1:15:17A major point of contention was the proposed reduction in parking spaces, with the project planning 41 spaces instead of the 45 mandated by town bylaws. The board considered a waiver request for this discrepancy, noting that two of the parking spaces would be designated as electric vehicle charging stations. The dimensions of these EV stalls did not meet the latest accessibility guidelines.

40:07Residents voiced their frustrations about the potential loss of on-street parking, which they argued would be detrimental to those living on Auburn Street. One resident highlighted the challenge of accommodating visitors, especially during holidays, when limited parking options would compound the problem. There was also skepticism about the proposed parking ratios, especially for units with multiple bedrooms, which might require more than one vehicle per household.

0:09Traffic concerns were equally significant, with discussions about the potential bottlenecks at key intersections near Riverbend School and St. Benedict’s Academy. A peer review of the traffic study revealed discrepancies, particularly concerning the relocation of St. Benedict Academy and its impact on local traffic. Suggestions for mitigation included signal timing adjustments and intersection markings to improve flow. Despite these measures, residents pointed to existing congestion and bottlenecks during school drop-off and pick-up times, which they feared would worsen with the new development.

1:33:37The preservation of the historic Elliot School building, a key component of the development, brought its own set of challenges. The cost implications of preserving the building were significant, affecting the project’s overall financial viability. Adjustments to the site plan included reducing impervious surfaces and relocating trash enclosures to improve circulation. However, these changes did little to alleviate residents’ concerns about the scale and density of the project.

2:49:06The meeting also addressed concerns about the project’s alignment with Natick’s affordable housing goals. While the town recently achieved a 10% affordable housing threshold, residents questioned the necessity of this project in light of other developments. The proposed mix of units aimed to meet economic viability, with half designated for those earning up to 30% of the area median income. The financial feasibility of reducing the number of units was debated, with representatives emphasizing that fewer units would jeopardize the project’s economic viability.

2:31:33Discussions about the project’s impact on the neighborhood’s character were prominent, with residents expressing a desire to maintain the historical and residential feel of South Natick. Concerns about overburdening Auburn Street with additional residents were voiced, with calls for a reduction in the number of units to better align with the existing neighborhood scale. Some speakers articulated resistance to change, fearing a shift towards a more commercial atmosphere.

1:33:37The proposal also included sustainability measures, such as energy efficiency improvements and stormwater management practices, with commitments to preserving the historic character of the area.