Re: Capital projects-
Don't MALL Cochituate!

Creative use of "Mall," Cochituate Village Neighbor. I had no idea it was a verb :)

What a joke! The Finnerty's project is no more a mall than I am a NFL star. I look forward to that eyesore being developed into something useful.

The town simply cannot grant the requested relief for a variance for the curbcut on route 27, special permits for parking and signage and business uses in a residential zone. Let the developer propose a plan which does not endanger residents by impeding emergency vehicle ingress and egress from the firehouse and does not create route 9 in Cochituate with 100 square feet of bright red illuminated signage. A fresstanding restaurant and a few local shops is what the site supports and that is reflected by the purchase price. The developer seeks a windfall at the expense of the safety of our children (Curbcut on route 27), the air quality in the village (idling cars at the drivethrough) and the aestetics of the are (Illuminated red signage). Mr. Baron please provide a list of successful and responsible projects developed by Mssrs. Adelman and Levy. Surely you have this information given your unwaivering support for them and the project. I know we disagree on the editorial policy of the board allowing for anonymous posting (perhaps you should seek redress on that issue from Ms. Lowery), but I think this is a fair question.

The "fair" question is related to what is permissable vs. what is desirable. There will be a CVS there -- I am sure of that. The question is whether you'd like to see a project that enhances the lives of Wayland residents beyond what a CVS will provide. My vote is yes -- yours is no. Safety is a non-issue since the area is already "unsafe" by vehicular standards. The air quality argument is patently ridiculous given that there is a stop light right there that already has thousands of idling cars every day. The aesthetics is the only valid point -- and it is highly doubtful that it will be the roadblock to the successful completion of the project.

As to your request, I am not privy to nor do I feel an obligation to provide if I did have a list of successful projects completed by the developers. Their status as Wayland residents, both personally and commercially, along with MY assessment that their proposed project is well more than reasonable is what earns my support (and willingness to be identified by name as a supporter). Your anonymity, in my opinion, weakens your argument to the point of irrelevance.

I agree with Jeff. Why does it take so long to get anything done in this town. I have been in Wayland for 15 years and enjoy the town. My daughter is getting a great education and that's the main thing for me. In my opinion there are to many little cliques around here that seen to stall good ideas or simply make them go away. It is time to come out of the stone age people and move on. Some of us even have "cable"
Just my 2 cents.
Brad Mastrangelo

A curbcut on route 27 is NOT permissable (it requires a variance) or desirable from a safety standpoint. I would not be so confident in the end result in the absence of the zoning relief which has been sought. Any scenario requires special permits for parking and signage at a minimum and the curbcut requires a variance. The CVS requires a special permit for parking under all circumstances, this may or may not be granted. The proposed signage requires a special permit which may or may not be granted. The drivethrough requires appoval as an auxiliary use which may or may not be granted. The curbcut requires a variance, the standard for grabting the variance requires circumstances which are simply not present in this case. If the town grants the curbcut it would be overturned on appeal. Without ALL of the requested relief you may find that CVS will not move forward. Your argument that safety is not an issue fails ta address the issue of emergency vehicle access from the firehouse. Please advise me as to how this access remains intact despite the proposed curbcut and the increased traffic count. Similarly, you say air quality is not an issue because there are already cars at the traffic light. Please explain how ADDITIONAL vehicles idling at the proposed drivethrough would not exacerbate the issue. We agree, as does the Design Review Board, that the aestetics of the project are problematic (see DRB comments).

You continue to decline to provide the readers with a list of responsible projects developed by the proponents, whom you endorse as "great guys". I will allow that answer to speak for itself. As to your comment regarding anonymity, I suggested previously that this is an editorial policy of the board and that you should address the same with Ms. Lowery. Perhaps some guidance/ education regarding the editorial choice is in order from the editors. My own belief is that one's arguments speak for themselves and providing your identity adds nothing of substance to the discussion, it merely allows for prejudices and grudges to be carried out or formed. Your objection also seems to be restricted to opposing points of view. I did not see you ask any project supporters who post anonymously (see e.g. "Bill") to identify themselves, rather you endorsed their comments.

I am against anonymity in all circumstances. I may not have addressed it, but I stand firm on that issue all the time. I apologize if I was not 100% clear on that issue. Your arguments lose most of their value if you won't stand behind them. No name = not standing behind them. The editorial policy is not my issue -- it is one's choice to lurk in the shadows of anonymity and throw bombs (which is what you're doing).

All I can say is that your "thoughts" on the voracity of the project are, in my opinion, incorrect. CVS will go in there, with or without the rest of the project. The curbcut is supported by officials in town that actually have expertise and will not be an issue. Parking won't be blocked. A car or two sitting at a drive through won't have any appreciable effect of air quality. And, as I've said before, the safety issue is a "red herring" being pushed by folks such as yourself. There is no appreciable difference in safety concerns. We allowed a double-drive through and widening of a curb cut next to a playground (TD Bank). Allowing one here is actually a safer proposition than that.

As for the DRB, which is advisory at best, it is nothing more than an opinion. I've seen the design and I think it is well thought out and congruous with the neighborhood. My opinion is no more or less valid than their as we are all taxpaying citizens without any legal authority to dictate to anyone.

I've said all I'm saying on the "list" request. Your conclusion is false.

You are against anonymity "in [sic] all circumstances"? That election earlier this month must have really ticked you off. Arguments rise and fall on their relative strength in the marketplace of ideas, not on the identity of the person putting them forth. I am not sure what the "voracity" of the project means, perhaps you mean viability or veracity? The curbcut is not warranted and would not survive appeal, exigent circumstances do not exist. The TD Bank drivethrough is adjacent to the playground not directly across from the playground. Moreover, the emergency vehicles need to back in and turn around, playground visitors do not have 20 plus foot vehicles turning around, that is simply not an analogy.

Read the DRB comments, they are scathing. Referring to the CVS as a "decorated box with details strangely out of proportion", referring tio a "ponderously repetitive" window scheme and an unattractive unbroken roofline. The members of the DRB "have expertise".

I made no conclusion regarding your failure to provide any example of a responsible project developed by the proponents, I simply noted that your failure to do so speaks for itself. You have made a great deal of the fact that the proponents are "Wayland guys", yet neither of them grew up in town or in state. Are the "Wayland guys" going to own the project in perpetuity or sell to the highest bidder, are they willing to restrict future conveyance to a town resident, if not the local guy argument is not persuasive.

Thanks for the spelling lesson. I will use smaller words given how difficult it is for you to interpret what I mean going forward.

I disagree with your assertions and think you will end up being proven wrong. You think you're right. Since I am not on a deciding board, and I believe you are not either (although who would know since you are not willing to own your opinions), our opinions are simply that. Frankly, I don't care much about the comments of the DRB either since they are not in a position to legally bind anyone to anything. Like I said before, their is an opinion like yours or mine and their "expertise" carries little relevance.

Have a nice holiday. I do not intend to use mine legislating the merits of this project.

Mr. Baron, that is not a spelling lesson, "voracity" is a word. I really just did not understand the use of the word, which which relates to a gluttonous appetite, in this context. Perhaps you meant that I find the project and/or the developers gluttonous.

I appreciate you offer to use smaller words, it will make things easier for me.

You and your family have a nice holiday as well. We are actually about to break out a few site plans and discuss FAR requirements and sideyard setbacks (family tradition).