The rezoning proposal for fifty-five acres of land off South Main Street is back before Town Meeting in much the same form as it was last fall.  For the reasons outlined below, the Planning Board does not recommend approval of this proposal. 

1)  Commercial Development in a Residential Zone

Fifteen of the forty-seven acres of dry land on this property would be developed as a commercial for profit club, which would include a 325-seat function hall, two restaurants, a sports club with swimming pool, outdoor recreational facilities and a three-acre parking lot.  Heretofore, in Natick all such commercial facilities have been located only in commercial zones.  The proposed parking lot by itself would have almost as many spaces as the total of all four municipal lots located in downtown Natick (The Town Hall lot, the Police/Fire Station lot, the Pond Street Lot and the Middlesex Ave. garage).

Although the club is promoted as an amenity for the proposed homes for people over fifty-five, these on-site resident members would, at the most, constitute 3 to 4 percent of the total memberships of the 2000 family member club.  Most of the users would be from outside Natick and at special events such as weddings, there would be large crowds entering and leaving at all times of day.  Traffic would be forced to use existing streets such as Pond Street, West Street, South Main Street, Rockland Street, Everett Street, Cottage Street and the town center.  Many of these streets are already bearing as much traffic as they can.

2) Lack of Planning Board Control

Article 32 spells out in clear detail the rights of the developers – the permitted commercial uses and the number of units of housing.  However, it precludes the Planning Board from imposing conditions it normally requires in a cluster development.  For example:

• According to current cluster zoning, building must minimize the impact on neighbors by being built at least 100 feet from the property’s boundaries.  Under the proposed article, buildings can be built within only 40 feet of neighbors’ property.

• Under existing cluster rules, developments must avoid extensive change in the topography of the land and must preserve existing vegetation as much as possible.  The proposed article has no such requirement.  Indeed, the preliminary plans shown to the Planning Board suggest that apart from wetlands and a strip of land under a power line, more than 90% of the existing vegetation on the property would be disturbed.

• Existing cluster zoning standards require that a development preserve large contiguous area of open space into natural condition.  The proposed article, while stating that open space should be preserved, does not require that the natural open space be either contiguous or in its natural state.  The result, as suggested by the developer’s preliminary plan, is that the open space would, for the most part, consist of the yards and shrubbery around the homes and the club. 

3)  Impact on owners of surrounding undeveloped land

The Planning Board has the responsibility for developing a logical arrangement for the development of all undeveloped land in a given area.  For example, a few years ago a developer of land off Everett Street was required by the Planning Board to provide a southerly access to the landlocked Mabardy property.  In the Five Seasons proposed plan, however, the owner of six acres of land at 218 South Main Street would find his property effectively surrounded by the proposed development, thus preventing him from selling his property to anyone, but the developer.  This same situation applies to other tracts surrounding this proposed development.

4)  Lack of compelling tax and amenity benefits to Natick

Against these many problems, the developer has argued to the Planning Board that the proposed article would have a positive fiscal impact on the town because the senior housing built under the proposed article would bar school-aged children as opposed to a traditional development in which children would live.  Experience has shown, however, that new cluster development in this type of zone always generates less than one-half child per home.  As a result, cluster developments built under existing zoning already pay more in taxes than it costs to educate the children living there, providing a net benefit to the town.  Also, Article 32 would still allow 20% of the units to have school age children, further casting into doubt whether tax benefits would accrue to Natick.

The developer has asserted that multiple amenities would be available to select groups of town residents. The Town of Natick does not have the authority to contract at this stage for community amenities as such an arrangement would be contract zoning and invalid.  Additionally, as such promised amenities are not an element of Article 32, it is doubtful they would be binding on this or future developers.