Attorney Jonathan Silverstein at the May 6 Natick Planning Board meeting said that “the writing seems to be on the wall” regarding that town body’s view of a proposed car wash at 625 Worcester St. (Rte. 9 west) and asked that his client not be put through another meeting that would require more time and expenses if that was truly the case. He was assured the board had not made up its mind, and was open to receiving additional information from the applicant regarding traffic and other concerns about the project.
But in the end, at a fourth meeting held on June 3, the Board did unanimously vote to deny applicant Boston Capital Investment Group’s bid for a special permit to redevelop the site of a former furniture store to house a double tunnel Prestige Car Wash. Board member Andy Meyer called it “the most thorough denial I’ve ever heard,” after fellow board member Doug Landry embellished on the motion to deny for 10 full minutes. Meyer had previously complimented the applicant for submitting a “one of the most thorough” applications the board has ever received.
So yes, a thoroughly thorough set of proceedings.
The June 3 meeting featured highlights of a supplemental traffic analysis to address board and neighborhood concerns. While neighbors of proposed projects in town regularly roll their eyes over rosy applicant traffic studies based on generalized data and brief on-site reviews as they speak to their actual lived experiences, in this case the Planning Board took neighbors’ concerns to heart and cited their own worries about of the potential dangers of vehicles queuing at a future car wash as others zip along Rte. 9 (a few neighbors spoke during this latest hearing as well).
The supplemental study looked at data from a car wash further west on Rte. 9 in Framingham and tried to extrapolate from conditions during peak use hours about how things might go down in Natick. They also shared video footage of traffic queuing and storage of that Framingham car wash as well as for the ScrubaDub on Rte. 9 east in Natick. There was acknowledgement by the traffic expert that nearby signal timing might need to be adjusted near the proposed site on Rte. 9 west.
Board member Peter Nottonson raised concerns over the lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes in the plans, though the applicant’s traffic expert noted that the state’s Department of Transportation would need to address any such accommodation after a Planning Board decision was made. He also said such a set-up is not typical on Rte. 9 for various safety reasons.
Prestige renderingRonen Drory, one of the owner’s of Prestige Car Wash, made a case that Natick’s zoning really only allows for car washes in limited places, including Rte. 9. So if you can’t locate a new car wash at a Rte. 9 location like this, where can you put one?
Board member Meyer agreed that zoning does allow for car washes in that area. But in explaining his position on the application, Meyer cited the criteria for allowing special permits under the town’s zoning bylaw, including that the use is not against public interest, doesn’t harm the character of the neighborhood, and doesn’t compromise safety. Meyer said he tried to think about conditions the board might apply if it were to allow the project to go forward, but struggled on this matter, especially regarding traffic flow and parking/loading.
Board member Terri Evans said she had developed a sinking feeling in her stomach that they’d been presented with something that “wasn’t approvable.”
It’s easy for people to point to neighbors whose homes are near Rte. 9 and say, hey, you bought a house near Rte. 9, what did you expect? But as neighbors articulated at the hearings, there is a distinction between uses that might bring more noise or traffic or other negative impacts to an area vs. others.
In expanding upon the initial brief motion to deny, the board’s Landry ticked off numerous reasons for denial, including that the board was unable to find that the proposed use was appropriate for the location and that it would not adversely affect the neighborhood. He cited traffic and safety concerns, despite the additional information provided in the supplemental traffic analysis, and shortcomings of the proposed site circulation plan.
By the way, you’re not currently allowed to wash your car at home due to the drought conditions.
More & more communities no longer have dedicated local news coverage. But Natick does. Please support our work with a tax-deductible donation.
- Prestige Car Wash readies for Rte. 9 (April 16, 2025)
- Prestige aims to bring car wash to town (Feb. 25, 2026)
- Natick residents pour cold water on Rte. 9 car wash plan (March 6, 2026)
- Proposed car wash on Planning Board agenda (March 18, 2026)
- Hearing for proposed Rte. 9 car wash continued to June (May 8, 2026)
I’m still confused why they chose that location as opposed to the stretch further east where the Party City, Starbucks, Wendys used to be. Seems like ample room for queueing off the main road and much more separation from the neighbourhoods behind it. That’s a depressing stretch of Rt9 that needs some help.
Good point! May be a wetlands issue over there – but I’d love to hear pov from the Prestige team on this.
This is the dumbest thing I’ve read in a long time. WTH is wrong with the planning board? In no way will s car was on rte.9 “increase traffic” or harm the environment or any cockamamy excuse they can think of.Any new business on rte.9 will “increase traffic” but only briefly snd not to the point where its backed up for miles.A new business in Natick brings added tax revenue as well as revenue to everything else.I guess the board members must hate tax money and/or revenue to out town
Again the left wing Democratic Communist Socialist party members win Again in Natick! So sad to see this town being torn apart by the left. But it’s ok to tear down more buildings for more apartment complex so we can’t move anywhere anymore and don’t forget about the dump bike lanes they want that would screw up traffic more.