Welcome to Wednesday, November 8th. We thought we would never make it.

I am calling this meeting to order. It is 7 0 2 according to the analog,

probably inaccurate clock in the back of the room.

And once again, I have forgotten that I need to have this other,

oh, the script.

Script up.

For me to read. This meeting is being recorded.

This meeting is being broadcast on Pegasus. To comment or ask a question,

use the raise your hand function. If you are on a phone, press star nine.

First item of business on the, oh, sorry.

Anybody wishing to speak during public speak or during a public hearing must

display their first and last name on the screen before the microphone can be

unmuted. So if you are calling in via Zoom,

then you need to click on participants, find your name,

click on more type rename,

click on rename and then type your first and last name please.

First item of business is public speak.

Any individual may raise an issue that is not included in the agenda and it will

be taken under advisement by the board.

There'll be no opportunity for debate during this portion of the meeting.

This section of the agenda is limited to 15 minutes and any individual

addressing the board during this section of the agenda shall be limited to five

minutes. Is there anybody wishing to address the board via public speak?

Anybody in the room seeing no one in the room?

Anybody on Zoom? Seeing nobody on Zoom?

Yes.

Doug. I do.

Sir. So, very special day. Okay.

Today is World Town Planning Day and every November 8th.

Alright Amanda.

So all the good work you do it seriously is lemme just read the description.

World Town Planning Day is observed annually on November 8th.

This day was set aside to commemorate the important role planning and

structuring playing in the creation of our communities.

Town planning is one of the most important parts of creating our organized,

livable communities.

And this act gained full recognition when this day was founded in 1949 by late

Professor Carlos Marla Della Ra.

I'm not sure where he worked.

The World Town Planning Day also goes by the name World Urbanism Day.

So for all the work that planners do around the world, around the country,

this is our day to shine. So happy World Town Planning Day. Amanda do need.

Noise. Happy World Town Planning Day. To the,

to the both of you who are planning professionals.

We're all planners.

Yeah, but not professionals. I just, I'm a hack. Very good.

First item on our agenda.

Approval not required for one HF Brown Way

is the applicant with us.

Actually I never asked the question after we started the meeting.

Chris and Peter, can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you. Yes. Fantastic. And we can hear you guys as well.

It's a miracle.

Is there an applicant for one HF Brown Way? Amanda? So.

I'm not seeing an applicant, but I am seeing the town engineer present.

Really? Yeah. Hi Bill.

Hi guys. I hope that's not so much of a surprise.

Well it's just been a long time.

It has indeed.

The, the assistant engineer doesn't even come to our meetings anymore.

That may be 'cause of what you call him in private.

It's all lovingly.

So is there a presentation from from town staff

on this that will help inform us?

Not the easiest plan to read.

It's not, it is not the easiest plan to read Jesus.

Politely.

So this is a lot that is located

basically in the western side of Natick.

So if you look to the west of the existing parking lot,

you will see that there is a new lot A and a new lot B.

So all they are doing is creating these two new lots in the rear of

these two existing lots.

So just creating two parcels of land,

not to be buildable would assume, but you don't assume everything.

But they would be sold to those abutters.

Well they're creating.

And it looked like there's the zigzags on the right or they're combining them.

So they're.

Creating the two lots. Well the two lots.

It does note in note number four on the plan that that is the intention of the

plan is to,

to combine those smaller lots with the lots fronting on Speed Street.

Yeah. And there, there's.

I'm sorry, on Kendall Lane, there's.

Z Doubt to show that Yes.

They are Zed out, they're Xed out the.

The the little z.

The zigzag line.

Yeah, it looks like AZ.

On the inset onto the right. Yeah,

there's a zigzag line that basically indicates that property line will be

extinguished and those two.

See. I was looking at the big picture. That's me picture.

I'm a one's a whole lot picture. Big picture guy. Okay.

Alright. So Bill, do you have,

I saw that you submitted a letter. Thank you very much for that.

But in addition to what's in the letter,

do you have anything that you'd like to add?

Not, not anything other than the letter. I just note that this does, you know,

qualify as you know, a approval, not required plan.

All right. Are there any questions from the board?

Nope. I will be happy.

To. Let me just make sure I can't see Peter and Chris anymore. Peter and Chris,

do you have any questions?

None here.

Nope, none.

Thank you. Okay, go for it.

Thank you. I move to endorse the a and r plan as presented.

Second.

Moved. Seconded. Any discussion? No.

We'll take a vote Peter.

Doug? Aye. Andy a aye Terry Aye.

And I vote. Aye as well. Chris,

I don't think you get to vote on this so I didn't skip you intentional. Oh,

I did skip you intentionally, but not with malice. Alright,

I'm just gonna put these out on this table then and maybe.

We can all just assign them now and

work at the end of the meeting. Sure. Whenever you're.

How is Williamsburg.

Will this these be in the office tomorrow for signing?

On the front counter.

Do we have a magic pen that is more magical than this one? Well.

That one's.

Dead. Not quite dead, but it, it doesn't want to get up and run around.

I can go find them.

I used to study for exams in the middle of the governor's palace meetings.

If you hold it straight up and down and push down, it'll.

Write. Okay.

Did you know that the architects of the Colonial Williamsburg restoration are

the ones who built the Elliots, who designed the Elliot School? Take that.

Another reason to preserve that building. Yes.

Alright. For, for the rest of the meeting,

let me just try and kind of level set our time.

We have approximately four hours,

we have four more things on the agenda

plus some planning board business at the end.

So I'm thinking that we have about 45 minutes for each of these,

which will leave us with a little bit of time at the end,

maybe a little bit more than 45 minutes for each of them. We'll see how they go.

First on the agenda is, oh, so I'm sorry I didn't finish my thought.

So if we hit 45 minutes and I start telling people that we've run outta time and

we need to continue to the next meeting, you'll understand why I'm saying that

first on the agenda. One South Main Street opening the public hearing.

Thank you Mr. Chair. On Wednesday,

November 8th, 2023 at 7:00 PM the planning board will hold a hybrid meeting in

the Edward Delau meeting room located at 13 East Central Street, Natick,

Massachusetts,

in person participation and virtually via Zoom remote participation

to review the application of one South Maine, LLC, the applicant,

the property is located at one South Main Street within the downtown mixed use

DMM zoning district.

The applicant seeks approval for the modification of previously approved

planning board decisions,

decisions 2 21 and 3 22 to allow for the construction of a third floor

for the creation of six new residential dwelling units and associated site

improvements per section three E three E two B one,

four B five D, and six DD of the Natick zoning bylaw.

A copy of the application can be reviewed in the Community and Economic

Development office and on the website@natickma.gov, et cetera.

The virtual mis meeting link will may be found on the posted

agenda@natickma.gov per order. Natick planning board, Glen Beak,

Glader chair.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

I've, I've enjoyed the,

the email thread that I've been included on this week. It's, I laughed, I cried.

It was better than Kaz.

Why don't you kick off with an explanation of why you're here

tonight, what you'd like from us.

If you could just use the mic,

make sure that that little green light on the mic is actually glowing on.

And good evening everyone. My name's Rich Shafer.

I'm attorney for one South Maine,

LLC and we're here to do a modification on a,

a requesting modification for a special permit that was issued.

We have permission to construct a two story building and what we're here for

tonight is to modify that special permit to allow us to put a third floor of

six residential units on top. And so that's the purpose for our,

our attending this meeting.

Great. Do you want to.

Elaborate?

W would you like to say more or would you like to just get into the

presentation? 'cause I don't think anything is gonna come from the board yet.

I I can,

I can tell you that historically in our conversations the board has been largely

in favor of having a third store on the building.

I think that we tried to encourage you to do that back when you were here the

last time. So, you know, I I think from that point of view,

it's not necessarily gonna be a hard sell for the board.

I can't speak for the board, but you know, I know that there are, again,

reading the email thread, I know that there are some issues, but,

but we can try and work through those.

The only issue from the email thread is we wanna make sure that if the

conditions are such that we can't meet the conditions for the third floor,

that we're still okay to construct what we were approved for in the earlier

special permit.

Okay. So

I'll just comment on those things. There, there was one other issue and it,

it had to do with parking, so that's not the only issue,

but I do understand that that is an important issue to you guys.

The planning board has been bitten before by

making a statement about how

law works. None of us here, I don't think any of us here are lawyers.

So I think that to get a finite statement, unless Amanda,

unless you have a finite statement on that, to get a finite statement on that,

I think that's gonna have to go past town council and that the, the the,

the large part of the conversation was today we certainly couldn't get a

response from town council today. So we can work on getting that,

making sure that whatever changes are,

are made are not, I mean I I can't imagine that they would be mandatory,

but maybe some other members of the board could opine on that as well.

I assume you're the only one who's been on this email chain from the board.

Correct. So I don't.

So the the don't really have the, the, let me, let me try and and summarize it.

The applicant is concerned that if we modify the permit that they have so that

are allowed then to build a third story if for some reason

they're not allowed to build a third story,

that it would affect their ability to build the first two stories.

And I don't know the answer to that question. I don't think that it would,

but I don't, I'm not a lawyer and as you remember,

we made a statement at one point and got in trouble for that.

So I don't think we should do that again.

Mr. Chairperson. Stuart Rothman, manager of oneself. LLC.

Is the light. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah.

Light's on. So I think the issue for,

from our standpoint is there were letters from

the Board of Health design review and engineering

that restated conditions of

this permit that were somewhat dissimilar to

the conditions that were set for the prior special permit.

And so it, there were two issues here. First,

the approval by the planning board to do the third story,

but then our ability to do the third story with on a basis of an

economic evaluation, which we haven't done yet.

So in the event that we do not do the third story,

we want to apply the orders of condition that were

set forth in the prior special permit and not

the, these orders of condition that are being now

somewhat, not that dissimilar,

but a little dissimilar from that which were approved or

incorporated into the prior special permit. Okay.

So I, I would suggest that we get those issues addressed.

And what I haven't seen is a table saying,

here's what it said in the o other permit,

here's what it says in these letters that we've gotten. So I I,

I or Amanda can't go to the writers of those letters and say,

why are you saying this thing that's different than what we said before?

Is there a legal reason that you're saying that has law changed?

And so it has to be said differently or,

or are you just, you know,

rethinking the thoughts that you had and they're coming out a little bit

differently.

I can't address any of those things without knowing what they are and I don't

know what they are. So to be fair, it's, that's not pushing you off. I,

I seriously do not know what those differences are and I am happy to

investigate through the writers of the letters why they're different than

what, what was said originally. So would.

We're happy to forward a table to you after the meeting showing the differences.

This is fairly new information that's come to us as well.

Okay. Yeah.

Mr. Chair would be helpful to try to understand kind of something,

and I understand you've asked for this, a table of comparison,

but just to understand the scale or context of where those differences may

lie.

We're willing to elaborate. So one of,

and like I say some of these are, are fairly di minimis and,

and but in context with the fact that we've commenced the

project could be problematic.

One is regarding a water feed line that would otherwise have crossed from

Pond Street over to West Central. The

engineering department is requesting us to feed the waterline through West

Central versus crossing the courtyard path again

may be very di minimis. I don't know the extent of it, but you know,

again, we have concerns.

One is the issue of impermeable surface.

There there is a statement that there is a slight increase in the

impermeable surface. Again, it,

it seems to be pretty di minimis, but again, we're just, you know,

wanna

understand the implications and certainly if we don't do the third floor,

be able to take the prior recommendations from the

engineering department versus these, these newer

recommendations. And, and then I, I don't think any of us,

you know, in regards to the parking that you brought forward, Mr. Chairman,

I don't think any of us want to debate that tonight. I I, you know,

I think that it is a matter for town council. We have a certain opinion on it.

You may have a alternate opinion that, you know,

if it's we're willing to, you know,

negotiate this with town council and see, you know,

whether who's right, who's wrong on, on our, our behalf or the,

or yours. But I,

I don't see any of these issues being that significant.

I just want to clarify that. Rich,

do you have anything else to add?

Would you like us to talk about the parking issue or would you We have our

architect, you have 45 minutes to talk to us about.

The project. I think what we'd like to do,

what we'd like to do is bring on our architects so that we could share the

plants Okay.

And make a presentation on the three story building.

And Evan Stillman is online and I think that's the

appropriate person to, to lead the conversation.

Thank you.

To share a screen. Okay. I'll jump right in then. Hi everybody,

my name is Evan Stillman from CSSA Design Incorporated.

I will just share my screen real quick to pull up the presentation.

Can everybody see this?

Not yet.

Okay. Just tell me when it comes.

Up. Yep, now we got it.

Okay. So I'll just jump right into it.

Just to refamiliarize you with the site, we're at the corner of West Central,

south Main and Pond Street. We're proposing a three story structure.

This gray shaded region denotes the ground floor footprint.

We have an alleyway that connects West Central to Pond Street and we have a

courtyard in the middle of the site that spills out onto all three streets.

I just wanna show this table of floor area to highlight that we're

at 17,500 square feet and the previous scheme was about

10,670 square feet.

This is our proposed first floor footprint. As I mentioned,

there's these four separate massing on the ground floor that are separated by

passageways into the courtyard.

This ground floor level has six studios wrapping from

Pond Street around South Main and then up to West Central Street.

And this is what was previously approved. Not much has changed here.

I do just wanna point out that we did add a stair between Studio two and

Studio eight. We're not necessarily gonna construct that stair,

we just wanna have it in there as a placeholder in case the studios decide to

merge in the future.

This is the proposed second floor plan. Once it loads,

there we go. So there's four studios on the second floor.

Studio seven is at the back left corner and it wraps around Studio eight,

studio nine and Studio 10 opens up to West Central Street.

Not much has changed on this floor plan. This is what was previously approved.

So it's, it's basically the same other than that stair into Studio eight.

And then this is the brand new third floor floor plan.

We have six, six units here. The yellow units are studio units.

The orange ones are one bedroom units.

This reddish one is a one bedroom plus study unit.

And then this red unit would be a two bedroom unit.

So, sorry, so 2 1 1 2 bedroom.

So one two bedroom.

Three one bedrooms and two studios. Okay.

And then this is just our proposed roof plan. We are proposing a roof deck,

a publicly accessible roof deck for the,

the tenants and the users of the retail spaces.

And that's about 900 square feet up there on the roof.

These are our proposed elevations.

The top elevation here is the primary south main street elevation,

which faces the town common.

I'll toggle between this and what was previously approved.

There we go. So this is what you had previously approved.

This is what we have now. We extended the brick up one story.

We added some cementitious paneling between the heads of the second floor

windows and the sills of the third floor windows.

And we, we brought the brick all the way up to the parapet.

This bottom elevation here is the west central street elevation.

I'll just toggle between what you had approved before.

So this is the two story scheme that was previously approved.

And this is what we're proposing now. Again, the brick wraps up to the parapet.

The south main street elevation wraps the corner to West Central Street and then

we pick up the cementitious paneling for about two thirds of the facade

here. Moving on to the other two elevations.

This top elevation here is the pond street elevation.

Sorry, my computer's slow today. There we go.

So one thing to note is that we introduced this gradient green so it's

darker at the bottom and then it fades into a lighter green as it works its way

up to the top of the building.

This is what you had previously approved the two story scheme.

And this is what we're looking at now. So again,

the south main street brick facade wraps the corner to Pond Street and then the

rear two thirds is the cement cementitious paneling.

This bottom elevation is the courtyard elevation. Again,

you can see that the facade from Pond Street wraps around with that

gradient green.

And one thing to note here is that we are introducing a more playful colored

courtyard that occurs just in the,

the courtyard space outside of the view from the public realm.

But it does spill through through all of the passageway.

And this is what you had approved before on that elevation at the bottom here.

So all of the materials have not changed where essentially taking everything and

dragging it up one floor. So these materials are what were approved by the DRB.

Hmm.

And I just included this sheet showing the height comparisons.

We're right here in the middle bringing it up one story.

And finally we have the perspective views.

I'll highlight this view on the top right.

This is the primary south main street facade.

You can see through the passageways some of the colors starting to spill out

there.

And then this is what you had approved before.

So this is what was approved and this is what we're looking at now.

If Stew and Rich don't have anything to add, I think we're,

we're happy to open it up to questions or comments now.

Very good. You have anything to.

Add? Yes, a couple things. First,

I'd like to remind the board that we actually had to get special

permission to have a,

a lower building that this additional floor puts us more in compliance or in

compliance with the zoning for height. We were below the threshold.

Of course when we add the additional space to get to the threshold

where we should be in the downtown area,

that increases the parking demand and that's gets the parking question.

And there's two aspects of the parking.

One is the permission that we might need from the board.

And I've done my analysis and I,

I hope I everyone's had a chance to look at it as to what

permission we might need from the board. From my analysis,

I don't think we need permission,

but there might be some disagreement from the town council on that.

And the reason,

the way I look at it is that at the time that the building was destroyed

by the fire,

what was the demand that our tenants were putting on parking?

And according to the,

the bylaws at that time we were essentially using 21 spaces

in the downtown area for the tenants and their customers

to utilize the space. And so I said, okay, what, what do,

what can we do there without increasing that demand and we can put the third

floor on without increasing the demand over the 21 spaces that we were using

in the, in the prior construction. So I'm looking at like,

we had a grandfathered use of 21 spaces and we're staying within that

use with the third floor because what's happened is the town meeting

has adopted more lenient requirements for parking demand for the downtown

mixed use area. And so we're just trying to

sort of further that public policy of increasing the density in the DMM

district.

Excuse me. Allow me just to, to ask you,

you referenced that you were seeking permission but did not

say what you were seeking permission to do.

So is the permission that you don't want to have to add any additional

parking above and beyond the grandfathered numbers that you just.

Said? My analysis is that we don't need to, and you know, I,

I'm getting some

feedback from the building commissioner that was in opposition to that. Okay.

So I, I presented this to the board, my analysis. So I think it's more correct

if the board should agree with the building commissioner,

then we'll need six spaces because that's the sixth space requirement for the

And that's the permission that I would need if this board would like to adopt

the view of the building commissioner.

So I'm not speaking for the board once again,

but there is no overnight parking in Natick and those spaces that you're talking

about are on street parking.

So I'm not exactly sure how somebody living in one of your residences would

park their vehicle and, and not, well,

we don't tow but not get ticketed.

I I think there's two aspects to this.

One is the legal aspect is what's the parking demand?

And the other is something that we all share is how are the tenants gonna live

and where are they gonna park. That's the second part.

The actual on the ground spaces is something that we'll have to solve.

Otherwise we won't be able to build the third floor because we won't be able to

rent it because people won't want the space

if they can't park nearby.

So we have both the legal requirement whether we have to have a decision from

the board, whether we need

special permit approval to,

for the six spaces that might or might not be missing.

And then also we have to work out a solution as to how people are actually gonna

park. They're gonna live there.

So hold on one second. It is very distracting. I can't call on you yet.

The board hasn't spoken. I see that you wanna speak and I will Thank you.

I'm, I'm a little confused. Again,

I don't want this to be back and forth only between me, between us telling you,

you have to find six spaces offsite and you telling me

that you have to find six spaces offsite.

So what is the difference there if we were to put that into the decision or

it's not in the decision?

Well, one's, one's a legal requirement and the other is more, you know, our,

you know, our, our ability to secure the six spaces and,

and it's a practical real life, six spaces.

And the other is whether we need something in decision that requires the six

spaces. Okay. The ultimate result might be the same.

I I I, I could continue this discussion because I have lots of thoughts on it,

but, but I'm not going to,

is there anybody on the board who has any questions? Andy?

First thing is, I I,

my little gizmo here doesn't seem to wanna open up the parking calculation for

the spreadsheet XLS.

So I don't know if somebody might be able to print that or put it up or, so

thank you.

That's, is that the Excel spreadsheet that you were there,

there's something here that said parking calculation for third floor version

three do XLS, which I assume is an Excel spreadsheet. Yes it is.

Is that this? Yeah. Yes, I incorporated that into the letter Okay.

That I sent to the board.

Okay. Just first of all,

thank you for coming back. I understand that you were under construction.

I I I think it's just important to set the tone that I realize sometimes

applicants obviously have a certain sense of impatience,

like I need to get this done and I need to get through this.

And sometimes that kind of sets the tone for the meeting and I we,

we are interested in getting through it too. But I, I do,

I do think there are some things we're gonna have to sort of sort through.

So I just appreciate right off the bat we're approaching this with patients.

'cause I think this is gonna take some analysis. The second thing is,

I I thought I may have understood that you were gonna be marketing these

apartments with no parking, like almost a Cambridge model. That when,

when they were being leased, the the,

the tenants would understand that they are not getting any parking spaces.

I is that actually the plan?

Yes, in fact that is,

and we would be marketing to people that are

transient using the train

and local, local people that didn't have a car.

But I think that the issue for us is the application

of the parking and lu fee,

which we feel is incorrect because in fact we have,

the historical number of spaces that meet the demand for this building as

my attorney said,

this is a legal issue and then a practical issue.

And from the practical standpoint,

I do believe that we can canvas private property owners

in the area for overnight parking.

I do believe that we will be successful in that endeavor if they are

so, if they so be, have a car, you know, but I,

I don't think that's gonna be necessary here.

I do believe we're gonna be able to market these two people that are taking mass

transit.

So the tricky thing is if I were to let's say support the argument

that the parking spaces are grandfathered and and there's only a requirement of

six, sort of go along with that and say, okay,

we're gonna now have these units in downtown Natick and they're gonna be leased

with the understanding that there is no parking provided.

You know, that, that's all. I mean I I I think I can go along with that.

The tricky thing is that if,

let's say everybody that rents the unit just has like one car,

first of all, I think from an enforcement standpoint they're,

they're gonna be it, you know,

the town of Natick is not gonna know that there are, you know, you know,

5, 6, 7 cars associated with this. And if they are going to, you know,

I think we've all lived in cities from time to time and you sneak around and you

park it here and you park it there and all that kind of stuff. You know,

I don't know if we're gonna officially know that,

but is it one of these like nod and winky kind of things?

Like we know what's coming and is that the,

is that the best thing for the planning board to do? Should,

should the planning board be more proactive in making sure that there are no

cars with this? I don't know how we do that.

'cause a person could rent from you and live six weeks without a car,

then buy a car and then, you know,

park it at the bank and then park it over here and park it over there and,

and we would never know it. So it saying that, you know,

we followed the grandfathered analysis and saying that you only have six

available and saying well we can go to sleep at night 'cause there aren't gonna

be no car, no additional cars with these units.

But we kind of know that they will, that there will be, I don't know how,

how much of a hard ass to be about that because, you know, you know,

parking analysis of properties like this when you do a parking study,

it doesn't show up. It's, it's negligible. There's, there's no impact.

It does not show up in, in traffic compared to the traffic at downtown Natick,

these additional 4, 5, 6 cars parked sporadically, legally,

illegally here and there. What are, they're invisible. So I,

I dunno how much time we we're trying to spend trying to wrangle that.

I do appreciate that our town engineer is here and he has written on,

on this and so I I do wanna, I do wanna call on him.

I will I will say just in terms of the project,

I I I really appreciate that this could be just

a block in the middle of our town and I really appreciate

the colors, I appreciate the attempts to enliven the space.

I'm glad that we still have entrances from three sides, four sides to,

against the courtyard. I like the colors in the courtyard.

I like the additional height.

So I'm looking at this from a perspective of trying to get it done.

I understand that you've already under con you're,

you are under construction so the idea of spending months on this would not be

very pleasant. I understand in general, I'm okay with the height.

I'm okay with the design and I, I I do recognize the,

the issue of the grandfather and the grandfathering of the parking spaces and I

guess it's just a question of, you know,

how much of a hard ass do we want to be about it.

I I do want to hear Bill McDowell talk more about it 'cause I do definitely

respect his opinion. So that's, that's kind of where I am.

I'm happy to hear more and listen more to Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else?

Dory? Thank you. I'll,

I'll actually speak before talking about parking,

about design and the plan.

I know you met with the design review board yesterday and we got

a memo from them. They were very supportive of the increased height,

recognizing the kind of consistency in the character of,

of building height in Natick Center.

They did make mention of some concerns regarding the,

the facade on West Central Street and about,

they described it as the DRB was mixed on the color and roof line of the first

story storefront projection along West Central.

They recommend this particular building area be studied further and simplified.

And so I take it that that is a work in progress but it's not,

they haven't simply said it looks great there,

there are things that they're very interested in following up on.

They also cited a few comments that they had made originally in,

in early 2022 in that decision that they

kind of want to revisit or want to ensure is, is carried forward.

And then they actually had a laundry list of about 10 things concerning building

mechanicals and all of those others. You've seen the memo. I know.

So you'll be familiar.

I just want to make sure that we're all aware of that as we're going through

that. There are these questions in terms of design

and yes to, to your point Attorney Schaeffer. Yes,

it was article six of the fall 2020 town meeting that changed

the parking requirements both for first floor retail

and reducing the,

the parking requirements for residential in the, in the dmm.

And it was probably in,

in part due to the challenges that are faced in figuring out where

people park when the buildings they are in many instances occupying are,

are landlocked and have very little opportunities for parking.

So I,

I can't say we've seen a whole lot of stuff happen since then that has,

has made that all work better.

But it is what it is on par, the issue of parking,

I'm one who believes it's a practical problem more than

a legal one. And I say that as someone who lives two blocks from Natick Center.

And what I am, what I have really come to notice in the last,

probably in the last six months is the astonishing amount of street parking that

is clearly not street parking associated with businesses that are

on Main Street or on the immediate side streets.

I I was in Natick Center literally just off Main Street at 10

o'clock on a Sunday morning it,

where there was nothing else going on around. And every street spot,

every street parking spot was filled. It was astonishing. I,

I remember circling around thinking didn't cross my mind.

I'd need to try to find, I'd have trouble finding a parking place.

And so I think that's a, a very real problem that's happening.

We're seeing it in part on Washington Street and some of the

residents in the building on the southwest corner there in this instance,

they actually were required to do a long-term lease for parking spaces that are

about two blocks away from their building.

And yet there there is an issue with some of the residents of that building

who do not feel comfortable being, having to walk the two blocks to their car.

And so and so they park on the street overnight.

Parking is only banned from November 1st to April 1st,

I believe possibly April 30th. So there's some of the year that you can,

but what's what seems to be happening, it's, it's not just overnight.

It's not like everybody gets up and goes out at seven in the morning and their

space is free.

I start recognizing the cars that I see on a daily basis.

That is my concern about identifying parking with,

with some of the other buildings. And in this, I think of the one on,

at the southwest corner of South Avenue Washington, they,

they took out their, they took out a lease. They didn't have a car at the time.

Job changed. They suddenly needed a car, didn't wanna move.

And the answer they came up with was parking on the street.

There were, there were those who had even made a point that if I,

if they parked on the street,

it was cheaper to just pay parking tickets for parking on the street.

that does not solve our problem in keeping commercial spaces

available for the businesses that are there.

So that's my very long-winded way of saying,

I think we have to find some mechanism for accommodating at least a

nominal amount of parking for the sake of the businesses.

Not even in the immediate vicinity,

but within a a two block radius.

'cause that seems to be kind of how far the problem spreads.

Even the retail businesses that you're planning on opening in, in your building.

If if there's no spaces, people aren't gonna want to go.

Anybody else Doug?

Yeah, yeah. I'm not going to beat the parking issue to death here.

I agree with both Andy and Terry.

I think it's more of a practical issue as well. I mean, you know,

we have Middlesex Ave sitting there vacant, you know,

and that's a town asset that we ought to be planning for, you know,

to solve some of these problems we're talking about right now.

But that's another time.

I'm curious about the process or the progress

where you're at right now. You've, you've got, it's under construction,

you're exercising that building permit under the previous decision,

the two story, right?

So I'm curious why our town engineer is looking at

the utility plan for a three story and coming up with issues

on this plan and the way the utilities arranged. Just for, for this.

W what is the issue?

I mean are there differences between the two story plan and the three story

plan? Okay, what are they, and

I guess why weren't these sorted out before this came before the board?

Because it seems awfully odd You're under construction with a certain utility

layout for your site and now you wanna come back and change it and you're

uncomfortable I guess with the comments of the town engineer I,

something's gotta give. So can you explain that? That yes.

I, I think I can. So in truth,

we just received these comments a few weeks ago.

So first of all I wanna,

I want to have everybody understand the process of where we're at.

We have a permit to do site work and facilitate

the footings and the slab and we took that out and we got the

permit over the summer. So we have a limited permit right now.

We have CD plans for the two.

We have com complete set of CD plans for the two story

property that we have a special permit for which we'll go in tomorrow morning to

the,

to the building department if we decide not to go forward with the

So I just want you to understand that that is done and it's complete

and we're holding off on,

on bringing that forward with this possibility of a third floor.

So when we requested our MEPS and our

structural engineer to go forward with the current CD set,

we asked them to provide adequate,

you know,

to prepare for a potential third floor prepare for

soffits that would go into these units and go to the third floor feeds,

et cetera.

And also structurally that we could support the third floor.

So we have that in process.

That's part of the CD set that we currently have.

So in fact,

if we go forward with the third floor and Evan can speak to this more

specifically,

we really have a really good jumpstart to get the third floor

documentation done quickly.

Evan suggested I believe eight to 12 weeks and

most of that is his work. Some MEP work and,

but basically we can facilitate this very quickly.

So that kind of gives you an outline.

We are busy for the next several months with the site work.

There may be a pause,

but that pause is not only necessary because of the potential of the third

floor,

it's also still we are having huge constraints in getting materials and

specifically the switching gear for the electric. It's several,

several months out.

So we are in the process of starting to order all this stuff.

But again this is dependent on whether we're talking about a two story or a

three story property. So we're waiting, so time is of the essence,

but I want you to understand that this is not going to be detrimental to the

long term view of getting this building done.

So I think

that the issue here is not necessarily as,

like I say, I think a lot of these recommendations were pretty di minimis.

I do think there's a different water feed coming in for the third floor

versus what was being fed for the two stories.

Now I personally don't understand why that is. I,

I trust my, my engineers and my meps to do their job.

So I think that's what these comments are about. I do think that

we haven't had a real chance to open this up and scrutinize

it in detail so,

'cause we just got it but I don't think any of these are

that problematic in regards to the big picture.

To me it's just, it were me.

I'm not gonna tell you how to do your your or direct your consultants,

but if you had a bird in hand and you had a utility

layout and a site plan approved,

why not give the direction to your design team to say just plug and play,

put the third floor on, don't muck around with the layout of the utilities.

'cause now you're in a dilemma.

You're gonna be doing stuff in the ground you just said for a couple of months.

But on what plan? The two story plan,

the three story plan that might take a little while to get approved. I just,

and if you, if you're.

Comfortable with that, we're doing,

we're doing the two story plan and that's what we're facilitating.

And basically the recommendation,

if I recall correctly on the water feed was because it was

the recommendation of the engineering department that we should also feed from

West Central and avoid going underneath the courtyard.

Now I think that's a preference call,

not necessarily something that's flawed with regards to our engineer or our MEP.

And so we are analyzing this and seeing if we can,

if we can feed the residential from West Central then we'll do it.

I mean that's not a problem for us, but we just don't know.

We haven't had enough time 'cause these just became open to us.

These recommendations just became available to us. Well.

My last comment is, you know, this is an important

site for down, for for Natick. You know it's Maine and Maine and you know,

I can appreciate all, all you've been through to get to this point.

I wanna see something done there.

Everybody is anxious to see something done there and we wanna work with you to

get it done as quickly as possible. You know,

I want to get to yes on this. There is, Amanda,

can you help me with this? With multifamily as part of this?

What is the majority vote? Yeah, it's just 3 0 5.

It would be because, okay, on. Okay,

so let's go. Alright.

Peter, do you have any comments, questions?

Oh, I think most of the, the important ones are, are, have been discussed.

I think that some of these important ones should be decided before

we can approve a third floor. Like the, like the utility,

like the parking. Right now we're talking

possibly this way, possibly that way.

I understand the situation as it exists right now,

but to me, when I saw the foundation in the ground or going in the ground,

the excavation, the site work going on and then I just,

then I see an application for a third floor. I,

I question that to me what's happening is we're going at risk now.

This project was begun in a hole in the ground at risk because major

decisions were not made.

They weren't even under uncovered until these letters came in.

And a couple of things have, have come up. I believe we should resolve these

few things and these di minimus things and

determine how dimi they di minimus they are and then go on from there.

Very good. Thank you. Chris do you have anything?

No, nothing.

Thank you Mr. Dell.

Chairperson. I just want to be very clear, okay, our intention,

regardless of this decision, okay, whether it's positive or negative,

whether it's economically viable, which we don't know yet.

We are committed to doing the two stories and that is gonna get done and I

don't want anybody to leave thinking like this is third story

is the requirement for this project to get done.

This two story project is gonna get done and it will be available by 2025.

I I I,

I want to make sure you understand that in spirit,

the planning board is completely behind you. As Doug said,

we wanna see something in that.

We understand that you have a two story building approved. So,

and third story is, is bonus we, we all said at the time, we want a third story.

We want to work with you to, to get, to get to the right place. So

we need to do that within the bylaws of the town.

We need to do that within what's reasonable and feasible. So nobody is,

nobody is against you in this at all. We are all standing,

you know, theoretically behind you.

So Bill, I don't know if you're still on the call comment.

Alright. Andy's gonna make one comment and then Bill, I'd just like if I,

I don't wanna put you on the spot.

Are you able to just SS speak toward any of the

stuff that you heard about the utilities and those things?

I am Alright.

Let, let me hear from Andy and then I'll come back to you. Bill, thank you. No,

I I just wanna say I,

I don't wanna skip any steps that are gonna preclude a third story. You know,

if, if there is something that happens in this pro,

I mean I understand it's a two story building,

but if there's a thought of a third story and we do something here that block

you a corner where you can't do it, that would be a shame. I mean, so the, the,

I think that's kind of what we're exploring is making sure that,

I don't know everything from the utilities to the, you know, all,

all the other considerations aren't gonna prevent you and say oh well geez,

it would've been nice if we had done that. So I mean,

so that's kind of what I see the exercise as.

But maybe a good segue over to Bill then. Thank you Bill.

Thank you. So in the letter that I wrote,

I did note that parking would be a consideration.

I leave that to the board's deliberation.

I agree that it is a practical problem more so than a legal problem.

The fact that there is not a great deal of on street parking

within the limits of, you know, the block itself there.

They would be taking up the better part of the spaces that are there even with

just six cars parked there. But again, I,

I leave that to the board's deliberation.

I make no real representation regarding, you know, my,

my feelings towards a legal standpoint of whether parking is required or not.

Just that as people have said, parking is a practical issue.

Well as far as the utilities,

the original plan had the mechanical room or the sprinkler room on the

pond street side and the water mains,

they're not small. It's a six inch waterman and a four inch waterman.

One for fire protection and one for domestic use. Were they,

to break that would be a problem where they to break, you know,

within the courtyard or underneath one of the clo enclosed spaces,

that could be a real problem as far as maintenance.

So the comment in the letter is just that that is not an ideal configuration

and it just puts the courtyard and those spaces that the water main crosses

under at risk.

There are several service crossings for sewer and water that would just

make it that much more problematic to repair.

So knowing that water mains don't often break, but that they do break,

that was the consideration. I want the applicant to be aware of that.

I want the planning board to be aware of that.

The water main in West Central Street is actually on the northerly side of

the street. So it is all the way across West Central Street.

It would be much easier connection to connect the water in off of Pond Street,

which is, as we have been speaking to the contractor,

that is what they're going forward with. Again,

it's just as we note in the plant,

it's not ideal and I normally do not put water mains

underneath enclosed spaces. If I ever had to maintain it underneath that,

that could be extremely difficult.

We did make mention of the grease trap as well.

That was not something that was included in the original design.

It is located within the courtyard.

And what we had mentioned was we would just like to speak with your MEP

engineers regarding those locations to see if that could be worked out.

And we just were, when we spoke to the, or in the letter to the planning board,

we noted we would prefer that this was not approved in this particular

configuration until those conversations were had. So again,

not an ideal configuration,

but we're not opposed to it and it is not something that would stop the building

a as it as it is designed. And you know, just speaking for myself personally,

I'm very happy with this design. I like it.

I think it's gonna be a great addition to that corner.

So I am with the planning board as far as that goes.

We have a project that's there if we can augment it, we're happy to do so.

And you know,

are willing to work with the owner and with the owners engineers to make sure

that this is something that is as risk-free as as it can be.

Thank you.

So it sounds to me like some of the things that you are

concerned about can be worked out through conversations between your engineers

with the town engineer. Just lay everything out on the table,

have a professional conversation about what the best option is.

Maybe your engineers will come around to his way of thinking, maybe, you know,

he'll say, okay, you do what, what you, you do you,

but we'll just go, we need to go forward with those, with those conversations.

We have some questions about the legal issues around parking.

I think that we can maybe I would encourage you to put together,

I think you already have a letter,

maybe you could resend it on that thread that's been going around and

we can try and run that past town council. Just have,

have we asked town council yet about this.

Amanda? Sorry, what what is, what what legal,

I think we've all been saying practical, the practical need department.

The applicant is, feels that they're have a number that's grandfathered.

Oh no, I understand. And I don't, I mean,

and that's why I think several of us have all said it's not the legal point,

it's the practical point of the need for parking.

And I'm, I think there's both.

I.

I I think there's both. So I think.

There's also.

If there weren't a legal issue, there would still be practical,

a practical issue.

No, I understand that. Yeah. But there is a legal issue as well.

And so I just want to get an answer to a question. That's all.

I would just say the, the the two permit issue as well. I like to have.

It. And the two permit issue as well. Yes.

We wanna make sure that you're protected. So hold on one second.

Peter, you started a sentence and didn't finish it.

No, I, I believe there is also a legal issue.

Okay. I like when people agree with me. Thank you. Okay,

so I'm gonna close discussion on this now 'cause we're running very low on time.

There is at least one member of the public,

pseudo public who is here and wishes to speak.

So Mr. Joseph, if you would come up to the podium and introduce yourself.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Paul Joseph,

member of the select board and the select board liaison to the Economic

development Committee. And with respect, apologies for interrupting you before.

No worries.

Wasn't sure where you were in the process.

Obviously not an attorney and not no opinion on the legal interpretation of,

of the letter that I think is you've been discussing. But on the practical side,

I do wanna bring it to the planning board's attention.

And Mr. Landry being an EDC member will hear this tomorrow in new business.

I've, I've actually started a process, had a brief conversation with Ms.

Loomis and Mr. Erickson separately about the practicality of parking.

Given the density of housing we're trying to attract downtown,

the fact that we don't have overnight parking and maybe something designated for

residents is going to be an,

an impedance for this development and potentially others.

I should also disclose, I own two locations of one business in Natick Center,

one of which is a block away from this development. So what I'm,

I'm proposing to bring to the board,

whether it's a new business or if we can get it on the agenda for next week,

is a discussion about looking at the Pond Street lot and looking at AC

adjacencies in public rights of way to potentially incorporate a 12

hour overnight residential permit and open up some of this because

we have developments coming online in various parts of Natick Center.

Mr. Landry mentioned Middlesex Ave as well. This side of town would present a,

a tremendous opportunity for us to start something in earnest to start

exploring ways to integrate practical parking for the density of housing.

We do anticipate over the next five or 10 years,

especially with the MBT Communities Act and the,

just the preference of people to have that density.

So I think we're just living through this era of transition where people aspire

to not have cars, but practically speaking, as you've all articulated,

they do end up having them.

And I know from experience trying to visit my parents when they temporarily

owned a condo in town,

having minimal visitor spaces was always challenging as well.

So I think we all are aware of the practicality of it and as at least in the

select board capacity to influence policy in terms of allowing overnights and

whether it's a lease or some kind of a long-term proposal.

Looking at the Pond Street lot I think is a practical one that could have

immediate impact for this project. So again,

given in the spirit of the discussions that sound like they're forthcoming,

I just wanted you to be aware of that.

This is something I want to raise through the EDC and through the select board.

Thank.

You. Thank you.

And that addresses some of the questions that you had on that email thread as

well, because currently there is no way to lease spaces in that parking lot.

But now you hear that the town is thinking about that. At any rate,

so I'm, I'm just gonna make one more comment 'cause I, I,

I made some comments at the beginning and then I skipped me.

And I love the Cambridge model, I love the Somerville model.

I love thinking of downtown Natick being like Davis Square that, you know,

vibrant full of people, full of restaurants, full of stuff.

The problem is that downtown Natick is not that,

and if somebody's gonna live in downtown without a car,

they're either gonna get their groceries delivered,

which I understand is the latest and greatest new paradigm for, for, for,

I'm not even that latest and greatest. It's been around for a while. But,

but you know, growing up in Natick, excuse me, I didn't grow up in Natick,

living in Natick for the last 30 years. I felt like I grew up in Natick.

In, I grew old in Natick. You know,

if we needed to go to stop and shop at Roche brothers or, or any store,

each of them is two miles from my house and I wasn't gonna walk and carry

groceries back. So, you know, it's just something I think,

I think we need to keep eyes wide open to reality. And, and,

and it's good to say, as everybody has said, you know, oh,

that they're gonna say we're not gonna have a car. And then they,

then they're gonna need to get someplace at a certain time every day.

And the only way to do that, 'cause we don't have Somerville, Cambridge,

they have the, the, the t the MBTA bus lines run through there constantly.

And we don't have that. The M-W-R-T-A just, it,

it would take me two hours to get to Roche brothers. I could, I could

crawl there faster.

But what I will, what I will say the M-W-R-T-A does well,

and I'd love to figure out ways to kind of work with that is with reverse

commuters,

especially say MathWorks employees who come out on commuter

rail and the buses get them to work and back.

Absolutely. And I've seen the mw, I, I'm not gonna say those letters again.

I've seen them at the Woodland Station picking up people who are coming out of

the city and, and needing to get places. I I, I'm not,

I'm not trying to dis them as a bus line.

I'm just saying that they are not the t they are not the Somerville and

Cambridge so much. They thank God. Yeah, no kidding. Okay,

so our next meeting, could.

We, could I ask Mr. Chair, we haven't heard from Ms. Loomis?

We haven't Ms. Loomis.

So I think the big thing was just the parking and we are working

offline just to determine if we can create that overnight parking.

So that is something that you should be seeing hopefully in the next future

meeting or so,

working with the select board and also kind of the applicant as well.

Thank you. Keeping it brief, I apologize.

Our next meeting is the Wednesday after Thanksgiving.

The meeting after that is December 6th and the meeting after that is

December 20th. I know.

'cause I have all kinds of pieces of paper in front of me now. So.

So that's November 29th.

November 29th. Okay. We currently December,

how many have on in that meeting?

We're gonna start with an executive session and then we have one,

one application that we're going to hear

maybe before you, I don't know if, if the 29th works for you, the sooner.

The better for us.

We want to keep the.

Process moving.

Quickly. Okay. So the 29th it is then.

Mr. Cherry, are you, would you like a motion?

Yes, please.

Motion to continue the public hearing to November 29th.

Second. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor Peter.

Aye Chris? Aye Doug? Aye. Andy,

I am gonna say aye,

but there is a hand raise so I don't know if maybe it's somebody else in the

public. Oh, okay. Alright.

Before we finish you, you did tell me earlier that you were here for this.

Would you like to speak? You can't speak from there.

You gotta come up to the mic and identify yourself.

My name is Matt Connell. I've already written the board so you may.

Address two, please.

Pardon.

Me. Address two please.

Oh, 10 West Central Street directly abutting this project.

So I don't know where to begin. I didn't really have a lot of time to prepare.

Clearly there's a lot of things I don't know,

but five or six times the applicant used the word de minimis

and the presentation that his architect just gave said the new plan is 17,000

square feet.

The original plan that you've already approved and presumably a building permit

has been issued upon is 10,000.

That's not di minimis.

So I have a lot of reasons not to like the new request

one is, it's more than three stories. It's three stories plus a patio,

plus a elevator shaft, plus HVAC equipment.

My building will never see the sun again. Then there's parking,

then there's safety. I could go on and on. I'm not truly prepared.

So forgive me for stumbling a little bit here.

There's been some talk about legal, about practical.

I can talk about practical.

What will happen if you put six apartments on the third floor of this building

is they will park on my lot and that will really inconvenience my tenants. And

this board is really nice.

I want to bring you a project based on what I'm watching today.

But I think the simple answer, the easy answer is no, no,

you can't put a third floor on,

we've already exhaustively talked about what are you doing there?

And the current constraint is not the town, it's not the lawyers,

it's the builder.

You just put in foundations ruling out the idea of underground or

of full basement or you created your own constraint by putting these

footings in for the permit that you've been approved for a two story building.

Sounds like what I'm hearing is this late idea of putting a third

story on isn't really a late idea, but a tactic.

We're gonna put in future pipes and power and we're gonna,

we're gonna be ready for when you do change parking rules and then we'll put the

third story on.

Or maybe we won't put the third story on if it's not economically feasible.

But we, but we just like the option is kind of what I'm hearing.

There is no real, like I just have to repeat what I said a moment ago.

Clearly there's a lot about this project, I don't know, but that's odd.

Like if you're building something, normally you go to your neighbor and say,

here, here's what I'm gonna do. What do you think that hasn't happened here?

I know from public meetings and watching these things on Zoom over the last

three or four years, I know a little bit about where we are,

but I just learned about this new idea of a third story when the card came in

the mail saying, Hey, request for modification here. I'm opposed.

I could go on and on. But I think I've made my point.

So thank you for listening.

Thank you. Very good. So we had, we,

we had a motion, we had a second.

If if it's in rebuttal to what you just heard then I'd rather not.

Aye you voted. Aye. Aye. I voted. Aye. And I vote Aye as well.

So we are continued to November 29th.

I encourage you to work with the town engineer to have your engineers work with

the town engineer and, and,

and handle some of that questions

and,

and we will work with town council to see if we can get clarification on some of

the other questions that you asked. Great, thank.

You.

Next on the agenda, three 30 Speed Street.

Wow, that was an hour. Yeah, a little,

a little discombobulated too.

Amanda, do you have an update from, from the town before we get started?

Yeah, the last time we.

Were here Amanda, I'm sorry. Hold, hold on.

Oh sorry. Peter can do it if he wants.

So we have had a lot of things going on since the applicant,

the members of the mall team and then also Deputy Chief Lizza

also all met out on site.

There is a letter in response from Vinod and then also

there has been discussions with Deputy Chief Lizanne.

Based on those discussions,

the applicant has agreed to work with the police department

through the implementation of the project to kind of address the concerns.

So that is the condition in the draft decision.

Other than that we have a draft decision that was circulated.

We did receive some comments. Those were incorporated in it.

Is the addition in your packets with REV at the very end of it?

Originally I was going to be removing the special permit modification

for special permit APG. However,

we are gonna keep that just because we are noticing noting it in the findings.

But there are no onsite changes other than that.

It's pretty straightforward.

Thank you.

I just, the iteration we did meet on site.

Concern. Mike, please.

Can you just bring the mic closer to you, please make sure that light is on.

You go. So we did meet on site. I heard the concerns.

We did submit a revised plan for parking in front of the building,

which had some circulation changes as well as some signage that was reviewed,

comments made, revised plans. So that plan is,

is now the plan we're proposing, it's referenced as Amanda said, in the,

in the condition that we have to implement that as well as work on the other

potential changes. So we've read through the decision,

we don't have any issues with it and hopefully we can move forward.

Thank you. Do you guys have anything that you want to add?

Okay,

what I didn't see is a response to Vivino's letter

from Deputy Chief Lizanne has, has he said Yeah,

that's what I meant. That's what we talked about. That's good.

Put that in the decision.

There was an email today. Yeah.

Yeah. There was from.

It should be in your packets under police and

applicant under tonight's agenda,

right packet with today's date on it.

I see an email from Vinod, I get that.

11 0 8 20 23.

Is at two 18.

At two 19. Yep.

Friday is what I see an email from Friday at two 19.

There's one from today. Where is that one?

You keep going all the way down.

And.

And there's Brian's.

On. Thank you.

It's weird. The new stuff doesn't pop on on top for some reason. No,

that's weird.

My understanding applicant has express work.

And Amanda, I apologize for the late, I think I just had scribner's errors. Did.

You I got those in. Thank you.

Very much.

Okay, so I do see this and, and to be totally honest,

I did see this before, but I didn't know that that was in response to that. So,

so he is saying yeah,

go ahead and incorporate the new plan and also something that says

that you're going to keep working with,

I don't know Amanda, he's referencing Kenny Mitchell. What is, what is his role?

Kenny Mitchell does the timing and sinking of the wiring of the lights.

For the town. For the.

Town, yes.

Okay. But those, I thought those lights were under state control.

The lights for Chrysler Road and Novell Way are actually under town control.

Okay.

And those were modified,

but they are gonna keep an active eye on those to see if it was working.

Okay. And

so Deputy Chief Loza is suggesting that Kenny should be consulted,

but I'm not sure who should consult him or what he should be consulted about.

So the applicant was going to agree to work with the police department on

the onsite circulation and then I'm assuming the mall will be working

with Kenny on that since it is a bigger mall issue,

especially during the holiday time, it does change.

Okay. But how do we put that into a decision that requires the mall to do that?

We will let the mall team know.

They've been very responsive on our other requests.

Okay. Alright. Very.

Good. If I may, if I may add a clarification on that topic.

So the second part of the email where Deputy Chief Lizanne reference to

Ken Mitchell and, and the signal timing coordination.

I think the background on that is the town has already made some changes.

There was a disconnect of some sort between the two signals. So you,

you hit red light one after the other and that's not how it should operate.

And I believe there's been some technology changes that were made at the two

signals to address the issue.

And Kenny Mitchell apparently has other ideas, you know,

if if if there needs to be additional changes or modifications,

he has some additional ideas that could be explored.

And so that's all Deputy chief was referring to the fact that there are other

ideas that Ken Mitchell has for longer term future

But my understanding is that the problem has been addressed at this time. It,

you know, it may not be the full solution, it may not be the the perfect fix,

but, but there is a solution out on the street currently.

Okay. Yep.

So Vinno, can you clarify,

so this workable plan on site that's being referenced here,

what does that actually mean?

So based on the feedback we received at the last hearing

that that we should work with the deputy chief, we met with him last Monday. We,

based on his input,

we developed a plan signage and parking circulation plan that

addresses his comments. We submitted that back to him.

He was out in the field I think yesterday reviewing the plan in the field with,

with that graphic in hand.

Describe what that is. Describe what that is.

So the plan, it's, it's part of your record, but it essentially,

there is some signage changes as you're entering from Speed Street.

There would be a sign that says bossy you bear, right? Or if you wanna park,

you bear left and then you go farther down on the driveway,

you would encounter a, a stop line and a stop sign.

Currently there is no stop line as you're entering the mall going towards the

mall entrance. It's, it's just a free flow.

And then also the circular driveway that you have occasionally you see people

driving the wrong way on the circular drop off driveway.

And he had suggested that we consider putting,

do not enter signs on that plan and which, which we did.

So there are series of changes like coming outta one of the dry whiles.

We were suggesting that drivers would only be able to make a left turn because

the right turn is too hard. And you see the scrapes and dents on the,

on the planter because of the tight turning radius. Yeah.

I mean it's, it's more regulatory than it is. These.

These are all regulatory, no signage, physical changes to curbing,

no changes to the planters. These are just signage and parkings.

But then recognizing the fact that there is an element of field adjustment

that's needed when implementing these changes.

The arrangement we have with the deputy chief is that when the changes are being

implemented,

he would be out in the field directing the team on exactly what,

what he wants to see. Whether it's a stop line and no, no left turn,

do not enter. He would,

he would have input on where exactly those devices would go in the field.

And you know, that that's generally essentially what he had mentioned. Are.

You willing to put your pe

I mean I I I respect Deputy Chief Loon for what he does,

but that does not make me comfortable.

We will a police officer in the field placing regulatory

traffic signs.

There are engineering standards and M-U-T-C-D standards that need

to be adhered to,

not an opinion of a police officer. Right.

So with all due respect.

Maybe if I, if I could restate it so it's not an,

a dynamic or an instantaneous, like him telling a contractor to stripe a line.

There's, we, we would go through a sharp drawing reviews.

So there is actually a plan that's generated by the contractor with input,

presumably from, from the deputy chief.

And it would come presumably to VHP as the engineer of record to confirm that

those signs and markings conform to M-U-T-C-D and and design standards.

And once VHP signs off on it, then the contractor would implement.

I mean that's, that's the standard process for implementing any traffic devices.

So we expect that that'll be the process.

Thank you. We good? Anybody else?

If a,

a quick question and it has driven me crazy since we were working with Wegmans

on signage and that is that when you're,

and I'm just checking as to what the intersection is.

Sorry, there's a point I think it actually is with Chrysler Road,

when,

when they were putting in the signalization and and signage for Chrysler Road,

they managed to put like a traffic pole directly in front of

a southbound sign that says, that tells people like,

you know, mall next. Right. Or kind of, you know,

it was,

it's a directional one that currently the state presumably

put up the first sign helping approve the sign to kind of navigate

traffic heading southbound.

Then when the Chrysler Road intersection got signaled,

the traffic signal equipment completely obscures the directional sign.

And it's a, it's a a silly point,

but either we need a sign that people can read,

directing them as to where to turn to go into the mall or the sign should be

taken down.

And I know it's, it sounds fussy,

but it's right now just clutter that no one can read.

I see it. I'm actually looking on Google Earth and I see what you're seeing.

It. It's cra.

Small next four rights and there's AP and there's.

A pole signal and yes.

I mean that actually is State Highway, the whole length of, of Speed Street.

If it's the southbound direction coming from Route 30, that's,

that's town layout.

The southbound direction.

Speed Street heading towards the mall. Okay.

Is that the direction you're talking? Yes. Yeah, that's, that's town layout.

And what state layout? The state highway layout starts at Natick Mall Road.

The big intersection? Yes.

That's where the state highway layout starts and then heads towards the bele

back.

It doesn't go down Speed Street.

All the way. It doesn't go north on Speed Street.

It, I'm sorry. Yeah, north on Speed Street doesn't.

Go north on speed. Got.

It.

It doesn't go it north on Speed Street. I get.

Okay, I get turned around.

You were talking about the southbound.

Wait, that means that we own.

It doesn't, both directions good.

Both directions.

It's the town. Yeah. If.

You're coming from Route nine,

the state highway layout ends at the Na Mall Road.

Intersection. So everything north.

This town.

It should be relatively easy to get that sign moved then. Right.

that would be very helpful for Pade or for cars really trying to announce it's.

It's too bad that Mr. Joseph has left the room. 'cause they own the roads.

The, the street commissioners. Yeah. Okay.

So Oh, the highway commissioners.

They are I know a highway commissioner. Yes.

You know it on different highway Commissioner. Yeah. Okay.

Andy, anything? No, sir. Peter, Chris?

No.

Alright. I just wanna say thank you for working with Deputy Chief Lizza.

I know that you guys had some concern at the end of last meeting when I brought

up that he had some concerns and I,

I do appreciate you taking the time to meet with him and,

and get that taken care of. So, pleasure of the board.

Do we want to vote to

approve the draft decision?

Do we want something in the draft decision that says that we will revisit

the traffic flow after a year?

Well, in theory we could. I mean, I say this when we talk about one year review,

if there's a problem, we'll know it sooner than a year and I'd,

so I'd say we could say a year. Okay.

But I'd rather simply to make it clear that if that

doesn't solve the problem, that's.

Pretty, but nobody ever brought up a problem with Neiman Marcus.

And it's the same, it's the same flow. I mean this is, you know, the.

And Wegmans is gone now as well. So there's Well, but there's significant.

I am so hopeful that that's a temporary state of affairs.

So I'm waiting for the next supermarket to go in there and, and, but yes,

I hear what you're saying.

So, so there might be a, a drop and then there'll be, you know, we,

we don't, we don't know. But.

But, but the place where he's talking about people hitting the planters,

that's not going down by towards Wegman. That's,

that's in front of North Street.

That's that weird loopy thing that they put in front of,

of Neiman Marcus coming,

coming off Speed Street heading southbound where you take that sharp. Right.

And people think they're going to the mall and then they're not. Correct. Right.

That's correct. Okay. Correct. Okay. So, you know, my concern,

is that the planters have scars and nobody ever

said to us or anybody else, Hey,

we need to revisit the traffic flow through there.

I'd say re then then let's say six months, don't make it a year.

Are you okay with us just putting that in the decision.

Kinda with an understanding? It's not just our determination.

As we talked about that parking lot,

there's a lot more people involved that had rights in that.

So we don't have total rights to go out and change those curbings and everything

else. I.

I just, you're you're making some good changes here, right? You, you met,

you talked, you came up with a plan, you're gonna execute a plan.

Will that plan work? I, I have no idea. You have no idea. I mean,

you think that it will and so six months from now,

I'd like to say, you know, are, are the plant,

do the planters have more scars or not? And if they don't, then we'll say, hey,

yay, the,

the plan is working or whatever the appropriate determination that the plan is

working or isn't working. And if it's not working,

just an opportunity to have another conversation and say, well, you know, maybe.

Some, a again, we, we have no problem with that.

With the understanding that we we're limited to to some extent.

Yep. Understand. Okay.

So as I said before, pleasure of the board.

Probably have to approve the project first and then the decision you were going,

I think you were going right to the decision. Okay. So.

It looks like it's also a modification of APD.

Yes. So we left that in so special,

even though there's no change to the imperious coverage,

even the changes we're making now that we're talking about don't affect the

impervious coverage.

So I think the first motion will be approval of the site plan.

Estimated and I, I move approval.

Second.

Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor, Andy?

Aye. Terry? Aye. Doug? Aye. Peter,

Peter didn't hear you?

Aye, sorry.

Did you say aye?

Yes. Am I I'm not, I'm not being heard.

Yeah, you maybe you need to be a little closer to your mic. I can hear you now.

Yep. Chris.

And I say aye as well.

And you want, oh are you on roll?

Not really, but it looks like the next one would be a motion to approve

the special permit for use. And aye. So move.

Second.

Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor, Andy.

Aye Terry.

Aye.

Doug? Aye. Peter. Aye. Chris Aye.

And aye vote Aye as well.

And I guess the last thing is a motion to approve the modification of

the Aquifer Protection District based on the site plan approval.

Second.

Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor,

Andy. Aye Terry? Aye. Doug? Aye. Peter.

Chris.

And I vote Aye as well.

And I assume that, that the six month review on the traffic is incorporated in,

will be incorporated in our.

In the decision, in the decision itself. So that's Amanda,

that's just something to add to the, to the.

Is that six month backdrop operation? Well we've, are we,

so we just approved the project. Are we voting on the decision right now?

'Cause that, that'll be the next thing I would vote the decision.

You could put that into that as amended.

But I just wanted to, I wanted to do,

I figured before we get into the middle of the motion just to check, I.

Make sure Amanda has it, so.

Okay. Six months after opening, I would think, you know,

let 'em get operational.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to do it six months if they're not open.

Issuance of the occupancy permit.

Traffic's great.

Probably gonna be pretty close. You know, there's nobody.

Here.

Before you open. Yeah, there's virtually no traffic.

Let's do it next week. So.

Then I'll say, let's move approval to sign the decision as amended,

which includes a six month traffic review after opening.

Second. Moved in. Seconded. Any discussion? All in favor,

Andy. Aye Terry? Aye. Doug? Aye. Peter. Aye. Chris,

aye. And I vote Aye as well.

And if we sign the decision tonight, we can close the public hearing.

Do we have a paper? We can.

She's good. Voila. I think we can close the public hearing anyway. There we go.

According to Caris.

Then I move, we close the public hearing. Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor, Andy? Aye. Terry. Aye. Doug? Aye. Peter.

Aye. Chris. Aye. And I vote. Aye as well.

Welcome. This is the magic of pickleball.

Let's.

The absolute magic of pickleball Zoom.

Yeah, you won't. But thank you.

I'll take an invitation for the grand opening. I'll, I'll, I'll bring my paddle.

Send him an AP.

That was good. Yeah, it was. Finally,

are we signing both of these? I got.

One just in case.

In case I signed on the wrong language, right? Yeah, let's keep it on file.

You never know. Thank you. Okay.

That is fabulous. Is that your bag too? Oh,

next 24 Superior Drive. One Lakeside Campus Drive. Thank you.

Zero Lakeside Campus Drive and, no, that's it. The math works

ko. Hey, how are you?

Switch seats. You should bring name plates.

Amanda, do we have an update? Oh, you're allowed.

Let you finish doing what you're doing there. First.

Was anyone else attending online? I was trying to find.

No. Okay.

All right, great, great, great.

So actually I think I would like to defer to Bill on this because one of the

items that was gonna be done between the last public hearing and this one

was a meeting of the applicant's project team with DPW.

So if bill's still here.

Very good. Bill is still here. Hi Bill.

Hi, I am still here.

Excellent. Do you, would you like to,

to talk to us about this project?

Sure.

We had met prior to the submission with the design engineers for MathWorks.

And we had a very good idea and very good concept of what they were doing on

site to the utilities,

the existing utilities that are there for the office building,

what they were going to be doing for demo,

how they were going to be staging the work.

And we had relatively few comments.

We had some questions regarding some of the equipment that they were proposing

to use in the new parking lot for stormwater control.

We met with them again subsequent to the first meeting with your,

the planning board where those questions were answered.

Some of the comments that we had regarding onsite drainage had been addressed

within the plan.

Those are noted in the letter that was sent to the board regarding the meeting.

So there,

there was several meetings that were had prior to the actual design being

submitted and then one subsequent. We do feel as though the site,

you know, is,

is at a good state of design right now and we do recommend

approval of the design as it stands right there. My, my information, you know,

much more complete information is available in the letter.

If there's anything else you can ask BHB who are there regarding the process

as far as going through that.

But our comments are concerns regarding the site design have been addressed.

Very good, thank you very much. So welcome.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Just for the record,

Catherine Gohan from Uchin Dewey with me is Ju Justin Defra from

VHB OD Kelly Carey from VHB. And also with us

in the room are Bill Madden of Lombardi and Dennis Macs of VHB.

I wanted to first, we,

we do have some slides Ms. Loomis,

if those could come up.

We wanted to first touch on what we are prepared to cover tonight,

including updates since the last meeting. First,

in addition to the update the town engineer

gave,

the applicant reviewed all comments which came in from various

departments that included health conservation, fire police,

as well as public works addition.

In addition to the meetings mentioned with DPW,

the applicant held a meeting with the police department to follow up in their

comments and copies of all follow up correspondences with departments since

the last meeting are in the Portal Inc.

Which included that updated letter from DPW as of today.

The,

the team drafted and submitted a comprehensive response letter to all the

comments from the various departments. And that letter was open,

was uploaded to the portal on November 3rd.

We thought that we would integrate those comments into the

presentations that we had prepared tonight rather than go through the letter,

but obviously could go through the letter if you wish.

We'll mention we did make plan updates

that incorporated comments from the discussions with the departments.

And you'll see in the record that the application

has a revised plan set,

specifically updating grading and drainage utility plan sheets and site

detail sheets.

The team also added a new fire apparatus plan,

which was dated November 3rd. The, if you could go to the,

the next slide please. Yeah,

this is just an outline of what we thought we talked about tonight.

You're thinking.

You're thinking any of us can read that from here, right?

I thought it was just me, but no.

The presentation, I'm pretty good in your pocket.

Just use that instead.

The, I'm at the second item,

the just decision housekeeping

on the decision history, which I, I,

we had put the packet of all the various decisions in the record

and we mentioned at the last meeting that there were some cumulative findings

and conditions,

some of which may no longer be relevant or have been satisfied and

we don't expect any of those changes would be controversial.

The mostly the findings were related to the change in the zoning bylaw,

the identification of what zone applies the,

or what, what parking requirement applied

the,

there's a list of 25 conditions in decision number 35 15,

many of which carried, carried back all the way to 1982.

And

MathWorks is hopeful when the decision is drafted that

some of these conditions and dis certainly the findings are updated to what is,

what is currently accurate,

but also some of the conditions are,

are either noted to be satisfied or,

or re even rescinded in some cases, which,

which is appropriate.

We're happy to talk through that with you.

I know it's kind of cumbersome, the stack of decisions we have,

but however the board would like to approach that,

we are happy to to talk about that. The,

and at this point the team has prepared presentations on stormwater management

on the superior drive,

pedestrian crossing proposal and traffic,

including pedestrian and bicycle accommodation and parking supply,

after which we would end the prepared presentations and go to your questions

and comments. So with that,

if you wanna these to the next slide I'll hand off to,

to Justin to talk about stormwater management.

Oh.

Thank you. Thanks Kathy for the record. Justin Frain from VHB.

Yeah, and as Kathy mentioned,

what I was hoping to do is really kinda walk through

the comments in a way that can kind of present it through,

through some of these slides. So for,

for most of what we've seen through the comments that I know the board has seen

also really been focused around stormwater management.

There's a couple comments from Board of Health as Mr. mc McDowell mentioned,

there was some from engineering that,

that we've worked through with them already.

Deputy Chief Anne had some comments on the superior drive crossing,

which we've worked through with him and and reviewed with him.

And then a couple comments related to traffic. So Vinod will,

we'll kind of move into traffic after that. So just to orient everybody,

this is a slide that was, that we had in the last presentation,

just kind of highlighting where we have infiltration,

where we have water quality treatment.

And just as kind of a big picture overview to, to everybody on the board,

you know, a number of stormwater management features that we have out here.

We're actually reducing impervious area overall with this project.

Improving water quality, especially on the 24 superior drive lot.

We did a lot of work with the main campus lot, you know, years ago to,

to improve water quality there. Now we have quite a bit on,

on the 24 superior drive lot really maximizing infiltration.

And I know the town engineer put this in his last letter too, is just the,

the amount of infiltration that,

that we're proposing out here as pretty significant in that really helps to kind

of recharge and replenish the aquifer, which is,

which is really important in this district.

And then one of the other kind of key components is rainwater harvesting.

We use that for irrigation. We take the roof today of,

of the building that you see, you know,

kind of in the middle of the plan that all goes to a rainwater cistern and gets

used for irrigation. We're planning to relocate that cistern, but,

but replicate the same, the same idea that we have today with, with that.

And then we do have some green roofs. You can see 'em on the,

the center building there today too. So, you know,

a number of of stormwater features. Amanda, I think you could flip to the,

to the next slide because this starts to kind of highlight a couple of the

comments that we had were around infiltration and around the soils

that we have out here and the depth to groundwater and,

and that kind of came from board of health.

And one of the things that wanted to point out to the board, and it was,

it was referenced in our,

our response letter out here is we have a pretty significant experience on this

site, the FedEx site, the former Sam's Club site across the street and,

and now the 24 superior drive site.

And what we've kind of seen for soils is a pretty consistent soil structure out

there. We've got about 25 feet to groundwater, which is somewhat at the,

the elevation at the lake, which is quite a bit lower than, than our site.

And then as you can see from some of these photos,

really sandy gravelly soil that, that loves to kind of take water and,

and make it disappear pretty quickly out here.

So we have very large underground infiltration systems out here and

those are evident. The pictures,

I know the people in the pictures are probably very, very small.

And if you couldn't read the words on the last slide,

you probably can't see the people in these,

but these are 11 foot tall stormwater chambers.

So pretty significant structures out here with holes at the

bottom.

You could see we put gravel at the bottom of 'em and then this really sandy soil

that's around there. So wanted to kinda highlight, you know,

the size that we're talking about on,

on some of these systems because they get kinda lost in the graphic before where

it, it shows 'em as these little colored boxes.

But when you're actually kinda seeing these get installed, they're,

they're pretty significant structures.

And then the one on the bottom is just one of our water quality treatment units,

which that's an 11 foot diameter structure itself too. Some,

some pretty significant kind of water quality treatment units that we use before

we infiltrate any water on the site out here. It's all natural.

Sand right there. That's what you encountered.

It's really, you know, pretty phenomenal soils out here and it's,

it was consistent on FedEx when we did that.

And it was consistent on Sam's Club and, you know,

really kind of highlights the reason why this is an aquifer protection district

is that that water goes into the soils really,

really quickly and and disappears pretty quickly out here. Hmm.

It, it owes a great deal to the Lauren tight eye sheet when it retreated and it

created the kettle ponds from the glacial thaw that,

that created this huge sand wash that covers all the way across to

Framingham. So I I'm not remotely surprised.

As an engineer, it's a, it's a fantastic site to work in.

That's why, that's why they had the, when,

when the sewer beds were put in along route nine in the fifties. That's why.

Yeah, because it perked, it just, oh yeah. Yeah.

So Minda you can probably flip to the next one. The reason we,

we put this slide together with a whole bunch of colored dots on it is it really

highlights the testing that we've done on the site really over the past 10 years

or so. So each dot that you see out there is either a test boring,

a geo probe, a test pit, you know, so you can see we've,

we've pretty much blanketed this site with, with borings.

It was funny, we showed this to MathWorks the other day and they said,

so we don't need any more borings out here, right? I said, no,

I think we're probably pretty good for what we have, but it,

it has shown that we have very consistent soils throughout the site and it's,

it's that sandy kind of gravelly soil and it's,

it's about that 25 foot depth to groundwater.

So the Board of Health had a comment in there just kind of wondering about the

testing and whether or not, you know, they needed to witness the testing or,

or understand the groundwater more. And, you know,

just this just kind of highlights and,

and we submitted the geotech report that kinda shows all those depths and,

and what we have out here for the, the soils and the groundwater.

We have a pretty good, pretty good handle on,

on what's going on out here as far as that goes. Amanda,

if you go to the next slide, kind of the one of,

probably one of the last pieces I wanted to just touch on and I apologize 'cause

you probably can't see the numbers on here, was really kind of the,

the stormwater itself and mostly focusing on what

I'd refer to as it, it's shown as DP three up there, but it's,

it's the design point that really is associated with the new

parking lot at 24 Superior Drive. And,

and the reason I highlight that is that is a town owned

drain line that runs through Superior,

actually goes through the FedEx site and then it discharges to the,

the main lake in the back back there.

What we really focused on for this design was that design point because

today 24 superior drive, the entire site just,

just goes right to that pipe and then right out to the lake.

So you have catch basins out there, you know,

pretty old from from it's upstream. The early eighties,

a little bit of superior drive is upstream,

so there's only about two or three catch basins on Superior Drive.

And then the rest of it is this site and FedEx that actually ties into that too.

And when we did FedEx, we did some,

some subsurface infiltration systems before that.

So we really reduce the flows in that.

And then also for this parking lot,

we're doing a similar system that I showed you in the photos to really

kind of, you know, take as much water as we can. And,

and what I have highlighted in that,

that top table up there is really the reduction in peak rates to that,

that pipe itself in superior drive. So we go from, you know, at a 10 year storm,

17 CFS, which is cubic feet per second,

getting to that pipe to 0.3, you know,

in the a hundred year storm we go from 31 CFS to 4.9

CFS. So a huge reduction. And and that's really the, the,

the great soils that we have in,

in the infiltration and kind of that second table down the numbers I have

highlighted in there are what the required recharge would be for

So the basically the required amount of infiltration if we looked at the,

the stormwater regulations that we would be required to infiltrate on the site

is about 73,000 cubic feet.

And we are infiltrating 263,000 cubic feet.

So with these systems a big volume, we're talking big volumes of water out here.

And that was one of the things that, that we, we focused on and we,

we talked quite a bit with the town engineer about, you know,

the frequency of storms,

what we're seeing for storm events and making sure that, you know,

not only are are we reducing, you know,

our flows to the town infrastructure and into the lakes,

but we're promoting that, that infiltration and making sure that, you know,

this is something that, that's gonna last in in kind of years to come here.

So that touches on really a lot of the,

the storm water comments that we had. Probably the next piece. Can.

I ask a question? Yeah.

I mean is that more of a function of the soils that much of the re reduction or

it's the over-designed the infiltration basin?

So that's a, that's a huge.

So there's been, I'd say there's kind of two things there, Doug. One of them is,

is the soils, right? And we're,

we're able to do that because we have such fantastic soils that that's able to

take that and we're able to do these much taller structures that can fill up

with water. And a lot of times you look at can that drain within 72 hours,

you know, is is the requirement. And because we have such great soils,

we can go 11 feet tall and drain that down basically within 24 hours

for most of these systems.

But another thing was MathWorks commitment very early

on in the last project to kind of focus in on that 10 year storm

and almost make it so that we, we didn't overflow.

It's kind of one of our design criteria is in that,

in that last go around and you know,

we don't have a whole lot of clients that'll kind of give us that,

that direction, but that's kind of what they, they led us to too. So.

That 10 year kind of governed everything else that it did. 25 and a hundred.

Okay. Yep, I got it. Yep, yep.

So I guess, I mean, I could pause there if there was any more questions on,

on stormwater, but I wanted,

I think that kind of touched on most of the comments that we've received from,

from folks on that and I can kind of move into the, the next section.

Does anybody have any questions, Peter?

Chris, I can't see you guys anymore. That's all right. They can just tell me.

No comments. Great. All good.

No question. Okay, cool. Well the next one, this, this is one that,

that we talked quite a bit about with not only the,

the subcommittee Deputy Chief Lizanne when we met with him and

the town engineer was really the crossing on Superior drive and how,

how we can kinda, you know, make this crossing really the, the safest that,

that we can and kind of, you know,

make sure that we're locating all the features that we need to kinda locate

within there. So wanted to highlight it for everybody,

just so that everybody kind of sees the,

the thought that went into this and walk through it with folks. So it's,

it's really kind of up there on the, the right hand corner of the screen.

What we've done is,

is a number of things to really try to promote this crossing as much as we can.

I guess starting, you know,

as you arrive in that 24 superior parking lot and then I can kind of walk our

way over to the, the main campus from there, but essentially park your car.

You will, you know,

naturally kind of head towards the superior drive side of that parking lot.

What we've put there is a sidewalk that runs that entire length of,

of those parking spaces on the backside of that sidewalk is very dense

So we've really focused in on what we can do to provide a dense buffer

right there to, to prevent people from, you know,

having the desire to kind of cut right through that landscaping and,

and kind of run across superior drive.

So the landscape architect is really focused in on making that very dense and

thick landscaping.

And then we did a 12 foot wide crosswalk through this

so really wide crossing that really connects you directly to the main

entrance of the,

the building over there that crossing or that that sidewalk,

we have pedestrian scale lighting along it to, to make it, you know,

a bright and really kind of a feature for people not only as they're walking,

but as they're driving that they're really gonna see this,

this crossing with the lighting that we have,

we we're putting flashing beacons on either side of the street.

We're putting the high visibility crossing there in the middle,

some advanced signage on either side of Superior drive so that, you know, you,

you know that there's a crossing ahead.

You see that in many other areas of of town right now that you have that

advanced signage that says, you know,

pedestrian crossing ahead and then you've got the,

the flashing beacons kind of right there. And then probably the,

the last piece of it was the location of where we locate that along Superior

drive and the, the location there is really, you know,

focused on being after the main entrance into the main campus.

So as you come in, we kind of have that half moon, you know,

roundabout kind of feature there where, where vehicles enter the first,

the first one-off superior drive and then leave at the, the second point.

And that's really, you know, out of our parking spaces, our, you know,

1400 parking spaces on the site,

none of them are gonna cross that crossing location. So it was, it was,

it was located after that so that we have less vehicles crossing there

and then really, you know, focusing in on the,

the direct route from that crosswalk, you know,

to the main building right there.

So those were kind of all the key components that, that went into this.

And as I mentioned, a lot of those were discussed, you know,

at subcommittee meetings,

a lot of comments that came from Doug and Peter at those meetings and,

and Deputy Chief Lizanne and and the town engineer.

So I could probably pause there just to, to talk about this before we go to,

to some traffic conversation.

Any questions?

Just a quick, I have one question a quick, oh let let Peter go first. Sorry.

Go ahead Peter.

In the, the end of the hand, the way you walk across Superior

and you get onto the sidewalk going to the buildings,

is that a wheelchair or handicap accessible walk where.

Yes. Yep.

Because I didn't realize it didn't look with the curve there. Alright,

thank you.

Sorry.

Thank you. Is this the point this the superior drive

crossing, is that where all FedEx traffic moves in and out?

Yes. Yep.

Okay. And is is the biggest challenge, it sounds like a silly question,

but is it there individual vehicles or is there,

is there warrant issue with the trucks?

I don't know if there's been any experience to date that has any record of

where,

whether accidents are more likely to be tired workers going home at the end of

their shift or one of the FedEx delivery trucks.

So we, we did look at all of the numbers pretty closely,

not just vehicle traffic for the site,

but also what's on Superior drive currently, including the,

the temporal changes because the FedEx employees come in and leave at certain

times and their trucks leave and the vans leave at different times.

And even though that section of the crossing where you see superior

on on that crosswalk is where the FedEx traffic goes,

there's a straight stretch of road.

So it's not at an area where vehicles are churning or,

or the sight lines are a problem. Like we made sure that the crossing is,

is on a straight section of road.

So vehicles as they're exiting from the FedEx facility through their

gated access and egress,

that they'll have a clear line of sight and they're on a street stretch of road

and it's not far enough that these vehicles are picking up speed either.

it's not like they're there to drive a quarter of a mile and pick up a lot of

speed. So the,

the location of the crossing in relation to where the building entrance is and

where the FedEx vehicles are going in and out was strategically chosen both to

minimize the conflicts but also at the location where you do have the crossing,

you have adequate sight lines visibility in both directions. Okay.

Both on the horizontal land and the vertical planes.

Alright, thank you.

How are the.

Have a quick question chair.

Yeah, ho hold on a second, Peter. Go ahead Doug. Oh.

Sorry. How are the flashing beacons gonna be activated?

So those are pushpa actuated flashing beacons and I

believe they might, they're solar solar powered as well. So, and,

and these are used in town quite often as as you've

seen like including the ones right in front of the town hall.

But also specifically in this instance, again to Ms.

Evan's question for visibility,

the deputy chief actually asked for a specialized treatment where you have two

layers of LED lights.

So normally you have only a single bar LED bar on it.

But if you see the one where the Wegman's crosswalk is

the, the,

so you'll see there's actually a double LED bar and that was specifically

designed in that instance because there was such a high pedestrian traffic

crossing at grade and the deputy chief indicated that that's,

that that's worked really well and he specifically asked that we include the

same treatment here and, and we modified the design to,

to show the double LED bar solution.

And that will be in town right of way those beacons,

right? Correct. So that's the town infrastructure maintained by the town.

On superior drive. Superior drive, yep.

Okay.

I think the question that Doug asked, I was gonna ask the same question, is we,

we had motion activated pedestrian crossing lights for a while in town and

it seemed like ghosts would activate those things. They were just,

they were just on all the time for no good reason. So the,

the button is a better choice. Peter, you had a question?

I just one quick one.

The coming out of the FedEx down superior

from the east going to the west, I guess the advanced signage,

will that be visible clearly with the curve in the road?

Yes. The, the,

usually the advanced signage is placed 150 to 200 feet

upstream of the crossing and what is shown on the graphic,

right where you see that the words advanced signage in the top right corner

that's on a straight section of superior drive. So vehicles,

as they're coming out of the,

the curve out of the intersection for the employee parking lot for FedEx,

they would be able to clearly see that sign before they get to the crosswalk.

Thank you. Yep.

And I only had one question, maybe it's for our working group,

maybe it's for you guys,

but that sidewalk along the front of a whole bunch of parking spaces,

what is the point of that sidewalk?

Why is it not better to have that be green space?

What does that connect to?

It's funneling everybody coming from the pedestrian

shed Yeah. Of, of the back of the parking lot.

They're gonna funnel to that sidewalk to get to that central crossing.

So they're not walking through the parking lot,

not walking through the parking lot or, or if it's well maintained and visible,

they're gonna get to that cro,

that sidewalk other than going to the other driveways and crossing without the

sidewalk, without the crosswalk. That's what you don't want to have happen.

So I'm looking at the Pentagon of parking lot in the left hand picture and

I'm gonna park my car anywhere on the top right side of that

parking lot and then I'm gonna walk to the crossing and

I could see myself walking to the actual crossing so that I don't have to fight

myself through the,

the the raspberry bushes that you plant there to, to cut,

cut people's clothing to shreds if they don't,

if they don't go through the right opening.

So I could understand that my desire path might take me there,

but am I to believe that you think that I'm going to walk

in some weird straight line to get over to that sidewalk and then walk down the

length of the,

the parking lot and I'm not going to take the shortest path from where my car is

to where that opening is. I'm just, I mean I'm all for sidewalks,

big sidewalk fan, but if nobody's gonna walk on that sidewalk,

and especially if people are parking head in and the hood of their cars

is overhanging that sidewalk all the way down the entire length,

so you couldn't physically walk on that sidewalk if you wanted to,

then I don't see what the point of having that be paved is.

And if you had that be grass and have the edge

at the same place that it is now and cars could overhang the grass,

it would add a little bit more pervious soil,

green space, whatever calculation I I'm just,

that just looks like a sidewalk that's gonna get parked over unless you

physically put blocks in the spaces to prevent people

from pulling their car that far forward.

And then you're gonna have angry employees.

'cause somebody's gonna trash their car. Why.

Does it.

Six feet? Six feet? Yeah.

I, yeah.

But I can, I mean I can definitely see the point. I mean I, I think, you know,

I could probably go either way on that sidewalk. I feel like, you know,

some people, you know, depending on where you park,

you might cut your way over there and work your way to the main, you know,

that main crossing. But most people,

probably 90% of the people that are within that lot yeah, are 90, 98 are gonna,

are, are gonna walk their way right towards, you know,

where we have this 12 foot wide kind of sidewalk protruding into the parking

spaces. You know,

that's gonna be the kind of the visual cue for where most people are gonna go.

And you know, if, if the board, you know,

wanted to lose that sidewalk and gain six more feet of landscaping and six more

feet that we could plant, you know, even more dense, you know,

material to prevent people from, from going across, I think, you know, we would,

we would completely be be fine with that. I think I'm like, you know,

I'm 50 50 on that sidewalk. I understand point too.

And I'm 50 50, but I, let me, let me, let me defend the sidewalk for a minute.

What I, what I think it does as a visual cue as you just said Justin,

it funnels people to that central point.

There are two driveways that bracket this right.

And that those are opportunities to cross at an uncontrolled place.

Which would we, that would not be desirable, right?

So picture the sidewalk gone and it's just a sea of parking and you're trying to

find you right. Well maybe I'm just going to, you know,

I'm gonna park in that upper right corner like, like, like Glen said,

and I'm just gonna walk out the driveway without a visual cue

with signage too that says pedestrians this way. Right.

And it's a nice sidewalk and it points people, you're gonna take the visual cue,

a lot of people will and get on that sidewalk and walk in versus filtering out

to the, to the driveway. So it's a balance. I mean,

if there's other strategies of how not to encourage people to use the driveways

to cross, I'm all for it.

But I'm not sure taking the sidewalk away would do that.

So I respectfully disagree.

I think that desire paths or desire paths and if

people,

the only thing that's gonna stop people from using those driveways is the fact

that somebody pulling into one of those driveways is gonna kill them if they're

standing in the middle of the driveway and the car's not gonna see them.

And then

a lifetime of learning how to walk through parking lots is gonna suddenly kick

in and they're gonna realize that they don't want to go to the place that the

cars are, they want to, you know, walk along the, the,

the line of parked cars, you know,

checking to make sure that nobody's backing out.

We've all walked through the target parking lot before and, you know, you don't,

you don't wanna walk over to whatever that main street is that the

entrance to the target parking lot. Nobody wants to walk over there.

But p plenty of people walk through the target parking lot. I, I just,

I, I'm not, I'm not seeing it. And I mean, if the, if the sidewalk was useful,

if it connected to another piece of sidewalk that the hotel, I mean, we,

we negotiated with the hotel to have a, a a,

an easement sidewalk easement. 'cause I remember I was the one that,

that tracked them down on all of that stuff. And the,

there was a sidewalk easement that came in front of the hotel and wrapped around

and went in front of the mall that I can't remember,

Clover Leaf Cloverleaf Mall and, and connected over to the crosswalk. There.

There it's still there, there's an easement.

So.

On, on the, that's been registered at.

The,

if this sidewalk was on the other side of that wall of shrubbery and it

was a way for people to walk down superior drive and eventually

connect onto the sidewalk that does not currently exist,

but has an easement for its future existence,

then that, I would say yes, absolutely put in that sidewalk. I'm, I'm,

like I said, I'm a big fan of sidewalks.

I just think that people are gonna park their cars here.

They're gonna pull their car up as far as they can because they wanna get the

back end of it out of the drive aisle,

and they're gonna overhang the front of their car onto that sidewalk and

people aren't gonna wanna walk there.

I, I'd say in chiming in, I'd just say unlike the target parking lot

where people are coming and going all the time,

because shopping happens around the clock,

there's probably more of a cyclical flow as to when people are coming and going

out of that parking lot. Yeah. There'll be some random times, but,

oh no.

I, I work in high tech. Okay. Nevermind. I, I don't,

I don't think that that's the case. Okay. But, you know, yes,

there'll probably be more people leaving between four and six.

But you know,

my guess is that there's a lot of people that show up there at 11 and leave at

nine 30. It's, it's high tech. It's,

it's just people don't hold those schedules sales maybe because

the people they're calling hold schedules. But anyway,

I, I'm, I'm not gonna force anything with that sidewalk, but I,

I kind of think that it doesn't make sense to have it there.

I don't think it'll get used as a sidewalk. And I'd rather have it get used as,

as space green space. So that serves a purpose in the world.

May I barge in for one more?

Say again?

May I barge in for one more question that comes to mind?

Barge ahead.

Okay. The walkway that goes through the,

the shrubbery from the parking, what is the indication shown

at the park at the parking lot end of that walkway?

I'm not, not sure what that is.

Yeah, Peter really just kind of indicating that it would be a,

a handicap ramp there, you know, the end that, that it would just allow,

you know.

To get onto that raised.

That is flush. Yep. It's raised flush, got it raised on either side.

And then we'll have a flush, flush area, you know,

so that could be handicap accessible. Any sidewalk we create, we make sure it's,

it's handicap accessible.

Is there anything at all in that area that is high enough that maybe people

can see from a distance in the parking lot where the walkway is,

that there is a walkway, there's some way to let them know even though they'll,

whether they walk the sidewalk a right angle or they cake,

the short assistance between two points.

Is there anything that shows them where it is?

I mean, not right now, other than that it protrudes into, into the parking lot.

I think kind of Terry's point earlier, it's a,

it's more of a learned condition out here. So people that are parking, you know,

coming here every day, you know, they, they understand it.

So I think if it was retail or, or something like that where it's, you know,

people may not be familiar with it, I'd be more concerned.

But I feel like after the first or second time kind of parking in here,

they're gonna, they're gonna know where it is and,

and how to get across there air.

Okay. 'cause it won't, obviously with cars on each side of it,

it won't be seen down at that, at the walkway level.

It would to be, it's employee parking though. It's employee parking though,

So it's only on their first day at work that they're not gonna know where it is.

Well, okay. You guys got a lot of confidence in the human, in human nature.

Well, I, I, again, my, my office has a,

an upper parking lot that has something very similar. The, the,

my office had a problem because they didn't, it's not raised and they didn't,

they didn't paint the space in front of it. People parked there.

So people were actually parking right in front of the entrance to the,

to the pathway. Oh, so they, they solved that problem. It's assigned.

They're not assigned spaces. Right. They're just general. Okay. No.

Okay. Would you expect any,

any other science parking spaces?

I think did the assigned they like have some algorithm assign the spaces,

but no.

Okay. Any further questions, comments?

Alright, pleasure of the board then.

I think.

Mr. Chair? Yes. Mr. Ari had a,

a short presentation on the.

There are few traffics traffic.

That.

There are a few traffic lights we have not gotten to.

Go through them. Okay. Quickly please. Thank you.

So we did, as part of our application,

include a very comprehensive transportation study.

If you recall, going back,

I think most of this board was here probably except for Mr. Landry,

the 2013 review of the parking garage and the traffic

work we did back then.

So we essentially replicated the same study that was done back in 2013.

So that, that map on the left, which is kind of fuzzy,

a little bit from a distance,

but each of those dots indicate a study area location goes all the way up from

Route 30 at spin in the north and goes down to the Hartford Street intersection

in the south and all of the major intersections along that corridor.

It was a similar or identical study area that we looked at back then.

And the reason we repeated the same study for this project is to make sure that

we can actually do a,

a comparison to like the metrics and the numbers that we had developed back,

back in 2013, essentially 10 years ago. The,

the panel on the right side of the graphic shows the existing multimodal

Each of those blue lines represent the existing sidewalks or shared use paths

through that area of Speed Street and, and the adjacent streets.

East West is a very strong network of sidewalks and connections.

I do know there's a mass DOT study that's also currently underway that's,

that's part of the Golden Triangle area.

They're looking at gaps and,

and needs for additional enhancements that could happen out here.

But what you see on that map is, is what's existing.

And the green line work is the existing paths and walkways and

accommodations within the math work site.

So the site itself has very good regional access as you know,

route 30 in the pike to the north and Route nine to the south.

The strong bicycle pedestrian con connections, MW the,

the M-W-R-T-A has,

has the transit connectivity through this area.

There are multiple lines of buses,

transit buses that run through here and MathWorks themselves.

They have a very strong TDM plan that looks at making sure that the employees

are not, you know,

to the extent feasible not driving during peak hours or, or not driving alone.

You know, there's, there's a lot of,

a lot of measures in place already at MathWorks to help reduce the traffic

loading on the roadway network.

And obviously there are a lot of other studies going on and we've,

we've looked at all of those, not only the ones we did,

going back to the FedEx and the original MathWorks permitting,

but also the more recent studies for other projects.

So one of the key things we found as part of all of this analysis

is, is the overall traffic volume in this area has gone down noticeably.

I mean it, you might see it anecdotally as you're driving through,

especially off peak hours, but we actually have quantified,

because we have the exact same location studied between 2013 and

2023,

the numbers have gone down noticeably somewhere in the order of 20 to

25%, almost a quarter quarter 25% reduction in traffic,

especially during peak hours because that's when we focus a lot of our analysis,

make sure that the signals have the capacity to process. So when you look at,

and there are some reasons that, that we listed on the right side. One,

obviously in a lot of the 2013 studies were based on,

you know, obviously pre pandemic conditions.

Retail was an entirely different environment back then 10 years ago.

A lot of the studies that were looked at back in 2013 were all based on it TE

and, and generally it tends to be more conservative than,

than what what you really end up seeing. MathWorks again,

is not at its full capacity. The,

the buildings that are out there today is not operating at its full capacity.

So that's part of the reason.

And then the other big thing that we noticed when we permitted FedEx, actually,

if you look back at the 2011 traffic study, FedEx,

and this was at the beginning of that e-commerce spike that you,

you would've noticed they had all of their vans leaving during the peak times,

like the commuter traffic. And,

and I think over the years they've figured out that that's not the best way to,

to operate their vans. So they've actually offset their, the van departure.

So the vans leave after the peak hours. And what you see at the bottom,

the bottom most tables actually, the,

the comparison of the peak hour FedEx projections,

there's like 65 to 75% reduction in FedEx traffic during

the peak times compared to what we had estimated back in 2011.

So all of those contribute to a reduction in traffic compared to what we

expected back in 2013,

to the point that the limited additional traffic from what we estimate for this

project, after tearing down the existing office building and,

and the net increase in square footage, which I believe is the next, next slide,

Amanda.

So there's only a net increase of about 90,500 square feet of office

space at the MathWorks campus at the end of this project,

after tearing down 24 superior drive, adding in the new building.

And in fact there'll be a net reduction in parking spaces.

There'll be a 64 fewer parking spaces across the two properties

and compared to the current conditions. So when you look at that,

and then the panel on the left kinda shows you a distribution of how the parking

is, is spread across the campus. The number 25% is,

is within that 24 superior drive parking lot.

And then the rest of it is all actually 75% is on the main campus.

So when you talk about the, the crossing of Superior drive,

only talking about like the 25% of the parking spaces that are on the other side

of Superior Drive.

But the net effect of the traffic review that we did is that the delta,

the incremental traffic falls well within that range of traffic reductions

that we have observed with, with our latest version of the traffic study.

And I think that sort of is captured in the last slide that talks about the fact

that, you know,

the limited amount of additional traffic associated with this project,

and coupled with the reduction in the overall traffic in the area,

we feel that the area transportation infrastructure can more than adequately

support the increase in traffic.

And MathWorks obviously will continue to extend all of their TDM services to the

new employees within this, this building that they'll be constructing.

So the net effect is that we can process the additional traffic without the need

for any additional traffic improvements or any changes to the,

to the roadway system.

Go back to the trip gen slide, just one sec. I'm just curious.

Next one's,

so on the observed for MathWorks right projections in 2013,

that's ITE projections for some level of square footage, right?

Yep. Okay. And then the observed 2023 is what's observed? Those are counts.

That, that is.

Correct of existing occupancy. So what percentage of occupancy is that?

So it's about,

I think they're at about 1400 employees of over

1900 capacity. So let's see, about 74%,

they're at 74 and they, they don't operate every day. So they're on a three day,

like three days a week. The employees are required to come into the campus.

The other two days, you know, it's flex days, you can choose to come in or not.

So we made sure that we did our traffic studies on days that the employees are

required to come in.

Okay.

But that 24, 20 5% of, of under capacity are the,

the backfill, I guess if you would, of that unused space.

We did include that in our future conditions.

So we assume that that space will be filled in before the new building gets

occupied. That would benefit. So that's, that's.

Good. Good anticipation. My next question.

I counted for that.

Thanks.

Yeah. I don't know. For,

for those of us that were on the board when the original buildings came before

us and we were looking at pictures of the way Boston Scientific was parking

in that space, and it was just absolute chaos. It was like,

how, how,

how many cars can you possibly fit in every which direction around the

edges? And, and you know,

there was a lot of concern and clearly that concern has not come to fruition.

And the, the,

the planning was done well and the parking is

managed nicely, so, okay. Yes.

I just wondered, I, this campus ramps up.

I I think there's a, is there a shuttle with the Apple Hill campus

or, I don't know how much back and forth there is and I was just wondering if,

I don't if that's a factor. Yeah.

One of the things I, I know I've heard from them in the past, Terry,

is that they don't run a shuttle back and forth. And,

and the reason for that is that there's not a lot of cross traffic,

but from campus to campus, the folks that tend to work on one campus,

you know, that they're at, you know,

their developers or software engineers or you know,

like they're pretty specific to what they do at one campus.

And then the other campus is, is a little bit standalone. So although, you know,

you might have one-offs, you know, throughout the day, maybe for a meeting here,

meeting there going back and forth,

there's not a whole lot of that kind of commuter traffic back and forth. Okay.

Thank you.

Employees are assigned to an office,

so you're either assigned to Apple Hill or to Lakeside.

So they have specific offices, designated offices. Oh.

No, that's great. Thank you. And then just the one quick thing is that,

and this isn't, this isn't your problem on the, on the,

the graphic that shows the existing pedestrian and bicycle accommodations.

But to Glen's point about the access easement on Speed Street northbound

at the Beatle back, it,

this stands out on this map with the kind of the blue lines as the big gap,

the, the very obvious place that there the sidewalk should be put in. Yeah.

We should see if there's some way to fund that and get it.

Well, but there was money they, they put,

there was money that they paid into the sidewalk fund that Cloverleaf did at the

time of their expansion. So,

and they gave us the easement and I think we just have to execute it.

I think.

Easement, that's the selectman, right?

I believe it is, yeah.

I'll follow up with the chair of the select,

well actually maybe you could follow up with the chair of the select board.

So I suspect you may be watching the.

Meeting. So it's that piece, Terry, it's that piece. Okay, now I get it.

The one that runs the one where when they were temporarily,

when they were completing the new Logan Express terminal and they were,

they were all parking on, on this site. Yes.

And you'd watch these people with rolling suitcases,

walking along the edge of Speed Street northbound and you're just thinking,

oh my God, what are we doing here? Easement.

There for a sidewalk, but no sign.

There is. Yes. And, and the the interesting current owner of,

of Cloverleaf did that paid into the Sidewalk fund.

There was a problem with somehow the easement didn't get completely recorded.

Right. But.

It was Cloverleaf and the Hampton Inn Yes. The hospital,

NA Hospitality or whatever they're, they're called also. Yeah.

The hospitality group.

Hospitality group, yeah. They paid in for an easement.

They created an easement through their property as well.

And I think that would be huge.

And actually the more this campus expands and gets active,

the more it's in our interest to have the pedestrian infrastructure so that

someone who's walking from the campus to something at the mall because they

wanna play pickleball.

Or they wanna buy some beer at Oh, total wine night shift. Total beer.

Yeah.

Total wine. Yeah. Okay. Thank.

You. Sorry about that.

So yes.

Andy, while we have a bill here,

his memo from October 23rd, which you guys have been working with,

had a lot, you know, fair amount of requests in it.

It sounds like you addressed most of them, but I just wanted to check in. Bill,

are you,

are you good with stormwater management and traffic study and all the things

we've been presented tonight? 'cause pretty much when, when you're happy,

I'm happy.

You know, that, that warms my heart to know that Andy, that when I'm happy,

you're happy. But yeah, given,

given the back and forth that we have had with the design engineers, you know,

specifically in the issues of stormwater management,

we are happy with,

with the changes that have been made and the comments that have been addressed.

So short answer is yes, Andy, we're happy.

Was was the traffic study long enough at 262 pages? Was that.

I couldn't put it down.

All right, that's it for me. Thank you.

Alright. All right.

Is I don't see anybody online that might have any comments and I don't see

anybody in the room that might have any comments. So,

pleasure to the board. What, are we ready to vote this?

I think so. I feel like we are, I think.

We're okay.

And, and I'm not overwhelmingly surprised because I can remember how effective,

how effectively MathWorks presented the original camp development of the

original campus.

So Andy, I saw you take a deep breath. Yeah, that was,

it almost looked like you were gonna say something. Well.

The, the way that our agendas work now,

it actually lays out very nicely the, the, the, the approvals.

So I don't have to try to think about them.

So the first is a motion to approve the site plan as submitted.

Second. Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor, Andy? Aye. Terry. Aye. Doug?

Aye. Peter, Peter.

Aye. Oh, I'm sorry. Aye.

Chris.

That was two I Aye.

A aye he's joined the Navy and and I he was in the.

Navy.

I say aye as well. He's back in the Navy. Thank you.

So the next is special permit for parking on adjacent lot

and I

move that we approve a special permit for parking on adjacent. Lot.

Second.

Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor, Andy. Aye Terry? Aye. Doug?

Aye. Peter.

Aye.

Chris Aye. And I vote. Aye as well.

Alright, the next one is a special permit Aquifer protection district

based on the site plan that we just approved. Aye.

Move that we approve a special permit for AAPD.

Second.

Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor, Andy. Aye Terry?

Aye. Doug? Aye. Peter.

Chris Aye. And I vote Aye as well.

So in addition to a modification of the site plan,

special permit and highway overlay district special permit 8 22.

So I think you can do those in bulk. So we, so we are,

we are modifying all of these as listed and we actually have to list all of

these decisions, a as that we're, that we are modifying them.

Is that your understanding, Amanda?

Well, because they remain in, they remain standing. If.

There's no downside to doing it,

we'll spend more time talking about it than saying them. So.

So I guess I will make a motion that we modify the

site plans and special permits in the highway overlay district as listed.

And you, are you including that special permit for signage as well? Last piece?

And we don't generally need, unless it's,

unless it is oversized or too close to the road,

it doesn't need a special permit.

Yeah.

But there is a decision.

But we're not modifying those decisions. We're just,

we have a new decision that we'll incorporate.

What we're, what we're producing this decision.

Hold on a second. A lawyer wants to opine.

Yeah, if, if I may, the, the,

the reason that special permit for signage modification was requested

was because there was a date that it expired the approval in 2025.

So however it's done, whether it's part of the other approvals.

Or it's part of our seven year sunset.

So, but, but here, but here's the thing, you don't,

Others have thought of differently who are no longer on the board, but there,

if the signed bylaw says you, you meet the setback requirement,

you meet the size requirement, you don't need a special permit they had.

So there is a sunset provision that was put in place

for special permits. But if they meet the criteria set forth in

the sign section of our zoning bylaws,

then they're compliant.

And can you think of any reason whether that sign,

if that sign is not compliant,

then there's a special provision we can do that,

that in the sign bylaw that says,

do we feel that it meets kind of the aesthetic of what's around it?

Is it appropriate and we can have a special permit to

allow it, even if it doesn't comply.

But.

If it does comply, it doesn't.

Need a special permit. What I'm not comfortable with is, I don't know,

I can't say it complied. I.

Okay.

Assume it did, but I don't know. Okay.

And the decision is not very clear on it. The.

It was so much easier to just.

Right. I.

You know, make the signed bylaws say what they need to say and Yeah, I, and.

You don't.

Go through this.

No, I, I understand exactly what you're saying.

I mean, I was gonna suggest no harm, no foul on putting that in.

But I would just say,

and then in the drafting of the decision that attorney Garrahan, you know,

works with Amanda to like put the things in, like you did some, you know,

very detailed work on what decisions are,

what I know you're doing it to button up lots of things for whatever reason,

financing or, or whatever. So a lot of due diligence goes into that.

So I would think whatever makes you comfortable from a legal perspective.

Or if you.

If let's put that into the decision. If.

You look at the sign by the sign by section of the bylaw and say, tick, tick,

tick. Yes, it is the letters of the right height.

It's set back far enough from the road. If it meets those requirements,

then being able, if you can state that and say you've reviewed it and done it,

then you don't have to show up every seven years. I mean it's just, it's it's,

it would your call, right?

I I I am trying to liberate us from unnecessary

Yeah. Processes.

I guess we'd have to look into it to make sure, I don't know.

If, if it's easier simply to say we'll extend it.

I'm not trying to make it complicated.

I'm just trying to kind of take this one bit of bureaucracy away

if it's not needed.

Well, let's think about that for a second. The,

the motion I was working with is the sentence before. Okay.

And I think the best way to say it is we move a modification

to the site plan and special permit and highway overly district special permit

decision two dash 82.

But, but.

And then it, then it mentions all the previous modifications.

I don't know if that necessarily needs to be in the motion.

So, but if, if we are approving the,

the site plan and if we are approving the special permit of, of,

for the highway overlay district, we're not modifying,

we're not going back and modifying,

tacking something onto all those old decisions. This one,

one I agree by doing it is modifying this new instrument.

You apply for a new site plan and special permit or for a modification of the.

We applied for a modification.

Okay. But, but the document that's produced,

the decision that's produced is the modification.

It's not kind of going back and kind of altering the,

the previous decisions. The new,

the new decision modifies the old ones.

But there are elements in the old ones that are retained,

unless they're specifically called out or altered.

I see no harm and.

Stop talking. I see no harm in in doing this. I mean, I,

it yes, the,

the overall decision is going to modify certain things that exist in different

permits. This is just stating it pretty explicitly. Again,

comfort level from a legal point of view. You want me to read it?

I don't see any harm doing it. It's.

More of a finding. Yeah.

Did you make that motion? 'cause I'll second it.

I dunno if I ever completed. So, so the, the,

the finding is that we are modifying,

so I move the finding that we are modifying the site plan and special permit and

highway overlay district special permit decision two dash 82 parentheses

as previously modified by decision one dash oh two decision 28 dash oh five

decision 24 dash 12 decisions 31 dash 13 decision

36 13 decision seven dash 15 and decision 35 dash 15.

And I, I move that finding, moving.

Seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Yes.

I I didn't hear 77 15.