I agree. Wayland needs this to bring up the property value and relieve some of the property tax that keeps going up. When I drive by Finnerty's, it feels like I just drove by a low class abandoned area. It's disappointing. People don't like change but if they have a better idea, then let's hear it. So far, there are no bright ideas coming from the opposers. Is there any other company that is interested in the abandoned property that has been an eyesore for years. We are lucky that CVS is still interested!

I totally agree, too! More businesses in town can only do good things for our property values and enticing new families to move to Wayland.

@wayland

Yes, when you buy something you assume the responsibility.

The Town should be involved, and cite the owners of the property, much the same way they cited the owners of the former Barton Nursing Home on Route 30 for not properly maintaining it.

Also, the abutters of the property should consider hiring an attorney to sue the owners of the Finnerty's property for not maintaining it sufficiently (including the vacated home) such that now it's a very real safety issue/threat to the neighborhood, on top of being an eyesore.

The owners have an obligation to the town ahead of their future needs and wants, exactly the same as the property owner on Rt 30 who was cited by the town.

Why should the owners of the Finnerty's property be given special consideration and exemption from the laws?

The Whole Foods in Wayland is the highest grossing location in the entire company. Other than that - good example....

Why exactly is "CVS a ... 100% certainty"? It sounds like the town absolutely has the ability to say no to a CVS, even if it is dicey, as you say.

There is another big chain pharmacy 1/4 mile away. There is even another CVS less than 3 miles away (if residents feel strong brand preference for some reason). So why on earth should Wayland lay down and let yet another corporation steamroll the town with their needless blights - especially when the town is so resoundingly against it?

I've yet to hear one sound reason as to why a CVS specifically is positive for this town.

So your question regarding why the Town can’t just say no to CVS if they feel it’s just not something they feel is appropriate. It is not lawful for a Town to just say we don’t like your tenant therefore we are not going to approve it, provided it’s a permitted use and it meets zoning. With all this debate, nothing will ever change the fact “drug store” is a permitted use in this district and we don’t get to say “drug store – provided we like it”. I know some people find this counterintuitive but the proponents are just saying they are willing to horse trade for some zoning relief – what’s on the table is “Back Building” (which most people want), no drive through, and a bunch of other small concessions for a curb-cut and parking relief. You sound reasonable – what do you suggest the Town does.
I like your other comment about this project with respect to a differant question as well :)

Retreading my previous comment, it sounds more aggro than I intended. And truth be told, I'm getting my news on this issue primarily through skimming these articles and comments. It is definitely a complex issue, but I understand the issue around permitted use.

To answer your question, I guess what I would hope for is some kind of legal, town-driven ability to do exactly what you say we really can't: veto businesses that we as a town majority / supermajority (I'm just stealing congressional ideas here) don't want "mall"-ing our town. Total pipe dream stuff knowing nothing about local civic abilities and limitations, but I'm very frustrated by generic stores like CVS swooping in when it's clear very few folks if any want them there. Maybe it'll help our taxes, maybe it's the best bet in a down economy for filling the space. But it's painful to see unfold.

I do keep kicking around the idea of taking charge and opening a dispensery in town, but that's not a reality for me, so I'm hoping someone else does it. I feel strongly that it would be a boon.

@Eric – right on… You nailed it. I don’t like CVS either. It’s too late now with this project but if you don’t like chain drug stores then the effort opposing this should be put into changing our by-laws. That is how you prevent it in the future. The rules are – this development would be grandfathered under todays by- law. I’m not sure I would be on board with it, but I know 500 people that would. I’m with you on dispensaries – but I am thinking Summerville. We should conect….

This comment is so riddled with inaccuracies and assumptions, it is laughable.

Now that the curb cut is outside of the business district there is no “special permit” required or requested. This is now a garden variety permit application to the Department of Public Works. They are seeking no relief from zoning and the application has (or will) be amended or resubmitted to reflect this as you correctly point out the original application does request it – no longer. The ONLY zoning relief requested will be parking as I understand it. My understanding is the signage can only come from ZBA but I can check on that. My feeling is; Signage should be looked at carefully – unlike Rout 20, this site is very close to residential homes and although I support this project I do not want to see this resemble Kramer on “Seinfeld” with the glowing Kenney Rodgers sign – that will not be fair to the house directly across the street and I will support them on that issue. For “Wayland” below – the deal is not signage for the curb cut. The deal is curb cut for “back building”, no drive through and several smaller items. For everyone outside of the “just say no to CVS” camp - this “deal” is getting universal support. Personally, the drive through being a prominent feature of the development right on 27 from a visual prospective was very objectionable – I am pleased it is gone and people should recognize that is a huge win for the Town.

Woops - inside the "business disrict" in first sentence.

The reason they needed to hire a cop was because it was a 300 seat restaurant that did 2/3 its weekly business between 6:00 and 10:00 on Friday and Saturday night. I would also assume (tough in cheek anyway) in the last 10 years of its existence the average age was about 65 and their most popular drink was a Whiskey Old-Fashion – When I am 65 and leaving the coach grill after A glass of wine I hope the police chief post a cop their too. I also think you will find the reason they took out the curb cut was it may have been the only way to expand the restaurant and retain the kitchen. To say it was because it curtailed a dangerous situation is a fact not found in evidence. I admit I am speculating as well, but I’m not sure I buy that one….

This is getting sort of repetitive – have I ever said the curb-cut is a “done deal”? No. I agree with @wayland on everything except the one word – “special”. It’s just a permit. CVS is a done deal – not the curb-cut. I would never predict the outcome of the issuance of a permit that is not “by right”. If the curb-cut is denied, the proponents will simply live with the curb-cuts on West Plain, eliminate the “back building” freeing up all that space for parking thereby no zoning relief necessary and make the entire project “by right”. When everyone in town is pissed off because no one got what they want the developers will simply say we tried our best – and they would be correct. Then the Town gets a Rout 9 style CVS pad sight – probably with a drive through as an ancillary use. I know you think the curb cut will make CVS go away, but most people (including me) think you are dead wrong. The proponents do not want to declare war with the Town so they are not giving us an ultimatum like that – they assume the Town is sophisticated enough to figure that out without drawing them a map – and I know the planning board is that sophisticated so I am guardedly optimistic it will not go down that road.

Now that is a defensible position. If given the choice between a CVS pad site and the “Back Building” with a curb cut – you would select “pad site” because it could be set back and screened. It will be identical to the one on Rt 20. So I’m not sure what screening your thinking of. Never the less – that is a position that is based on the reality of the situation and I cannot argue with that. My question is – if the folks who lived next to it had the same choice (based on the reality of the situation) would they choose the same thing? My feeling is most of the residents who say “just say no” have not come to the realization that you have and if given the choice in the two realities they would agree to the back building because that would increase their property values over a CVS pad site. It then becomes a real walk-able amenity. They are not there yet – but they will be when they look at it dispassionately like we do.

So you think the Planning Board can dictate where the building goes on a conforming lot with no zoning relief sought? CVS is going to want to be as close to the road as possible therefore the proponents will site it as close to the set back as they can in strict accordance with zoning. In your scenario, we have lost the ability to negotiate because we are unwilling to give anything in return so they will shove the zoning up the Towns tail pipe (and we will all have to take it). Negotiation is a two way street and when one side will not give anything the Zoning by Laws come out and everyone goes to their respective corners and the gloves come off. That line of thinking is very similar to Congress right now – Lets take the Town over the CVS cliff and see what happens. I’m just glad we have a Planning Board to save us from that scenario.

Why waste time listening to this "supposed" resident's unsupported commentary anymore? Doesn't get it and never will.

It is either CVS alone (as stated by the Planning Board, though not preferred by anyone I know) or CVS and more (as hoped for by the vast majority of the town). Let's hope reason prevails and we get a well thought-out, reasoned approach to the latter that serves the neighbors' concerns as well as possible while still allowing the developers to accomplish what they're trying to do. All the rest of this debate is superfluous given that CVS is a permitted use and this has been confirmed by the town.

I do not and have never said so. I said "the majority of the town", not everybody. 11,000+ residents did NOT sign the petition. 500 or so (which I'll take as fact since I have not seen it) did. That constitutes a minority.

Read again, carefully, and you'll find a measured comment that advocates for a reasoned approach that serves this minority in the best way possible while still moving forward with an entirely permitted use in the form of CVS (and hopefully the other stuff too!).

It is fantastically exaggerated comments such as this one that demonstrate a purely emotional response to a situation where law prevails over emotion.

I don’t think they are out to punish anyone – especially the Town. But you ask, if they don’t get what they are proposing in a “material” way would they stick a CVS pad their – in a NY minute because it is their only option given that CVS is so valuable. The money is in CVS – it is worth twice what a handful of “local” shops would be worth – they are not equal. You are asking them; To appease the residence that live near the site would you walk away from hundreds of thousands of dollars that by right (zoning) you are entitled to. That is their children’s college education – This is what they do for a living. It’s simple – you work with them and they work with you – You want CVS out, the conversation is over. They have it by right and they will not give it up. I can’t stand CVS either – but I understand business, real estate, our zoning by laws and my kids college education.

@Bill - you hit the nail on the head. These are developers who are trying to maximize their investment. No shame in that. However, we should all stop talking about them being great Wayland guys just trying to do right for the town. They are not. I'm sure they are nice guys who are actively involved in various town activities. However, in this "developer" capacity, their goal for the site is personal and designed to benefit them, not to benefit the town.

So yes, be clear on their goal - to maximize their personal return.

John,
I am not sure what you mean? They are both the same? CVS = Highest Value = most money....