Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Open Letter to Wayland Historic District Commission from Twenty Wayland

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Post Open Letter to Wayland Historic District Commission from Twenty Wayland

    We received the following letter from Twenty Wayland for publication on our Discussion Forum:

    An Open Letter To The Wayland Historic District Commission

    Last fall, I promised to provide periodic updates on the Town Center Project. Since then, we have been working through a key permitting issue with the Historic District Commission (HDC). In fact, we are currently engaged in litigation with the HDC and we think it’s important that Wayland residents understand why.

    The Certificate of Hardship issued by the HDC imposes certain conditions that are outside the HDC’s jurisdiction; does not recognize current agreements and permits; and provides obligations that prevent the development from moving ahead. Notwithstanding our objections to the Certificate, we are willing to work with the HDC to address their concerns, even though many of the issues are outside the WHDC’s jurisdiction. However, two basic issues require modification before the development can proceed - installing the Rt. 27/126 traffic light.

    We have agreed to relocate the planned traffic control box from in front of the Grout-Heard House property to a location closer to the high tension wires at the library. The HDC requested that change to improve the aesthetics in the area. We agreed to incorporate the change if the redesign was technically possible and we could secure the 2/3 town vote necessary to obtain the easements to place the structure on town land. The HDC Certificate did not recognize those contingencies as we requested. If the HDC would agree to modify the condition to take those two parameters (which are out of our control) into consideration, we would have no problem agreeing to the change.

    The second issue relates to when the Rt. 27/126 traffic light and improvements are installed. The HDC is concerned that we may never build the project to warrant the improvements. If that is the case, then why should the changes to the historic district be made? We understand the concern. The traffic light is required to correct existing dangerous conditions based on three independent town traffic reports. The intersection was deemed unsafe by the town in 2005 when the first study was commissioned and traffic volumes have not decreased. Not installing the light at such a dangerous intersection that is designed to be pedestrian and bicycle friendly does not make sense.

    The HDC Certificate requires us to install the traffic light after we occupy 94,000 sf of commercial space. This requirement conflicts with the Town’s agreement with resident of Glezen Lane to require the traffic light to be installed before we secure a building permit for the project. The HDC’s approach effectively blocks the project because it conflicts with the Glezen Lane agreement and, more importantly, will result in additional traffic flowing through an intersection that is currently a safety problem. We offer this compromise - we will agree that the traffic light and corresponding improvements will not be installed until we have commenced demolition of the 400,000 sf office building and have applied for a building permit for at least 95,000 sf of commercial space. Clearly, we would not demolish the building and spend more than $2 Million on roadway improvements if we were not going building the entire project. This approach will allow for compliance with the Glezen Lane agreement, satisfy the concerns of the HDC reflected in their certificate, and meet the conditions of all permits secured to date.

    The resolutions we have proposed will resolve the and greatly improve the likelihood we can begin demolition of the existing office building in the near future. Overlooked in the dispute is our agreement with HDC on more than a dozen conditions including some that are outside the HDC jurisdiction. We look forward to resolving this matter quickly with the HDC. I have commented that some HDC members simply don’t want the project and are ignoring the vision of an overwhelming percentage of residents who voted at three separate town meetings to approve the project. I respectfully request the HDC to sit with us and resolve the two critical issues and prove me wrong.

    - Frank Dougherty

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default Why do this here?

    Frank,

    You letter was a great educational read and helped me understand more about your position on this matter.

    But my question to you is "Why would you write this letter here rather than send this message through your attorney to the HDC's attorney to negotiate a compromise?"

    Speaking as a citizen, I don't think that the HDC would respond to a public negotiation *in public* of a matter currently in litigation and I would not even assume that any member or members of the HDC even read this discussion forum. So your letter may be falling on deaf ears and you wouldn't even know it.

    Whether your compromise is reasonable or not is a matter between the HDC and your employer and I suggest that you do this negotiating through the proper legal channels to get to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.

    In fact, I think a public display of your case and position may hurt the project more than help it.

    Alan

    P.S. Kim, I see you are acting as a proxy for Frank's letter but he must have asked that you post it here, so the logic still applies.
    Last edited by AlanJReiss; 01-18-2010 at 04:56 PM. Reason: don't to wouldn't - added Kim PS.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    117

    Default Alan, please donít discourage people from posting here

    You might be right about all the legal negotiation issues, but Iíd almost assume that Twenty Wayland sent the letter to the Historic Commission, this posting being part of their public disclosure, which also might include the letter going to the Crier. Perhaps they feel they have a reasonable position and want people to know. Twenty Wayland certainly has been vilified in certain quarters.

    Of course, now I want to know what the HDC might say. Do they see the issues/problem the same? Why canít some simple arrangement be worked out? Wouldnít it be great if the HDC came here and answered?

    And Alan, donít tell people not to post here because of the Forumís small numbers. Yes, the people here are few, but if people and organizations make timely, significant posts here then more people will stop by to read. And you know, some very important people already read this Forum. I mean thereís you and meÖ

    donBustin@verizon.net

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by don Bustin View Post
    You might be right about all the legal negotiation issues, but I’d almost assume that Twenty Wayland sent the letter to the Historic Commission, this posting being part of their public disclosure, which also might include the letter going to the Crier. Perhaps they feel they have a reasonable position and want people to know. Twenty Wayland certainly has been vilified in certain quarters.
    The legal negotiation issues would get to a resolution which is more desirable then posting the position publically.

    Quote Originally Posted by don Bustin View Post
    Of course, now I want to know what the HDC might say. Do they see the issues/problem the same? Why can’t some simple arrangement be worked out? Wouldn’t it be great if the HDC came here and answered?
    No it would not be great. In fact it would be lousy. The HDC is a town board and subject to the OML (Open Meeting Law). Whatever the HDC has to say it must say it as a board quorum and with public notice and at the table and in person. This is why the proper way to negotiate this would be via lawyer to lawyer

    Quote Originally Posted by don Bustin View Post
    And Alan, don’t tell people not to post here because of the Forum’s small numbers. Yes, the people here are few, but if people and organizations make timely, significant posts here then more people will stop by to read. And you know, some very important people already read this Forum. I mean there’s you and me…
    Don, where did I say not to post here because of small numbers?
    Don you may be important .... I'm just an observer.
    Last edited by AlanJReiss; 01-18-2010 at 11:55 PM. Reason: Spelling of course.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wayland, MA
    Posts
    235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Dougherty View Post
    I have commented that some HDC members simply donít want the project and are ignoring the vision of an overwhelming percentage of residents who voted at three separate town meetings to approve the project.
    The 2000 or so residents of Wayland attending Town Meeting in 2006 did vote overwhelmingly in support of the Town Center. At that time, Twenty Wayland assured us that as long as the Town Center were granted two entrances -- one on route 20, and one on route 27 -- there would be no negative impact on Wayland's Historic District beyond adding an already-justified traffic light at the intersection of routes 27 and 126. However, during traffic hearings held after the 2006 Town Meeting, Twenty Wayland revealed that the intersection of routes 20 and 27 would require significant widening on all four approaches to the 20/27 intersection, considerably impacting Wayland's Historic District. Is this not a prime example of bait and switch?

    Combine this with the Selectmen's "how should we spend the $3M gift?" meeting, during which a proposal to use gift funds to bury power lines in the Historic District received broad encouragement, and its clear why the Historic District Committee is feeling hung out to dry. At least they've been civil about it, in contrast with the public tantrums thrown by Twenty Wayland execs over the years.

    And for the record, Frank, the Town Center votes taken during successive Town Meetings late last year barely achieved the required two-thirds majority - a far less overwhelming percentage than that achieved back in 2006.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Dougherty View Post
    Clearly, we would not demolish the building and spend more than $2 Million on roadway improvements if we were not going building the entire project.
    Do you have a choice? Doesn't Mass Highway require that you implement all of the roadway improvements, no matter how much of the project will ever be built?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •