2009-05-18 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

CPDC Minutes of 5/18/2000 Mr. Cicatelli noted the proposed use - a child care facility is a protected use under 40A, Section 3 of the Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) and it is the position of the applicant that this project is exempt from any Special Permit process including having to be reviewed by the CPDC. The Building Inspector disagreed and the applicant appealed the Building Inspector's decision to the ZBA. The ZBA agreed with the Building Inspector. The applicant appealed the ZBA's decision and. that appeal is pending. In the meantime the applicant decided to proceed with a limited. Site Plan Review. Mr. Cicatelli said it has taken the applicant three years to receive an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission and these conditions have placed restrictions on their plans but they believe the plans meet or exceed all requirements including setbacks and drainage. The Chair noted that the project has been the subject of extensive staff reports including a Design Review Team (DRT) meeting on 9/8/2008 as well as separate reports from both the Police and Fire Chiefs. The main concerns expressed by all were the project's density, parking, and traffic. The Chair asked if the current proposal addressed the concerns of the DRT. CK said the submitted plan is essentially the same as the one shown to the DRT and many of the concerns stand. The applicant's position was that their parking plan which includes the use of stacked parking for the staff would serve the needs of the site. The applicant had. provided a traffic study/chart which was based on the traffic at other Goddard Schools similarly situated (i.e. in the suburbs) and in the applicant's opinion it showed there should. be no traffic issues when students are dropped off/picked- up because not all parents would arrive at the school at the same time. The applicant added the Goddard School has over 300 franchisees and. parking or traffic has never been an issue. The applicant noted the Goddard School approved the site and would not approve a site if it was thought to be dangerous to students or staff. The Goddard School has over 300 franchisees an it would not risk its reputation Comments of the Board • Building exceeds allowed lot Coverage max of 25%. The plans show the lot coverage at just over 24% but NS pointed out the applicant's calculations do not include the front portico which if included would put the building's lot coverage over 25%. The applicant agreed the portico was not included in the calculations but said it was decorative only and provided no access to the building. • Space for temporary snow storage. If piled too high could block the egress. Board suggested the applicant make allocations for snow removal. The applicant said snow would be removed as necessary. • Shield light fixtures. The applicant said. the lights would be shielded. • Parking layout does not work and could be dangerous. The Board. pointed out the schools used in the traffic study all had two access points to the roadway. This site will have only one. The Board also noted its concern included the close proximity of the parking spaces to the one entrance/exit which would make it difficult for parents' cars to maneuver. CK asked if the applicant could provide the locations of other Goddard Schools which use stacked parking. The applicant could not think of any at the moment. Page 2 of 5