane, we're also proposing five additional parking spots kind of within the Rhode Island Ave to accommodate basically the office building basically allowing additional parking off on site. Speaker 1: Sorry, those are the, the five spaces on the west side kind of along Yes. Along, along where Rhode Island Ave was. Speaker 17: Yes. If you could see here Speaker 16: If, if, if I can just clarify that. So now they, the, the office building is a retail office.
So car wash customers that have questions or wanna purchase a gift card or a gift book, they can pull into those parking spaces and walk into the office building and get help. Right. Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. Speaker 17: I think with that, I'm all done with my, Speaker 15: And I just had a, a few things to add. Yeah. So Scrub AUB is, is nearing the end of its due diligence process before proceeds to purchase the property from the town concurrently. We're also working with the town on easement agreements, one
for utilities, one for sidewalk. And as part of the agreement with the town, the proposer will build and maintain a sidewalk for public purposes within the property. The, which would be slightly relocated from where it is today. In addition to already filing with you for an a and r endorsement, a minor si storm water permit from conservation will be needed. And that has been applied for and is in process. The building commissioner's determination found that no special permit was needed for this proposal,
that the use was preexisting and the changes proposed only to site circulation and, and queuing. Therefore, he determined that the project would be limited site plan review modification. The applicant received some written comments which are uploaded to the portal and we believe that all those comments have been addressed either in writing or at the most recent DRT meeting. So the, in some the applicant requests that you approve the minor site plan, mo mo modification as to the areas indicated by the building commissioner,
which were circulation and queuing. We believe your valuation criteria under Section 62 E three for limited site plan review modification have been addressed regarding those criteria. Vehicular circulation was described by Chris. The no building arrangement changes are proposed. One light pole may shift slightly related to the driveway. Some ballards are provided for use by the fire department. Adequate parking is provided. The location of utilities have been worked out
with town engineering and stormwater management is addressed also where the building commissioner determined that the use is pre-existing and the project needs no special permit, including as relates to the Aquifer Protection District. It appears not necessary for you to make any finding or granted grant waivers as set out in section three A five, section seven for a new as of right use in the A PD where it's preexisting. However the project has addressed storm water and we'll obtain the minor stormwater permit
from conservation. And with that, I think we're ready to wrap up the presentation and, and hear your questions. Thanks. Great. Speaker 1: Thank you very much Andy. Speaker 10: Your usual wonderful job, Kathy. Thank you. Thank you. Very thorough application. I think this is an improvement. I mean, it's not building a greenhouse and growing lettuce on top, which she, Speaker 1: You missed those days. Speaker 10: Do you guys, there was an application to build a greenhouse on their roof, on the roof to, to grow lettuce and we didn't quite get there.
It's not a bad idea. Not a bad idea. Speaker 1: It was fast, it was actually kind of fascinating. Yeah. Speaker 10: Yeah. But I don't know if you, if if we're all customers, I know I am and I do know on those days when you get in line currently, you can definitely get backed up and I do really appreciate that the, the owner's here and I think runs a fine business and isn't looking to try to jam more cars in that this is really, you know, I I fully recognize that,
that the, the ideas we're offering to try to purchase this land and make it easier to get in and get out of, and to my eyes that will accomplish this pretty nicely. I, I do realize that there's gonna be some merging two lanes into one, but every time I've been there, there's usually an employee checking people in and registering like, what kind of car wash you want? And I'm sure they can kind of manage the, the merging process and with the correction of that arrow going up and set it down, I think it all makes sense to me. So I don't, I don't, I don't have any questions and I appreciate this
and I, I I would support it. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay, Doug? Speaker 9: Yeah, I think definitely in support of this too, just have a few questions for you. No particular order. The driveway out onto Massachusetts Ave is still going to be there. That's sort of the exit, the emergency exit I call it on Mass Ave. Speaker 17: Yes, that's correct. Yes. Speaker 16: Okay. Yeah, that, that, that's only used and it's, it's a, a gated exit that's only used if for some reason a vehicle that wasn't able to go in the wash or to inadvertently get into line.
Yeah, like, like a big van with a ladder on top. Yep. Speaker 9: Mm. Yep. I've been there. So the, so a curious question on Oak Street at the entrance there's a notch, let's call it a, a notch in sort of the, I guess the layout of Oak Street that kind of penetrates into the site. Why, why didn't we work with you to sort of smooth that off? Yeah. Why is that trap is little triangular piece still there? Was there, was that part of the discussion or? Speaker 16: So that was a state design
that we didn't have any input on. That was the whole redesign of the Route nine Oak Street intersection and this, and there was a land taking from 1 54 as well was, was part of the state's design. Speaker 9: Okay. But it's town layout though. It's not, it's not mass DOT layout at that point. Speaker 17: This part is basically Oak Street. Right. And then, which is this portion is still Rhode Island Speaker 9: A Right. I'm talking about that weird sort of notch that comes in off of Oak Street.
Speaker 17: This portion? Speaker 9: Nope. Go up. Oh, this. There, there you go. Right there. Yes. Why was that not part of the conversation to acquire? Speaker 17: It's just a Speaker 9: Curious question. There was, I'm not just satisfying my own curiosity on that. Speaker 17: Yeah, there's, there was really no need to acquire it because it's town land. So basically we still use it as a curb cut regardless of whoever owns it. And it, it becomes more of a hassle when you're kind of dealing with two, two roadways. So ultimately it'd be best to just leave it as is.
Speaker 9: Oh, all right. I mean I hear you, but it's, it's town way. So was Rhode Island Ave. So you could have done it with the same a and r plan, but that, that's whatever. It's fine. Parking. Are we, by Speaker 16: The way, I I appreciate your comment on that. But again, in seven years of discussions in reviews, that's never been, never been brought up. Speaker 9: Yep. And here we are in the plaintiff board, so I'm bringing it up. Parking, what are we compliant with zoning? Speaker 15: Yes. And if, if you want, I could try to find my numbers,
but I have, I did. Speaker 18: This is parking for overall the, the office. Oh, Speaker 9: Okay. Overall, are we, are we fine? Speaker 15: So the, the area that has the new parking is one space per 400 square feet per office. The office is 1800 square feet, so five would be required. So that's, that's the only change on the, the portion of the property that's being developed. So, okay. Speaker 9: Yeah. Alright. You mentioned easements
for utilities and for the sidewalk, which is great. I would, that was my question heading into this. Can we, I guess as a practice with the board with a site plan that we're going to approve, I kind of like to see those on a plan before we approve to see the, the, the easements. Okay. The actual easements. If we could see what, where those are Speaker 16: And we have that. Okay. Speaker 15: I think they're Speaker 16: Chris has that, Speaker 15: Chris, Chris do they, is there a notation for the easements on the development plan?
Speaker 17: Not on the site plans, but I do have separate plans. Basically this is the utility easement, which is just basically the entire Rhode Island Ave. And then this would be the sidewalk easement, which is like a 10 foot wide section that goes through. Speaker 9: Can we make those part of the plan set, Amanda? I think, aren't they, are they? I don't know. I this Speaker 1: One, Speaker 9: Right? It's a plan. I just don't know if it's Speaker 15: Part of the plan set. Were they, were they part of the submitted plan set, Chris? Speaker 17: I'm not necessarily sure. Speaker 16: We can just make them part of the add Yeah. Plan set.
We can add 'em as part of a condition. Speaker 9: Okay. That's, I would like to see that so that we have have it in one place. It's a, it's an approved set of site plans. And what was my other thought on that? Site plan easements. Speaker 19: Hmm. Speaker 9: I lost my train of thought. Excuse me. Come back to me. Okay, Speaker 1: Thanks Alan. Do you have any questions? Oh, sorry, here comments Speaker 9: On the, again, on just a lot of line work on the actual site plan and I appreciate that, but it's a lot. So I wonder if you could kind of clean that up a little bit.
Like the, the erosion in sedimentation control lines, the, the heavy dotted lines on the site plan are kind of distracting. And if those belong on the erosion and sedimentation control plan, let's leave them there and not put 'em on the site plan. If we could do that unless it's a requirement, Amanda, Speaker 17: But Well we usually typically leave 'em on the proposed site plan just because when you go to like, build something, you wanna know kind of in relation, if you have enough space to actually move around and kind of know where the erosion control
and limit of work is or project. Speaker 9: Yeah. That can be accomplished with the sedimentation plan though as well as part of the plan. So I would, I mean, just saying for the, for sake of clarity, I don't, I don't necessarily think you need that line work on there. You can, you have a set of plans, you're gonna be looking at the whole thing. So if you don't mind, if you could clean up the plan, would that line work? I'd appreciate that. Speaker 16: So, which you are saying on, on the site, this, this site plan itself. Speaker 9: Correct. Speaker 16: You want which lines removed?
Speaker 9: The proposed, I mean you have a plan called erosion and sedimentation control. That's where that should live. It shouldn't be on the site plan or the site layout plan. That's a, that's a construction detail and that's, that's temporary. When construction's over, you're gonna remove all that stuff. So it really doesn't belong on a site plan. On the layout plan. It belongs on the erosion and sedimentation control plan. Speaker 16: That's no problem. That's easy enough for us to remove, just again, make that a condition. Speaker 10: Okay. Speaker 1: Amanda, you have that? Yeah. Speaker 9: Okay. Alan's turn. Speaker 1: Alan,
Speaker 7: I don't really have a whole lot of comments that this is a really tough site. I think it was a tough site before when there was a, that roadway in and of course things have changed a little bit. Of course we had the little island, that one little business there that was kind of floating by itself afterwards. So I appreciate kind of trying to fix an issue left currently there. I think the two lanes coming in can really help. So no, I don't really have any issues. Speaker 1: Thanks. Very good. So, so it's, it is
before us for for site plan review and I'm, we'll entertain a motion to approve the site plan. You're good, right? Speaker 10: Yeah, I, I make a motion that we approve site plan. I am looking at, well mine, which I think matches the, on the screen is sheet three of six dated March 26th, 2025. But I think is that the date for every, for the whole package? 'cause I, maybe I'll just say approve the site plan submitted March 26th, 2025.
Speaker 15: If, if I may. I'm sure I think it was updated last week. Was it Chris? For the, with the conservation comments, Speaker 17: Here's a revision block of May 9th and it, you kinda look to the left depending on which sheet it is, there's a revision table so that specifies, we'll Speaker 10: Say plans revised May 9th. Very good. Speaker 9: 2025. Okay. If I could amend that, just say inclusive of easement plans to be incorporated and the erosion and sedimentation issues removed from the actual layout plan.
Speaker 10: Yes. Friendly amendment accepted. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. Made, seconded second. And amended further discussion. Hearing none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? That is four zero and Speaker 9: I'll move. We Speaker 10: Close the public hearing Speaker 9: Second. Speaker 1: Okay. Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Good luck hearing. Speaker 15: Thank you very much. Speaker 10: Thank you. Speaker 17: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: Just real quick, do you wanna, and since this one's gonna be a straightforward decision
for site plan, did you just wanna authorize the chair to sign the decision or do you wanna review it since it is gonna be quite a ways away, Speaker 1: These are tough decisions. I'm happy by the consensus of the board if I It's pretty straightforward. Speaker 9: It is pretty straightforward, Speaker 1: Yeah. Then I would be happy to good by Speaker 9: Me. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Do it. Great. We're on. Awesome. Speaker 2: Thank you. Good. Speaker 15: Thank you very much. I Speaker 1: Wanna kind of take the power away from you. Alright, thank you. So now on to enclosed, now on to planning
board business, Amanda. The first is discussion West Natick land use and zoning. And part of what we're doing right now is beginning and I, I think as is really important to start thinking about fall town meetings. So a lot of what we we'll be covering with planning board business relates to the beginning or con continuation of preparation for articles for this, for the fall warrant, Speaker 9: The relentless, relentless march towards town meetings. Yes. Speaker 1: Yep. And I, and I am much happier to try to
get these thought through and prepared ahead of time instead of suddenly realizing that the time is upon us and we're having to drive poor Amanda until she like screams. Don't wanna have you scream. Oh, so and so West Natick land use and zoning. Speaker 2: Okay. So also, just so you're aware, the landowner who had asked to talk with the board regarding West Natick is also here in the audience. So I don't know if you wanna go have them first us. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: It's either way.
Speaker 1: What Certainly, Speaker 20: Hello, Speaker 21: I'll sit down. Good evening. Thank you for having me. My name is Louis Frache, I'm president of native, the Native Crossing Corp, 2 51 West Central Street. I was here a few weeks, maybe a month ago, and asked to be heard and regarding the process that's going on for the rezoning of the West Central Street area. I have, I approached the planning board back in 2019 with Ted Fields.
I don't know if you remember him, Ted Fields. And we had some very positive conversations about the redevelopment. That area. Covid ceased, calmed down the conversations and we started chatting again in 2001. And I believe that's when Amanda came on board in 22. In 2022, we had more conversations, all positive gi and I was trying to find a direction on how I could redevelop that site. And I was told, you know, Lou, we're gonna try
to rezone it through a special town meeting. Hold on. Well we're gonna get this thing processed and whatnot. And I, I had my, my attorneys with me and, and we were all very positive and optimistic again, we, 2023 came about same conversations. We had multiple meetings. Meanwhile, I have to, I had to make decisions on what to do with my, the building itself and the tenants that were in there
with all the positive feedback. Well first of all, COVID killed all the office tenants that were in there. So it was a 50% office, 50% retail, retail component was stable. But the office component was completely gone. We're adjacent to the train station as well if you don't know the site. Anyway, 2023 came about. Again, very positive meetings with Amanda and Jamie. We were, I I was excited to hear that there was gonna be some changes in the zoning.
They're gonna be working on a whole package. And during that period of time, I, I met up with the group that approached me about doing a, a redevelopment of that site. We signed an agreement and again, had multiple meetings with that intention. We, I, I did not renew any of the tenants that were in the building, basically because they had to know ahead of time what, like anything else plan their, their businesses.
So I couldn't say, oh, I'll, I'll give you six months notice or a year or two years or whatnot. People, they were well established businesses. Mirage Hair Salon is one of them. He was there for 25 years in our building. So he had, Tony had to fi figure out what he was gonna do At that point. We were to the point where we were told that we were gonna be scheduled for the fall of 24, 20, 20 24 town meeting to put this forward. And we were very, very excited.
We were later told that that wasn't gonna happen. It was gonna happen in the spring of 2025. That did not happen. What I'm asking, and I'm just, 'cause I have to plan for my future and to understand the process that's involved here, what is the desire of the planning board and the town for that section of town area to be redeveloped? If it's something that I can, I, I just need, I don't want to be promised continuously that yes, it's coming down the line.
Yes, we're gonna be doing something, I just need to know what's gonna happen. I mean, right now it's vacant, it, it's, it's corralled off. It's gonna sit vacant and for forever at this point because I am not going to, and I can't, I've had long term tenants, 25 year tenants, I had to ask to leave. And now I'm, I'm, I don't know what to do. So I'm asking the board to please gimme some guidance and maybe a commitment or not commitment,
but just some, something. So I understand what to do. Speaker 1: Thank you. Now, and I'm sure you understand that this is not a subject other than being touched on very basically by this board has not been discussed at this board. In part because we were waiting to the study that was being done for West Natick because that was going to frame how things were taken forward. And I would say that we were collectively as disappointed with the work of the consultants
who was, who were responsible for developing that because we were putting a lot of stock that that was going to give us a sense of the framework that we could follow that. And of course the Natick 2030 master plan, which talks about this area as well as all the rest of Natick about how it developed. So we are now, we thought that we would have this, the study done, and we would then have a framework to, to work from. And that, and with apologies for the kind of the false starts that you've experienced, I think we
and the Community Economic Development Office have, have dealt with that same frustration because we had anticipated that we'd have something to be a working document to help steer us. So we're all now here kind of now finally talking about, about development, about what the challenges are, what's envisioned in Natick 2030, the master plan. And so kind of here we are,
the beginning of the conversation. It, we, we don't have the rabbit to pull out of the hat about how we've determined we want to pursue redevelopment. Although we've talked about the importance of mixed use for the site, the master plan also about that we're here today to begin that conversation about what, not what, when we're doing it. We were hoping to take something forward for the fall, but to understand actually what the aspiration is
for the town as to how we see this part of Natick developing or redeveloping. And I think we have an an open mind on it, but it's not simply saying, okay, we've got a project, great, we'll do that. We wanna try to understand, I think more widely and deeply what the long term interests are for how that part of town should develop or continue to be redeveloped. So it's just a long way of saying I I we were not, we were not not, we haven't been in a position of saying,
right, this is the way we want to go because of the, the delays that came with the, the study. The reason that we are here talking about it now is because we do want to try to have something to put forward in the, for fall town meeting. We've talked tangentially and briefly about, about how we, how we frame the zoning for it. If we want to do something that is form-based zoning, which more or less is driven not by the program, not by
what the businesses do, but rather by the scale of what the buildings, how they work with the landscape, with the surroundings, with other development in the area. So we are here to start that conversation. Speaker 21: So this is something that is, is gonna be a process for the, the fall meeting. And that's what you're saying is that Speaker 1: I, I think it would be ideal, but I'd rather not kind of rush through something quickly that is not kind of all fully thought out.
We wanna, we, we wanna get, we don't wanna rush it. We wanna get it right because there are relatively few times you have this sort of opportunity to consider how redevelopment of this site will affect not just its immediate surroundings, but you know, the moving movement of people, of traffic of, of business in, in this part of Natick. So we just wanna get it, we want, we want to get it right and we're here to start talking about that. And also to introduce the idea of a form, you know,
potentially relying on a form-based zoning, again, drawing on kind of vol the volume of buildings as opposed to the program. So, okay. The reference I made to mixed use has to do in no small part with the master plan that specifically calls out this part of Natick for mixed use development as opposed to, Speaker 21: And what, what is mixed use? I'm what is mixed use development in your view? I'm just curious Speaker 1: Broadly. It can take a lot of different forms.
Typically it's, it will be first floor commercial, first floor, non-residential, and then upper floors, presumably residential. Or it could be a bit more of a mix, but it would something that would have an activated ground floor for the, for the public. Speaker 21: I, I just, from my experience, I've operated that building for over 25 years. The it, the, the, the amount of traffic that, that, even though it's close to the train station that it tries to generate, except for Mirage being the, you know,
having a a, a very strong loyalty. The business in there, businesses in there, it was very hard for them to operate. I mean, and, and the, the rental rates that you get on that section of town are very so low that it doesn't generate the ca the the, the income needed to, to sustain the, the property. So when you talk about mixed use, that's a wonderful concept. But it does, you know, that far out of downtown or that part of Natick, there's not enough driven traffic
that you're gonna be, that you're gonna have businesses sustain themselves and or the person that owns the building to rent. I've operated it. I, I know I, from experience we had, I mean, people talked about a coffee shop next to the train station, what a wonderful idea, right? Bakery and things like no one stopped in. I mean, it, it just, they, they, they're, they're commuters. They come in and they go out. It's, it's not a, a, a pedestrian type environment. Speaker 1: I think, I mean, again, I'm kind of not, I'm not trying
to put cart before horse, but it seems like what you're talking about is, wow, I don't, we don't want commercial and I don't think we're looking for something that's wholly commercial. But I think, I think that a a, a mix is, is reasonable for us to be considered. So i i, this is just kind of the start of the conversation. I'm interested in hearing others, others comments, and Amanda also to understand from you as our, the, the kind of senior development professional, how you are working or how you have kind of seen
that we might address development in this area. It's a, it's a kind of a different kettle of fish than a lot of other kind of typical parts of town, including that with that very strong east west corridor and not a lot of navigability other than the east West. So how do you see us proceeding if what we're trying to do Speaker 2: Is, did you want the other members to weigh in or do you want me to go first? Speaker 1: I guess I'd like to hear your thoughts because you, you have some sense of
what form-based zoning may mean. Yeah. What other ways might be considered and then I'd be interested in having the board members respond. Yeah, Speaker 2: Absolutely. All right. Just make sure it's showing. So with all that being said, there is the need because we were banking on a plan that never came. Yep. We also had two public engagement sessions that didn't really capture what we were looking for. What we needed to make sure that the neighborhood that is surrounding to the north and to the south,
but also the users of this area really understood. So with all this, there would need be a need to do a public education with that. It would be what is form-based code in concept or general also what is the land uses the review of West Natick. It's not just what's there today, it's what's the topography, how do people use the site, how do people actually interact with that area? Also just give some examples of form-based code and then also how form-based code and West Native can interact. So start to try on the idea of here's our nodes,
here's our connectors, here's our supports, here's our open space. But then we would also need review and input. We would also wanna make sure that information is accessible. So on a weekly basis we would have the Natick website for West Natick put together with a weekly FAQ, which we've done in other zoning efforts, which would be updated regularly with questions that we get responding to. We would also have biweekly visuals and map updates and then biweekly regular progress reports and report outs on work. So when we are doing public engagements,
there would be a report out as to what was or took place. Then we would also have an email distribution, which we are also including as well. Types of public engagement that we do need to include would be planning board public meetings, which would be this type of setting. But we would also wanna have some mapping where allowing people to kind of show us how they use the site. And that's not really for how the sites would be developed. It's where can we put trails, where can we put the sidewalks, where can we put concentrations of different types of things. But then we'd also wanna have open house
and also just public review. We would then also wanna have meetings with the stakeholders, which would include commercial meetings with residential abutters, but then also review draft zoning and then revised draft zoning. So Natick 2030 did call out what they were envisioning for 2030. 2030. Really kind of looked at what was there, what could be. This was with public engagement. So members of the community were coming to various activities or events to provide their input. And this is one drawing
of actually specifically the site we're talking about of what could or could not be. And this is not saying that this is what has to be, this is just a concept that who was drafting the Natick 2030 took from members of the public as to what they would like to see. With all that being said, there was goals basically established by Natick 2030, which are, I took the highlighted sections of those and put them here. They really did talk about how do we get a, allow for the commercial overuse lay, sorry,
allow for commercial use. But then also it did talk about multifamily. It talked about how do we get fewer curb cuts on the street and create that connectivity. How do we prioritize pedestrian and bicycles in this area? But then also how can we use the MBTA ST station to better ext, understand the goals, but expand opportunity for basically transit oriented development. 'cause that is what lends this area. However, there are challenges. One of the challenges that we saw with the consultant was basically the way that the community was approached.
So we need to readdress that. We need to educate people on the form-based code. 'cause this is a new concept here and it is unique to every community. How Saratoga Springs uses it versus another community versus another community. It's all unique to that community. We also need to mix up the types of communication and then also make sure it is accessible communication. Because we are, we have a very large diverse population that we would be working with in terms of stakeholders. Whether that be landowners, renters, business owners, et cetera. One thing that we do need to be mindful
of is the connections. This is a basically a very major training route, not just for the Boston Marathon, but we see a lot of people biking and using this area to get in and out. But there are a lot of curve cuts. The north side of 1 35 does not even have sidewalks in certain areas where all the businesses are. So those are challenges that we would want to address, not by specific developments, but actually taking and developing a plan outside of this process to figure out how do we move people within this area and whether it be a multi-use path, et cetera. So that when developers do come in,
they know the expectations of what we are trying to do. There's also a very big right of way. The road is not taking up the entire right of way as well. Land uses, we really do need to look at those intensity regulations because they are dated. This is, you know, focused on single story large buildings that are from when manufacturing was much more popular in its older state. We also wanna understand that there are topography changes with those topography changes that we understand why we can't put a seven foot story building. I'm not saying we're doing seven stories, a seven story building on the top of a hill
and then a one story below. It doesn't work that way. But then we also have to be mindful of one open space. But we have a lot of wetlands and water bodies within this area that will also kind of shape how development takes place. So we would wanna lend the, let the developer use the site. Creativity create, oh my gosh, creativity create, I can't pronou it, sorry. And so that they could do more with it. So on the flip side of all that, we would wanna do more of what we did with center Gateway, which is do a lot coverage.
Get away from FAR. Allow the developer to figure out, okay, we want to do this, this, and this. While we are meeting open space requirements. Also currently there are different zoning districts. So we have the residential general, we have the limited commercial, we have the planning community development, we have commercial two and then we have the RSA, which is a single family zoning district. All within this one corridor that we need to kind of look at. We have restaurant uses within districts that do not allow restaurants until just recently at the town meeting that we made this residence. We have residential uses within the commercial it, we need
to look at this also. The lc Limited commercial district is an old zoning. It is actually one of the only places in the community where the ZBA is the special permit and site plan review authority. So we do need to look at that. But then also we have been updating the use schedule. But with that being said, we had just recently pulled all this information from the various section of the zoning bylaw to put it in the use regulation schedule. But it's also how do we make it better? So with all that, we have expected outcomes. We wanna allow for redevelopment of it based on site specific, which is why we were looking at form-based code.
We also wanna reduce the number of zoning districts, but also curb cuts along 1 35. We want to actually reduce the number of non-conforming parcels. If we're rezoning this, we should make everything conforming when possible. Like the center gateway, there was like one parcel that would never be conforming as long as there is a lot size area just because it was so small. We also wanna promote a mixture of uses on a property, but also a mixture of uses throughout the neighborhood that could support each other. 'cause that is gonna be the big thing with this. And then we also want to promote redevelopment that creates interest at a pedestrian scale,
not just from a car. With all that being said, and this is probably too far away for everyone to see, but this is an 18 week plan as to how we would get there. So this would start next week. This does build in the planning board's meeting schedule, not including the June 4th meeting 'cause we don't have that and it was kind of difficult. But this includes one, basically one through five is focusing on education, but also releasing a draft of a zoning for people to start looking at. But then we would then start having community meetings,
stakeholder meetings, and then also just kind of getting a temperature of where we're going. By week eight we would then have an open house. One would be virtual and one would be in person to then further bet the zoning out that we are providing in addition to providing education. We would continue along. The planning board at this point would've had their, I think, third public hearing or public meeting where we are reviewing this, whether it's gone to public hearing yet or not continuing through. And then we just have to be mindful by week 13, if we stay on the fall town meeting schedule,
the warrant does close, but there is opportunity if needed to potentially call the special, which would then give us extra time for the fall town meeting. It would be a special within the annual, but the whole goal is to have this entire thing wrapped up by week 18, which is the middle of September. It is doable. It is absolutely doable. Everything's kind of like laid out in my craziness. We pulled the CPC plan off in two months, so this is doable. Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I was gonna say thorough is not craziness. Speaker 2: So, but 18 weeks, that's, you know, starting now.
Speaker 1: Ambitious. Speaker 2: It is, but it's again, doable. We have a draft that we can start with. We have information. This is not a new area of the town. We know a lot of the uses, so it's a matter of just getting the work done. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. And what I'd like is just to hear kind of reactions, comments from the board. Alan. Speaker 7: Actually, I don't live very far from here. Of course this will be the first time. I have really fairly new to the whole town meeting and rezoning. So I think I'm more ears than I am talking.
But I think the meetings before, I think with the consultant, although maybe they weren't the most successful, at least they kind of broached the subject as far as rezoning and possibilities. I think one misconception I was almost hearing from people were thinking that it required changes. You know, so for instance, you know, some of these buildings that were already here that are commercial, oh no, you mean I can't have this anymore? And it would be like, no, it means when you redevelop you have more options or different options. So I think we'll need to make sure that people understand
that I, I think we're not gonna be presenting the graphics or anything like that from the other stuff that we had before. Right. As far as options. Yeah, I think the scales of some of those were a little off and looked scary. And I think it'll be important to make sure we get the people on the north side of the tracks, make sure that they know about anything happening. Speaker 1: Yeah, it's funny you don't think of that part of West Natick as being one community because of the tracks, Speaker 2: But this work plan does also include conversations with the people that do live on the north side,
but then also on the south side because we have two very diverse populations. So yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean I think to echo what you've said, Terry and Amanda, in terms of the process, right? I mean I, I was vocal about it back last year, you know, I was expecting to have something for town meeting 'cause the MBT Communities Act was kind of breathing down our neck and we wanted to do the right thing, right? And we were gonna do downtown and we were gonna do West Natick. And I was pretty vocal at the time when we were told
that the consultant did not deliver on the, on the deliverables and we had to do it the minimum, basically, which was downtown Natick. Right. So I am a, I am anxious to get this done as soon as possible. I think we should all, for all the reasons Amanda said, I think we should be leveraging this as a transit oriented development property. It is, it's West Natick and I know I'm in the business. I know what the demand is like out there for sites like this and this one in particular. You've had lots of people knocking on your door for this site.
So there is, there's no lack of interest in in developing it. I, and I do think that you look at redevelopment that have been transformative in places like this. You look at Lydon Square in Wellesley where deal lumber was on one side of the road and Roche Brothers was on, was on the other. And look what we have over there now. I mean that's, you know, I did help. It was my project I managed. But it's a great project and I think the, the success of it speaks for itself. And that's kind of the vision I would think. You know, I think we should aspire to some of that stuff
in on sites like this. So form-based code, I'm familiar with it. I've sat on national juries and panels about form-based codes. They are, they're great when they're done. Right. There's a tendency sometimes to make them way more complicated, which completely undermines the reason why you're doing it in the first place. And that's to be flexible and not dictate use. It's, again, it's form-based, right? So what, what is the aesthetic and what are the uses that go along with it?
And I guess I would say, Amanda, if we're in this process to do a form-based code, if it's gonna be victim to lots of detail, I would be one to say let's do something way more simple for the sake of getting something done here. That's, that's the right thing to do. Yep. So whether it's 18 weeks over the summer, that's ambitious. It's over the summer, getting people's attention over the summer is, it's a challenge. If it's not the fall, it needs to be the spring.
I mean, it just, it does, I mean, I, I think everyone's waiting for this to be done. I think it's a transformative moment for this area. I'm a huge fan of TODI preach it all over the, all over the country. And I think this is a great example that, that we could use here. So I feel like the value of this site and, and commercial mixed use on this site, it's gonna depend on how it is designed. What's the density of residential that's above it? That's gonna be a built in market. It's not just commuters who are gonna use whatever services are there.
It's people who are gonna live on the site. So, you know, that's, that's what I think that the, the town wants to see here. That's my opinion. So I'm excited for it. I really want to see this done. I'd love it to be form-based code. I'm wary that we could get way off track on that. So I think we, as the conversation unfolds, we need to kind of keep the guardrails on it. Speaker 21: So. Okay. Thank you. Andy, Speaker 10: What is TOD Speaker 21: Development Speaker 9: Transit oriented development Speaker 10: And you both were talking at the same time, Speaker 9: Transit oriented development. Speaker 10: It's easier in mono. Okay. First of all, Mr.
Franche, I appreciate you and your team coming in. And I, as I'm always sympathetic to business owners, being a business owner myself, and I don't know exactly what path brought you to where you have an empty building, but as a, as a building owner, I can only imagine that is a very uncomfortable feeling. And the process you described over the last four or five years of productive meetings at town hall that either left you with the impression of promises made, promises given, whatever those were, I was not witness to any of those conversations. It's a very uncomfortable feeling, particularly
as you're trying to make a plan. The plan that you're patiently or not patiently waiting for is a new zoning methodology going through town meeting, which is, you know, we call it a 50 50 bet, a 60 40. I don't know. And, and I, I appreciate your, your sensitivity to what's going on. The, the plan that we had a little more detail about the kind of the draft drawings and the, and the proposal you had. I I don't know if it's possible just to share the draft with Mr.
Franchi at another time just to give a sense. 'cause I thought it was a good proposal. I thought it actually made sense of organizing the zoning in a plan in, in a way that made sense to me. So I don't know if you've been privy to that, but I think that might be a good thing to have a meeting with Amanda and review it and just see I've been trying, Speaker 21: Yeah, I tried many, many times. I want to know my, where I, what direction I have to go. I mean, under the current zoning, I, I could build a few h houses there. Right. You know what I mean? And is, I don't know if that's what the town wants. Right. You know what I'm saying? Because I can't, I can't live with an empty lot. Speaker 10: Well, I can can't. And Speaker 21: If the town's not gonna make
this thing work, then I have to figure out what I'm gonna Speaker 10: I totally understand and, and I, I I'm not gonna use the word like promise or anything 'cause we're going through a town meeting process, but I think you should have the ability to see what Amanda has come up with. So you guys should definitely have a meeting and I I think you should get together soon. If, if if you find that it's not happening, you know, let me know and I'll, I'll see if I can help leverage that. Speaker 21: Well, you know what, Speaker 10: A member of the public appreciate who owns a building should have an ability to see, you know, some general draft ideas. He's obviously an interested stakeholder. I'm not
Speaker 1: Laying out out, I'm not, I'm not denying that. Speaker 10: What do you, what Speaker 1: Do you say? No, it's just like that. But just to, Speaker 10: I hear comments that it's sometimes hard to schedule meetings and sometimes I find a board member can, can send an email or do something to help just facilitate that. Thank you. That's all I'm offering. Speaker 1: May, may I insert myself as chair to assist with that as well? Sure, thanks. Speaker 10: So the, the concern I always have when you are weighing a town zoning proposal is that the options of the individual landowners
are not reduced in any way. I hope that they're increased. If, if the options of a building owner are increased under proposals like this, I'm in favor. If they're the same, then I kinda look at it. If they're reduced, then I'm generally against it. 'cause I, I don't, I don't think it is fair to, to take a step backwards in terms of the options that people have. Having said that and having seen a sense, a draft of what's being proposed, again, I think it makes sense. I think it will be an improvement. I think, I think, I think property owners will benefit. I think the residents of the town of Natick will benefit. So it's certainly worth considering.
I am not gonna use the word promise 'cause as I said, it's going through town meeting zoning changes. Well this will be interesting 'cause this is definitely half a mile from, from a public transportation. So it may just be a majority vote as opposed to a two thirds vote for a zoning change. So, so that's good that that mean that the, the, the, the, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts changed the, the voting standard to majority instead of two thirds. So that things like this are more likely to pass. So I'm optimistic and it's not my place to ask you for patience or anything like that, but this is the process that we're heading through.
And if you can hang on and if you can get enough information so you feel like you're getting, you know, a good relationship with, with those of us that, that represent town hall. That's the goal. I think better days are ahead and this process does absolutely depend on public input. So I think it would be really important to see what's being proposed, attend our meetings, let us know what you think. Maybe you can encourage other stakeholders to participate as well. Even though we're in the summer. 'cause I think like when we did a, a new zoning district called Center Gateway, we had a fair number of people, business owners, neighbors who participated and they all,
they all really helped shape it. So I would advise you to be active, to ask questions, to give your thoughts. 'cause I think real life people and and and invested stakeholders are great resources to have. 'cause you know, we, we to a certain extent are planners as opposed to the actual people that experience what it is to, you know, sign a tenant. So it, it's kind of an open invitation, but I I actually feel like I, I'm sorry it's delayed. I'm sorry it took as long as it took. But this can be exciting and I,
and I'm, I'm pretty optimistic about it. Speaker 21: Thank you Andrew. I, I, I, I parti I tried to participate in every meeting that I could possibly attend when you had the consultants there. I I, I tried to schedule meetings with Amanda and Jamie so we could keep updated. It wasn't promises and again, I, it was my risk. But again, it was the, the optimistic and the, the, the, the, and I don't wanna say promise, but this, the outline, what they had told what I was told led me to that make those decisions. Okay. It wasn't, I just decided on my own and took the risk.
I I and I understand what took place. I get it. It's my fault. But I appreciate the fact that you all considering that's what I wanted to know. Are you gonna consider this or do I go and put 15 townhouses up there and you know, and call it a day? And we, and it, and it ruins the whole idea of what you can build. This could be a really incredible, it's a piece of land that you don't come, it doesn't not come along. I agree very often. Speaker 9: Would Speaker 21: Add, I want you guys to consider this could be Speaker 9: To Andy's Speaker 21: The gateway to the, this other
Speaker 9: Side. The only thing I would add to Andy's comments is what he said. Seriously. I mean that's, I appreciate that. Thank you very well, very well articulated, Andy. And that's, that's, I, yeah, I'm, I'm, and Speaker 21: I look forward to having any information that I could look at whenever it's available. Speaker 1: I, I think, I think this has a potential to be very ambitious and I'm excited at the process. We've Speaker 9: Got a good track record. We've got a good track record Speaker 1: With, and in fact the, what, what was, what was done for the MBTA communities act, a real, a nice example of ways that we can working away.
Speaker 9: Yep. Speaker 21: The only other Yeah. I request that I would have is that, you know, while this is being massaged and planned and, and designed or form based to whatever it may be, you know, if you, if we could have some input just so you, I 'cause my experience of, I mean we we're also the owners of Kendall Crossing and, and you know, I I, I, my office is on 180, 180 2 West Central. I mean, we, I live there, you know what I mean? This is my home base. I know what kind of traffic comes up and down that street. I've operated businesses in that area.
I, I, again, like I said, there's, it's, I I think my or our, our team's input just to kinda get an idea would be helpful. I just, that's all Speaker 9: That Mr. Face sitting in the background there and, you know, he's, he knows how to, how to do this. So I have good faith in your team. Thank you. In, in engaging. So, okay. Thank you. Looking forward to it. Speaker 21: I appreciate your time. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. So we, we have ambitious work to do. Speaker 9: Yes. That was the, that was the under Speaker 1: Piece, the understatement of the year. But, but I think that that is,
we can do it. And if what we find is that it, look, if, if there's a point in this where we say, you know what? I, we don't, we can't quite squeeze everything in if we have to wait till the spring and do it. Right. I just don't wanna Speaker 9: Can, Speaker 1: I don't wanna rush it for the sake of rushing it, but I, but I would want to get momentum going. Speaker 9: Can Amanda, can you put a straw, straw man together for, or star woman or whatever I of a schedule Yeah. With that timeline, just real dates Yep. To kind of see where that maps out to. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: Yeah. I have it like written down, but I'll give it to you in Perfect. A word doc Speaker 1: Can on, on that your, Speaker 9: The timeline. Yeah. Speaker 1: Just if you can just circulate it to the Speaker 9: Board. Yeah. But Speaker 2: I'll take it outta that Speaker 9: Real dates though, just to kind of see how it plugs into my calendar from Okay. Self perspective. Yeah. But Speaker 2: It was actually going into a Gantt chart, but my Microsoft project wasn't letting me log in. Okay. Okay. So we'll get that taken care of, go that way. Speaker 1: And then the, the next ambitious thing to do is to see, because I think we'll need it, how we can shoehorn in
another meeting in June. And I think to prepare to have a second one in July in part because we're gonna be rolling right into the submission of, of warrant articles. Probably some of them may be covered by a special in the fall annual as you pointed out. But there may be other elements that we're working on as well that we don't wanna get lost. So you had noted several dates that might be good for us to try to reschedule to. And that was, so Speaker 9: This is resched or addition? Speaker 1: Sorry, we're rescheduling June 4th.
Speaker 9: The fourth. Okay. Speaker 1: And then I'd like to talk while we're at about a second one for June. Speaker 9: A third one Speaker 1: Or a third one. Okay. June. Speaker 2: So there was a series of meeting dates that could potentially serve instead of the June 4th, we could meet on June 5th, which is a Thursday, Monday, June 9th, Tuesday June 10th, Monday June 16th and Tuesday June 18th. Actually that's a Wednesday I believe. Speaker 1: And are currently all we have, assuming that we, we are canceling June 4th,
Speaker 2: But I think Speaker 1: That we're canceling June, June 4th because of the 9 27 presentations. So right now with June 4th gone, it would just be two meetings in June. And any of those dates don't work for people. Speaker 9: A couple don't. But June 5th works. June 5th is good. We Speaker 1: Do June, June 5th. Speaker 9: I, I got a jettison something on my calendar for that, but that's okay. Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. So June 5th, we'll, we'll replace Speaker 9: Sure. Speaker 1: June 4th. Okay. Speaker 7: Drag this over. Speaker 9: Can I borrow back the company pen? Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: So, so June 5th. On June 5th, then,
Speaker 1: And then I'm looking for one more date in June. So we could go down to the 18th or you, we have, wait, we have our meeting on the 25th, right? Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: So that's it. I'm sorry. I'm gonna, I wanna squeeze one more into July. Speaker 9: Yeah. Oh, into July Speaker 1: I think. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 1: Unless we think we'll have enough. Speaker 2: Why don't we just do right now the fifth. 'cause the fifth we can't advertise anything new. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 2: And the projects, we approved one project today and we continue another one to the 25th. Right. So then why don't we have the fifth focus
on actual zoning? Speaker 1: That sounds good. Speaker 2: 'cause then that might reduce the need to have an additional one. Speaker 7: Try to just kind of hammer out as much as we can. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 2: Because there's some that are already drafted that like the use regulation schedule, like, Kay, we just had to go back through, 'cause that was the one we deferred from the fall. And there we had the fall they had there, we had the other two, and then there was a few other ones which were like, they seem like house cleaning because it's like deleting sections. 'cause Speaker 9: The footnotes and stuff like that. Is that or is that next? Speaker 2: That one I gotta look at. But like,
we have a zoning dis zoning bylaw. It's, I believe it's snowman numeral six F flood. It's called flooding. And it states that if your lot is prone to flooding or floods, you cannot build on it, which is basically every lot in na in Natick. But that was, I think put in 1974. So therefore it may not be needed anymore. So we're, we're looking into that. But, so why don't we just do June 5th, Speaker 1: Right? June 5th, and then by then we, we can see kind of
around the horizon a little better. Speaker 9: Yeah. And I would just say if we're sticking to a Wednesday, yeah. Right. So July, my July is, I mean the, the ninth and 16th. I'm on vacation Speaker 1: July 3rd. How about July 30th? That's the next scheduled one. Speaker 9: That's the next scheduled one. Speaker 1: So pulling early, Speaker 9: I'm open the 23rd, I'm open the second. And then May, June, you got the 11th and the 18th too. Speaker 1: 23rd. If we, if we leave it the 23rd, the closer, the later it gets, the more urgent. The scheduling is, can we say the 23rd of July? Speaker 9: Yeah. Speaker 1: Of July.
Speaker 9: Works for me. It works for Speaker 22: Me. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: So no meeting on July 30th, but putting on the Speaker 9: No, no, no. Both Speaker 1: On, Speaker 9: Okay. Two weeks in a row. But if there's nothing to be done, Speaker 1: Of Speaker 9: Course let's not pack, let's not show up perhaps now back that, you know what I mean? Yes. Let's not pack. Speaker 1: No, all I I, I don't believe in ever descheduling meetings for the sake of showing up. But I think there's enough with this whole, with this zoning project, but also because of the last things we're pulling together from the zoning bylaw.
Yeah. Update. Speaker 9: Okay. Okay. So June 5th, moving June, moving the June 4th to June 5th. Yep. And adding July 23rd. Yep. Speaker 1: Got it. Speaker 22: Okay. Speaker 1: So, and so our next meeting is May 21st, then June 5th, then wait June 25th. Speaker 2: Today is May 21st. Oh yeah. Today Speaker 22: Is Speaker 1: May 21st. Oh, I'm sorry. Speaker 9: We are here right now, so, Speaker 1: God, it's, so, okay. Then we see, we get together on On the Speaker 9: Fifth. On the fifth. Yep. Speaker 2: And I'll update the planning board meeting and calendar
and up and circulate that. Okay. 'cause I'll have to get some rooms Speaker 1: That, what's that Speaker 2: Rooms like? I, 'cause June 5th is a non-wetting day that we didn't have Speaker 1: Thursday, so we're probably up against con com. Speaker 2: Yeah. But hopefully Speaker 1: Upstairs will Upstairs. Yeah. Okay. So, okay, so, so fifth and 25th. Good. I think that gives us at least clear dates and I, I'll check with Peter and see if, if these work for him
and I realize that summer's a tough time to schedule anything. Good. Speaker 9: Alright. Speaker 1: Alright. Anything else that we have? We have, you had noted, we just kind of went through the fall annual meeting zoning initiatives. Do we have any planning board meeting committee assignment reports? We're gonna have to come up with a simpler name for that. I, I, the, the CPA is Speaker 2: Launched I think. Yeah. CPA's launched. I think one of the big thing is, is the letter of interest is open and we're accepting. We actually received our first one today, which is cool
Speaker 1: That you did. Speaker 2: Yeah, we received the first one. Awesome. Which is really great. So that is open, that's rolling basis. So like if you're not looking for this fall town meeting, you can roll it. Yeah. But you can get it kicked off 'cause it's just a step in that we have that. And then just an update. I know you guys don't work with ADUs but we have received several applications for ADUs. They've actually been pretty good applications. Complete follows the bylaw, follows the regulations. So that's actually nice to see Speaker 1: And I just have to, where are they? Speaker 2: Just curious. They're kind of like around Natick Center,
not too far Single family homes. Yeah, Speaker 1: So Speaker 7: We had the kickoff meeting for the memorial school redevelopment or whatever for that project. So it was interesting. It'll definitely be taking shape and moving fast. I think so. Speaker 1: Good that, that's Speaker 7: Now we'll have to do some tours of memorial or some, you know, example projects. I guess. So Speaker 9: Is it gonna be model building kind of approach or Speaker 7: Maybe, yeah, I mean that's, that's probably,
that's definitely on the table. Yeah. But no guarantee yet. It's still obviously very early. Okay. Speaker 1: Alright. So got that. Any other business? You look so disappointed. No. Mo a motion to adjourn. Second. Speaker 7: I'll second. Speaker 1: Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. We stand adjourned at, I.