Hi Sharon, Great question. I asked the town planner, and he explained that the developers pay for it through the town. The developers paid the town about $2,550, according to Sarkisian. The town then seeks out and hires the engineer to conduct the study.

Not only is the user name of this anonymous person offensive, but its comments are equally as offensive. I guess some opponents of the project feel it is OK to denigrate anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with them? So sad...

The take away from the meeting was not folks getting up railing on the project because they don’t like the tenant (again) - That is old news at this point. The take away was the Towns own Traffic Engineer advising its client (the Town) that the curb cut makes the development safer because it reduces traffic conflicts (left turns) on West Plain Street. Everyone wanted an independent traffic consultant to take a hard look at this and when the recommendation supports the curb-cut on Main you take it out on Brook? Do you have any idea how idiotic that makes you sound?
Love the reporting Brook – keep it coming….
And for the comment below – changing our “Way of Life”. Really… after last Friday you’re going to talk about our “Way of Life” in the context of a CVS on the corner of Main & Main – get some prospective. “Way of Life” – give us all a break…..

This is a statement full of doubtful assertions. It is a commercially-zoned area, so the impact of commercial development on a site already used as such will likely only have a positive effect on taxation. By improving the site and increasing its value, the developers/owners and its tenants will pay more in taxes than the site currently generates.

The red herring that this project is the driver for street/intersection improvement is simply that. That intersection (and the one at 27/30) is a mess and will need improvement regardless. This may speed up that process, but it is not the driver.

As for drastic changes, that is simply in the eye of the beholder. It is doubtful that area residents will stop using any of the aforementioned recreational venues as a result of this development. Hanna-Williams playground, for example, is just as busy as ever despite the new bank taking over a previously defunct commerical used car dealer and adding a double drive through.

@DST We ALREADY have a "village feel"... Cochituate VILLAGE -- Yes?

This development will not encourage people to "walk around and meet each other". MORE traffic discourages people from walking.

How many people do you see walking along the Mass. Pike to get to the McDonalds in Wayland.... ?

Equating this area to the Mass Pike is just more outsized hyperbole.

Ms. Testa appropriately notes that by converting an abandoned building into a development that includes a restaurant and other similarly attractive local establishments -- it is likely to bring people together as a meeting place. As for the current "village feel," that is a matter of opinion and not one of fact.

Hi Gail. I've read the 50 page traffic study pertaining to the corner, and I have to say, I was stunned by how little "foot traffic" there actually was (see p. 15). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but there were 72 pedestrians and bicyclists. I live on a Circle and I think we have more people jogging and walking their dogs! This traffic study was done and paid for the corner because that's where the development is going. Who would pay for the study for the abutting neighborhood? Why are you outraged that a "national chain" is coming to a commercially zoned property in a neighborhood that already has a gas station that is an eyesore, Liberty Pizza and convenience store, which in my opinion, is also very unattractive and another strip mall type area with the Dunkin Donuts? I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but less than 2% of Wayland is zoned for commercial property. Personally and as a Wayland taxpayer, I would like our town to maximize whatever commercial tax base we are able to so we can get some relief on the residential tax side. I know I don't live around the proposed development, but I assume when you purchased your home over 35 yrsvago, you were aware you were buying in a "village" and that would includes businesses. I am very sorry this is not the store you "want" or feel our community "needs", but it's a CVS for goodness sake - not a strip club! You do not have the right to decide which types of businesses are appropriate for that space.

It is completely fine to say you don't support the project, that you don't like it, etc. However, extreme exaggeration (e.g. - 10x the size of the Starbucks plaza, 4x the size of Donelans) only serves to nullify your message. Denigrating the development team on a personal level hardly elevates the conversation either.

Is 3 days (2 week days and 1 weekend) sufficient? As I heard someone talk, the traffic counters were only down in 2 locations. I would assume that if you wanted to analyse the intersection, you should also count traffic on the other two roads feeding into the intersection (E.Plain and Main Street toward the Rt 30/27 intersection). Mitchell Street was just made a one-way during certain hours in the morning. Wouldn't it make more sense to understand what traffic is cutting through Mitchell Street, as it is expected to get much worse. The traffic counts collected in May didn't collect this information.

While I understand the traffic concerns, I think it is appalling that a pedestrian study was not conducted. This is what I heard from public comments, how a curbcut across a sidewalk would impact safety of pedestirans - mainly kids. Neither traffic consultant did any analysis or data collecting on the impact on pedestrians, of which there are many.

The one gentleman who spoke in favor referenced the area in front of the Honey Farms area as being dangerous and that the town should focus on that instead. I agree this is dangerous. But why take Main Street in front of the redevelopment and make that dangerous as well? Currently it is "safe" for pedestrians to traverse, why do we want to add another point of traffic for people to cross?

Collect pedestrian data, vehicular data from all sides of the intersection, then do an analysis.

The traffic study is done. It has been done in accordance with industry standards. A so called pedestrian study is something that is more appropriate for large scale developments in cities, regional malls and air ports. With this scale development it is up to us to figure out what is appropriate. The issue is, most believe this is simply a ploy to delay the project so CVS will walk away in frustration. After the peer review I believe the issue is settled and DPW will render its decision. If you truly have suggestions on how to make the cross walk safer – I think the planning board is all ears. The “Just Say No” folks have lost credibility that they have a genuine interest in public safety with respect to this project. The general view is they will say or do anything to delay or derail the project because it is CVS. I think you do have a genuine interest – the problem is the “Just say NO” group hijacked this issue and now anyone who speaks out in opposition is now painted with that brush – and people are growing tired of it. It is too bad because I think some people that have legitimate issues but the majority of people are so sick of “just say no” they are tuning you out. Take a look at the early postings on this issue and tell me I am wrong.

@Bill - How do you perform an analysis on an intersection, when data was only collected from 2 of the 4 streets that come into the intersection. I heard some residents on Mitchell Street talk about the cut through traffic that is happening now to avoid the intersection. How do you do an analysis on that issue when data wasn't collected. When you don't do a pedestrian study, how can you assess the impact of a Main Street curbcut on pedestrians?

The reason the town needs to do it's own study is because if the intersection becomes any more conjected after the redevelopment, the taxpayers of Wayland assume the cost of mitigation.

Wouldn't it make better sense to do a COMPLETE analysis of the intersection so that the site plan could be ammended to help mitigate future traffic issues?

Well said, Bill.

As to Mel's, the town attempted to "revisit" this site at the last Town Meeting when the owner of the property tried to get a bylaw revision passed to allow gas stations to operate convenience stores (i.e. - sell more than auto supplies). The revision would have allowed the tenant to operate more profitably (as gas sales are not the real source of profit) and provide incentive/money to remodel the property. Much like this situation, we were subjected to those in town that feel that allowing such commerce is just wrong. The revision failed. In the end, the tenant at the Mel's property now has no motivation to spend the money because he is being disallowed the chance to do what every gas station owner in every other town is allowed to do -- make money.

Interestingly, the town already selectively enforces the bylaw preventing such sales as some stations in town do sell convenience store items (see the Exxon on Rte. 20, as an example).

Jeff – I am afraid it goes deeper than that. The real story is quite sad – an individual who owns a convince store next to a gas station on the other side of Wayland thought it would not be in his interest to have this article passed because it could conceivably set the table for increased competition. It was the same arguments we see now – traffic, pedestrians, village and where do I get my 1987 Buick fixed. All so one person on the other side of town did not have to face increased competition sometime in the future. And we are left with a used car lot – and WE let it happen. NEVER AGAIN – THAT PARTY IS OVER.

Hardly surprising! I would correct one statement, Bill. WE did not let it happen. I voted for the revision. And I will again!!

Destruction of your neighborhood/way-of-life? The hyperbole continues....

That would be impressive if not for the population of over 13,000 with over 4,500 families according to the 2000 census. Not to mention your web site saying that you reached 100 signatures not 500, and many of them wishing they had not signed it now that they understand the development. Reality – there are 20 or so hard core members of the “just say no” group – most of whom oppose every development in Town no matter what (again, most of whom complain about the Tax rate every year – but oppose any commercial development) Don’t get me wrong – there are a handful of people that are impacted by this development and have every right to make sure their interests are protected – However, the Planning Board understands there are 13,000 residents they represent. And for those that don’t show up in support – they said their piece at the meeting a month ago. There is little interest in being repetitive.

Marisa – don’t let anyone, including myself, try and spin this. I think it is safe to say both sides have rested their case for tonight anyway (one could hope). Try and read the articles and the ensuing commentary in chronological order – then put yourself on the planning board and vote. Have fun with it and let us know how you come down on the question.

Jeff – I think you are missing my point. If given the choice between CVS and Ben and Jerry’s, no one is going to pick CVS (including me). My point, throughout this debate, is that is not a choice we get to make. That is not how the “system” works. I have no problem conceding CVS is not my first choice here - the issue is, and continues to be, that is not a question before the planning board. No matter who the tenant is the question remains – is the use in accordance with our zoning by lows? That is not up for debate – it is….

I understand given your further explanation, Bill, and I agree that it is not "our" choice as to CVS or another long-term leasee.

In thinking about my participation on these forums, my original goal was and continues to be to support the rights of the owners/developers of this site to proceed with their project given that it is a permissable use of this site. It never was my goal to engage with certain types of people. The issue of anonymity of these boards remains a central and important one to me because it has been my belief (substantiated both here and elsewhere) is that it brings out the worst in people. Names attached to comments insures accountability. However, given the limited scope of my goal in participating on this topic, I deleted many of my previously posted comments. There was and is no point to debating with those who choose to behave badly.

Bill -- I would respectfully disagree with your assertion. I, for one, am neither for nor against CVS as a tenant. What I AM for is the rights of a business owner to operate fairly and without needless obstruction. In this case, I favor the rights of these developers to put in a legal tenant willing to sign with them that is totally permitted by the zoning laws associated with their property. I agree that neighbors should have a say in how the development happens, and they certainly have been heard to this point as reflected by the many changes made by the development team to date.

In the case of Wayland Automotive (as we discussed previously), I favored the rights of the property owner to be able to operate on a level playing field with similar business both in town and in the local area.

In any case, I am most certainly against subversive efforts to thwart permitted commerce just cause somebody doesn't like it. The 'anti-CVS' movement is just that.

Bill - I agree great commentators on this issue you left off the one protagonist and that is smart.

Wayland Resident – you do realize the only special permit being sought is for the number of parking spaces. The Curb- Cut is not a special permit. Even if it was, the Town has their own peer review specifically saying the project is safer with the curb-cut and that would become evidentiary in your appeal. You’re down to parking; Parking is something that does not affect anyone adversely (with or without standing) and has been granted on many other projects in Wayland. The judge is not going to listen to any argument that does not specifically address an adverse impact directly attributable to the number of parking spaces serving the property. If you think the judge is going to allow any argument having to do with CVS, how large the project is, or the purported 500 signatures – you will be very disappointed because those arguments will be found not germane to the appeal as it has nothing to do with parking. I don’t see the appeal making it passed a motion for summary judgment. It will become a colossal waste of $10,000 in legal fees.

@ Bill, so we agree that the special permit may be appealed. Thanks for the legal advice, but I think in addition to the cost to defend the action the developer may incur delay and lose the interest of a tenant. More parking spaces=more traffic. More traffic=adverse impact. There is an argument to be made and the appeals will go on for some time.

OK Wayalnd Resident – while I am at it I will give you another free piece of legal advice. If you do (exactly as you just suggested) file a law suit or appeal for the purpose of slowing it down thereby making it less economically feasible (losing a tenants) they will simply file a SLAP counterclaim (look it up). It has been upheld in Massachusetts courts for exactly what you are suggesting - and comes with treble (3X) damages plus attorneys fees. That could easily be six or even seven figures. Are you willing to bet your house on that – because that is what you will be doing now that you have admitted to it in a public forum. Have fun getting an attorney now to – if they file the appeal knowing your intention is to slow the project down they will be sanctioned by the BBO and possible lose their license to practice law for a while. Are you ready to play in the NFL – because that is where you are headed with tough talk like that…..

@Bill and @Wayland Resident - you both touched on a scenario that isn't that far-fetched. I do believe that both developers and surounding residents have legitmate concerns with the outcome of site approval. And while the developers don't have to listen to residents, both do have legal footing. I'm sure that some that are opposed would think to use legal recourse to delay the project. I would also guess that some residents may use legal resources to try to protect their home/way of life.

What needs to happen is for both sides to legitimately come to the table to honestly discuss concerns. The outcome could be a terrific redevelopment project. Or, it could end up as a legal mess.

@John – I am not a huge fan of CVS either although I do not have as big a problem as most. The issue is if the planning board does not work with the developers (including a curb cut) they will simply go with a CVS only option with a drive through with absolutely no zoning relief at all. They will not need the curb cut, the parking or any other form of zoning relief. They don’t want to do that (because the back building gets them more money) but they will if backed into a corner. That is more like RT. 9 in Natick. Some believe the curb cut makes CVS go away – it will not. They would prefer to give up the cut and get the site to themselves. So- If CVS can be done without zoning relief and you believe a CVS only option is not best for the town because it will look ugly – you then work with the developers and do some horse trading. Which they have. The Planning board gets this and agrees with this analyses. There are some on this site that will say no to anything in an attempt to make CVS go away. Do you want to roll the dice and back them into a corner or do you want to get a decent project? 25 years of experience tells me we should not roll the dice on this one.

You really think these guys are going to wake up tomorrow and say “you know what – I am starting to re-think this development. We should call up CVS and tell them the deal is off – they are just too big of chain store with too much credit and some people have an issue with them in Town. Let’s scrap the whole thing and start over with some small users – we were never in this for the money anyway”.

First – I do live in Cochituate. My family has lived in Cochituate since 1954. After my grandfather got back from the South Pacific in WWII he decided to raze his family here. I decided to raze my family here, just as he did. I love my town too. I hate to say it, but fair has nothing to do with it. They are just playing by the rules of our Zoning By-Laws. If you don’t like the permitted uses in our by-laws then the residents can change them – all it takes is a zoning change warrant at Town meeting. That is a real option and you will probably get every resident in that area to vote for it. Your right – I am not a big supporter of having CVS here, however I recognize it does not matter what I (or anyone else) thinks about CVS as it is a permitted use. I can either chase windmills and complain about how unfair it is or I can take a business approach and say - given the rules of the game how can I improve on the project. I like to think of myself as a “good” business person so I chose to effectuate change where the situation (and rules) allow it. I look at the course of action the “just say no” folks are advocating and my analyses tells me the result will be a CVS contorted to meet zoning with a drive through. I am not on board with that….

I also come at this from a slightly different vantage point. Between the various gas stations that have not be touched in 50 years, the used car lot at Mell’s, the unsightly retail at Liberty pizza, the train wreck retail and office at Donnalans and the abandoned Finnerty’s project - I am not sure what we are trying to preserve here. I have earned the right to be self-critical of our village as I have been here longer than most anyone. I love my Town and I want to see this section of Wayland fixed up. If something is not done, I think this section for town is starting to look more like Brockton – and I am thinking more like Wellesley is where we should be shooting for. That is why I support the two building scenario – I do not want this to look like Rt. 9 and that is where we are headed if only one building can be done. I know people will be offended by that – but it is what I believe. I just don’t know what we are trying to preserve here – I want Wellesley not Brockton.

@Geoff - seems like a stategy to me. The 5 or so years that the property was vacant, but owned by the Finnerty family, it was landscaped and upkeep was done. Since the property changed ownership, it has not been taken care of. Windows are broken, the fence at the corner has been down for over a year, the gutters have been ripped from the roof, there are still leaves down, and branches from the hurricane and before.

So it is either a strategy by the developers to make it more of an eyesore so people will clamber for redevelopment or the owners are negligent landlords. Should we look forward to this in the future?

Wayland Resident – I am going to have to give up with you. You are just not listing or worse, not getting my argument. In an ideal world, I do support a smaller development with local tenants. I would rather see the site be turned into a soccer field or even a community center. Like you, I am not thrilled with CVS. I would much rather see an art gallery, Ice cream shop, restaurant – anything but a drug store. I just don’t live in that ideal, Capraesque world where the will of the abutters can dictate what goes there, where everything in world is sunshine and puppy dogs. The world I live in is colder and more complicated than that (I wish I could live in your world – but life and experience has made me jaded). My world is dictated by the reality of money, leverage and laws. If you can’t see the difference between a CVS with a drive through surrounded by a sea of parking and a mixed use development (with a restaurant)as proposed, then we have no way of communicating anymore. We just live in different worlds. I can understand the emotional reaction the abutters have to this – if I lived across the street I would probably react the same way. Like me, you are not an abutter and can look at this as a business deal and take emotion out of this. I am just thankful the Planning Board can do that. You want to make fun of my auto-spell – OK. At least I am not Pollyannaish in my world view.

We can agree on those two things – NASCAR I don’t get at all. Stock Cars running in a circle – what is the draw? We can also agree on these” Local” guys. The fact they are from Wayland has no bearing on this subject – to me anyway. The only difference is I think these guys will put their heart into this development and that will matter to most people. The only difference – National Development would have come in with the CVS only concept at the beginning and let the Town have a heart attack. Then they would have let the Town suggest the two building option themselves so it would have looked as though they were going along with it as an accommodation (that is what I would have done). I will admit, they are not as slick as the big guys – but im not sure that is a bad thing. The fact they are from Wayland has gotten in the way a little – they cannot come in over the top with a CVS only option and simply told the Town A or B – you pick!!! Again, that is what I would have done if I did not live in the Town – but then again, I am a prick when it comes to this stuff. Which is a third thing I’m sure we can agree on…. Have a good night Wayland Resident and happy holidays. Be safe…..