Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Also Present:

Peter Jones, Jo Ann Jones, Douglas Stewart, Joe Shaker, Bruce Jaffin, Jim Wernig, Karen Fabbri, Kristen Caldon, Al Thoman, Sheila Thoman, Susan Tarantino, Frank Tarantino, Mary West, Kenneth Oye, Dean Behrend

Douglas Stewart, Assistant Town Engineer, presented an application for the structure to be installed at the RDF. Peter and Jo Ann Jones were in attendance representing the Friends of Recycling. Mr. Stewart pointed out the location of the proposed structure to the Board on the RDF’s site plan. He explained that the purpose of the structure is to protect recyclables and reusables from the elements, especially rain and snow. Mr. Stewart showed the Board a drawing of a structure nearly identical to the one proposed, explaining that it would be shaped like an arc and open on both sides, but abutting a concrete wall in the rear, which would shelter it somewhat on one side. Mr. Stewart showed the Board a sample of the material to be used and explained that the membrane is very strong, waterproof, scuff-resistant and provides UV protection. The membrane is white.

Mr. Stewart explained that the arc-shaped roof would be approximately 15 feet high, secured to a 4-foot high concrete block foundation, giving the structure a total height of approximately 19 feet. The membrane of the structure would be tensioned over the framework. The interior framing would be steel. The roof would be anchored to a foundation consisting of 2’ x 2’ concrete blocks.

Mr. Broder asked whether the structure would be temporary. Mr. Stewart stated that it would be a permanent structure at the RDF. The Board asked whether the material placed within the structure would get wet since it would be open on both sides. Mr. Stewart stated that it is possible that some materials might get wet but that most would be protected. The Board strongly suggested installing a curtain on both sides that could be placed over the ends of the structure during a rain or snow event. The Board was somewhat concerned about the structure uplifting because of the way it is shaped. The Board questioned the durability of the fixtures used to secure the structure to its base. Mr. Stewart assured the Board that the engineering documentation supported the structure’s stability and furthermore its security will have some guarantee.

“Recommend the Building Inspector approve the proposed construction project proposed for the Town of Wellesley RDF at 169 Grove Street and suggest to the applicant that they consider installing a curtain on both sides to protect the recyclables from the elements.”

Mr. James Wernig came before the Board requesting approval of a proposal to install a new standing sign, to serve as a score board, at the Dana Hall School near Farm Road. The top of the sign would be 14’ from ground level. The part standing on two posts would be 4’ high by 12’ wide, resulting in 48 sq. ft. total. The maximum letter height would be 14”. The sign would be metal, having white letters, red numbers, and a blue background. The sign’s numbers would be internally illuminated.

The Board asked Mr. Wernig if the sign would be located directly behind the goal of the sports field as this could be unfairly advantageous to one team more than the other. Mr. Wernig stated that the school had considered the placement of the sign carefully so as to avoid this potential problem. The sign would be set at an appropriate angle to the field.

Joe Shaker and Bruce Jaffin returned to the Board with a revised plan, which addressed concerns expressed by the Board at the previous meeting. Mr. Shaker and Mr. Jaffin explained to the Board that the windows on the front of the building under the canopy would have panels that pick up the door head height, stretching across the windows, and match the pattern of the windows above. Second, they explained that the exterior becomes stucco. Third, they explained that the canopy is smaller and hung by hangers affixed to the side of the building.

Mr. Broder felt that the design looks more serene than previously presented. Mr. Skolnick asked why there is a proposed sign on the façade that says “Drive Center”. Mr. Shaker stated that he would suggest to Mazda that it be removed. Ms. Carls asked if there were any other signs proposed. Mr. Shaker stated that there is an existing standing sign that would remain. He stated that they would return at a later date with the sign proposal.

Ms. Karen Fabbri and Ms. Kristen Caldon came before the Board requesting approval of a proposal to install a new wall sign on the front façade and one at the rear door at MOXIE’s 24 Church St. location. The wood wall sign on the front would measure 23.75” high x 100” wide, or 16.5 sq. ft. The word “MOXIE” would have white letters on a plum background. The letters would measure 12.5 inches high. The sign would not be illuminated.

Ms. Fabbri showed the Board the proposal for the sign on the front façade of the business. The Board was pleased with the businesses’ overall design, which includes the proposed sign. The Board asked Ms. Fabbri whether the new sign is consistent with the adjacent signs and the sign that preceded her proposal. Ms. Fabbri stated that the proposed sign is harmonious with adjacent signs and the proposal is the same size as the sign that preceded hers.

Mr. Skolnick mentioned to Ms. Fabbri that the adjacent businesses have wall signs next to the door in the rear. Ms. Fabbri stated she would install a wall sign in the rear to match those of adjacent businesses, which would also meet the by-right requirements of the Sign Bylaw and the Design Review Guidelines.

Mr. Behrend returned to the Board for review of 169 Grove Street under the Large House Review. Mr. Behrend explained that the new plan, revised March 15, 2009, is shorter than the previous proposal resulting from the removal of the rear staircase. In addition, the bulkhead was removed and a dormer in the attic was removed.

The Board asked why the stair into the basement from the exterior was removed. They questioned the feasibility of accessing the basement exclusively through a stair in the interior of the house. Mr. Behrend stated that he could easily add a stair directly to/from the exterior later.

Mr. Hand asked Mr. Behrend why he didn’t consider detaching the garage from the house in order to break up the length. Mr. Behrend said that he did not want to jeopardize the very mature tree toward the rear of the property.

Mr. Hand asked Mr. Behrend for the TLAG of the new proposal. Mr. Behrend estimated that it was roughly 240 sq. ft. less than the previous proposal of 5387. He stated that he would need to complete a new Review Affidavit and have the Building Inspector corroborate the calculation.

Mr. Broder suggested shifting one bay of the garage to be parallel with Grove St. and leaving two bays perpendicular to Grove St. in order to break up the massing. He noted that this would not affect the proposed interior space.

Mr. Behrend stated that he followed the suggestions of the Board made during previous meetings throughout the entire Large House Review process for 169 Grove St. The Board stated that they are merely offering design options but are in no way designing the house for Mr. Behrend. They expressed that they are offering ideas on the mitigation of the impacts made on abutting properties. Mr. Skolnick stated that the Board still has a concern with the length of the house and the visual impact the house will have on abutting properties to the north.

Mr. Thoman, 2 Ingraham Rd., explained that he felt the house remains too big. He presented photographs taken from his property looking out to the house at 173 Grove and explained that the proposed house at 169 Grove St. would be even longer from his perspective.

Mary West, 8 Ingraham Rd. expressed her concerns about the reduction in privacy that would result from the construction of the proposed house. She also felt that the house would cast light at night on to her property, and the proposed house would overshadow her yard and potentially alter the landscape.

Mr. Kenneth Oye, Wellesley Friends Meeting, reported that the plans shown were inconsistent with previous plans because at Monday’s Planning Board meeting Mr. Behrend presented plans showing the pavement width of the easement to be 10’ rather than 12’ as was previously presented. Mr. Parsons explained that the Planning Board was reviewing an application for a house at 30 Benvenue and had not seen any plans for 169 Grove St. under the new Large House Review application of Mr. Behrend, therefore any confusion surrounding the driveway width should be directed to the Planning Board at the appropriate time but that the sections presented showing the 10’ width were not part of the current application before the Design Review Board.

Mr. Behrend explained to the Board that the jog in the easement was made to protect trees. Several abutters continued to discuss the easement width issue with the Design Review Board. Prue Hay said she spoke with the Fire Department and they said the driveway should be 18’ wide. The Board stated that the width of the easement did not concern them except to the effect that the easement impacted the neighbors. Mr. Broder stated that it would have been preferable to have had a definitive plan for the easement so that they could make a recommendation on something they knew wouldn’t change.