Proponents of a proposed affordable housing development at 5 Auburn St. that has made it through Select Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, and other Natick approvals processes are now stating their case to the Conservation Commission.
Advocates for affordable housing have applauded Metro West Development Collaborative’s plan for a 32-unit complex combining restoration of the historic Eliot School and a separate new structure on a dead-end street off of Rte. 16 in South Natick. Many neighbors have urged the town and developer to scale down what they see as an oversized project that they fear will have negative implications for traffic and the environment, and others have asked the town to rethink whether there’s a more cost efficient way to address the housing shortage than what’s now escalated to a $23m-plus project. Metro West scored the town-owned property at 5 Auburn St., which includes land now valued at about $2m, for $100 following a narrow 2023 Select Board vote in favor of the 40B project. (Disclosure: We live near South Natick.)
Other than by neighbors, largely overlooked in much of the ongoing discussion over 5 Auburn St. (including Metro West’s bid for $750k in additional funding to be debated at Fall Annual Town Meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 28) has been the project’s potential impact on the Charles River that it would abut. The site is just down river from the spillway (aka, waterfall) that’s set to be removed next summer to save the town money… and protect that same river, frequently referred to as sacred during the exhaustive dam removal decision process. Those who spoke so passionately about protecting the river during the dam discussions, such as the outside advocacy groups that glommed on, have been non-factors regarding this riverbank housing development. The Charles River Watershed Association, for example, says “We have not been tracking that project, as we just haven’t had the capacity to track that kind of development.” Mass Audubon, active during the dam discussions, has also not been involved, deeming this a local development issue.
This is where the Conservation Commission comes in, though at a later stage than some would like to see given that so many approvals have already been granted.
The Conservation Commission’s focus is on the proposed project’s possible impact on the environment. As one Concom member asked during an Oct. 15 public hearing: “Is this project consistent with what we’re fundamentally charged with as a commission?”
Or as a neighbor put it to the commission in writing: “Can you look at this hulking building looming over the river, entirely within the riverfront buffer zone, and say it is protective of Natick’s land, water and wildlife?”
Metro West earlier this month entered the Notice of Intent process with Concom that’s designed to ensure work in or near wetlands or riverfront areas meets environmental protection standards. The applicant is also seeking a major stormwater permit, and the project has been the subject of Conservation Commission public hearings on Oct. 2 and Oct. 15 as well as a site walk in between.
(Metro West went before the commission last year with an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation filing. About a quarter of the just under 3-acre property is considered wetland resource area.)
Rendering of new (red arrow) and current buildings at 5 Auburn from ZBA filing in November(some adjustments to footprint have been made since)
The project, construction on which could start by 2027, involves renovating the old Eliot School and erecting a new building. Metro West plans to install a state-of-the-art stormwater management system that it says will reduce phosphorus runoff considerably, whereas there isn’t stormwater control now.
Dana Altobello from Metro West’s engineering team said “We’ve kind of oversized these a little bit to make sure that we’re decreasing the peak rates of runoff from the site towards the Charles River.”
Engineers hired by Metro West says about 3% of the existing riverfront on the property is considered degraded, and that you’re allowed to go up to 10%, then even go beyond that if you take restoration or mitigation steps to offset disturbance. Native plantings and ongoing invasive management (largely knotweed removal) are in the plans.
Among the questions raised with Metro West’s team on Oct. 2 (see recording) was why the new building would be sited closer rather than further from the river. The original request for proposals encouraged keeping the green space along Rte. 16 for aesthetic/character reasons, a member of the Metro West team said, and the town’s Historical Commission has also supported retaining views of the historic building from the road. The design of the new building, Altobello said, has also changed from an L-shaped one to more rectangular to keep more of it out of the riverfront area.
Ecologically, it would be better to have the new structure away from the river, and the commission could have a say on this depending upon how this redevelopment project is defined. “We’re being handed a thoroughly baked plan that has gone through all kinds of different boards and committees at this point saying take it or leave it… and we’re not obligated to do that,” said commission Chair Matthew Gardner.
During the Oct. 15 meeting (see recording), following a site visit, commission members asked more questions, including about flooding (generally considered not an issue on Auburn Street, though it is an issue on neighboring streets), soil stability near the drop-off to the river behind the proposed new building, and the operational and financial plan for ongoing invasives management.
Where things got more interesting, or at least more technical, was when discussion focused on whether the commission should be reviewing this project under wetlands standards for new development—10.58(4)—or redevelopment—10.58(5)—of property already degraded with impervious surface.
Metro West is angling for 10.58(5) so that alternative site analysis isn’t required. It terms its plans “a betterment” for the area, and that it would mitigate any disturbed area at a 2-to-1 ratio.
The commission’s not so sure 10.58(5) is appropriate and plans to take a deeper dive into this at its next public hearing on this matter. As Gardner put it, “We need to see a real justification as to why something in the riverfront area is located where it’s located.” He called Metro West’s bid for 10.58(5) review “gutsy” considering that just 3% of the riverfront area is degraded. Another member referred to banking on the 3% as a possible “loophole” to avoid implementation of certain safeguards.
Perhaps most strongly, Concom member Mike Downey said: “There’s proposals within this plan that are inherently in conflict with what I think is supporting the function of the Charles River.”
There was also talk of getting outside counsel involved to help the commission ensure that it’s viewing this proposal through the right lens.
Discussion will continue at the Conservation Commission on Nov. 6. If you have questions or comments in the meantime, send to concom@natickma.org
Now, thanks to Natick Report’s partnership with Tiny News Collective, you can make tax deductible contributions to support our work.
