The Nobscot Situation

The Nobscot Situation | Update on Aggressive Solicitation Ordinance | Looking Ahead

The Framingham Facebook certainly woke up this week with the news about the petition to rezone parts of Nobscot. 

Housing is always a hot topic issue in Framingham. 

“Apartments or no apartments?” “What about condos?”  “We need housing people can afford!” “You cannot build that here!” “The southside is always stuck with apartments!” 

I have read every angle to the housing debate over the last few weeks. There are few concrete facts about the Nobscot “project”, but plenty of speculation.

Let me break down what exactly happened, what I observed and end with a few comments of my own. This is a long newsletter, so grab a beverage of your choice, and get comfortable.

The Nobscot Situation

Found on the Tuesday, September 20 Council meeting agenda was Order 2022-107:

Upon request of the Petitioners, the matter regarding Zoning Map Change- Nobscot Village District be referred to both the Planning Board and the Planning and Zoning Subcommittee.

The provided background material contained a petition signed by 15 Framingham residents, many of whom are not abutters or even live in Nobscot, along with a letter from a Boston law firm explaining the request and a map. 

The letter states: 

“In accordance with G.L. c. 40A, § 5, enclosed please find a petition signed by at least ten registered voters of Framingham requesting that the City Council rezone the properties identified by Assessor's Parcel ID numbers…(Editor’s comment: the letter lists 18 parcels) to the Nobscot Village B-4 Zoning District. 

Section 5 of chapter 40A permits the adoption of an amendment to a zoning ordinance by simple majority where that amendment allows mixed-use development in an "eligible location" as-of-right. In the Nobscot Village Zoning District, mixed-use developments are permitted as-of right.”

The letter continues to state the petitioners wish the Council to refer this to the Planning Board for their review and recommendation to the Council to rezone the property, and that only a simple majority is needed by the Council for a rezoning to occur. 

Here is the map:

Okay, back up, what parcels are they talking about? A majority of the parcels are on 26 acres between Edmands Road and Edgell Road. This is the site originally marked for RCS Learning Center, but the project fell through due to financial issues and a lawsuit. But before that happened, the land was completely cleared of trees and then left a mess. It has been sitting there for several years. 

The other parcels include ones on the west side of Edgell, ones currently owned by private individuals and families. I would imagine some people were quite surprised to see their house in this list!

What is the current zoning? Right now the whole area on the map is zoned for residential only. This petition wanted to expand the Village B-4 zoning into the residential area, allowing mixed-use development aka retail with residential. Village B-4 zoning was created for the old Nobscot Plaza area to give it a more walkable “village” feel with mixed-use development. As many know who live or drive through the area, the old strip mall was torn down, the Chapel moved and a new CVS sits where all CVS love to sit…on the corner… and the intersection is under reconstruction. The proposed apartments have yet to be built.

Are there plans with the zoning change? As of last Tuesday’s Council meeting, no plans were submitted to the city. When asked to comment on this petition and zoning change, Sarkis Sarkisian, Director of Planning and Community Development, had no comment because nothing was submitted. 

Now, according to a Facebook post made by Councilor Christine Long who met with the developer interested in this property, Steve Cucinatti, his plans include an assisted living facility, four apartment buildings, nine townhouses and two restaurants. 

That is a lot. 

Then the Market Basket rumors that swirled around a few years ago came back. (Let’s be honest, I’d love to have a Market Basket, but Edmands Road could never handle that traffic.) 

Then the Council meeting happens… No one was happy. All of the Councilors who represent that area (Leombruno, Long, Steiner, King, Steward-Morales) expressed their displeasure and frustration. Other Councilors expressed their concern, but also brought up wider housing issues facing all areas of the city. 

Several have questioned if the Council had to hear this petition, and vote on sending it to the Planning Board. According to the City Solicitor, this petition falls under Massachusetts General Laws, not our Charter, and thus is statutory the Council takes action. They voted to send the petition to the Planning Board for a public hearing, and to the Council’s Planning and Zoning Subcommittee, chaired by Councilor Long. 

When I know the date of the public hearings, I will let you know. This situation is far from over. 

My thoughts… First and foremost, submitting a petition from out of nowhere was ill advised and careless. It caused a lot of angst among neighbors who were completely blindsided. This is not how anyone should do business here in Framingham, regardless of neighborhood or project. 

However, there are 26 clear cut acres in Nobscot. We would be in denial if we thought nothing would ever be built on that property. It is highly unlikely the trees will grow back and it remains open space. So, what goes there? Will it be another Dover Amendment project, like the RCS Learning Center? Or will it be a mixed use? Or 20 houses? If it wasn’t a massive project with multiple apartment buildings, townhouses, etc, is there an appetite to change the zoning?

Framingham needs to have a sober and hard conversation about housing and community development. Over the last 5 years, more than a 1000 apartment units have been built. Nobscot apartments haven’t started construction, and there is a proposal for a 6 story, 176 units on the corner of Rt 135 and South Street. Elected officials and community leaders continue to have this circular discussion about the importance of diversity in our housing stock and affordable housing. While issues regarding traffic, school population, and open space preservation remain in play.

I worry that NIMBYism, the North vs South debate, and anti-development sentiment clouds judgment and planning. Housing should not be a North vs South argument. We can build housing, attract businesses, create third place locations while preserving what is great about each of our neighborhoods, regardless of what side of Route 9 it is on. 

This Nobscot situation highlights what Framingham does best - react. 

We have to change our course and start being proactive, especially with development. No one needs to hear more tweetable phrases from elected officials eyeing next year’s elections. What is needed now is a review of the city’s housing priorities and redefining a housing vision that meets our needs. Again, it's a hard conversation but as a city we have to look at ourselves in the mirror. 

What do you think? What would you like to see when it comes to housing and neighborhoods in the city? I really would love to hear your thoughts. 

Update on Aggressive Solicitation Ordinance

The Council took up the second reading of the Aggressive Solicitation Ordinance. After a review from the new City Solicitor, the updated ordinance was debated and voted on by the Council. 

Quick recap:  Back in the spring, Councilors Michael Cannon, George King and John Stefanini submitted 5 ordinances relative to Downtown Framingham, one included addressing aggressive solicitation aka panhandling.

The proposed ordinance was submitted to address the influx of coordinated individuals panhandling in the middle of busy streets and intersections. It went to the Rules and Ordinances Subcommittee, chaired by Councilor Stefanini, for review and refining. The first reading of the ordinance passed 10-1 (Long, Cannon, Mallach, Steiner, Stefanini, Ottaviani, Leombruno, King, Alexander, Bryant - Stewart Morales) during the summer. 

The updated version: The redraft by new solicitor Kathryn Fallon looks at not banning panhandling per se, but addressing pedestrian safety in roadway medians on specific streets. The ordinance states:

“a pedestrian shall not enter a public way into the pathway of motor vehicles traveling on and along the roadway or approach within five (5) feet of a motor vehicle or vehicles using a roadway.”

Those streets are: 

• Beaver Street

• Blandin Road

• Cochituate Road

• Concord Street

• Franklin Street

• Hollis Street

• Howard Street

• Irving Street

• Mt. Wayte Avenue

• Old Connecticut Path

• Park Street

• Shoppers World Drive

• Speen Street

• Temple Street

• Union Avenue

• Whittier Street 

• Winter Street

• Worcester Road (Route 9)

The ordinance was passed by the Council 11-0 and was signed by the Mayor. 

A Look Ahead

Mayor Sisitsky and Sheriff Peter Koutoujian are sponsoring their first annual Back to School Safety Fest this Saturday, October 1 from 10am - 2pm at Cushing Park. 

Information is available on the City’s website.

It is that time of year again: Jack’s Abbey Octoberfest! 3 days of German food and beer, fun and games. Starts Friday, September 30 to Sunday, October 2. 

This was a long email. Thanks for reading this far! Feel free to reply to say hi! 

Have a great week.