Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

WELLESLEY PLANNING BOARD

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009, 7:00 PM

PLANNING BOARD OFFICE

LOWER LEVEL, TOWN HALL

Planning Board Present: Mr. McCauley, Ms. Wasser, Ms. Donahue, Ms. Conroy, and Mr. Chan

Staff Present: Ms. Jop, Mr. Zehner, Mr. Parsons

Also Present: Charlotte Leborwitz, Richard Beckwith, Jorie Fallon, Avrum Silverman, Brian O'Keefe, Casey Sewall, Sara Azzam, Philip Connor, B.L. Peterson, Liz Harrington, James Brown, Lisa Brown, Karen Cox, Bruce Hunter, Steve Sykes, Rahim Sohani, J. Gavin Cocksfield, Don Thieme, Ryan Gershman, Shari Schneider, Andrew Schneider, Suzanne Palacino, Ellen Gibbs, Nancy Gans, Stephan Braun, Peter Katshaegaris, Sara Schnorr, James Pelerco, David Fico

1. 100 Pilgrim Road, Large House Review 09-06

Mr. Rahim Sohani and his attorney Gavin Cocksfield returned to the Board for continued review of a Large House Review for 100 Pilgrim Road. Mr. Cocksfield stated revised plans were submitted to the Board which reduced the square footage to 346 sf. over the threshold. Mr. Cocksfield indicated the garage has been revised and has been further setback from Pilgrim Road 3 feet. He pointed out the front steps are now the closest element at 38'. The side yards have also been increased by an additional foot on each side. The highest elevation on the house was also dropped by a foot. The back portion of the house was dropped in height by 2.5 feet, which comprises 50% of the structure. Mr. Cocksfield stated his client has tried to reduce the mass, scale, and setbacks. Mr. Cocksfield noted previous discussions on retaining walls being installed after the house is constructed, and suggested a condition to control the installation of retaining walls in the future. Mr. Cocksfield stated he believed the revised plans are a good compromise, and that in relation to the number of meetings on this project, hoped the Planning Board would vote to approve the project as presented.

Mr. McCauley questioned the TLAG of the proposed revisions. Mr. Cocksfield stated the revised plans have a TLAG of 4,786.

Mr. Richard Beckwith, an abutter at 114 Pilgrim Road, stated the height of the roof is approximately 7 feet higher than the abutting properties. He stated he looked at the attic plan, and felt the height of the attic was due to the mechanical equipment for the heating and air conditioning. Mr. Beckwith suggested the applicant consult with a mechanical engineer to use an alternative system which is more compact. Mr. Beckwith noted the attic did not look usable with high windows and lack of natural light, and felt the attic was a waste of space. Mr. Beckwith suggested lowering the roof line to reduce the scale of the house which he believed impinges on adjacent views.

Mr. Bruce Hunter, an abutter at 111 Pilgrim Road, stated he appreciated the efforts Mr. Sohani has made in terms of fitting into neighborhood; however felt the house was still too massive. Mr. Hunter stated he felt the house had a nice design and nice attributes, but was much larger than other houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Hunter felt the concerns over the mass of the structure have still not been addressed in the revised plans.

Ms. Donahue stated she was confused over the alteration in the roof line of the attic; it is lower but appears to increase the area of the attic.

Mr. Cocksfield stated the layout of the attic has been changed, and the square footage has been reduced. The current square footage in the new attic configuration is approximately 700 square feet.

Ms. Donahue noted a second window has been added to the attic plan. Mr. Cocksfield stated a second window was added that would be located on the rear of the house.

Ms. Donahue noted she appreciated the revisions and the attempt to reduce the square footage.

Ms. Wasser stated she looked carefully at the revised plans and did not understand why the roof is so big. Mr. Cocksfield stated once you establish the footprint of the structure, the roof and pitch must fit within the design. The design has broken the roof into sections to break up the massing and is designed to mimic other houses. Mr. Cocksfield stated to bring the roof pitch down would make the roof look odd.

Ms. Conroy stated she thought the proposed structure is still totally out of character with the neighborhood. She indicated there are a few larger homes along Pilgrim, but this proposal is out of character with 80% of the neighborhood.

Ms. Jorie Fallon, resident Beechwood Road, stated 7 feet above other rooflines in the neighborhood is enormous. Ms. Fallon stated the homes on the street are aligned, and questioned why the Board would allow the proposed structure to move forward. She felt the setback would establish a precedent. Mr. Cocksfield indicated the proposed front yard setback is setback 6 feet further than other homes and the direct abutters on either side of the property.

Mr. Avrum Silverman, resident Edgemoor Avenue, stated the attic height would be converted to living space after the review.

Mr. McCauley stated modifications within 3 years of Large House Review or additions that increase the TLAG by over 10% would return to the Board for additional review.

Ms. Wasser noted the plans do not indicate the heights of the floors, and indicated there is no way to determine the floor to floor height to see if that could be reduced.

Mr. Cocksfield noted the conversion of the attic to living space would fall back under review with the Board. Mr. Cocksfield asked the board to review the project and to vote on the project.

Mr. Chan stated the existing structure is setback 41.7 feet from Pilgrim Road, and the proposed structure would be setback 36.7 feet from Pilgrim Road to the garage.

Ms. Donahue moved that the Board approve LHR 09-06 for 100 Pilgrim Road as modified in the most recent submittal of drawings. The motion was seconded.

Mr. Chan during discussion stated the main issue for the project is massing, and noted he did not see any other issues with lighting, landscaping, or circulation.

Mr. McCauley stated the applicant made a good effort to modify the design. He suggested conditions perhaps be added on retaining walls. Mr. McCauley thought the design was still a large box in the neighborhood that would greatly exceed the square footage threshold. Mr. McCauley noted if newer comparable homes were built on the other side of the street, which is approximately 8-10 feet higher in elevation the result would be even more dramatic. He noted the proposed structure is a clear example of why Large House Review was passed, which was to review larger homes and try and find other ways to address the needs of the developer while trying to fit into an existing neighborhood.

Ms. Donahue noted her concerns besides mass also include the extent to which the house and patio will consume open space, and the creation of shadows on abutting properties.

Mr. McCauley added one additional concern he had was the left side elevation is consumed with wall and very little windows.

The Board voted 0-5 against the motion to approve the proposal as presented with the modified plans.

The Large House Review application was denied.

2. Inclusionary Zoning Public Hearing - CVS 984, 990, and 990R Worcester Street

Mr. McCauley opened the public hearing on the application of GB New England 2, LLC for approval of an Inclusionary Zoning Special Permit seeking a payment in lieu intended to satisfy the requirements of Section XVIB. Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) of the Zoning Bylaw. Mr. McCauley stated IZ is a bylaw provision to facilitate and encourage affordable housing in town and is applicable to projects which trigger a Project of Significant Impact (PSI) or create a subdivision with five or more lots.

Mr. Brian Levey, representing Gershwin, Brown, and Crowley stated the proposed project triggering IZ is a 12,900 sf CVS Pharmacy with drive through with 65 parking spaces. Mr. Levey stated the project has completed Wetlands Committee review and received an Order of Conditions dated June 30, 2009. Mr. Levey indicated the proposed project spent several months in review with the Wetlands Committee and agreed to relocate several Town utilities within the site. Mr. Levey stated the application for PSI was filed on August 7, 2009, and to date the applicant has gone before the Board of Selectmen once for Traffic review on September 21, 2009.

Mr. Levey indicated the traffic component for the project appears to be the most complicated. He stated there is a frontage roadway that would be shared with 978 Worcester Street proposed. The project also calls for a fully signalized intersection at Overbrook Drive to siphon traffic away from Weston Road turnaround. Mr. Levey stated his client has volunteered to undergo a traffic mitigation plan of $500,000 to allow a left turn westbound on Route 9 from the site drive. With the connection to Mr. Behrend's property the westbound turn would be helpful to entire neighborhood.

Mr. Levey explained to the Board there have been 4 memos on the payment in lieu submitted to the Board. Two of the memos are from the Wellesley Housing Development Corporation (WHDC) recommending payments of $107,000 (asking price estimate) and $113,000 (sales price estimate). Mr. Levey stated the project team's analysis was a payment of $98,000 rather than the $113,000 with 21 properties reviewed.

Mr. Levey stated the fourth memo in front of the Board is a proposal for a $35,000 payment rather than the $113,000 proposed by WHDC. Mr. Levey suggested the Board consider the lower payment option of $35,000 in consideration of the cost of traffic mitigation and the fact the proposed project just triggers IZ and PSI by 2,900 square feet. The threshold is 10,000 square feet for new construction, and Mr. Levey noted the formula does not step up based on square footage over the threshold. Mr. Levey noted the proposed payment in lieu is the first for the Town. He stated other projects that have had to comply with IZ have been much larger in scale. Mr. Levey explained that CVS is not in the business of building housing, that he felt the project was just over the trigger, and believed the $35,000 was a fair payment. He asked the Board to consider the request.

Ms. Sara Schnorr, member of WHDC and former Chair of WHDC stated the Housing Development Corporation will be meeting on October 1st and could consider any new information in regards to the proposed payment. Ms. Schnorr noted it might be less expensive to build 1 unit on site or to purchase a unit off site rather than to make a payment in lieu. Ms. Schnorr noted the bylaw is specific as to how to calculate a payment in lieu. Ms. Schnorr felt the recommended payment is a good estimate, but added that variable mortgage rates have changed so a lower price might a consideration.

Ms. Schnorr stated she thought no need to reduce the payment to $35,000 as suggested by the applicant. She also noted the argument of not being in the business of building or the cost of building is too expensive is one we have heard, yet Eastern Development built 7 units at Linden Square that are LEED Certified. Ms. Schnorr encouraged the Board to not reduce the proposed payment in lieu.

Ms. Jop noted the Board would need to formally vote on the number of units required to meet the IZ requirements. Ms. Jop indicated there has not been any dispute in the number of units generated by the Planning staff and the applicant. Mr. Levey confirmed Ms. Jop's assertion.

Ms. Jop stated based on the calculation of 0.02 units per 1,000 sf of new floor area, the calculation would be 0.258% of a unit or 1 unit. [(12900/1000) x 0.02] = 0.258. For payment in lieu purposes the fractional unit is the deciding payment indicator.

The Board moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to approve the determination of number of units required for the Inclusionary Zoning provided for 984, 990, and 990R Worcester Street as 0.258% in lieu of 1 unit.

Mr. McCauley stated he was unsure of the basis for taking a substantially reduced payment in lieu. He believed if the calculation is 0.258% of a unit, mathematically the payment is simple. The change could be the cost of 1 unit, which would then impact the fractional unit payment.

Mr. McCauley suggested continuing the public hearing to allow Ms. Schnorr and the WHDC to review the new material submitted by Mr. Levey to the Board in regards to the payment.

Mr. Chan stated his preference was to have the unit constructed. Mr. Levey indicated if a unit is required to be located on site, the project as a whole could not move forward.

The Board moved, seconded, and voted to continue the Inclusionary Zoning Public Hearing to 8:00 pm on November 9, 2009.

3. Project of Significant Impact Public Hearing - CVS 984, 990, and 990R Worcester Street

Mr. McCauley opened the Project of Significant Impact (PSI) public hearing on the construction of a 12,900 square foot CVS with Pharmacy and double drive-through to be located at 984, 990, and 990R Worcester Street. Mr. McCauley explained the PSI review evaluates projects based on their impact on municipal services including traffic and pedestrian safety, water, drainage, sewer, fire, refuse, and electric. He noted the proposed project is sent out to various town departments including the Board of Selectmen, Department of Public Works, Fire Department, and Municipal Light Plant. Mr. McCauley stated the PSI is a special permit, and the Planning Board is the special permit granting authority.

Mr. McCauley indicated the Planning Board will not be examining at this hearing the zoning and the right of CVS to locate a store at this location. Mr. McCauley explained the proposed project is an as of right use for the zoning district. He noted the applicant is not looking for any zoning relief where the town is able to enter into a development agreement to limit specific uses. He noted the Board is not considering the use of the site, but is considering the impact the use will have on town services.

Mr. McCauley noted the concerns raised by residents over the construction of a CVS in this location are matters that need to be addressed in the Zoning Bylaw. He noted Chatham, MA has taken up a bylaw amendment to address formula based businesses. Wellesley does not have such a provision, and the Zoning Bylaw does not allow the Board to rule on what we like or do not like about a business or place.

Mr. McCauley informed the public the Board does not distinguish review based on the owner of the property. Zoning can lay out preferences for specific types of businesses, but not specific business establishments.

Mr. Chan stated the Board's jurisdiction is specific and cannot be biased based on the business proposed He noted the Board must review whether the project complies with the elements outlined in the PSI review.

Ms. Sarah Jane Greene, resident of Wedgewood Road, stated if the Board required a unit on site it would kill the project, and she felt the Board did have the ability to kill the project.

Ms. Donahue noted the Board has the ability to consider the reasonability of the project and how it complies with zoning and the PSI review. Ms. Donahue stated the Board's intent is to review the project by following proper policy.

Mr. John Damien, a resident of Woodland Road, stated if the Fells Market is closed the area could become attractive to young children. Mr. Damien had concerns over children crossing Route 9. Mr. McCauley noted pedestrian safety is an element the Board will consider.

Ms. Sara Azzam, resident, stated the Board is allowed to look at reasonability in regards to the Inclusionary Zoning. Mr. McCauley stated the Board can review partial payment or 1 unit of affordable housing being required. He noted whether it is reasonable to require a 13,000 square foot store to make a 1 unit contribution of housing to the town or a partial payment will be considered. Mr. McCauley noted the Board does not use Inclusionary Zoning as a tool to prohibit projects in town.

Ms. Azzam questioned why the Board could not deny the store due to its impact on the neighborhood, as the Board denied 100 Pilgrim Road earlier in the night. Mr. McCauley explained the 100 Pilgrim Road review was under the Large House Review, which has a different scope of review and is specific to single family properties.

Mr. McCauley tried to explain that zoning is a restriction on use of land. He noted Wellesley has not adopted a "no more drug store" zoning amendment to date.

Mr. Brian Levey, attorney representing the applicant, stated he would give an overview of the project and address the various criteria of PSI. Mr. Levey introduced the project team including Mr. Ryan Gershman, Mr. Brian Murphy from VHB, and Mr. Pat Dunford from VHB. Mr. Levey indicated he has completed the Wetlands review, but will also need to complete the PSI review with the Planning Board for offsite impacts, Design Review Board for Design Review and the Zoning Board of Appeals for Site Plan Approval for onsite impacts.

Ms. Wasser asked Mr. Levey if there was a representative from CVS present. Mr. Ryan Gershman stated he is from Gershwin, Brown and Crowley. He stated their office is in Rhode Island and the firm is currently developing 85 CVS stores from Maine to New York. Ms. Gershman stated there is a contractual relationship between Mary Louise Kehoe, the property owner, and CVS.

Mr. Brian Murphy, civil engineer from VHB, stated there are 3 existing buildings on site currently vacant, however there are several vehicles parked on site. Mr. Murphy indicated the site is within the wetlands of Bogle Brook and is currently connected to municipal water, drainage, and sewer. Mr. Murphy noted currently the stormwater runoff is sheet flows into the surrounding wetlands. The new stormwater proposed includes rain gardens and deep sumps to improve water quality and recharge. Mr. Murphy indicated on the plan the flood plain compensation would be located on site. He pointed out where retaining walls are being used to mitigate fill. Mr. Murphy stated the proposed stormwater is a vast improvement on the stormwater infiltration into Bogle Brook.

Mr. Murphy stated the proposed project is a 12,900 square foot retail store with 2 drive through windows, and 65 parking spaces. Mr. Murphy stated his calculations indicate the site would decrease the usage of water, sewer, and electric. He explained on properties needing to pass Title V, a normal CVS will use less water and sewer than a single family home. The project use of water and sewer is less than 400 gallons per day. Mr. Murphy noted the project would clean up the wetlands including the removal of invasive species. He further noted the site access would be serviced by a light and an existing right hand turn out of the site.

Mr. Murphy concluded by stating he has been in communication with MLP, Engineering, and Fire and is awaiting their responses.

Mr. Patrick Dunford, traffic engineer from VHB, stated the traffic has been to the Board of Selectmen once for review to date, but was not complete. Mr. Dunford noted he had received Beta Engineering, the town's traffic consultants, report and will address the concerns raised.

Mr. Dunford stated he went and looked at the traffic surround the site, and at the existing deficiencies. The traffic study looks at the existing traffic and forecasts out 5 years into the future. This project looks at 5 years into the future on Route 9 and includes existing projects in Wellesley and beyond. Mr. Dunford stated the key to the analysis is looking at how much traffic the project would generate and add to the roadway. He noted this number is project from the ITE manual.

Mr. Dunford stated the proposed site design includes a signalized light. Without the proposed light someone would need to turn right when leaving the site and would turn around at Weston Road to head west on Route 9. The proposal would modify the existing Route 9/Overbrook Dr. signal. Mr. Dunford noted the proposal also has a secondary point of egress to allow patrons to turn right out of the site and head east bound.

Mr. Dunford indicated within the property circulation parking would be able to accommodate daily and peak demand. The proposed drive through would have 2 full lands, which under peak conditions would have only 2 cars queued. Mr. Dunford stated he believed the proposal has an efficient layout, and noted the town is reviewing with Beta Engineering. Mr. Dunford explained Mass Highway would also need to review the proposal. Mr. Dunford also addressed neighbors concerns and noted pedestrian improvements are planned for the site.

Ms. Jop noted several residents were unclear on the new signalization and asked Mr. Dunford to clarify the movements allowed with the proposed light. She questioned if leaving the CVS if a car could drive straight across to Overbrook Drive. Mr. Dunford stated the light would allow cars to turn left from the site and head west on Route 9, and would allow cars to access Overbrook Drive by heading straight.

Mr. McCauley noted the traffic review goes beyond the Overbrook Drive/Route 9 intersection. Mr. McCauley questioned if any traffic counts have been made on the unsignalized streets.

Mr. Chan also questioned what else is being proposed for mitigation other than the signal. He asked for specifics on the pedestrian improvement plan, any reconfiguration of lanes, and whether access points would be condensed.

Ms. Conroy questioned if there was any anticipation of lengthening the queue for turning lanes on both the east and west sides of Route 9. She noted there is always a considerable back up at the turning lanes.

Mr. Dunford stated as of this point the proposal would not be lengthening the turning lanes, but if Mass Highway required lengthening of the lanes they would be altered. Mr. Dunford stated the Overbrook and the Oak Street lights would be tied together which would help the through traffic. He noted it would help the traffic not resolve the problems that currently exist.

Ms. Conroy noted from the project site the new light would allow a left turn. She questioned if the Overbrook light timing would be altered. Mr. Dunford stated the proposal would decrease the time of the Overbrook light and would maximize Route 9 travel.

Ms. Donahue questioned if the proposed right turn lane had been discussed with Mass Highway. She raised concerns over conflict between right turn and the entrance to 978 Worcester Street. Ms. Donahue questioned the possibility of having only one exit from the site. Mr. Dunford indicated he had looked at having only one exit, and noted the secondary turn creates a relief valve and reduces the queuing on site.

Ms. Donahue questioned if any of the development projects in the scope of the study have been completed to look at actual counts from such projects as Natick Collection. Mr. Dunford noted Beta has asked a similar question and noted he is looking into the response.

Ms. Donahue questioned what the impacts were of having only a right turn from the site. Mr. Dunford stated the layout would remain the same, but more traffic would be diverted to Weston Road.

Ms. Donahue noted the bylaw asks for sidewalks to be looked at within 600 feet of the project. She noted the sidewalks look at the existing condition and looks at gaps in the sidewalk network. Ms. Donahue stated it would be helpful for the Board to understand where the gaps are located and to understand the cost of the mitigation.

Mr. McCauley asked if Mr. Dunford could discuss the connector between 978 and the project site. Mr. Dunford indicated the proposed connection is located 180 feet back from Route 9 and would connect the two sites.

Mr. McCauley questioned how the existing uses are being calculated in terms of water and sewer. Mr. Murphy stated the calculations are based on the square footage of the building and the previous automotive use.

Mr. McCauley noted the current town requirement for parking would be 80 parking spaces, but the project has proposed a lesser number. Ms Jop noted that she, Mr. Levey, Town Counsel and the Building Inspector discussed the parking requirement for the site. Ms. Jop noted the bylaw has language which grandfathers the square footage of the site to 1983. Mr. McCauley noted he felt the project should not have benefits of grandfathering provisions and stated he would like to take a look at the language. Mr. McCauley noted the parking seemed constrained along with the trash compactor. Mr. McCauley stated the parking configuration raises concerns of traffic flow and safety.

Ms. Donahue questioned how many parking spaces would be lost for snow storage.

Mr. Murphy stated he believes the parking is adequate for the site. He stated in regards to snow storage, the snow would be removed from the site and would go to an approved location. He noted in a typical scenario, the snow remains on site and as the snow melts the metal and grit from the parking lot gets filtered with the onsite drainage.

Ms. Wasser stated it would be helpful to know the number of parking spaces per square foot for the CVS located on Linden Street. She noted additionally information on the number of employees and the total square footage would also be helpful. She questioned the square footage of the Athol and West Boylston stores and asked the proposed hours. Mr. Murphy indicated the hours are from 8:00 am or 10:00 am to 10:00 pm or 11:00 pm typically. Mr. Murphy clarified the store is not requesting to he opened 24 hours a day.

Mr. Chan asked on the site plan where the residential building for 978 Worcester Street is located in relation to the proposed connector. MR. Chan noted the dimension from the connector to the proposed CVS building is 24 feet. He felt that was narrow.

Ms. Wendy Borskin, a resident, stated she had concerns over pedestrian safety. She felt the CVS was in close proximity to the elementary schools and wanted additional information on how a safe crossing would be achieved.

Mr. Richard Broberg, a resident from Highledge Avenue, questioned at what stage the abutters could review the project. Ms. Jop noted the application has been placed online on the town's website. Mr. Broberg questioned if the traffic could included the traffic from the connector. Mr. Dunford stated the traffic from the connector has been included in the traffic counts. Mr. Broberg also raised concerns over mitigation to Weston Road, Manor Ave, and Overbrook Drive. He noted there are few outlets in the neighborhood and additional traffic would be unacceptable. He was also concerns the proposed project would create additional cut through traffic. Mr. Dunford stated the proposed mitigation would decrease or reduce the traffic loads along Route 9 and would make the existing light more efficient when synchronized with Oak Street lights.

Ms. Sara Azzam, a resident from Manor Avenue, had concerns over the traffic pattern from Weston Road. She noted Fells Market attracts customers from Weston, and felt the CVS would too. She noted Overbrook Drive has speed bumps, Manor does not.

Mr. Stephen Braun, a resident from Ingersoll Road, stated he lived on Manor Ave for 8 years. He felt the Overbrook speed bumps send people down Beechwood Road. He questioned the number of cars projected to go up Overbrook. Mr. Dunford stated he expects a 3% increase of traffic along Overbrook drive. He stated the cut through down Beechwood is an existing problem which will remain. Mr. Dunford stated enforcement along Beechwood along with a better traffic flow along Route 9 would reduce the incentives to travel down Beechwood Road. Mr. Braun stated between 4 and 6 pm cars will want to go up Overbrook rather than continue up Route 9. Mr. Braun stated some mitigation along Overbrook Drive needs to be done.

Mr. Andrew Snyder, a resident, questioned the location of the cut through from the 978 Worcester Street property to the project site. He noted the left turn lane to go west bound on Route 9 does fill up and he felt the CVS would exasperate the problem. Mr. Snyder also stated that he believed there would be no relief from Oak Street. He noted the choke on the Overbrook Drive intersection is Oak Street and the improvements for that intersection are years away. Mr. Snyder addressed the Overbrook speed humps. He noted Overbrook is one of the more affordable neighborhoods in town and is an entering point for families moving to Wellesley. He noted the area is a magnet for children and would not want children crossing Route 9. In addition Mr. Snyder felt there has not been sufficient study of the impact on Overbrook, Beechwood, or Manor.

Ms. Lisa Brown, Beechwood Road resident, stated she was concerned over the traffic. Ms. Brown stated the traffic report indicates that evening and Saturday traffic shows negligible traffic from Overbrook both ways north and south, but they expect a 3% increase. Ms. Brown recommended that cars should not be able to cross from the project site to Overbrook Drive.

Ms. Jorie Fallon, Beechwood Road resident, stated there have been nearly 40 accidents on Overbrook Drive. She also indicated there are no sidewalks proposed on the side of the building closest to 978 Worcester Street. She also indicated she felt it looks like a conflict in front will create a bottleneck trying to exit the site. She also felt there would be a loading issue at the rear and questioned how trucks would leave the site. Ms. Fallon questioned how many cars could exit the site with one cycle of the light.

Mr. Avrum Silverman, Edgemoor Avenue resident, stated the Overbrook intersection has been on the Mass Highway close list for the last 20 years, and has only remained open to allow for fire access. Mr. Silverman stated he believed Massachusetts drivers cannot read traffic signs and a physical barrier would be necessary if cars could not access Overbrook Drive from the project site. Mr. Silverman also questioned if Mass Highway had approved the two curb cuts. Mr. Dunford stated he has met with Mass Highway and they asked for further study. Mr. Silverman stated the left turn onto Overbrook from Route 9 only holds 6 cars. If a signal is put in the left land heading west bound only holds 3 cars. He felt the backup from the turning lanes would create additional traffic.

Mr. Daniel Grossman, resident, questioned what the impact on traffic would be during construction. He questioned if he should expect electric or water shortages. Mr. Dunford indicated although the mitigation is for major signal improvements, a plan will need to be approved and Mass Highway would dictate the hours of construction. Mr. Dunford stated he did not believe there would be any impact on lighting. He indicated there would be a new electrical connection from the street, but typically that does not create outages.

Ms. Suzanne Palancino, Beechwood Road resident, stated she felt CVS brings no benefit to Wellesley. She stated Beechwood is a perpetual cut through and a sign has been placed to reduce speeds that states thickly settled. She felt more mitigation would be required. She noted Oak Street upgrades are another 3 years away from being complete. Ms. Palancino also noted traffic backups at 5:00 pm can back up to Kingsbury Street. Ms. Palancino questioned when the minutes would be available.

Ms. Sharon Cassell, resident, stated she believed CVS is trying to get customers from Weston, Natick, and Framingham. She noted with GPS systems she has seen cut through traffic increase, and is generally west bound. With the CVS the cut through will be in both directions, and she felt the cut through problems are a long standing problem and she was really concerned.

Mr. Jim Brown, Beechwood Road resident, stated traffic has grown due to cut through along Manor, Overbrook, Beechwood and the neighbors would like to avoid an increase in traffic. Mr. Brown suggested a condition to prevent the light from allowing cars to cross over Route 9 to access Overbrook Drive.

Ms. Jorie Fallon, Beechwood Road resident, stated parking spaces need to be reviewed. She questioned if a light could be installed at Lexington Road. She felt there would need to be two lanes exiting the site due to the timing at the light.

Ms. Ellen Gibbs, South Woodside Road resident, stated there is no data on side streets and she recommended additional analysis be conducted. She also stated with the Route 9 improvements at Oak Street being so far out; it would make sense to postpone the project until such time the improvements have been complete. She noted the traffic study looks 5 years ahead, but the Route 9 improvements would not be complete for another 3 years.

Mr. McCauley noted the traffic study needs to anticipate projects, but the Board cannot make people wait on development.

Ms. Palancino recommended the Board ask for additional analysis of the side streets. She noted the small bridge on Cedarbrook and noted two cars cannot pass at the same time. She questioned if the bridge could handle additional weight, and noted kids walk the path from Overbrook which was a safety concern.

Ms. Borskin stated two cars can barely fit over the Cedarbrook Road Bridge. She recommended the traffic study be further out than 5 years and suggested the study look 10 years out.

The Board questioned the time frame for the Oak Street intersection. Mr. Dunford stated the Oak Street improvements are at the 25% design level, however he noted there will be interim improvements due to the Math Works expansion.

Mr. Chan stated the Board has heard testimony on concerns over traffic on Overbrook, Manor, and Beechwood. Mr. Chan felt he could not effectively rule without data. Mr. Chan noted Mr. Behrend owes the Board some speed studies on Beechwood, which would be helpful towards the review.

Ms. Wasser questioned if the Board should look at restrictive access to the residential roads or one way access at Manor/Overbrook or Beechwood at certain times of the day.

Mr. McCauley concurred with the Board and felt the scope of the study needed to be expanded to include the additional roads.

Mr. Chan asked for a memo to be developed outlining the specific improvements at Oak Street and a time frame on the improvements.

The Board moved, seconded, and voted to continue the public hearing to November 9th at 8:15 pm.

4. Request for Waivers from LHR- #21 Parker Road

Mr. Dan Pickings came before the Board requesting a waiver of Large House Review submittals including design review, site plan, landscaping plan, grading plan, drainage plan, and elevations. Mr. Pickings stated he completed the house in 2004 and roughed out the attic, but never completed the attic. The proposal is to complete the attic with no exterior changes. The completion of the attic would trigger Large House Review.

Mr. McCauley stated besides the submittal of a site plan, he was in favor of waiving the other materials.

The Board discussed whether design review could be waived. The Board after a brief discussion believed design review could be waived based on the zoning language.

The Board after a brief discussion moved, seconded, and voted to waive the submission of the following plans for the Large House Review of 21 Parker Road: landscape plan, grading plan, elevations, drainage plan, and design review.

The Board discussed the submission of articles for the Special Town Meeting warrant. The Board stated they would discuss STM presentations at the next meeting.

Next Meeting: October 7, 2009

Meeting Adjourned: 11:05 p.m.