Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Margery Arnold, Mark Scott, Samuel Lasky, Tom Bloch, Frank Holmes, Chris DiStefano, Joe Geller, Alan Cloutier, Kien Ho, Liz McChesney, Jennifer Conley, Brian Beisel, Mark Paris, Marty Kane, Steve Sykes, Hugh Beckett, Kamal Johari, Joe Tierney, Sheila Tucker, John Buckley, Bob Sechrest, Peggy Griffin, Sophie Jones, Elgar Pichler, Robert C. Davis.

Mr. McCauley commented that he felt that in the future the format of the decisions should be modified to incorporate "criteria satisfied." Mr. Brown suggested that a copy be marked up so the revised format can be used for the next cases.

Chairman Chan said that he is interested in this area also and will attend the meetings. He said that he would be happy to turn this liaison over to Mr. McCauley in the future if and when Mr. McCauley no longer has a conflict. Mr. McCauley said that Ms. Sawitsky asked him to speak at an upcoming Committee meeting which he said he is happy to do.

The Board briefly discussed a memo from Mr. Langer concerning zoning for the so-called Taylor Block (Washington, Grove, Spring & Cameron). There was discussion of whether construction would be subject to a front setback of five feet. Mr. McCauley said that he has not had time to focus on the matter. He felt that Board members should not be called upon for this type of analysis. Mr. Frisardi felt that it is appropriate for the Board to weigh in.

Mr. Brown indicated that he had received a call from Mr. Kellogg, recently elected Chair of Advisory Committee, inquiring about Planning Board scheduling of Town Meeting matters. Mr. Brown indicated that the recodification effort likely will not be complete for a Fall Town Meeting. It is likely that the High School proponents will not want other matters on the Fall Warrant.

Mr. Langer introduced Tom Bloch, Chair of the Temple Building Committee; Joe Geller and Frank Holmes of Geller Associates; Sam Lasky of William Rawn Associates, Architects; and Alan Cloutier of VHB. He indicated that there was a previous meeting with the Planning Board concerning the discontinuance of a portion of Bethel Road which has been accomplished. He briefly explained the plan.

Mr. Bloch discussed the Temple's need to expand based on the number of families served which has grown from approximately 250 in the 1960's to approximately 870 today. He mentioned the agreement with the Schofield School for joint use of the parking which has been of great mutual benefit. He explained that the heaviest Temple use is for the High Holidays which takes place three days per year.

Mr. Lasky explained the details of the design and the planning for the design. He explained the site and the natural bowl at the rear of the site which will be the location of the new building. He explained the attention devoted to and the relation between the indoor space and the outdoor space (courtyard) in the new design. Two models were used in the presentation, one showing the whole site and its topography, the other showing the new Temple in detail.

Mr. Frisardi asked about grade changes. Mr. Geller explained the changes which are in the vicinity of the new parking lot at the northeast corner of the site close to the proposed new gated vehicular access to Schofield School.

Ms. Donahue asked how close this area is to the residential abutting land. The response was 45 to 50 feet. She asked about runoff from this area. The response was that it would be minimal since the top half of the slope is heavy stone rip rap and only the bottom half of the slope would be disturbed.

There was a brief discussion of water usage. Mr. Geller noted there is sufficient fire flow and no booster pump is required. Ms. Donahue asked about annual water usage. Mr. Holmes said the increased usage would not be significant since the Hebrew School is just increasing from four to five classrooms. It is anticipated that there would be nine additional students at the outset.

Mr. Geller explained the existing and proposed storm drainage systems. He said currently there is sheet flow to the pond on the site. The proposed system will utilize BMP's with Low Impact Development (LID) pervious pavement, bio-retention, 80% removal of suspended solids, subsurface infiltration with no impact (no connection) to the Town storm drainage system.

Mr. Holmes explained the electric system upgrades. An existing transformer in the cul-de-sac will be retained. Concerning life safety, smoke, heat and sprinkler systems will be installed according to code. Fire Department has noted that the municipal alarm system has capacity for the project. Concerning refuse and recycling a private contractor will be utilized. Refuse will not go to the Wellesley RDF.

Ms. Donahue asked about efforts to reduce electric consumption. Mr. Bloch noted that the Temple does have a "Green Sustainability Committee" to oversee selection of fixtures. He said that attention has been given to making the most use of natural rather that artificial light.

Mr. Geller said the shared parking arrangement worked out with Schofield School will be advantageous. He said that the design responds to the need for vehicle storage for pick-up of students at the Hebrew School of 40 - 50 cars. He noted that for weekend services a traffic officer would be retained at the Bethel Road/Cedar Street intersection.

Mr. Ho introduced Ms. McChesney, traffic engineer with BETA, who gave the peer traffic review on behalf of the Town. She said there are no safety issues with the design. Using a PowerPoint presentation she explained the Intersection Sight Distance (ISD), and Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) at the intersection of Bethel Road and Cedar Street. She said both are adequate currently. She said that BETA has recommended a 12 month after occupancy follow-up study.

There was some discussion of traffic circulation for student pick up by parents. Mr. Geller said this is organized and monitored by Temple staff. Ms. Donahue asked about an education plan concerning parking and circulation for the congregants. She said that it doesn't hurt to let people know.

Chairman Chan noted that letters have been received since the last session of the hearing from Mr. Sechrest, Dr. Seemann; and the City of Newton, and are part of the record of the case. He mentioned that the Planning Board intends to complete receipt of public testimony this evening and close the public hearing.

Mr. Beisel from Conley Associates, by means of a PowerPoint presentation demonstrated that there is sufficient Washington Street right-of-way width for the two left turn bays, one at Glen Road and the other at the site drive. He said this is possible while maintaining standard five foot wide sidewalks. He noted that the turn bay at the site drive will necessitate a two to three foot shift in the street centerline. He said the sidewalk will be maintained on the southerly side of the street at this location at about six feet wide and the sidewalk on the northerly side of the street at this location would vary from six to 11 feet wide. Ms. Donahue asked about the light poles. Mr. Beisel said they would need to be moved. Ms. Donahue suggested that this all will need to be verified by detailed plans.

Mr. Davis said that this is construction drawing detail that is not available yet. Mr. Frisardi said this could be a condition of the PSI approval and language could be added to the decision to require the applicant to come back to the Planning Board if it is found that any of the traffic mitigation elements cannot be accomplished. The applicant was comfortable with this approach.

Mr. Ho said the standard sidewalk is five feet but six is preferred. He discussed the proposal for the left turn bay at Glen Road and the implication for the commercial block west of Glen Road (owned by Mr. Kane). He said this area might be made safer by eliminating one of the three spaces in front of those stores. That would enable the sidewalk to be widened. He agreed, however, that the applicant has demonstrated satisfactorily that the turn bays can be accomplished.

Mr. McCauley asked abut the west bound traffic lane at this location feeling that it narrows too much. Mr. Ho said that it is not ideal but it is acceptable and perhaps more attention can be devoted to the Glen Road to Washington Street westbound turn radius. Mr. McCauley felt it would be like a "slalom run." Mr. Ho said the site drive turn bay alignment is better and all the turning radii work well. Ms. Donahue asked if the shifting of the centerline will make problems for turn movements for the southerly side driveways. Mr. Ho responded that it would not.

Mr. Beckett (owner of the commercial building at #29 Washington Street) asked about the loss of on-street spaces near his building (west of Columbia Street), he saw no need for it arguing that visibility for exiting traffic should not be an issue because drivers will look to the left. He mentioned the bank ATM in the building which processes 10,000 transactions per month. He said his parking lot at the rear of the building is full all the time. Chairman Chan said there would still be two spaces directly in front of the building. Mr. Beckett said there is no need to remove any. He felt that plan can work without removing any parking.

Chairman Chan asked Mr. Ho to explain the traffic operation implications of the signal head at Ledyard Road. (A table showing changes in Level of Service (LOS) was distributed to the Board.) Mr. Ho explained the changes in LOS and queue length. He said that with a signal head at Ledyard the intersection becomes larger by 90 feet. Safe vehicle travel time through the intersection must be provided. This adds 18 seconds to the signal cycle which during peak Washington Street traffic lowers LOS from B to F and doubles queue length.

Mr. McCauley felt that the change essentially applies to one car and it will be harder to exit Ledyard without it. Mr. Ho said the cross hatched(pavement marking) "Do Not Block Intersection" boxes will help people exit Ledyard. Mr. Ho did not agree with the "one car" analogy.

Mr. Donahue said that the data for the intersection is compelling but she is still concerned about the school. She suggested dialog with the school. Mr. Ho said that he has spoken with the principal. He said the she had a positive reaction to the new traffic signal. He noted that the crossing guard will be kept. Mr. Beisel added that the crossing guard will have a hand-held control to establish "all red" to facilitate safer pedestrian crossing.

Chairman Chan asked about the conservation restriction along the river. It was noted that the text is detailed in the material distributed to the Board by Mr. Paris and shown in plan view on "Schedule E." Mr. Paris said that the "riverfront cleanup" and "securing of the bridge from trespass" are covered as well. Mr. Frisardi commented these items are germane to the RIO application but not PSI.

There was a question about the wetlands Order of Conditions. Mr. Davis said that there was a meeting with the Wetlands Protection Committee (WPC) last week. The hearing was closed and the decision is anticipated to be issued in about a week. He added that the conservation restriction is mutually acceptable to the applicant, the NRC and WPC.

There was discussion of the proposed improvements to the Town right-of-way (former railroad land) and whether there might be delays or obstacles to accomplishing the work. It was suggested that completion of these items also be a condition that must be satisfied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Paris noted that all involved in the review of that matter have generally endorsed the plan.

The letter from the City of Newton was discussed. The Newton Planning Director noted improvements required at the Washington Street/Concord Street traffic signal. The applicant stated and has indicated in writing that there will be compliance with all requirements of the City of Newton.

Chairman Chan asked if Mr. Seemann (resident of #15 Columbia Street) was present. He was not. Mr. Chan summarized his letter which, among other things, expressed concerns about the 19 parking spaces near the residential property to the west of the site, construction of a fence to shield construction noise and dust, and hours of construction and construction on Saturday morning.

Mr. Sechrest summarized his letter to the Board. He asked that it be forwarded to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He expressed concern about narrowing the sidewalk, impact of the traffic plan on St. John Church, need for a "red light" pedestrian crossing near Mica Lane, truck turning radii, any impact on trees from the traffic improvements, the bridge and rail road right-of-way, debris along the river, conservation easement, parking on Mica Lane, and Mike's Wienie Wagon.

Chairman Chan suggested that information has been received indicating that the bridge rehabilitation will cost approximately $240,000. Some on the Board felt that rehabilitation of the railroad bridge is not realistic.

The Board was made aware that the NRC has recommended to the Board of Selectmen that authority over the railroad right-of-way be transferred from the Board of Selectmen to the NRC. There was no support for this recommendation by Planning Board members.

Mr. Kane objected to the proposed traffic mitigation plan. He mentioned that his family trust owns the commercial block west of Glen Road. He felt that the westbound lane in the vicinity of the Glen Road intersection will be a "slalom run." He felt the parking spaces in front of his building will not be wide enough and there will be conflicts with opening of car doors. He said there is a difference in grade between the sidewalk and the travel way of 18 to 20 inches. He felt that conceptually and practically the plan will not work. He felt there would be long queues on Route 16. He noted that there are no sidewalks on Pine Ridge and other residential streets in the area and increased cut-through traffic will be a safety concern. He said materials have been submitted that the public should have time to review and urged the hearing not be closed.

Mr. Tierney introduced himself as representing the St. John Parish Council. He felt that the plan impacts vulnerable people, the elderly and children, who walk to the church. He said folks walk along past the development site and there will be much more traffic entering and leaving the site.

Ms. Jones expressed concern about the proposed screening which involves construction of a wall. She said that a study should be done to evaluate the impact of the wall construction on the roots of the trees. She objected to the 19 parking spaces being returned to their original location. She said the proposed screening will not prevent the noise and the screening will not fully develop for two years. She said CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information) checks should been done on all the construction workers. She objected to 20 balconies overlooking the neighborhood.

Ms. Griffin said the Glen Road intersection will be similar to Washington Street at Bay State Road and Longfellow Road. She said people don't stop where they are supposed to stop there and won't here. She felt that this project will change the community forever. She called for full disclosure of all information and urged that the hearing not be closed. She said there has been no discussion of streetscape. She said that the 18 second delay referred to is for one car. Mr. Ho explained how this is not the case and that the delay relates to how the signal must be timed if a signal head is at Ledyard. She said that the project before the Board now is different and a decision should not be rushed.