Speaker 1: I had like to order the open the Wednesday, the March 26th meeting of the planning board. It is now seven oh eight or thereabouts, your phone. This meeting is being recorded. This meeting is broadcast being broadcast on Pegasus. To comment or ask a question, use the raise your hand function. If you are on the phone, press star nine. An individual wishing to speak during public speak or during public hearing must display their first and last name on the screen before their microphone can be unmuted. To make changes in your name as it appears on the screen
in zoom, click participants to open the participant's menu. Hover your cursor over the, your entry, over your entry, and click on more. Click on rename and type in your first and last name. First on the agenda is reorganization, which will be painfully obvious in a moment. I make a motion that I relinquish my seat to Terry Evans Speaker 2: Second. Speaker 1: That's a motion made second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Speaker 2: And I move Speaker 1: As, excuse me.
We have to, we will go through the formality, melody and I will be, it's not that anybody is pushing me out the door. I am significantly under the weather. So I will therefore Speaker 2: Leave this meeting. Okay. Speaker 1: It's in good hands. Speaker 2: Dramatic. Speaker 3: So I, I'm, I moved to, I moved to nominate Doug Landry as vice chair. Speaker 2: A second. Speaker 3: All those in favor say aye. Aye. Speaker 2: Aye. Aye. Speaker 3: All opposed. Thank you. Speaker 2: I'll make a motion for Andrew Meyer to be clerk of the board. I object. Seconded seconding. Speaker 3: Okay. It's been made and seconded.
All those in favor say aye. Aye. Speaker 2: Aye. Aye. Speaker 3: And we're done. Alright. So thank you. And Peter, I hope you feel better. Feel better. Speaker 2: Thank you for your chairmanship. Speaker 3: Okay. So I, I will say this meeting is being recorded. The meeting's being broadcast on Pegasus to comment or ask a question, use the raise your hand function. If you are on a phone, press star nine. An individual wishing to speak during public speak or during 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 and open the participant menu. Hover your cursor over your entry and click on more. Click on rename and type in your first and last name. So Speaker 4: We might need to, well, we'll just have Amanda monitor the participants. I don't know if we have people up there, so, Speaker 3: Okay. So let me, let me just wait for her. Okay. To come back. One Speaker 5: Sec. Speaker 4: Bless you. Speaker 5: Excuse me.
Sorry. I'm just trying to find a lost phone to see if I, Speaker 4: Oh, that's not good. Speaker 3: I'm feeling Speaker 5: I'm having my phone. Your phone. Speaker 3: I don't remember if I had it when I, Speaker 5: Amanda, you didn't see any orphaned phones upstairs, did you by any chance? What? Oh, I wasn't looking though. That's, I was ing Do you want me to go up there? It's not here. I can go back up. What am I before? Oh, just my cell phone where I was sitting. Speaker 4: Actually, before you go, do you wanna zip around with the screen and then we can
do public speak while you're, Speaker 5: Yep. Thank you. George. Susan, Jess is here. That's me. Yeah, you're on the, you're up there too. It's from when I present. Oh, got it. You're, oh wait, that's because I'm not, see, I'm not seeing any hands. Six. Yes. Speaker 6: Two hands. Alright, what's that on two hands. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 3: Alright. That first order of business is, is public speak. Any individual may raise an issue that is not included on the agenda and it will be taken under advisement by the board.
There'll be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting. The section of the agenda is li this is limited to 15 minutes and any individual addressing the board during this sec section of the agenda shall be limited to five minutes. Yes, Mr. Golden, you rise for public speak. If you just step to either sit down or the mic at the podium, just make sure that the bright green light is on Speaker 8: At this stage of my light sitting down it. Speaker 4: Pete, you have a green light on in front of you. Speaker 8: I do. As best I can see. Speaker 4: Well hit push just to make sure we can hear you.
Speaker 9: That's fine. I'm sorry there Speaker 4: We're, Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Let me just call up my notes if I may. Members of the board, chairman Evans, thank you for your time and consideration. My name is Peter Golden. I'm a resident of the town at five Vermont Avenue in Natick. Some years ago, I came before you two sitting members. Now may recall it might have been as long as four or five years ago with regard to what I call casually the Route nine corridor from the Wellesley border to the top of
of Apple Hill. And over the years, having lived beside Route Nine now is in Abutter for roughly 30 years. I've observed a number of changes in the corridor, not the least of which is the recognition that it is a gateway into the community, but a phenomenon has occurred there that rather than gentrification, which is occurring throughout the town, as I think this board is more sensitive than most, a phenomenon I'd call ification has occurred from
a pot shop to a porn shop, to liquor stores, to gold purchasing, jewelry purchasing businesses. It, it hasn't reached the level of entirely sleazy, but it's getting pretty rough. And what's notable about it is that there are any number of vacancies and bankruptcies that have occurred along Route nine, which include everything from Joanne's and the party store across the street to a little
sushi shop, to a Wendy's and so on. And the net net of all of it is that a very significant component or potential component of the town's commercial base is somewhat underutilized, at least in terms of what I would call highest and best use. Unless of course you're a nine or 10-year-old who wants to play miniature golf, in which case nothing could be much better than the little miniature golf course situated behind the party store.
So at the time I came before this board some years ago, I did so with the purpose of seeking support for a town meeting article to take a look on a casual basis at doing something about the corridor and town meeting, rejected the article which called for the creation of a citizen committee on the grounds that there was much work to be done around the Natick Mall, around the hoop district.
And subsequently, as you know, far better than me and others, perhaps there's been a lot of work done on, on your part in West Natick, which seems very constructive in the long term, or should I say the longer term, given the forces of gentrification and continuing growth in the community would seem to me this board might give consideration going forward to what to do about the Route nine corridor. A transitional strategy is needed
that will accommodate the various dynamic forces of environmentalism, transport, rejoining community. It's very tough to get from one side to the other. Route nine market rate and affordable housing. And of course the commercial interests, which I, I think given the normal course of things, would take years if not decades to transition that corridor into something more representative of that highest and best use. I mentioned earlier I'd close on this note,
there's a fair amount of tax revenue to be gained there, particularly from residential housing, mixed use, low rise, and perhaps even with the addition of some affordable section of Section eight housing and so on. I think I've stated my case. I hope you'll give some attention to this matter going forward. And as I continue to live in Natick, I'll look for people with similar perspectives and interests. I hope you share them with me. Thank you very much for your time and attention.
Speaker 3: Thank you Mr. Colton. We move now on to the next order of business that is development and review. And the first before us is of course Ray Flanagan, if, if you all would like to come to the mic. And are there, are there others who will be coming over on Zoom? No, I don't believe so. Okay. Welcome back. Speaker 10: Thank you. Thank you for your time. Speaker 3: So, and, and as you know, we have been working on a, a draft decision to take forward. So let me, let me turn it over to you for the points
that had been raised by this board the last time we met. Perfect. Speaker 11: Chair Evans, members of the board for the record, my name is Jessica Kano. I'm here tonight from Gulson in stores as attorney on behalf of the applicant, Ray Moore and Flanagan. As mentioned, we were before the board on March 12th to introduce our repurposing of the now vacant Lord and Taylor Building at the Natick Mall to introduce a new flagship location for Raymore and Flanagan. I know we've gone over at a high level the building project itself with respect to the footprint changes that are proposed, facade articulations, the installation of Windows, some really nice landscaping upgrades, as well
as replacement of the existing signage. To your point, chair Evans, we wanted to focus tonight specifically on the limited comments that we did get from the board at the March 12th hearing, which really focused on landscaping and signage. So to that end, we have submitted some updated landscaping and signage materials to the board, specifically with respect to landscaping. I know, you know, we heard the board requesting a more diverse planting set. So Sunny will be able to speak tonight to the, the upgrades that we've made to the planting plan to introduce more diverse species that we think are both native and hardy and will really thrive at the site. With respect to signage, we heard very clearly a request
that we remeasure the signage to exclude ASC senders and descenders or the dangly bits as Glen called them. So we very much appreciate the examples that were given, the very clear direction on that point. And so we did go back through and remeasure our signage to ensure with respect to both the existing signage for comparison purposes and with respect to our proposed signage that we were excluding as senders and DS Descenders. So you will see that minimized sign square footage as reflected in the updated materials. And then secondly, with respect to signage, we also heard the request that we ensure our way finding signage really emphasizes the
way finding aspects of that signage. So we did in fact reconfigure our way finding signs in response to that request. So I will turn it over to Sunny to get into the details about those updated materials and we're happy to answer any questions that the board has. Speaker 3: Okay, thank you very much. Speaker 10: Good evening. Thanks for your time. We added to the diversity, we also only have one species that's not native. We also married some of the comments that were there regarding adding some deciduous trees that showed in the renderings on the corner. Those have now been added to the plan and our component of it.
We've also adjusted the rendering to be representative of the exact species and sizes. For example, we looked into the largest framework of these specific species that we can get. Instead of one gallon, three gallon, we jumped everything up to five gallon, et cetera. We've done so in this planning plan to try to, again, if you look at the new rendering, really try to get some more color. There was comments we made about trying to have seasonal plantings. We've highlighted at the corners where the deciduous trees are added, that we have a,
a seasonal planting schedule there that each season will bring in some new color, some new species to be able to make that a different presentation on the regular. We also commented last time about the commitment to this staying, this planting plant and this having plants that thrive many years. Again, part of that was the size of the, of, of what was done. Part of that was the diversity in the species. And the other part of that is, is re-engaging in a system to be able to create a water source on a timer irrigation.
It is something that we have on site and we will re re-energize. So it's active for this component. My, there was comments about hiring a, a landscape architect. Michael has been practicing for over 30 years. He's been presenting site plans, planting plans for probably 30 years. Hundreds of them in the state of Connecticut and on Long Island. He worked on this aggressively. Really it was about getting more response to the comments that were made by the board. Speaker 3: Great. Thank you very much Amanda.
Thank you. And thank you for the draft of the decision is what is, so we'll need to take anything that's presented to from the changes today into that. Is there anything else we want to cover other than those, those two points before we move on to the decision? And you are, do you have more, any more graphics that we're going to see in any further Speaker 10: Detail? I, I think the site plan, we added the planting schedule as well and then the rendering of is representative of the, of the site plan.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you very much. Lemme see. So turning to members of the board for questions, Doug? Speaker 2: Yeah, just curious, the, somewhere in the decision it makes reference to maintenance and that's on the tenant, you folks would be Speaker 10: Yeah, we, we still are considered the tenant. We don't own the fee. Yeah. So yes, that would be our responsibility Speaker 2: Around the whole thing. I did not realize that. Yeah. Okay. Yep. Just curious about, and you mentioned irrigation. Was there irrigation system that Speaker 10: There, there was a prior irrigation system. I would tell you that it needs to be revamped and upgraded to today. Technology. That's something I'm committed to do. Speaker 2: Is it just the perimeter of the building?
Does it go out to the Route nine edge or Speaker 10: Not? Again, our, our property is only to the curb edge, if you recall. Okay. So I don't have really rights to do any more than that, but I can, I can assure you again, I mentioned last time I run property management as well. So my maintenance teams and stuff, all the landscaping contractors, all that work directly for my team. So I can assure you that's, that's high my priorities Speaker 12: Really. I kind of following along the same line as far as maintenance, maybe it's more of a question about what do you do at, at other locations, but do you just check on it every
so many months or whatever? I'm just thinking especially the sub shady areas. Some plants might do better than others. Speaker 10: I have maintenance contracts for all of our locations, some 200 locations in each of those. We dictate seeding overs, seeding weed control, plants that die are replaced in similar species. The property management team that works under my direction have all of that is part of our normal operating procedure. So if there's 12 of one species on here, I can assure you it will stay 12 because it's in my maintenance contracts that they are
to replace that as part of our, our, our service. And it's a weekly service. We also do Portage on site, you know, picking up debris and stuff like that, that, that happens because people don't really care and they just toss things. So we have a person on site also in our operations team that's checking the, the building every day. Again, not to coin the phrase, but this is a flagship for us. This is a significant investment and I I wanted to look at absolute best true. Okay. Speaker 12: Just wanted make sure. Speaker 10: Thank you. Speaker 12: I'm, I'm sure you will have at least one bush get backed over or something like that. Especially Speaker 10: When you have a loading dock. The there the people have a way
of making things not look so good. So we, we stay focused. Speaker 3: So thank you and Andy, Speaker 4: Thank you. Well the good news is people have been driving around this building for years to get to the Cheesecake Factory. So they're used to this rather odd traffic pattern that we had to establish years and years ago. But that's the nice thing about having it for so long is that people are used to it. So that's a good thing. I wasn't here last time, but I'm, I'm thrilled you're here and you're coming. Not only are you filling a huge empty space in our
beloved Natick mall, but we're becoming something of a furniture capital of Massachusetts, I'm happy to say here in the golden triangle. So I, I, I think that we are becoming more and more of a destination. So having more people come to the mall for different reasons is a very, very good thing. And that really only leaves us one spot we need to think about at our mall. So the building is beautiful, the landscaping design is beautiful. I I've come to associate the kinds of development up there with the quality
of your representation, which is to say excellent applications, answers to all questions, really strong proposal. So I don't really have any questions, but really strongly appreciative of the fact that you're here and that you're investing and that you're dedicating to making this. I mean, this is such a visible site on Route nine i I I hope it's a very successful enterprise. Thank you. Thank you so Speaker 3: Very much. Thank you Andy. Just checking because you weren't here for the last, at the last meeting, have you reviewed the video and so forth? And Speaker 4: I mullin up. Awesome. Speaker 3: That is great. 'cause
as if I didn't ask someone else what, Speaker 13: And a copy of that is in the folder and also provided to the applicant. Speaker 3: Thank you. Alright, so anything further? Has everyone had a chance to review the draft decision and any specific questions to that? Alright, Speaker 13: Other than it's been distributed, the applicant's team has reviewed it, PRI provided their comments and it's ready for the Speaker 3: P. Good and I'm glad there was resolution to the signage. Yes, agreed. Mutual.
We really appreciate Mutual mutually agreed on. Absolutely. Speaker 2: And I will make note that these management plan, construction management plan was also submitted as part of this package as well and, and reflected in here. So you I Speaker 3: Believe so. Thank you. Yes. Alright. A motion I would Speaker 2: We'll move to approve the project at 1235 Worcester Street. Green Speaker 4: Button. Speaker 2: Oh my gosh. Okay, move to approve the project at 1235 Worcester Street, S-H-P-F-I, assessor map 24 lot 1 0 1, a four one modification
of a previously approved planning board site plan and special permit, which was decision 16 dash oh four as amended pursuant to section five dash DD and section 3 29 0.1 of the zoning bylaws to allow for the exterior modification of the facade, landscaping and signage. And two, a waiver from the landscape buffer requirements set forth in section 3 3 2, 7 0.7 pursuant to sections 3, 2, 7 0.7 and 3 2, 9 0.2 of the bylaws to allow for landscape buffer less than 10 feet in certain areas around the building. And three signage special permits allowing
for the proposed project signage set forth on the sign plans pursuant to section five dash HE four of the Tex zoning bylaws with conditions. Speaker 3: Is there a second? Speaker 4: Second. Speaker 3: Thank you. Seconded by Mr. Meyer. Questions? Comments then? Ready to vote? Alright. And we actually, everyone is, well everyone is here. Who, who's actually here, Peter is not, won't be part of the decision. So we can just, we don't have to do it as a roll call. All those in favor? Speaker 4: Aye. Aye, Speaker 3: Aye. Aye. All those opposed? None. Very good.
Now we have a, a really solid draft decision. I know there may be some slight modifications to reflect what we've discussed today. We feel safe to to close the public hearing at this point? Or would you, I mean, just because we now know most of what's there. Is there any reason not to, Speaker 4: Are we signing, are we voting to sign the decision tonight or do we have a Speaker 3: We don't, we don't have the final copy. Just yeah, it was a draft because there are some elements that are, are new that Speaker 4: Corp doesn't Speaker 11: Feel like that's gonna change. If I chair Evans, we actually reflected the materials that we submitted last night as well
as the presentation tonight. Everything that's been presented upon is reflected in the decision. So it is current through Yeah, that's what Speaker 3: I'm saying. So then we are, and we can close, Speaker 13: The only thing I have to do is the, the only thing I had to do is take out the Xs in the motion and reflect the 4 0 0 vote. So I, and I'm actually doing this now so I can, if the board does vote, I can run in and we can sign it tonight to get it started in tomorrow. Speaker 4: I think we've voted, we've, we've, I don't think we need to vote to sign it. We've, Speaker 3: We've, I've never, I've never really understood. Yeah. In most occasions. So I'm, I that's Speaker 4: Our final sticking point on some things.
So like 11th hour, no vote to sign the thing. Speaker 3: Oh Speaker 4: Yeah. I dunno if that's an actual legal step or not, but it has hung us up a few times before we don't have to do it. I'd say that's good. Just sign it. Speaker 3: I, I cannot think of a reason why. It Speaker 4: Just seems seem to be the repetitive kind of culture of, of different boards and if and if we decide to not vote to sign things, it's fine by me. Sometimes Speaker 3: We vote to sign things but it's not yet there's, because we've agreed what was going to be changed. But
Speaker 4: No, this was like literally it's done. Yeah. And now we're gonna vote to decide and suddenly it's like Speaker 3: Maybe not, Speaker 4: Maybe let's debate signing it or not. Speaker 3: Then quick while we're all still here and happy, happy the Speaker 4: Vote of approval is the vote that's recorded Speaker 3: And that's So I'll I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second, second, second by Mr. Meyer then all those in favor of closing the public hearing. Aye. Aye. Aye, aye. And the hearing is closed and welcome to officially welcome to Natick. Speaker 10: Thank you so much. Thank you. Speaker 11: Thank you so much. I didn't Speaker 4: Ask you about temporary signs, but are you covered in terms of temporary science coming soon?
You wanna let people know about that kind of thing? Speaker 10: It's typically my practice not to, I try to make the first presence, the beauty of the facade, the beauty of the, the building. Great. So I try not to have any, any of that ahead. I'd rather hit him with the beauty of the building. Great. Fair Speaker 4: Enough. Thank you. A Speaker 11: Big reveal. Thank you so much. We really appreciate it. You and Amanda, we'll be in contact about any tomorrow you need. Perfect. Thank you so much. Have a great evening. Thanks Speaker 3: Everyone. Speaker 4: See you buddy. Again. Be well. Good luck. Thanks. Thank you. Speaker 11: Two copies Speaker 13: Right? Yep. Two puppies. Speaker 5: First time. Make sure you get on the right line, which is the, I signed up
Speaker 3: So I'm just gonna hold on while we're signing the decision and then we will take up the next agenda item. I might have Speaker 4: Something to read Speaker 13: While you do that. I'll promote the other team. Speaker 3: Oh great. Thank you. Speaker 4: Okay. Shall I read this while we're, I'll take it as a yes. On Wednesday, March 25th, 2025 at 7:00 PM the planning board will hold a hybrid meeting in the Edward lot meeting room located at 13 East Central Street, Natick, mass in person participation and virtually via Zoom To review the application of Palooza Beach LLC, the applicant has applied for a modification of a previously approved decision
of the planning board site plan review and aquifer protection district site plan. Review of the zoning bylaws the applicant proposed to construct a new 19 off proposed to construct, I think it should just say new 19 new off street parking spaces. The property is located at zero tech circle located within industrial one zoning district and the Aquifer protection district copy of the application can be reviewed at the community and economic development office. A virtual meeting link will be located on the posted agenda per order.
Natick planning board. Peter Tson chair. Speaker 5: Great, Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Amanda. Who do we have have here in representing? Speaker 13: Yep. So we do have the applicant attorney, George Richards is here and George is everyone from your team here? Yeah, Speaker 14: I'm happy to introduce 'em if you want me to. Yep, Speaker 13: That sounds great. 'cause I do have two people in the attendees, which is Mary Collins and Jason Dorio. Are they part of your team? Speaker 14: Not that I know of. Okay. Jessica Ano is, I don't recognize either. Oh,
Speaker 13: Sorry. She was from the previous public hearing. Oh, Speaker 14: Okay. Okay. You want me to go ahead Amanda? Speaker 3: Alright, so George, welcome back. Speaker 14: Thank you Ms. Evans. Congratulations on your appointments chair. Thank you again. Again. Speaker 5: So, Speaker 3: Yeah, so, so we know the framework of what the, what the proposal is. Why don't you break it down for us and give us the whole story. Yeah, Speaker 14: So quickly I'll just introduce with me is Susan Pratt for McKenzie Engineering who will go over the,
the project primarily in a minute. Okay. And Steve Mulford is the owner of the property and the facility. This project I believe was permitted in 2018 or 2019 and I don't know if any of you're familiar with the beach house up on tech circle, but it was voted best of Boston Awards for the kids' birthday party spot in 2024. It has been incredibly popular for both adults and kids alike. And so the, that's the good news. It's been very successful. The bad news, they don't have enough parking, which again is an unusual situation.
Most applicants are looking to waive parking and not supply parking. We are actually looking to add parking. We're looking to add 19 new spaces. There were 10 spaces previously approved but kind of banked that were not paved. So essentially it's 29 new parking spaces to help service this very popular and successful venture. So with that, I'll turn it over to Susan to go over the application. The one thing I will say before I do that is there were letters both from conservation commission from Claire and from Bill DPW both pretty much recommended the
addition of a catch basin in the north middle of the parking area. And we've reviewed those and Susan can give you an update but I believe we're perfectly willing to, to accommodate those recommendations and include those in the plans. Unfortunately, Susan was on vacation last week. We didn't have time to get those plans updated with those new calculations and new proposal. But we thought we'd go forward tonight and just give you the overview of the proposal and then hopefully later next week or later this week or next week, we will be forwarding new plans
to hopefully be reviewed and approved on April 9th. And I'll be obviously here to answer any questions after Susan's presentation. Speaker 15: Very Speaker 14: Good, thank you Susan. Speaker 15: Thank you. Can I share my screen? Just if that's possible. Yep. You should be able to. Can everyone see the screen just so we know? Yes, yes. Before I go forward. Okay. For the record, my name is Sue Pratt from McKinsey Engineering. We were responsible for the original site design of the project and also responsible now for the additional 29 parking spaces.
So this is the as submitted site plan. As you can see, these hashed spaces here were the 10 that were previously permitted and approved but they weren't paved and currently they're still unpaved. So as part of the project we would like to come in and pave these previously permitted approved spaces. We would like to add an additional three spaces at the continuation of these 10, take this LA existing landscape area here and add one additional space. And then along the back of the project
parcel we would like to add 2 10, 12, 15 additional spaces back here. Two parallel parking spaces along here. And then we would like to create this little mini parking area where we have eight spaces here and then a total of five that come in within the 24 foot drive aisle. And then two spaces here and then come out, like George had mentioned, we did receive comments from conservation and from the town engineer and their comment was for drainage of go to
what was submitted, we were had anticipated that everything would sheet run off into the two existing catch basins down here at the bottom and then it would enter the existing infiltration basin. Here we're not doing any changes to the subsurface system. This just strictly handles the runoff, the roof runoff. So we have no, we're not anticipating any changes here. The change that we're anticipating is a slight modification to the outlet control structure to accommodate the runoff from the new pavement parking. So we would like to break up the existing six inch diameter
orifice and just maintain the existing two foot high by half a foot, I mean, sorry, two foot long by half a foot high weir with the comments from the, you know, conservation and the town engineer we've developed, developed this new plan, which is where they wanted us to add a catch base and slash first defense unit in this corner. And their recommendation was that we pipe directly into the existing infiltration basin, which we have shown here. Their other comment from the town engineer was they didn't recommend we had a slope of three
to one back here. They had whether we can look at a low modular block wall and you know, discussions in the office we were looking that we can accommodate a four to one slope with a jupe mesh for erosion control. And we believe that would satisfy the comment because they also said that if we were to stay with landscaping, that we would provide some type of erosion control measure. So we're looking at changing the slope from three to one to four to one and adding this jupe mesh that would limit any erosion that the,
the town feels might incur that might affect these abutters along rathburn road we're gonna maintain and re there is an existing channel that runs, that takes all the runoff and directs it in this direction. We're just going to move the, the, this recreate the swale in this location here. So any runoff coming off of this Loman seed would enter this, you know, proposed swale and then we'll continue on down to the wetlands as it currently does now. So we don't anticipate any offsite runoff
to the abutting properties. Great. And like I said, this infiltration system is currently, just so everybody is aware, when it was first designed in 2017, the town had less strict rainfall intensities. So it was designed at the time using not the Atlas 14 town currently now employs the Atlas 14. So just so everybody's aware that this system with these slight modifications can handle up to the new rainfall of eight inches for a hundred year storm.
So we have included the most, you know, conservative rainfall amounts that the town has requested since 2017. Great, thank you. Susan, Speaker 4: Can I just ask a follow up question on that? Sure. Our town engineer recommended a relatively low stacked block wall that could accommodate the grade change and avoid the slope. If the slope is to remain landscaping, the area should be specified to prevent the soil material from impacting abutting properties to the east. I Is that essentially what you're proposing? Speaker 15: Yes, we're proposing a jute mesh
that at the same time when you apply the Loman seed, everything is tied to the juke mesh and it limits any erosion. And then four to one slope is gentle enough that once everything is established there shouldn't be any erosion in the future. It's pretty much, I think their comment might have been during construction they were afraid of the erosion, but with the juke mesh, everything should be maintained until the seed has established Speaker 4: And also the, the low stack block wall, you, you mentioned that as well. Speaker 15: No, we looked at that and in some places it would be less than a foot high
and it didn't seem feasible. So we're just handling everything by a four to one grass slope. Speaker 4: Okay. So, well this was dated March 20th. I it's it's much easier when the applicant and the town engineer are on the same page. So if if there's not gonna be a low stack block wall or are you saying, are you saying his advice to us was it was an either or recommendation? Speaker 15: That's how I read his comment that if we were gonna maintain the landscaping and not do the wall, that the landscaping should be provided to limit ERO any erosion to the abutting properties to the east. Okay. Well Speaker 4: It's worth double checking 'cause the last time we did
this, the, the folks in Reston Road had a lot of concerns about the steepness of the slope and things coming into their backyard and I'm sure that condition those concerns remain. So I would just like to, you, you've said that maybe another iteration of this plan is coming and I just wanna make sure that you guys are completely on the same page with the town engineer. 'cause it's a, it's a big deal this slope into people's backyards and I wanna make sure that we get it. We, we make our town engineer completely happy with in that regard. Yeah, Speaker 15: I was gonna give him a call prior, you know, later
this afternoon, but I was unable to do that. But I will contact him before we even submit the plan to make sure we're on the same page. Yeah, that's a Speaker 4: Wide Speaker 15: Decision I think instead of, instead of having a plan submitted and have them come back and say that they, they prefer the wall, I'd rather have that answer before we do a new submission. Speaker 4: Very well. Okay. Speaker 3: Andy, anything further? Speaker 4: Well, parking calculations does the original use, I guess there there's never a problem with an really an overabundance of parking. Usually we're talking about minimal numbers
instead of extra. So I think from that perspective it doesn't seem at all like a bad idea. Particularly if you're hearing anecdotally that they're out of parking. 'cause I'd hate to think where people are parking if they're not parking here. That is not a wide road up there. So I, I would say I'm not, I can't quite remember what the landscaping requirements are for a ratio in industrial zone. But I'm assuming George, you still have enough landscaping if you were to Speaker 14: We do for 19 speed. We do, I don't have the calculations right here, but I'll make sure I have those from the next meeting. One
Speaker 4: Of the nice things about this industrial zone is it's still somewhat wooded and it feels, you know, kind of leafy and you know, we don't want it to become like industrial wasteland. So I just wanna make sure that the, the landscaping calculations are would, would allow for this. But I think the idea of more parking up, there's probably a good idea. Speaker 3: Okay. So Doug, Speaker 4: Three Speaker 2: Questions. So the swale, was that manmade or did that just sort of happen over time? Speaker 15: It was sort of made during construction
as mitigation when we built this existing here. I mean this was regraded that we made the swell that everything would flow down into this location. And Speaker 2: What so con existing condition, what is the, what is it, is it vegetated? Is it got some kind of rip wrap? Is it Speaker 15: That way? It's it's just ve It's just vegetated. Okay. I can get to the existing conditions plan. Yeah, Speaker 2: I'm just trying to get at what, what's the condition gonna be in the, in the, Speaker 15: It will be what it is now. It's just loman seed, anything you see all these existing trees that are gonna be within the proposed parking, they're all gonna be removed
and reset along the back to provide an a, sorry, a landscape buffer. So you weren't gonna transplant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. So 13 trees, well they're, the evergreens are gonna be transplanted all along the back here. Mm. For a landscape buffer. And this swale, which is pretty much just a manmade swale, loing seed will be re you know, remade back in this location here to direct the water. Speaker 2: What's the existing grade on that slope Right now?
Speaker 15: Right here existing is three to one. Yeah, Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. Speaker 15: And here it's a little bit, obviously you can see it's much greater than three to one, but in through here it's three to one. Yep. Okay. And then as you get to existing down here, it's less than that. It's like one and a half to two. Two to one the existing grade, which was never touched as part of the original project. Yeah. Okay. We, we maintain just Speaker 2: Yeah, I was, I'm just trying to under, yeah, so I, you know, my, my concern would be, you know, that swale getting eroded out to, you know, the bottom and gravelly and sedimenty. But if that hasn't happened over time then you know,
whatever you're gonna do in terms of stabilization, hopefully that'll, that'll keep it in place. So next question on the, on the five spot parking area in the line work that's shown here, help me understand what that is that we've got sort of a, looks like a curb segregating that eight spot plate I guess. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Yeah, there's an eight spot. Yeah, there you go. So yeah, the plan Speaker 15: I'm looking at, it's just striping, it's just, is Speaker 2: That just striping? Speaker 15: Just striping. Okay. The curb, the Cape Cod berm is out on this outer edge here.
Speaker 2: Okay. I am looking at a different plan then it shows it as Cape Cod berm but that you're showing it as striping Speaker 15: And this is striping. Yeah. And through here. Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Any requirement for ev charging from a billing code perspective? Speaker 15: I don't know. George, are you familiar with Not Speaker 14: That, no, not that I'm familiar with. If there's a certain number of parking that triggers that, we could certainly look into that. Speaker 2: Yeah. Would you please? I'm not, I'm asking the question without knowing the answer to it, which I normally don't Speaker 14: Do. Yeah. I don't believe it's required but we'll look into it. Speaker 2: Okay. Yeah, that's all I have.
Speaker 3: Thank you Alan. Speaker 12: Sure. I have a few and I've been up there, my daughter did volleyball there a couple years ago, so I've been inside the very small lot, quite a few times and, and including also inside that you have a really nice loft up there. It's really interesting place, really cool place. I've mentioned to many people around town of, hey there's this really cool thing in ic. Speaker 16: Thank you. Speaker 12: So, but I do have some questions. So I guess this is already touched upon by Andy as far as the slope and the landscaping. You mentioned going to the three to one, to the four to one slope.
Did you say any particular landscaping or you just said like what were, did you have anything in mind? Speaker 15: We're just taking what is currently there that will be within the new paved area and re you know, resetting it back here. Okay. Speaker 12: I guess Buda is more referring to and reading the town engineer's letter. I guess kind of the way I read it is when the said landscaping, he might be looking for specific landscaping that would Okay. Be able to retain the soil. 'cause four to one, I don't think you're gonna be able to do that with regular grass.
So I mean, I I kind of read it as okay that there might be a, a specific type of landscaping too to be able to do that. Yeah. Speaker 4: If there's an either or in the recommendation. Let's nail that down. Speaker 12: Exactly. Feel Speaker 4: Specific about exactly what they Speaker 12: Think is best. So if it is landscaping, exactly what type of landscaping would we be talking about as far as parking before we kind of get into building new parking? I just wanted to I guess ask questions or do you guys have any kind of shared parking agreements with some of the adjacent uses?
'cause I know obviously I think some of the special events might be busier on weekends, whereas some of these are, are industrial that are probably not as busy on weekends. Do you guys, is there any formal or I know, I think I parked over in one of the other ones on a weekend when one of the schools was due to an event there. Speaker 16: Yeah, the way, the way it is right now is the, there's another, our neighbor right up the hill a little bit from us on that road up in there. They basically refused to grant us access
to their parking in terms that we deemed reasonable. So when we have overflow, we're actually down parking down into the tech circle on the public road and or with the, what's the gym down there that the people that throw tires all over the place? Speaker 12: Longfellows down there? Speaker 16: No, not Longfellow be too far. What's the, what's the gym where they sort of like lift cinder blocks and cars. It's like Speaker 12: Cross Speaker 16: CrossFit, CrossFit, CrossFit or whatever. Yes. So they've been very accommodating. Speaker 12: And how often are you guys over capacity? Is that happening just during like daily weekends?
Speaker 16: No, I would say it, it's, there's a big event is usually what happens, which actually allows us to orchestrate with the event holders around sort of where we're actually gonna do overflow parking. Speaker 12: Okay. Speaker 16: We've actually decided that when along that sort of narrow drive coming up that we've, we've actually at our own expense and initiative put a whole bunch of no parking signs there because we deemed it too narrow. So, so therefore we are quite, quite vigilant about not letting anyone park there. Speaker 12: Okay. Now as I look at some of these parking spaces that are proposed, I, I think I saw, what was it,
16 nine was the, the depth of the spaces. Is that, did I read that right? It's pretty, they're they're short spaces, correct. How Speaker 14: Short? I think 16. Speaker 12: Yeah. Speaker 15: Yes, I, I believe, yeah, we were told that we could use a nine by 16.2 foot parking space. Speaker 4: Is that a waiver Speaker 3: Though? Wait, I, but isn't that, that is when that the remaining, that the remaining two feet become used for landscape, that that's when you, that's when you get to shorten it by two feet Speaker 4: Because that's a waiver.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Correct. Speaker 14: And Speaker 17: That was additional suggested by staff landscape Speaker 3: Being created? Speaker 12: Well, where I was kind of going with it was, it, it is short and that makes it a little tougher to swing in swinging in and out spaces. And I wasn't too sure if those are gonna be more for employees or if that's gonna be for the general public because obviously if employees are doing it, they're, you know, if they need to do a three point turn, five point turn whatever to get into the space they're doing it, you know, it, it's, it's there for for hours versus, you know,
something a little bit more high turnover. So I was kind of wondering where employees will park versus general public if you had any idea about that. Speaker 16: We don't have that many employees so this is lagged largely going to be general public. Speaker 12: Okay. So I think we can probably, maybe, maybe discuss as far as the dimensions later and the other que I guess my last question then I'll pass it off to other people down at the bottom you kind of have that, the geometry, it's kind of a little bit of a swing out. I, I guess right to the right a little bit.
It's, yeah, see how the, the pavement comes up much wider than the, say the parking spaces go right over from there. The fire truck off to the right a little bit. Now I wasn't sure why that was so wide that that corner there and I wasn't sure if that was to get to the dumpster or if there was a reason for that. Are Speaker 15: We, are we talking here? Yeah, the here that was when the initial it, it's for when a fire apparatus comes to the back of the building they can back into this area and get themselves Speaker 12: Out. Okay. That's all I got Speaker 3: Right now.
Alright, thank you Andy. Speaker 4: Yeah, I think we have to talk about the depth of the spaces 'cause I think eighteens required 16.2 is a, a reduction with a waiver and as Terry mentioned, typically the front end of the car where we wave a space is parking over landscaping. So, and also look, looking at that, that bump out that Alan just referred to tho those two parallel spaces that, that are kind of curvy tho those feel very impromptu to me is that, are you literally gonna be following a curb pattern?
I mean it looks like more like a work of art than parking is that Speaker 15: We can modify that and make it a straight, we can straight across and then make it more of a rectangle shape. Speaker 4: Do you need those two spaces? I mean, could you live with instead of 29, 27? Because seems to me that might be a, a nice opportunity for, I don't know, fixing the, the geometry of it and you know, a a little less pavement. I I mean those, those two spaces just stick out to me at, they're also hard to park in. I I would, I mean to parallel park there I think would be
kind of a, kind of a challenge. And I'm, I'm picturing that you know, you're gonna have the kind of tournaments that my, my, my kids used to go to and everybody shows up at the same time. Everybody leaves at the same time and for like 45 minutes or 30 minutes. Just madness. I'm just wondering if those two spots wouldn't be more trouble than they're worth but Speaker 16: They may be. I that is going back to the earlier comment around or question rather around employee parking. Yeah. Intended that this would be where the, the folks working in the building would park. Speaker 4: We'll we'll take it as a comment. I know you're gonna be reworking things and double checking.
So just just take that as a comment. Alright. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks Terry. Thank Speaker 3: You. And and I just wanted to say on that and kind of building on Andy's comments that that that use that the shortening of the, of the space, and I want to say specifically as we've just described it in the zoning bylaws is designed not to accommodate people who need less parking space but rather to create landscape pervious surface and especially in, in an area that is has such verticality.
It is, it's a, it's a pretty vertical office park. And so I I feel very strongly of about in ensuring that if the spaces are going to be shortened, they have to do so by creating landscape. It's kind of, it, there's landscape is hard to come by in that office park. It is, it is in, in parts. And I don't mean it necessarily specifically on for this project or only for this project, but it's, it's a very challenging office park
to find your way around. Not so much for what you kind of the first kind of more flat sections that you come to. But when you start driving around and I, I picture the challenges of site circulation as we keep trying to shoehorn in more and more spaces, parking spaces. Amanda was there. Did Brian Lason look at this? I'm just think in terms of site circulation and traffic, traffic safety Speaker 13: I believe. I believe so. That would be in your point, Speaker 14: Police and fire both said they had No,
I think Brian said he had no comment and the buyer said we're fine with it. Speaker 3: Okay. Is is, and then Amanda, that's something probably we should just get from, from Brian Speaker 13: Directly. Yeah, it's in your pocket. Okay. Said he approved this step. Yeah, fire just said approve, like just clicked approved. Yeah. And then Deputy Chief Lason just said no comment I believe. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 13: So then Board of Health did provide a comment letter. Speaker 3: So then what we want before our, our next meeting I think is April 9th. Is that what we're talking about? Speaker 13: Public comment. Speaker 3: Thank you very much. So, alright.
Is there anyone in in the audience here or who's, who is on Zoom? Sir, if you'd come up, you can take the table or the podium. Just need your name and address and to always speak into the mic. Speaker 13: Turn the mic on. Pardon? Hit hit push. Push the Speaker 18: Button. There we go. So my name is David Worthington and I'm an butter, I live at 61 Rathman Road and I looked directly out my backyard up at the building. So where the parking's going is my backyard, my back deck,
my kitchen. So at night when you guys added 37 feet to the building and put two big lights. I don't need a nightlight in my kitchen when I come to get anything outta the refrigerator. So car's turning, it's gonna be an issue that shines directly right down onto my kitchen. I have two big skylights on the end of the gable end and all the light will come in and I'm really concerned about runoff even at four to one, you're gonna have to build that up so much to get the four to one for where the landscape comes down. How you gonna get that? The cars are gonna be directly
turning right at my house. What, you know, they got all that other side. I don't understand why they didn't use more of the side parking for more parking. I don't have a big problem with the building for the land. The landlord's been awesome. The landscape. I like this just starting to take root. It's actually starting to hide the building a little bit within another few years. I've planted 40 trees at the top. I've already lost some because of the, the drought last summer. But 32 of 'em survived and still going. But the runoff at that kind of rate with less than 10 feet of what they're talking about for parking between my lot
and what's gonna happen, I can't say, I don't know what else I can say. They have other side parking that they could use. I'm not sure why they're not taking care of that but, or using it. They bought the whole property. I'm not sure, you know, I'm not that familiar with it, but I just know it directly already affects the property. Speaker 2: Are you experiencing runoff now? Speaker 18: Yeah, absolutely. Those trees, a bunch of 'em died but mostly I think it was because of the summer drought. But there's definitely runoff and I still get trash down my yard.
Stuff that comes down. I, it's gonna only get worse with parking. Right now it's all landscaped and I got the landscapers up there. You get to listen to 'em all days on Saturday. That'll go away a little bit. Not a big deal. I'm not concerned about that. I'm just concerned more of the headlights and if they got more space over to the what's there would be their front door over on that side for the parking would be wonderful. And I I, I really wish the, the people that own that building behind that have all that property, that have all those spaces that are never full would give them some parking because that's where all the parking is.
But I also know the landscaping company has a spot up there that they use as well. So those are my biggest concerns. Runoff, trash and the mostly the cars turning. Are they gonna put any kind of buffer zone of, for four foot? Anything to stop the headlights from coming down if that's gonna happen or something planted at the top? Aphrodite something, I don't know. I it, I'll have to live with it. Whatever you guys decide on, I'm gonna be stuck living with it. 'cause I don't intend on moving anytime soon. Speaker 3: I think I'd like to hear from the, from the applicant Absolutely. What he has to say. Just, but one more question.
When you mentioned your house being illuminated at night, so you don't have to turn on any lights in the middle of the night. Are those from headlights or from Speaker 18: No, those are from the building lights. So they cut two big lights. They're like probably almost 10 by 15 or whatever lights, well they're windows. Windows on the end of the BU building when you guys added, you know, you stuck somebody in and all of a sudden the building went up 37 feet and then the guys came in and they put windows in and now the lights are on at night. I come to my kitchen, I don't really have to turn the light on if it's okay Speaker 3: Eating it's lights from inside, from inside the building that are coming
Speaker 18: Through the windows. It just shoots right down. There's two of them. It's not that big of a deal. I don't, you know, I almost don't have to turn the light on to get something outta the refrigerator if I wake up. But it's just, just something that happened, you know? Yeah. Speaker 3: I had thought that there was gonna be some sort of screening. I remembered at the time that them, there is, there's shade. It was just one second. I was just Speaker 14: Gonna ask, there's shade. Speaker 3: Steve. George. George. Yep. Let, let me finish. Thank you. But I just wanted to, to understand what could be done to mitigate that. Right. Whether, what screening or or coverage.
But I, I do remember and this this Georgia Turkey Speaker 18: View and also if there's, there's gonna be lighting for the parking lot, that would make me very happy. Either, well Speaker 3: Any lighting is gonna have to be baffled and screens so that it there isn't spillover. Speaker 18: Yeah. So you say that Speaker 3: That but, but it, that is important for all the reasons that you stayed. Absolutely. So let me just turn this over to Mr. Richards and say what, say you Speaker 14: Well I was just gonna ask my client what kind of shades are there and is there any way they could be darker? There's Speaker 16: Internal shades, which are blackout shades,
which are on a timer to go down every night at eight o'clock. So I'm not, I can certainly redouble my and check and make sure that, that it's actually still happening, but every day they go down at eight o'clock in the evening. So I'm not sure. So Speaker 14: Ver shouldn't, shouldn't be any light Speaker 16: Correct? From the windows? No, not past eight. Speaker 14: Okay. Well maybe we can get some pictures of that or, Speaker 3: I, I was just going to say, I think probably that, that warrants some follow up that if that isn't fact not the case and not what's happening. And I'm guessing, judging from what I'm hearing here, that that something kind of isn't, isn't being done
or has, has somehow fallen away, Speaker 16: Has not happened at some point. I'm sure it has not happened once or twice, but I will be sure to look into it. Speaker 3: Thank you. Just something where it is a, a no fail timer that, that, that follows Speaker 18: And that's the least of my concern. Speaker 3: I know, but I'll start with something. Okay. And then Speaker 14: The other question. Speaker 3: Yes, I'm sorry, go ahead. Speaker 14: Just the other question to my client and of Mr. Worthington is he referred to parking on the side. I'm not sure exactly where he's referring to and I defer to Susan and Steven. Is it possible to create some parking in whichever side area
he's referring to? Well, across Speaker 4: From the front door, just expanding that parking lot as opposed to kind of heading Speaker 16: Towards Speaker 4: The south where Speaker 3: Yes, Speaker 18: I don't know the size of the lot, so I'm not sure where you land ends on what you bought, but I thought to the right side of the, as I'm looking from my house up to the building on the, as I'm looking at the building to my right, I thought there was more land to do more parking. If there isn't, then there isn't. Speaker 16: Yeah, there's a ton of detention, but it's all, it's all wetland. Oh, there's the story upper basically it's all restricted in terms of our ability to do anything. Speaker 18: See, that's, see I didn't know that. That's all. And
Speaker 15: It's a very steep slope. It's like one and a half to one through here. Speaker 16: We we've tried to squeeze every possible thing. David, I, my understanding is in terms of the headlights, and I'm not sure if it was on the plan, Susan, but as originally specked out, we were gonna put a fence Yes. All along the wall so that no headlights would penetrate the Speaker 3: Fence. And, and you, you'll have the specs for those, yes, for that fence and correct materials that, that Mr. Worthington could see Speaker 4: Also whether there would be any need
for parking in the park in the new proposed parking field. And we would like to have specs on those about baffling and keeping all light on the property. And then I suppose between now and April 9th, maybe a little survey of exactly what your exterior lighting is. Doesn't seem to me, well first of all, all lighting on a space has to stay on the property. There can't be any spillover. So maybe you guys could do a little survey in terms of what the existing lighting is. Your neighbors down the hill shouldn't see your lights, Speaker 3: Period.
Speaker 4: And if we're expanding then the new areas shouldn't have any light spill over at all. And that's the type of thing we can put in a one year lighting review. So when we're done, if you say, Hey, planning board, guess what? I still see it. Then we would have a chance to review it. We can put that in a decision. Speaker 3: I think it would be worth making sure that the existing problem is solved before they start. We start talking about approvals to build, to, to bring in the parking and to expand. I, I Speaker 16: Don't know if, so I'm clear what is the existing problem? It's a complaint about lights. Speaker 4: Well, yeah, I mean I I don't know if you'd be willing
to come back on April 9th. You don't necessarily have to, but if you, if you had any additional information about which light is shining in your kitchen and like is there a blackout shade or did, did not go down? I mean if, if, you know, we, we are hearing kind as is typical, we hear kind of two sides of it. Yeah, of Speaker 18: Course. Absolutely. You know, but Speaker 4: There's no question that the intention of this board and approving this is to have no light spill over on the neighbors. So this is the best time to talk about it. We can really nail down exactly what it is and you know, imagine going forward what will prevent light from spilling over.
So we have no problem taking the time to get those little details right. 'cause I know they're little details, but they're, they're very impactful. We're well aware of that. So, we'll, we'll, we'll take your comments very seriously. Speaker 3: And I, and I have to say, I remember us having conversations about that very thing and about the high windows and I'm, I'm find it a little disturbing that it has apparently been a problem since, well Speaker 18: It's not really a problem for me. Lighting is, like I said, that's the least of my concern. But the lighting is not that big of an issue. I mean it's actually so much better than what was the original decision that I'm elated
to have him up there and I even have his phone number and he's always told me, call me directly if you have a problem with anything and I've, I've never had an issue. Can you do that? Speaker 4: That's, that is exactly what we like to hear. That there is the potential for communication if needed. Speaker 18: Absolutely. Speaker 16: But I would say, David, if you are having an issue with the, the shades not going down, just please let me know 'cause I'm not there. Yeah, of course. Absolutely. Speaker 18: And like I said, that's the least of my concern. That's not why I'm here. I'm just concerned about, you know, lights and coming down in the runoff you to build it up right now. But it lay it, the landscaping does go down and it's all vegetated
and he's got some nice trees that are actually starting to take and start to block the building a little bit. That's why I planted the 40 trees myself and then I was hoping it would fill in and be able to sell in another 10, 15 years, whatever retirement and the kind of building disappears out of sight of whoever's trying to buy, but least of my concerns. But now you're taking and making it parking and what led 10 feet is not a lot of room to put landscaping. Even a big fence. You're still gonna see the building. How much landscaping can you get within 10 feet of a buffer zone to about where my property ends?
Speaker 2: You know, I'm, if I could, yes, just, you mean talking to Alan here too, to the left of me. But to me, looking at that five or six space pod, let's call it, and you know, Andy brings up a good point, the chaos of tournaments and you know, you could get six spaces by just extending that eight pod to the left plan left and, and just do them as pullin. I don't understand why that five or six pod area is what it is. Then you'd pull the entire thing away
from the property line. Maybe you'll have to fill a little bit, you know, but that to me is a kind of a chaotic circulation pattern. And I think you just really straightened and simplify this plan by just straightening it out. Bring the, bring the six bases in line with the other eight that you're proposing and just extend it. Speaker 18: I'm just not sure if the dumpster gets in the way. Speaker 2: Dumpsters on the other side. Speaker 16: The other side. No, I think he's saying to the left side here where it says two and three, you're just saying go straight across. Yeah, it would lose us four spots and then go, I think he's saying going the other way towards the parallel parking. Yeah, that's too the gray really steep there. No, no,
Speaker 2: No, no, no. Okay. Other end Speaker 16: Right Speaker 2: Here. Yep, exactly. Susan. Yes, just Speaker 12: Yeah, keep that row Speaker 2: Going. Six. Yeah, I mean you can get six in there just by the opening that you've got for the circulation. You could stack in 1, 2, 3, maybe there and then you got only three more to make up. Maybe Speaker 12: Four you could stack in there. Speaker 2: That'd be a lot more. Or Speaker 12: I think it might be a little more efficient because you're not kind like as it is right now, you kind of have extra space for the driveway, you know, for, for driving. But if you just kind of continue further and, and you could probably squeeze another space
or two adjacent to the building where it says sign right there, you know, you can probably squeeze in into space there if you can continue it. I mean obviously towards the end you, you only want to go so far because of how the grade changes, but Speaker 4: Pe-people in that pod if it's full are gonna have to back out. Ooh. Speaker 2: Yeah, there is a little bit of a hammerhead. I'm living volleyball right now and believe me, even in, even in wide open parking lots, it's, Speaker 4: You're gonna have people coming in and people having to back out because that's, you know, if those spaces are full, you're gonna have to back out a good distance to, to be able to turn around.
So again, under advisement, I I think you guys will figure out and you know, let's have you take a look at that and possibly revise that. Speaker 19: Okay. Okay, good. Speaker 4: Turn 'em in. Hell. Oh God. Speaker 3: So Speaker 2: You ever been to Millworks Speaker 3: But also in, just in terms of the issues with the headlights to be able to understand where there will be screening and to have at least some sort of testing so that they Speaker 18: Right. 'cause once it's in, it's Speaker 3: Over. Yes. And I don't wanna try to fix the problem once it's, it you've been, been created. I'd rather have good planning that, that that kind
of figures either ways to screen or ways to shift or relocate parking so that you don't pay the pay for it every time someone Right. Backs out. So, so this feels, Speaker 4: There might be another hand up there. Terry, Speaker 2: Mary Collins? Yes, Speaker 3: There is. Oh, okay. Of Mary Collins. Thank you. And Ms. Collins, if, have you freed up her mic just Speaker 4: To just unmute? Speaker 3: Yes. If you can unmute and I, we just need you to lead with your name and address. Speaker 19: Mary Collins 54 Rathbun Road in Natick.
Speaker 3: Yes. And Speaker 19: I, I live directly across the street from David. So, and just to comment, first of all, I just wanna say that the, from our perspective, the, the volleyball court and Mr. Fri have been great neighbors. So on the whole, we're, we're happy with that, but we do want you to consider the question of erosion and I'm happy to see that that's being taken very seriously as well as the landscape changes.
Because I remember we spent a lot of time discussing making sure that we had a good barrier of landscaping and making sure that that remains intact. And then the lighting issues are, I mean, you know, obviously it bothers David more than us, but we see the lights all the time too. In fact they're on right now and s it's, it's not, you know, it's, it's not huge for us but it it, the lighting will be an issue as lights are put in the additional parking lot
and with all the cars driving in and out. So we thank you for considering all of those issues and particularly the erosion. So because that could have huge impacts on not only our property but the street as well, which as you know, is a terrible road. So, so thank you. Speaker 3: No, no thank, thank you for joining us for the meeting and that that issue of that lights are still so kind of the lights themselves are
so visible when I assumed that everything was going to be baffled in such a way that abuts wouldn't be living with that sort of kind of street lighting or in this o other case in building lighting. Speaker 19: Yes. So my husband had just commented that it would be nice to move the dumpster too Speaker 20: 'cause we hear it at six 30 on a Wednesday morning, Speaker 19: Right? Do we know when the trash comes? Speaker 20: It would be good if it could be moved. I think the original discussion was it was gonna be towards the front and maybe that would free up some space per parking. Speaker 19: So just, Speaker 3: It feels like there's some some good kind
of collective problem solving to be had about the orientation of parking, the management of lighting, and of course the dealing with connecting it with the stormwater management system. And I imagine that we would want you to come back with some or all of those problems solved or at least a strategy as to how they're going to be addressed that we can discuss and look at in time for our meeting on the ninth. Speaker 2: Yeah, we have a funny April cadence. We've got the ninth and then the 16th.
Speaker 3: It's because it's because the next one week is student or so I'm saying school Speaker 2: Vacation, I'm saying they wanna wait till the 16th, little longer, whatever, you know, 'cause Speaker 14: Well we won't endeavor to look at this. All these issues has been very helpful. This is the ninth, that's all to raise the issues that we need to address and improve on. And hopefully we'll have that, you know, again we'll talk to, to Bill McDowell about the drainage. But we'll look at the reconfiguration of the parking as well as the lighting on the building or from the building as well as from the parking. Speaker 3: Thank you. I think that that would move us in the
direction we need to be going if this is going to go forward. So we're meeting in April on the ninth and the 16th. George, thoughts on how much time you all need? Speaker 14: Yeah, Susan, thoughts? Can we make it the 16th? If we can get everything back to him by next Friday? What's it the fourth? That should be enough time for you to review for the ninth Susan, your thoughts? Speaker 15: I can get our plans done. I'm not sure I'm unclear on the lighting. Is the lighting from the building or lighting from the light posts that light the parking Speaker 3: Lot? I think the answer is yes
Speaker 14: To both. It's both. Speaker 15: Both, okay. Yeah, Speaker 2: George the ninth is kind of a Speaker 4: Be a long, Speaker 2: But it's up to you guys. Speaker 13: Two of those on the ninth are signs. Oh yeah. So that's what Speaker 14: I was trying, I'm just thinking if we have the ninth, we can come back on the 16th if we have to. Hopefully we'll have everything. Speaker 3: Well you what it, it gives if we, if we do this on the ninth and take as much as we've got got from there, see where that gets us. And then if there's still more to do, there's the 16th to turn to. But I think yeah 'cause there are several of them that are light, a couple that will be much longer.
So if that, if, if that's something that would be good for us to do. I think we've got a long menu of things to explore and I, and I appreciate both of the abutters who, who came to say, look, I'm, I'm not trying to cause a problem but here's, here's what we're seeing, here's how it's affecting our properties. And I'd like to minimize that if we can. And I think there's some good ideas that you've heard from colleagues to my left regarding how parking may be oriented to be streamlined a little more and possibly alleviate some of the problems.
So with that I will entertain a motion to continue to April 9th. Speaker 4: So moved. Speaker 3: Moved by Mr. Meyer second, seconded by Mr. Landry. All of those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? None. So we will see you on the ninth. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Speaker 14: Thank you very much. Speaker 15: Thank you. Speaker 4: Alright, public announcement pursuant to mass general law 40 a section five, the native planning board will hold a hybrid public hearing on Wednesday, March 26th, 2025 at 7:00 PM in the lot meeting
room located at 13 E Central Street in person and in Zoom for the 2025 spring annual town meeting. Amend zoning bylaws, accessory dwelling unit, A DU gross FLA floor area to see if the town will vote to amend the native zoning bylaws by amending section 200 definitions, gross floor area and accessory dwelling unit, gross floor area amending section 3M accessory dwelling unit regarding gross floor area. And further amend any other associated sections where applicable or act in any other manner. In relation thereto a copy of the full text
and proposed articles may be inspected at town clerk's office linked to the virtual meeting space may be found on the posted agenda per order. Peter Nason chair native planning board. Speaker 3: Thank you very much Amanda. Speaker 13: Yeah, so this is a basically a zoning change that is what I'd like to say is non-substantive because it is required by state law. So back in August of 2024, the state moved forward with requiring accessory dwelling units,
one accessory dwelling unit to be allowed as of right, which went into effect on February 2nd, 2025. In response to that, a lot of communities may or may not have chose to move forward with updating their zoning bylaws. Natick did put together a zoning bylaw to allow for one accessory dwelling unit as of right in compliance with mass general law chapter 40 a section three A or section three, sorry. And then allow two or more by a special permit, which is consistent with state law as well. At such time we did not have the state's regulations
which had been, which were released in I believe late February, early March maybe. Either way one of the items was the outstanding nature of this definition. And so what it is is gross floor area. And I'm gonna share out my screen and it's also in your paper packets in front of you right now is the way that we measure gross floor area and how we were gonna measure it for accessory dwelling units is not consistent with the state's definition.
So what we would like to do is delete what we had added for the gross floor area, for the accessory dwelling unit, delete that in its entirety and then just add on a last sentence to the existing gross floor area. And so that a principal one family dwelling or accessory dwelling unit shall be calculated per seven 60 CM CMR 71 as amended. Therefore, if the gross floor area definition changes in the future that we don't have to keep going to town meeting to update it even though we are required. The big difference between the states
and ours is that we measure our gross floor area from the exterior wall in and the state measures it from the interior wall in. So we would be changing section 200 definitions as you can see here. And then we would also be changing in numeral 3M number two we'd be creating a new D, which also references the gross floor area. The one family dwelling or a DU outlined in section number numeral 3M of these zoning bylaws shall be calculated per seven 60,
CMR 71 as amended. So it's just basically we are trying to remain compliant with what they put out the state level. We did go to fin com just so you're aware, but we had not opened the public hearing. So a motion was, or sorry, a recommendation was not provided and it was not expected to have one since we hadn't opened our public hearing process. Speaker 3: Thank you. And I, I spoke briefly with the new moderator to say that there were several or there was one and possibly more articles for which fin com could not make a recommendation
because they did not have a sufficient number in favor. So he is aware that we would be making a substitute motion or we would be putting the motion on the table since fin comm can't do it. And they were fine. Speaker 13: The town administrator is the sponsor of this article. Speaker 3: So questions or comments? It's, it's as straightforward as it comes and I'm puzzled why was it that, do you know why fin com did not deal with it? Speaker 13: Well one, because we hadn't opened up our public hearing.
So if anything had changed in that time, the motion would've changed as well. So therefore their recommendation wouldn't be based on, and then there, I think they just had a couple questions that were kind of outside of the scope of this article. Speaker 3: Okay. Doug, Speaker 2: Amanda, do you think this article has any errors or, or any kinds of, you know, mistakes in it as proposed? Speaker 13: I'd hope not. Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm sure it's well done. Thanks Speaker 3: Allen. Any questions, comments? Speaker 21: Is there any, what are the side limits for the ADUs? Speaker 13: So we kept ours consistent with the state law, which is nine, sorry, 50% of the principal dwelling unit
or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller, which is outlined in mass general law, chapter 48, section three. Speaker 21: So this could potentially be be pretty Speaker 13: Big. Absolutely, yes. Other communities are actually allowing them to be bigger, but we were just being consistent with state law Speaker 21: And I noticed that they said no short term Speaker 12: They, they said no short term rentals. Is there any restrictions on rental in general? Speaker 13: No. So you cannot restrict general rental because ownership or occupy, we can't regulate that in zoning. But in terms of short term rentals, that is a different basically
Speaker 3: Class. Speaker 13: Yeah. So you towns are allowed to regulate short term rentals under mass general law Speaker 12: And do they still have to meet all the regular zoning as far as setbacks and everything like Speaker 13: That? Yes and no. Yes, it's dependent. So if you're putting your, if you're adding a new a DU onto the property, it does need to be within the building box. So basically not located within the setbacks, et cetera. Two of the items that the bylaw does allow for,
since most lots within natick are nonconforming for either lot frontage or law area. So if you're deficient in law area or frontage, you do not have to go to the zoning board of appeals to get basically a section six finding for this. You just go forward with a straight building permit. But if you are trying to expand a preexisting non-conforming structure and make it more not nonconforming, then you do have to go get either the variance or the section six finding. So you do have to follow it other ways. Speaker 12: Okay. And I guess the, the, the last question is,
since this was passed by the state, I mean we are not really almost choosing whether or not to do it. We're just kind of refining the language essentially, right? Speaker 13: Yeah. We're just providing the guidelines as to how Natick wants to move things forward on this. But yep, one accessory dwelling unit is allowed as a Right. That does not mean no review. That still means building department review and then if you have two or more, it's a special a permit. Speaker 12: But I mean I think these are generally meant for like aging in place and stuff like that. Right. Is that kind of was the goal of having ad use? Well
Speaker 3: Sorry, it was for what? Speaker 12: Like more like if you had a, you know, relative or something like that. Was that kind of the goal? Speaker 13: No, I think the original intent was to one, increase more housing and make housing more accessible to those who wanna locate within Massachusetts the, it was trying to provide opportunity for a range of age in place children moving back home, small units where people can starter homes kind of situation then move out. So it really was a lot of different things, but it was also a response to the housing crisis that has been identified.
Speaker 3: One of the things I think has been valuable, and I've already heard from people who are proposing to do this, which is to build that a DU, then they, the senior citizen moves into that and then they either, you know, rent, rent out the bigger space and have an income stream with the rent from that and you freed up the house that they were not using fully finding and, and finding a place that scales to their needs while either housing family or or housing tenants.
Okay. It's just, it's a, an interesting flip where the person who moves into the A DU may actually be the owner of, of the property. Anything else? No. Andy, I'm sorry, I, I will start with you next time. I promise no need, no questions. Very good. Alright then. A motion to recommend favorable action on the subject matter or a motion as one sees fit on this article. Yeah, I move, we recommend favorable action. Okay. A second. Second. All those in favor? Any questions, comments?
All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? None. Speaker 2: And then move we close the public hearing. Second. Speaker 3: All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Aye a vote. Thank you very much. And then next we have, oh we're going on. This is the point at which I'm, I want, we want to go on article 24. Speaker 13: Actually if we could do one superior drive. It's a second bullet underneath that section just because we do have attorney Garrahan here. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, that would be great.
And then, because we don't have anyone here for the other one, attorney Garrahan is coming over right now and Evan is, Speaker 3: This is the one for one superior drive? Yep. Yep. Speaker 13: Evan should be coming over anytime now. So in your packets, there she is. And here's attorney Han in your pocket tonight you will have just some requests for this. I'll let attorney Gar hand provide a quick outline. I'm not sure why Evan's not accepting, but I'll keep working on, oh, here he comes. All right. So I don't know if you wanna help Kathy, so Speaker 3: Sorry.
So yes, I, I understand our friends in the Bele back are looking at all making alterations to plans. Speaker 22: Yes. Good evening Madam Chair. Members of the board, just for the record, I'm Kathy Han from Biogen Dewey and with me is Evan to Tomi, a partner at excess s hotels. And we may be joined by Jason Diiorio, the architect as well, if he pops on excess s is here to discuss contemplated modification to the project you approved in March 20, 20, 23.
The modifications will decrease impervious area on the site, decreased density and will not change circulation for emergency services or vehicles. The change represents a reduction in ho hotel room expansion that was earlier proposed and approved for 56 new rooms for a total of 1 92 rooms now to be an expansion of 28 rooms for a total of 164 rooms. The revised expansion is anticipate, as I said, to
result in no increased site impacts. We provided more details to in our letter of March 10th. And we're happy to discuss this further as you wish. Speaker 3: Very good, thank you very much. Amanda, anything you'd like to add to this? Speaker 13: Nope. Basically it just seems like it's a reduction in basically the scale and density of the project. As attorney gear hand noted, it does increase or decrease, sorry, the impervious area, but it also does not impact the site circulation or emergency service access to this site. So it's kind of a question of can the board or the applicant just move forward with this project
or do they need to come back for like a modification to the site plan, Speaker 3: Like a first site full site plan, review it. It's funny 'cause it's relatively rare that we have ones that are shrinking in scope. So let me just ask based on what we're hearing, thoughts, comments on what, on what is being proposed and on whether when something is being reduced from what was originally approved, do we feel we need a full site plan review? Speaker 4: Is the hotel getting smaller?
Like we're taking part of the building down? Speaker 3: No, they, they're planning to expand it and the proposed expansion is going to be smaller than it was originally planned for. Speaker 4: I gotcha. That's right. Well, I don't know. I mean, I guess for the record it would be good to just see, 'cause I'm having a hard time remembering what it is and I don't see the, the plan in here Speaker 3: By any chance. Ms. Garrahan, do you have plans? Yes. We you could just need a refresher. Speaker 22: We can pull that up. Madam Chair. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 4: I I mean
obviously I don't think it's a problem. I think it's just kind of a question of formatting the decision. Speaker 22: And Speaker 4: I, yeah. Speaker 22: Ms. Loomis, do you need to share a screen with probably with Evan, either Evan or Jason. Yep. Speaker 13: They should be able to share screen. Okay. If they can't let me know. Speaker 23: Jason, are you able to share? I'm, Speaker 13: I can share it right now if you like. And I do just it in the packet so it's in there. I, Speaker 23: I can share, I can share as well. I'm just put trying to just find the right buttons on Zoom. I apologize. Speaker 13: I can print it right now if Speaker 22: You want. And Jason, I think we just go to the layout sheet
that you have the annotated. Speaker 23: Okay. I'm just pulling it up. I have it, I'm just trying to share the proper screen. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 23: All right. Can everybody see the PDF with the document on it? Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you. Speaker 23: Perfect. So what, what's shown here, just to quickly run through this, is what's shown in red is the previously proposed Fairfield edition. This is the 56 keys. So you can see that footprint here that sticks out a little bit beyond the islands here of the parking area. The turn through of the portier
and dropoff is located in this area, if you can see my mouse. Okay. And then the, the building was previously proposed to come down again with this red line, this is the, the dumpster enclosure here and then an extension down, angled along the setback that's shown in this dash line back into the building. So now what we're proposing is essentially where the blue line is, I'm gonna zoom in just so it's a little bit easier to see. So it, it got slightly wider here towards the port cashier, but then we have reduced a significant amount on this front
side coming back into the island and then back down, still the same dumpster enclosure proposed here, just slightly modified. And then the building ends actually here at this point. So it's a reduction of, previously, this is just two comparisons. The red is the previous approved, the blue is the proposed. So it was 22,536 square feet approved and proposed to reduce to 16,268 square feet. Speaker 3: Alright. Questions? Anyone from the numbers? Not Speaker 4: Really numbers business, but I'm just curious as to as
to why I thought you might want to go to full build out on that. Speaker 24: Good question. Can you hear me all? Just, Speaker 3: Yep, we, you're good. Speaker 24: Yeah. So we originally were proposing to make this a dual branded hotel out there. Today we have 136 residents in rooms, which is somewhat more of an extended stay product. We have kitchenettes in every room. We actually, our partner national development, who was the master developer in this project, has sold their position in the hotel. They also have sold the 55 plus apartments next door
and our new partner in the hotel. Through discussions with them, we have decided that additional residents in rooms would be a better solution in this market. And so we're proposing 28 residents in rooms instead of the 56 Fairfield. And so, you know, we feel like that's a, a better fit for the market where it stands today. Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll, Speaker 4: I'll just say before we let you go and all of that wonderful low tech local hotel tax revenue,
can we, can we expect you to possibly come back to further expand because we love hotels in Natick and we certainly love yours and we'd like to make it as big as possible. Speaker 24: Absolutely. We, we would love to see this 28 room expansion be very successful and I think we have the opportunity to grow it further once it proves to be good for the market. Speaker 4: Okay. You you, well, I mean, do you wanna, instead of coming back a second time, do you want to, I mean,
I understand this is your plan. I'm not saying don't do your plan, but I I, you know, we, we do really want to encourage you to, to do full build out as permitted. Should we just leave that open for a future revisit Speaker 24: That, that would be great. I, I think what we're here tonight for is, you know, we, we feel that 28 rooms are appropriate at this time. It's a reduction in impervious, it's a reduction in the parking requirement. I think that we would need to come back probably with a, a more developed site plan in order to move forward with,
you know, 28 more residents in rooms to get to a total of 56 room addition. And we would be prepared to do that when appropriate. Speaker 4: Okay. Well, we'll, we'll look forward to seeing, like, I, like I said, the, the reduction is good, but it, it's sad to see the reduction in potential tax revenues too. So anyway. Well Speaker 24: We're hoping that the, that the rates stay high and that the, the tax revenues reflect that as well. So I think, I think it, it will be a a, a good addition for the town and for us. Speaker 4: Good. So it's really a formatting issue, you know,
is this like an a minor modification? Is it a, an administrative approval? Speaker 3: It's, it's not a minor modification. That said, I don't think it re it, it necessarily warrants comp, you know, like full blown site plan review because it's shrinking. But I think we, I don't, this is, I think it's enough of a change that it isn't simply administrative. Speaker 4: Well I'd like to be able to keep like the original approval, you know, documented so that if they do in fact come back, they don't have to do much heavy lifting to get what they had fully approved earlier.
And we are showing a reduction. So, Speaker 3: Well it's, it's a mod, it's a modification less than a reduction, but it, because it's a different type of room which requires a different footprint. Could Speaker 13: You do this as a almost a phase that the applicant would be coming forward with a phase one, which is showing what's Speaker 3: With, which is what's proposed? Which Speaker 13: Is what is proposed. We would just write up a memo saying this is phase one with keeping the full permit intact with future expansion to the, the phase two would be further, but they would have to come back in or something. Speaker 3: Doug, Speaker 2: I, I guess a question for attorney Garrahan, what
to satisfy a lender or satisfy anybody, you know, in a certification, what, what would you need for that? Speaker 22: Well, it's a re it's a reduction and I, I think, you know, as I think Ms. Loomis had said, it was, there's, there's, if you don't build out the whole thing, it's not, it's not really necessary to get to get a modification if you don't, if you don't build out a whole project. But in terms of what a lender would, would expect, I mean, it'd be, it would be nice to have a letter Okay.
Or something like that. I mean, I do see it as more administrative, maybe more than the, the chair said. But, but, Speaker 2: And you know, would you feel better about that being vetted at a public meeting and then we vote to sign a letter? I mean, is that something you would want to do that would, Speaker 22: I'm not, I'm not sure it needs a public meeting. I mean, obviously we re respect what you think, you know, the, this, you know, I do see it as more administrative, you know, and that that, you know, a letter documenting it for from, from Ms.
Loomis really of what happened at the meeting may be sufficient. Speaker 3: Do, do we have revised designs for the, the section that's being bumped out on, on the, the other side of the building to understand what the changes would look like in terms of the, what Speaker 22: The, what the site impacts, the facade Speaker 3: And so forth. Speaker 22: Yeah, we have an annotated site plan. It's, it, it's not done by the engineering team. You know, that would be a second step after we talk to you. But I don't know, Jason, if you, we, Speaker 24: We do have some renderings that sort of show Yeah.
Previously approved and what we're proposing. Yeah. And we've, you know, we're using the same materials. We're, we're trying to mimic that approved design, but just slightly modify the dimensions in order to accommodate these additional residents in rooms versus the Fairfield. And as Jason said, we're shrinking the footprint. So it's really just, you know, modifying the length of that L addition. Speaker 12: Yeah. So I think it's, and the, the size of the rooms is changing too, so it looks like the size of the rooms are getting a little bit larger
Speaker 24: 'cause they're accommodating Speaker 3: The, Speaker 12: Yeah, so the total number of u so it's not really a phase one of, of what was previously approved. Right. Not that I find an issue with it, but it almost seems like it is Speaker 3: Like a step sideways. Speaker 12: Yeah, exactly. Speaker 22: I think you go back, oh, is this, Speaker 2: Yeah, there you go. Speaker 23: This is a picture of the previous approved with the Fairfield edition and then I'll jump to the next page. So there we go. So very, very similar, maintaining the same design aesthetic as the previously approved to, to this concept.
So I'll flip back to the other one quickly. Speaker 2: While you doing that, can I ask a question of Amanda, you know, when the decisions get made, there's a lot of sort of boilerplate at the end. Do we we don't require as-builts Speaker 13: For site plans? We do. Those are usually the last sections of the conditions. Okay. Speaker 2: In, but we do, I mean, I guess, and I'm Speaker 13: Assume they go to dw, this Speaker 2: Project required an asbuilt Speaker 13: Once the plan's done, right? Yeah. Right. And they provide that to DPW. So then the CAD files and everything like that is updated. Yeah. And then anything
that goes into the building department has to show what Speaker 2: Their Yeah. Speaker 3: So as an administrative amendment or administrative revision, do others feel comfortable using that as the instrument? Speaker 2: I think, I mean, that's why I asked attorney Guhan what, what's needed. I mean, if it's a letter, I mean, what did, what did Dave Gini say? What was his response to this? Speaker 13: I'm not sure. Kathy, do you know? Sorry, attorney Han, did you know when you, did you talk with Dave on this? Speaker 22: I, I may have talked.
Well, we emailed with him and then you and I met. So I don't know if he said something to you directly, but we didn't get anything in writing from Dave. No, Speaker 3: I think that would be important. Speaker 2: Were the plans recorded with the decision? Speaker 13: No, only the decisions are recorded. 'cause this is in, you don't have to record plans. Okay. Only for subdivisions and ars. Yep. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 3: So it's not that the, the documentation kind of collides. So to, to that, that earlier question, it's true.
This is not the first phase of the plan as exists. Speaker 13: So one thing that it seems like it's in the decision, which is in the packets there, which is condition seven, it basically The planning board, no material corrections, addition, substitutions, alterations or any changes shall be made in any plan proposal or supporting documents approved by the planning board without written approval of the planning board or their designee. Any request for modification approval shall be made in
writing to the community academic development review for review and approval by the planning board or designee. And shall include a description of the proposed modification reasons for the modification and any supporting documentation upon receipt. The planning board, sorry, CED may in the first instance make a determination in writing authorizing the minor modification of the site plans. Alterna. Alternatively, the director of the community economic development may refer this matter to the planning board considering and approving minor modifications at a regularly scheduled planning board meeting. So that's what we're at right now. And then if the planning board determines the changes are
major or material in nature in resulting in material changes, newly identified impacts, et cetera, the planning board shall consider a modification at a future notice public hearing. So I think under that condition, oops, sorry, condition. Speaker 3: I'll say that, you know, on the whole, we tend to talk about minor danger and the, the intent is the same, the use is the same. The type of, you know, fitting out of the rooms is different and requires a different change in dimensions. Does that, do members feel that that is covered as a minor modification?
Speaker 2: I do, especially with that was just read Yeah. That condition. So I would, would you, would it be appropriate for motion? Speaker 3: It would, Speaker 2: I would say that we vote to authorize Amanda as our designee under condition number seven. Whatever you wrote to do. What's, do what's necessary to, could Speaker 3: You want a finding that it's a minor modification first? Speaker 2: Yes. I'm just gonna say that. Okay. Yeah. That it's a minor modification and dispense with the other conditions of that, that requirement.
Speaker 3: Okay. Is there a second? Second, second by Andy comments? Questions? Speaker 12: I just guess just a question when the comment seven, it did not say what to do if it's a minor, right? It just said what to do if it's major. Speaker 2: No, it said minor that Amanda could write a letter to that effect. That's what that motion is Speaker 12: Because I know there was, there was a section about if it's major that we have to Speaker 3: Yeah. 'cause there's language in the, in the zoning bylaws and it's more or less it's the major, unless you can show it to be minor is usually kind of the way we, we've thought about it. So yeah,
Speaker 13: It's, if you need it again, we Speaker 3: Have a motion made and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? It's unanimous. How's that, Kathy? Painful. Painless. Thank you. Speaker 12: Thank you. Thank you very much. Speaker 2: I wanna stick around for the rest of it. Yeah, Speaker 3: It gets more fun. Speaker 12: It was nice to see everybody. Okay. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you Speaker 3: Very much. Thank Speaker 12: You all. Speaker 3: And Amanda, thank you for that. Speaker 13: Now you can go back to 24. Speaker 3: Yes. And I think you, you have this in everyone's packets.
The, the document for Natick finance committee. Speaker 13: Yeah. So in a paper packet that's in front of you today is with a paperclip. There's one I had received an email and then also we'd received the minutes from the finance committee. So that is what's in front of you today. We received this later. So that's why it's not in your paper packet. But the finance committee did meet last night to review article 24 as the email states, no one could be here from the bylaw review committee to discuss this. And so I'll let the chair kind of brief you on what happened.
I believe it's motion. Is it EE or FF or Speaker 3: F? Yeah. Motion. Motion. Thank you Amanda. A motion. Motion F or sorry, not motion. F it's section F of that section of the proposed bylaw. And the motion that that is covering the development. I'll just do a shorthand and say the development ultimately of a zoning bylaw review process.
Something that, that creates an independent or a separate town council who is responsible for reviewing potential changes or additions of subtractions to zoning bylaws and so forth. And goes on to discuss the prospect for a zoning review committee to be created in, in the end, what the minutes show you is that if com voted to refer them back
to the sponsor because the language was, I think they said part parts of the language were confusing, unclear, and kind needed to be further developed. So right now, the only thing that we have for the proposal is, is a, a motion to recommend referral. So we have nothing to do except to know that this will come back, no doubt in the fall. So it's, I made it, I made it sound long. Way longer than it actually is. But in short, there's no action to be taken at this point
because fin com sees some cleanup that needs to be done with this article. And that actually is another one that's not relevant to zoning. Speaker 2: So the article, the motion about, I guess sloppy zoning was written sloppily by the person who wrote the emotion. Is that what I'm taking away from this? It Speaker 3: Could be said. Speaker 2: Interesting. Ironic. Okay, Speaker 3: So, so I don't Speaker 4: Think this is going away. Speaker 3: No, that's what I said. It'll come back in Speaker 4: The fall. And you know, if, if you look back at our past 10 years,
we have, we have passed some zoning things to find out later that there were, you know, imperfections, which I think are acceptable. I mean, we're not talking about perfect things, but there were some complicated multifaceted zoning articles. Do you remember the one infamous article 54 that passed on, on this board? Three, two in favor of referral two three opposed to referral it. And I, I believe that was mostly a citizen's oh, petition. Petition. But it, it got complicated enough where something like this, which is a super extra level
of bureaucracy, would've sorted out properly. And that, I mean, I'm just talking my opinion. Yeah, we've had, we've had other things that have passed by us that we've recommended that have passed town meeting that were nothing short of disaster. And I'll just say historic preservation, you know, ended my butt in a five hour deposition, which is still one of the worst things I've ever been through in my life. I think that would have been stopped by something like this because it would have, it just would've vetted more properly. You know, so I, I am, I have been twice burned
and become a little more conservative in my recommendations for zoning. Even little things like the, the thing that we did a couple years ago where we, we, we revised the parking space and included language about a half parking space. It got past all of us, you know, so there, I think there's enough evidence to talk about some type of help, professional help zoning council to review things so that when we take them to town meeting, instead of saying let's pass it and see what's in it, we have a higher comfort level that what's passing is just, you know, clear.
And so, so I know it's controversial and I'm not sure everybody agrees with me nor, and I'm not trying to convince anybody, but I'm just saying in my little p brain, we've had enough incidents that I think extra help, extra professional review is, is in my mind something worth considering in some form. And I don't want to usurp the power of the planning board. I don't wanna insult any current staff or anything like that. I'm just saying that it seems to me that were we able to get a little more, and, and by the way, Mr. Greer has explained to me what he has in mind.
It's, it's like this idyllic situation where you have the perfect attorney who knows our zoning bylaws back and forth and knows the culture of Natick. I mean, we are looking for the perfect individual, which I'm sure doesn't exist. So it, a lot of this will depend on the personalities that are involved in this process. I can see it going wrong. I can see having the wrong person in, in this position or this extra board or whatever it is. And suddenly you have just created the type of stuff that gets developers heading for the hills. Like you can't go to Natick, it takes you two years
to pass the zoning article. So I'm concerned about that too. Yeah. So yeah. Speaker 2: So I think, I think I poke of thought no Pope for 600, you don't have to insult Amanda. 'cause this already does. Okay. It really does. Well and and you know, Speaker 4: I'm referring to happened before Amanda Speaker 2: Was here. Oh, I know. And so Amanda, Speaker 4: I am not referring to Amanda on this Speaker 2: One. Okay. I I'm just saying, you know, so let's just be honest what this is. Okay. Self-appointed zoning experts who are not elected have usurped
town meeting, have usurped the planning board many, many times. We have spent the last, as long as I've been on this board going on four years now, unwinding a lot of crap that was drafted by certain individuals who purport to be the self-appointed zoning experts in this town. And trust me, I'm in the business. You've heard me say it a a million times. None of those people are practitioners. They don't, they're not appearing before boards. They're not thinking long term. They think it's a game and it's some kind of, you know, intellectual exercise
that they would like to display their prowess on. So I think that if you want to affect the planning board or, or the zoning, you either run for planning board and you get elected or you show up at the public hearings that are required by this board under statute to do. We are an outlier. Lemme just say 351 cities and towns. We are an outlier in terms of how we deal with our zoning. FinCon makes the main motion on town meeting floor on it's unheard of.
It's unheard of. Do they get to look at fiscal impacts? They sure do. But making the main motion on town meeting floor and then having a process with going through the, it's, it's, to me that's enough. That's enough. Show up here, sit in front of those mics, give your testimony, we'll take it. But make no mistake having another layer of bureaucracy and another layer of process is not good government. It's gonna do exactly what you just said, Andy. I have clients who have worked in this town before who would never come back here
because of the complicated zoning. And that's what this is about. And this, you know, I don't even know what powers the committee would have. They're gonna be proposing zoning by No, I mean, you're a citizen. You can propose a zoning file anytime you want to. It still has to come through this board. And I am not in favor of having another layer of bureaucracy, another layer of process when it's hard enough to undo the crap. And we have our zoning bylaw is a nightmare. A nightmare getting Speaker 3: Better. Speaker 2: It's getting better. Speaker 3: I'm looking at
Speaker 2: A man. No. Is it, is it mistake free? No, no bylaw, no zoning bylaw is mistake free. So I mean we, I am not one to say just one sec. Zoning experts, self-appointed are gonna be sitting in something committee and spending town council money to basically send a message to the market that Natick is not a place to do business. Which then decreases the amount of commercial real estate base we can then have in this town. It's stupid. It's ill-conceived. It's a really bad idea. Speaker 4: I feel as though I could, this is, this is an interesting debate
'cause I think I could go point for point and disagree with you. I'll just say the words cluster zoning article. By the time we were done, we had to issue a moratorium to stop that, that we passed. Could that, could that process have been improved in some manner? Speaker 2: Yeah. I got elected to the planning board and I'm an A ICP credentialed planner. We hired Amanda as an a ICP credentialed director. We had a very serious sit down. Lots of towns can have a subcommittee of the board and do that. So the makeup of this board is a lot different than the first time around on that one. Speaker 4: Well, maybe, maybe it's ripe for compromise.
Maybe there is a, I mean, boards have subcommittees and you guys actually work on our zoning subcommittee without calling it that. Right? And the zoning in the past three years has, has showed a marked improvement. Its past town meeting much easier with much less confusion and much more confidence in what it is. So maybe we're really addressing problems that existed three to seven years ago. Yes. Speaker 3: Yeah, I was, I was just thinking that there, we sp have spent a great deal of time and you mentioned some of the things that have been rolled back, but there was a member of the
CED staff who in some ways I think did more damage to our zoning bylaws than then improvements. And there are things that we have been picking apart since that individual left. And I think that we we're kind of getting things back to balance. We, we worked on an assumption that they knew more of how things should work, that they were more careful than, than they were. And it's not to say that we are blame free for not noticing,
but I feel like that was a DA very different time. Speaker 4: And if that's the case, then I, I realize that times do improve. But I'll just say one thing in defending, I believe what you referred to as the self-appointed zoning officer whose name is mentioned in all this, I have been interrupted many times watching New England Patriot football games in the fall by a phone call saying, you realize we have a very serious problem with article 18. And it's, it's a, it's an eye rolling experience. But then after we finally talk about it, it, this individual is sometimes I feel like if you count all
fin com members, select board members, even town meeting members might be the one person that is really reading the zoning articles past us really carefully. And he does find things. And there have been times when it has been addressed, you know, the night before town meeting starts. And ultimately you say, you know what, maybe it's not chicken little, the sky is falling and maybe not, we're gonna have to undo every, our, every decision we've ever made, but four or five fine points that really were caught by an individual who is not, you know, is who who who is really just a concerned citizen.
I guess what I'm proposing is I wish there, I I maybe we could come up with some kind of non-intrusive, deep reading backstop just to catch those kinds of things. I mean, 'cause they have been caught and it's been caught by a volunteer. And if he didn't catch them, we probably would've passed them. 'em. And then Speaker 2: You're making it caught, you're making it sound like it's, we're gonna allow a 25 story tower in downtown Natick because there was something that was caught. Speaker 4: Well then let me clarify. It's, I'm not talking about that, but I am, Speaker 2: It's a calling, it's a, it's a hand, I'm talking technical. Wait, wait, just one one of you guys at a time. It's a comma, you know, in, oh no, there's a one sec.
There's a tendency sometimes to take something to a very illogical extreme to my point about how zoning bylaws work and how you actually apply them in practice. You, you can invent all kinds of crazy scenarios. There were some very good bylaws when a certain barbecue facility wanted to locate in East Natick to industrial Park that somebody conflated adult paraphernalia fell under that or we couldn't have it's in stop.
Okay. That those are not things that are caught. Those are fantasies that are invented by a illogical extreme of something that somebody has no understanding of how it actually works. So look, I'm for having as perfect of a bylaw as possible. I think we do a great job in this board in due diligence. I do not think we need another layer, which tell me how it fits into chapter 40 A and how that actually interacts. And then we're gonna spend money on the town council. And again, the signal that's gonna be sent here is
Natick is a difficult place to do business. Not gonna do it. I'm going to a place that's easier and that is exactly what happens. Speaker 4: I just wanna make one Speaker 3: Brief note, and then we we're gonna be revisiting all of this in the fall anyway. Right? One thing I'll note is the reason that this was recommended, recommended for referral was because as they sorted through the language, there were elements that were too confusing or unclear or miswritten to make it feel safe for moving forward. That is, that's my understanding better that that, that
that go away and be worked on. But it's also a reminder when something is, is put for a referral that way that it was not ready for prime time. So there's, there is an irony in here. I think we all want the same thing. We want to produce good bylaws, produce and, and follow and, and refine. I think we have gotten better, far better than we were certainly when I started here. And I will, I will say when I joined the board, it was a very different dynamic on the board. Speaker 4: Yeah. I I, I, yes, I agree, agree to a lot of what I hear.
The only thing I wanna clarify is I do not feel that I am referring to either a 25 foot, 25 tower story tower in native common, nor am I referring to commas. Th there is something more substantive than scribner's errors and the like. There were, there were some, and I used the word caught because I feel like they were heading, they were, they'd already pa the public hearings were closed. It's a very inconvenient time to hear from a person after not attending public hearings, not going to fin com and freaking calling me the Sunday before town meeting.
I feel like, what do you want me to do about it? So that, that process doesn't work. But the information, unfortunately, a lot of times is you, you gotta say. Yeah. I, I think, I think you're right. So it, I feel that I'm all, I would not mention if it was commas and I wouldn't mention it if it was 25 story buildings, but there's something here that is substantive and I don't know what the answer is. And the answer might be, the way we're doing it now is so much better that we can just leave it alone. So I'm perfectly willing to ac accept that the, so anyway, I've, I've talked long enough, so thank you
for letting me add that rebuttal from Speaker 3: That. No, the, you know, we we're all charged with re producing bylaws that are workable, effective, and moving the town forward. None of us disagree on that. We have differences on how we get to that point. Let and let's can continue to take that up as we see opportunities. I, I am with you. I, I, I understand what you're saying about getting the call kind of late in the game and somebody, and, and you're going, great. Now I have to deal with that. So we will continue to work hard.
Amanda, you've been a, a, an amazing contributor or leader of the process and I think that we'll take it forward from here, see what happens in the fall. Carry on that conversation. In the meantime, I hope we have a track record that speaks, speaks of its own Speaker 13: Past few years. Definitely. Speaker 3: So, Speaker 13: Yeah, Amanda? No, I think what, and yeah, we've had things that have gotten caught. Absolutely. And it's great that the comments come out, unfortunately at the worst time possible. Right? But I think that that goes to also where we've put together that work plan as
to what we're gonna do next. So we're already thinking about the fall and getting it done like we've done this time well in advance will help because one, you've been writing something, writing something, and you can't even have time to step away to go back and like look at it and be like, oh yeah, that, that's an error. So that's why we're trying to get things done sooner. So I think that that does help. And so we'll continue to try to get things done even further in advance so we can do that. And then also schedules like people are busy during certain times, so if we get it done further ahead
of time, that helps as well. So I think that's one thing that we can do and I can do better on it. Speaker 2: Well, again, show up here at the, at the required required hearings. You know, I mean, Speaker 3: And I think to to, to your point, you have responded to us when we're saying that frenzy that comes up at, as you're trying to wrap everything up for town meeting. I think this town meeting is a model of the pace and degree of preparation that works really well because it means you're not making the mistakes that
can happen when you're pushing things a little, a little farther. So I appreciate very much that you've taken the time to really get ahead of it so that we're not in such a frenetic mode as town meeting. Town meeting prep is frenetic enough, as as it is. But, Speaker 13: But like I said, if we can continue to keep getting stepped on earlier Yes. Then that, because if people are busy during certain times, yeah. They still have that extra time. And then also allows everyone who's been legit staring at it, their eyes glaze over. So we'll continue to work on that.
But we know this is not dead in the water, but we can continue to improve forward and stuff. Speaker 3: So, so with that, anything further for this evening's agenda? I assume that, that we may, I suggest that we have a motion to, oh, actually no, they've made the motion. So FinCon made the motion for referral. So we don't, we don't need to make a recommendation. Speaker 13: You don't have to make a recommendation, but you can always say if you wanted to make a recommendation, you can as well.
Or that it is just like a, basically a letter Yeah. Comment that's totally up to the board. If they want anywhere they can not provide anything. 'cause it's, Speaker 3: We didn't, we didn't really get into the, the, the content of the article because the content was not provided to us until Monday morning when, because you, you actually got it Friday and then I, or it was last Friday. Yeah. So if, if we're getting content that late maybe,
and we, there's not a need for us to make a recommendation, maybe we should pass. Speaker 4: Although I will say maybe your fellow town meeting members might like to know what the planning board does. Think about a, you know, special zoning advisory council. I mean, I wonder if we shouldn't, Speaker 3: I would not, I would not wanna try it. Given what I already know to be dramatically different views. We'll have a chance to do that in the fall if we want to say that we do this to support the finance committee's recommendation. Speaker 4: I mean, I'm good with referral just in the sense that I hope it spurs some conversation.
But if we had a split vote, let's say, like indefinite postponement versus referral, then it gets complicated. But it, I Speaker 3: I don't, I don't think it's that sort of, I think, I think it really was a referral for the purpose of fine tuning, not a, not a referral to kill something off. Speaker 4: So, I mean, I'm comfortable with a referral. I think it's, I think it's a, I think it's ripe for a referral and maybe Speaker 3: So it, someone here liked you. Well, Speaker 2: I would, I would invite the proponents to show up at this board and talk about it. Speaker 4: Yeah. We, well, we heard why Well, tonight, Speaker 2: But find a time where they can Yeah. Love to have that conversation with them.
Speaker 3: Without, without that it's really, really difficult to forward. Speaker 4: Right. 'cause we don't really a motion in front of us. Right. So, I mean, Speaker 3: And that was Well, Speaker 2: If they would like our opinion in, in view show up here. Speaker 3: Okay. We've, we've, we've we've beat this horse then. Speaker 2: Yes, we have. Speaker 3: So shall we, there Speaker 2: There were just two, there were two things in the packet that aren't on the agenda. There was something about West Natick and then there was something about the dam. Speaker 13: Oh, they're not on the Speaker 3: Agenda. So wait, just wrapping. Do we want to have, oh, sorry. Something that is a, a, a recommendation for,
it took a concurrence with the FinCon recommendation for a referral. It's simply saying we're, it's not, it's not ready to be taken up. Yeah, we hear that, but we're not, also not proposing to kill it off because we haven't talked about it enough. Speaker 4: You know, in the memo that we write with our summary of our votes. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 4: I wonder if we can just, Speaker 3: I've written everything except the center. Speaker 4: Right. So maybe you know, it, it was discussed under planning board business. We had not received the motion. We did not have a formal hearing, but you know, it was, it was briefly debated
and no motions were made or something like that. I mean, I can do Speaker 3: That Speaker 4: Just, just to say that we took it up and Yeah. You know, we didn't take any votes or anything. Just let people know we saw it, I guess. Okay. Speaker 3: Yeah, no, I have the framework with lots of like red X is where I need to put in language. Speaker 4: I can envision it, but Speaker 3: The, but the rest of the, the articles are done. Speaker 4: I believe that too. Speaker 3: 'cause I'm a nerd. Speaker 4: Thank you for doing it. A nerd. Speaker 3: So yes, west Natick. Speaker 13: Oh, sorry. I had the chapter 91 already up. Speaker 3: Do you wanna, you wanna give the short Speaker 13: Can I go to West or from chapter 91 first? Oh,
Speaker 4: Can I just say that on our, that's not, I don't mean, yeah, that's, I don't wanna be Glenn, but I don't see it on our agenda. No, both of Speaker 3: 'em. It actually, that isn't, Speaker 4: Both of 'em aren't, we're not supposed to take it up if it's not. So Speaker 3: Then probably what we would have to do is just to mention that, that we, that we have been approached, but I think we can't, we have to limit it. Speaker 4: Does it fall under meeting committee assignment reports by any chance? Speaker 13: So the technically the DAM one does, and the only reason why I say that there's no discussion actually on chapter 91 documentation.
It is just a requirement that the planning board receive a copy of the documentation. You do not have to discuss it. You do not provide anything. You just have to, you just have to receive a copy of it. So you've received a copy of it. And that's the check. Speaker 3: So we can say that we've received a copy. Yes. So you're simply telling us that in fact we have received a copy and so we haven't discussed it. It was simply Amanda pointing Speaker 13: Out. So that one was only in your packet for the purposes of you receiving a copy. Everything else is CED, director and building commissioner. Okay. So that one's just a checklist off that one.
Speaker 3: But the one for West Natick, that one. Amanda, I know that you had mentioned that, that you'd been approached about something regarding an application that's coming before us, Speaker 13: Not an application or, Speaker 3: Or a project that's being developed or being considered for development. Speaker 13: Well, it requires a zoning change, Speaker 3: But, but the core of it is, Speaker 13: Yeah, they wanted, the applicant wanted to address the board. There was question as to whether or not, Speaker 3: What was that the applicant? Speaker 13: What's Speaker 3: That? Was it that it was the applicant who wanted to address the board Speaker 13: Potential owner of a property Speaker 3: But not, not a current owner?
Speaker 13: To the best of my knowledge, that's correct. I haven't seen anything in terms of a closing. Speaker 3: And I think probably beyond that we, without it being listed in the agenda, we probably can't. Okay. Say a whole lot more. Speaker 13: Yep. So I can add that to the April 9th. Yeah. Speaker 3: So good catch. Speaker 25: The Speaker 13: Other item was on there was just the update on the 2025 planning board, or sorry, town meeting. I just wanted to let you know that we did go to fin com last week. Sorry. Okay. Sorry. That's the fourth bullet. Speaker 3: It's the Speaker 13: Fourth bullet. Is that 2025 Spring annual town meeting update.
Speaker 4: Third bullet. Speaker 13: Third bullet. Third bullet. Sorry, this, Speaker 3: Ah, because I am looking at the March 17th agenda. The one that was updated March 17th for tonight. Oh, it, I thought I was keeping up with updates. Yes. So the draft, the draft that I had did not have that, that, Speaker 13: So I just wanted to give you a really, really quick update. The select, or sorry, the finance committee did provide a favorable recommendation for Article 16, which is the one relative to height in the golden triangle area. So that was one item.
And then article 18, a DU, we did not get a recommendation because we hadn't gone through the public hearing process. Speaker 3: It's the one that we will be making the recommendation on. Yep. Speaker 13: 19. Which was regarding the outdoor recreation deleting the O bylaw and the overlay district. We did not get a recommendation for that one either. The next one was, Speaker 3: Which means that should we, Speaker 13: We'll need someone to make a motion on the floor. Speaker 3: Okay. Should, do you wanna take care of that now? I could do it. Great. Speaker 13: Terry will do it. Speaker 3: Are are you? Yes. You're still, Speaker 2: Which one was Speaker 13: That one?
The overlay district? The highway, or sorry, the indoor recreational overlay Speaker 3: District. The only thing it has the bright lights to shine into the guy on wrath on roads. No, yeah, Speaker 13: We were deleting it because it's already in doman numeral section two A Speaker 2: And that didn't get a favorable recommendation. Speaker 3: Do you wanna know why? Speaker 2: I'd love to. Speaker 3: Yeah. Because a former member of this board who serves on the finance committee said, you know, to, to make, to, we shouldn't be encouraging indoor recreation. We shouldn't be encouraging that to move into the, into the
industrial park. Because then you're giving away, you're basically trading potential serious development for low value, low income, low revenue, indoor recreation. Speaker 2: Are you making the case that fin comes shouldn't be making main motions in the town meeting floor on zoning articles? 'cause that's what I'm hearing. Speaker 3: But just to say that, that Speaker 2: And and swaying people Speaker 3: And as, as as I have, Speaker 4: We've heard that our, we've heard that argument for 20 years on this board. Board. Speaker 3: Yes we have. But Speaker 2: Not to get, but not to get a majority of the FinCon.
Speaker 3: No, no. You got a majority, but it was seven, five. Speaker 4: It wasn't eight. Speaker 3: It wasn't eight. Speaker 4: We need more iron forges cells and Speaker 2: Tanneries in industrial zones. Speaker 3: So Speaker 2: Good solid businesses Horseshoe are in. So yeah, they're so buggy whips are so in. Speaker 3: So, and that's, that's 19. Speaker 13: That was 19. So Speaker 3: We're, we're up for that. Speaker 13: On the good news, we did get a positive recommendation for Article 20, which is body art establishments. And then we did get a positive recommendation for Article 21, which is the use regulation schedule. Except for one of the comments I have to say,
I think Doug is gonna be super excited about, it was requested by one of the members that instead of having it be C reserved, D reserved, E reserved, that it goes C through E reserved and then like G through F or E through M reserved. So it wasn't a line. Yes. But anyway, we got a positive recommendation. So, and then we did not get a positive recommendation for article 17, which is the floodplain bylaw. Speaker 3: And I'm trying to remember the reason that was the seven five also. Speaker 13: Yeah. Part of the reason was
that there was not a definition identifying what specifically The designee. Speaker 3: Oh be because what was picked for the designee was the town administrator. And those objecting felt that that should not be the town Speaker 2: Administrator. And how does that affect town finances? Can I ask you that question? How does that actually affect town's finances? Can somebody answer that for me please? Speaker 13: It it might impact the people that actually have the flood insurance. Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. Speaker 13: Interesting. And that would be Speaker 2: Detrimental. That's simply updating a map that
a federal agency that probably no longer exists, you know, gave us, so I'm just curious, why would that not actually get the endorsement of the Speaker 13: Finance committee committee concerns about giving too much power? My understanding is to the town administrator and, but is that a Speaker 2: Financial issue, I guess is my question? Is that a financial issue or is that a zoning? Speaker 3: They are not, they are not limited I think in how their powers are described Speaker 2: To. So we need another, okay. So we need another committee I guess to have zoning. Bingo.
Speaker 3: So see, so may I, may I just say I think, and Amanda correct me if I'm wrong, we have 17 flood plain, 19 iro, the indoor recreation and the A DU. Those are the three that we are taking Speaker 13: Care of. Yeah. And a DUI did not expect a recommendation just because we hadn't gone through the public hearing process. So that was that. And then for the last item on the agenda, plenty board meeting committee assignments. The only thing we have to report is that on April 1st, there is a public hearing for the community preservation plan. So we have a plan.
Speaker 3: So, and and I I will say, and I can't remember if I said this at previous meeting, that Amanda has been spectacular in stepping up when Olivia left and just helping us in ways I can't even begin to describe. So, and I and I I thank her amazingly tremendously. Yes sir. Speaker 2: I know we, and that's on the agenda every, every time. And we talk about two things. We talk about the affordable housing trust vacancy from this board. And I know that the memorials Do we,
do we end up voting you onto that? Yeah. Speaker 21: I don't think we took a, did we take a vote? I think I said Speaker 2: Motion to Speaker 3: We have Speaker 2: You Speaker 3: Let you let them know. Yeah, Speaker 13: Yeah, yeah. So you alright. Alright. I think that was like two weeks ago. I think you Speaker 3: Okay. At our last meeting? Yeah. Speaker 2: So with Alan's promotion, congratulations. The vacancy of a associate member. What do we do? Do we say something to the, I mean it's obvious. Speaker 3: One option. One option is to, if we think it's appropriate to look at putting out a call for applicants for people
who want to be considered and then the, the select board and this board get together and appoint someone to fill until the next election. Now do, do we feel that it would be helpful to have an associate member on an interim basis? And I'll, I'll even spike it by saying here's why. And I'm, I'm very sorry that, that that Peter's not Well I, I but it makes me realize that it doesn't take,
if he weren't here and then you suddenly only have four people that you're, that you can draw from to complete a project or to to, to vote something to move forward. So I think it is, Speaker 4: We should definitely have an associate member. Yeah. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 4: Most of us started as associate members. Speaker 3: Yeah. 'cause you were it before me. Speaker 4: Yeah. Glen I think was an Speaker 3: Associate and then Glen came in after me. Speaker 4: So it's a very good practice to have Speaker 3: It's training wheels. Yeah. So I think Speaker 2: And just, you know, look, I find myself once in a while having to recuse Yeah. From professional conflict. I'm not speak for Alan, but you know, things
Speaker 3: That require a super majority. Speaker 2: Yeah. So I think we should have one. I just think, you know, we should spend some time clarifying, you know, what the role is when that per, you know, and I know it was uncomfortable sometimes when it has been Speaker 4: For 25 years, Speaker 2: It's, we need to be, can I Speaker 4: Vote? Yes, no, maybe. I mean it's been that way in time Speaker 3: Of memorial. The answer is that, that anything that has to do with subdivision of land, you can't. Speaker 2: And the well it's even narrower. It's only special permits. That's right. So, but I think we need one. Speaker 4: But it was always, you know, voting on town meeting recommendations and voting to adjourn and voting.
I mean, the answer is yes. You can vote on recommendation for all those things. Yes. Yes. I mean we, we are probably in a good enough spot now where we can tell, Speaker 3: Although I will, although I will say when I present things to town meeting, I, I, the maximum vote I will ever put in is five. Right, right. Because that is, that is the number of people on the board. Speaker 2: Yeah. And those are the things that, those are the things that you can get in trouble for. I'm just saying. Well, right. So being, making sure the associate, I know it's trivial, but the associate member role and what exactly they're supposed to be doing in voting on it may or may not be motions to adjourn.
It may or may not be it's zoning articles. It it's really, you read the statute, it's really strictly limited to special permits. So it's worth asking. And I don't know what we can do. It's Speaker 3: Worth asking town council. Speaker 2: Yeah. If we, if we have the latitude to expand that or whatever. Speaker 4: Well we've always allowed for questions input. Speaker 2: Yes. That correct. Speaker 4: Which is a great training ground. Yes. Right. And everybody that's served in that role has been okay with Yeah. You can vote on some things. You can't vote on others. And, but our associates have always shown up and attended regularly and it's been really helpful. Like I said, a lot of 'em become full-time members.
So we should put the word out. I don't know where, where do you put the word out? Speaker 3: You know what, let me, I'm trying to think of, Speaker 2: Can you send a letter to the Slackman? Yeah. Do you know people? Speaker 3: No, but, but I could. No, I I will, I'll ask Amanda. Is there anybody you, I'm trying to think of who would have the best information. I mean, I can talk to Donna Donovan and go in that way and just Speaker 13: Yeah, she could do it. 'cause then she posts it, she'll yeah. On the website and does all that fun stuff. 'cause she does it for all the other committees. Yeah. Speaker 3: I'll start, I'll start with Donna.
Speaker 4: We should also take a look at the website. 'cause Chris Terry is still listed. Oh is she? I think our planning board needs to be updated members. Speaker 3: Is that our responsibility? Good. Speaker 13: Oh, it's either the town clerks or the director of communications. Speaker 3: Good. Because I remember a a point at which someone was telling me otherwise and I was freaking out Speaker 4: That needs a refresh. Oh Speaker 13: God. It would probably be a good day to do it anyways after. Speaker 4: Yeah. That'd be the best time to do it. Yeah. Speaker 3: So Amanda, were you, were you saying when we talked about ADUs, that you felt that we should not be, I mean we support favorable action on it.
But did I misunderstand that you were saying that we shouldn't because we didn't have a No, we had a public hearing. Speaker 13: No, no, we can. Okay. It was, I did not expect the finance committee to provide us Speaker 3: Because we hadn't voted. Yeah. Speaker 13: Got it. So that one, I make sure I had that right. Went in not expecting, Speaker 3: Excuse me. And I, I actually made Speaker 13: That clear at the very beginning that I did not expect it. Just 'cause you hadn't Speaker 3: Done your work. Okay. So associate member, I will talk with Donna tomorrow and with that I'll entertain a motion to adjourn
or I feel bad. I So motion to adjourn. Okay, second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. We stand adjourned. All.