Photo by Rick Devereux
Natick Fall Annual Town Meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 28, approved the town’s first allocations of Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds to assorted projects, plus gave the go-ahead for sign bylaw changes that local businesses say will give them a needed boost. A non-profit developer’s request for $750k, by far the biggest CPA ask under Article 28, survived a referral vote and was approved after debate and questions that consumed about half of the 3-hour-plus session.
The town’s legislative body almost got through the rest of the warrant of articles and motions, but voted to adjourn a bit after 10:30pm and will pick up on Thursday, Oct. 30 to presumably finish its business with Articles 25, 26, 30 (only to hear a report of the Charter & Bylaw Review Committee), and 31 if member quorum is reached.
Wanted: A deputy moderator
Moderator Jeff Alderson is champing at the bit to get a deputy once the state approves a Natick home rule petition, and he used the electronic voting test question at the start of the third Town Meeting session to ask members if they would have an interest in taking on such a job. He joked that the gig comes with a “nice salary… a big round number, just the same as mine [i.e., zero).”
About a dozen answered in the affirmative, so it looks like there’s a good chance a sidekick will be appointed.
CPA funding approvals
The town of Natick voted in 2022 to adopt the Community Preservation Act to support open space, recreation, affordable housing, and historic preservation efforts through a combination of a 1% property tax surcharge and matching state funds. The local Community Preservation Committee (CPC) this year solicited applications to access those funds and then recommended that seven of them to proceed to Fall Annual Town Meeting, which for the first time would be voting to fund appropriations for CPA projects. All applications that made it to the Town Meeting floor got approved, some more easily than others.
Not unexpectedly, Motion G to approve $750,000 for Metro West Collaborative Development’s proposed affordable housing complex at 5 Auburn St. in South Natick generated the most debate and questions.
We’re not asking for $750k, not that we’d turn it down. Please consider making a tax deductible contribution of any amount to support our work.
Those for the motion argued in support of the project’s goals of providing deeply affordable housing and of using the CPA funding to possibly get even more money from sources outside of Natick (the developer has stated that getting the CPA funding will support its efforts to gain state funding).
Those against the appropriation questioned whether the town is sinking too much money into this project, which is obtaining property and buildings assessed at $4.4m for $100 and has received a pledge of $600k from the Natick Affordable Housing Trust (while the developer’s executive director said Metro West has no plans to return to Natick for more money, seeking to exhaust other options first, she didn’t rule out the possibility). The moderator did his best to keep the history of the planned development, including the Select Board’s 3-2 vote in 2023 that set the 40B project in motion, off limits so as to focus on this specific funding request.
One Town Meeting member made a move to refer Motion G back to the sponsor, citing unresolved issues with the proposed development, which is now wading its way through the Conservation Commission approvals process. Town Meeting member Andy Meyer was among those speaking in support of referral (“this screams for a referral”) in light of unresolved permitting issues. But that referral motion failed, portending similar voting results in favor of the original motion itself, which passed by a vote count of 83-35-3.
The funding request, which rose from $500k to $750k during the CPC process, has been the subject of much online and offline discussion in the months leading up to Town Meeting.
Among those active in supporting the request publicly has been Select Board and Town Meeting member Bruce Evans, who voted in favor of the project as a Select Board member in 2023. He made a case at Town Meeting that Metro West’s request for $750k, at about 3% of the total $23m projected project cost, is in line with that of such projects in other communities. He also warned that without projects like the one proposed at 5 Auburn St. the town could fall below the state’s 10% threshold for overall affordable housing units and subject the town to unfriendly 40B projects elsewhere. In other words, those of you representing West Natick—where redevelopment is envisioned near the train station—you might want to vote for this.
Photo by Rick Devereux
Some spoke to the opportunities this project could present to those who otherwise can’t afford to live in town, including those who work here, perhaps for the town. David Krentzman, a CPC member speaking as a private citizen, touted the transparency of the CPC process and argued that funds raised under CPA are designed exactly for supporting efforts like affordable housing development. While some might argue that the funds would be better expended on other projects, CPA funding will continue to accumulate and such opportunities will be weighed when applications are submitted in the future, he said. “I for one think a more diverse community is a good idea, and diversity is not just racial, ethnic or whatever, it’s economic…,” he said. Others echoed support for a more diverse community and housing stock.
Town Meeting member Brinley Vickers cited her own past housing challenges, and highlighted plans for accessible units in this project in expressing her support for additional Metro West funding.
(Those wary of the project point out that a maximum of 70% of units might go to people based on local preference, though the ultimate number will be up to the state. Also, while some who work for the town might qualify for units based on the area median income formula, agencies in town like the fire department boast rosters of employees who mostly make over six figures and these people wouldn’t qualify.)
Those speaking against the appropriation included Town Meeting member Frank Foss, who termed this project “a bad deal.” He questioned whether the project, which includes plans for a new building on current green space, is really what the town wants to do with the property.
Town Meeting member Ed Shagory, who lives across from the property in question, voiced his opposition to the funding. Like many of the the proposed project’s neighbors, he dreads the density, which will bring perhaps 100 new neighbors and dozens of vehicles to the dead-end street off Rte. 16. Leaning on its 40B rights, the developer wouldn’t compromise on the number of units during the approvals process. “This is going to dwarf the current neighborhood, it’s going to absolutely change the character of the neighborhood,” he said. “These are community preservation funds. We’re not preserving any community here; we’re destroying it.” (Disclosure: We live adjacent to South Natick.)
While Shagory’s history across from 5 Auburn goes back decades, Strong Medicine Bear of the Natick Praying Indians said the tribe has been trying to purchase the property in question from the town for more than a decade for historical reasons.
“My tribe seeks to restore and revitalize the area through cultural and sustainable practices, thereby maintaining a healthy ecology through biodiversity and conservation. This initiative is seen as essential for both long-term survival of ecosystems and well being of future generations,” he said, adding that “An affordable housing development at 5 Auburn Street will forever eliminate the sacredness and historical value of the property. It seems counterintuitive for the Community Preservation Act to support a project like this that includes burying sacred land in concrete.”
Restoring the sacredness of the Charles River was part of the argument made by town leaders and others during the decision-making process for removing the spillway just upstream from 5 Auburn.
More Natick history
In supporting the allocation of $10k in CPA funding to preserve Natick’s 1775 Battle of Bunker Hill Muster Roll under Article 28 Motion F, Town Meeting member Julian Munnich spoke to the importance of this matter.
“1775 Natick: This is the single most Naticky and Town Meeting thing you’re ever going to see sitting in this hall,” he said, before recounting the history of British troops heading to Concord rather than this area after spies saw the amount of militia they would need to deal with in these parts. “Probably most of us have heard a simplified history of ‘one if by land, two if by sea.’ What that really meant was, one, if we’re going to Framingham, two if we’re going to Concord… I’m telling you, as you sit here, [as former member Peter Golden would have reminded you] our existence as Town Meeting comes from the parish councils of those days, the same parish councils that organized the musters of these troops.”
Munnich concluded: “I can’t tell you, this is the happiest vote I’m gonna ever cast here in favor of something.”
Signs of support for local businesses
Natick Center Cultural District Executive Director Heather Rockwood made her pitch for Article 29, a citizen petition designed to update the town’s bylaw for signage in support of local businesses and organizations seeking to boost awareness of their offerings. She cited rules that required businesses to remove their sandwich boards earlier this year and the subsequent loss of sales around Mother’s Day, then temporary approval to put signs out until year end as long as an effort was made to update the zoning bylaw.
Challenging economic conditions and an influx of new residents made the changes urgent, she said.
The bylaw update was crafted to ensure signs won’t make sidewalks impassable in the Downtown Mixed Use and Center Gateway Districts and will support upper floor businesses that have less visibility to passersby.
Another way to expand your reach: Advertise on Natick Report
A bid was made to refer the motion to the Planning Board. Town Meeting member Jim Williamson said he wrote the town’s sign code 50 years ago to clean up a messy Rte. 9 and Natick Center, and fears the new bylaw updates, while well intentioned, could result in a backslide. The referral failed to pass.
Among Town Meeting members speaking in support of the main motion was Paul Joseph, a local business owner whose operations have felt the impact of economic conditions. Earlier this year he closed his Metroworks office across from the Common (another location remains near the Natick Center train station). “The days that I put a sign out in front of that storefront (across from the Common) were substantially different than the days I did not have a sign up,” he said, noting that he was part of the committee that worked on the proposed bylaw updates.
Town Meeting member Dan Sullivan said “There has been a new kind of sign that has been showing up in the downtown district that I think all of us as Town Meeting members can agree we don’t want: That sign says ‘For Lease.’ And frankly speaking. some of the statistical data that was put up in front and some of the challenges that the downtown folks have, pick your signs.”
The main motion under Article 29 needed a two-thirds vote to pass and easily got that at 84-7-1.
Night #2 recap: Grass could get greener; Path paved for West Natick redevelopment
